|
11 April 2005
Citizens and governments: Stroppy adversaries or
partners in deliberation?
Lyn Carson, University of Sydney
Archon Fung & Erik Olin Wright (eds)
Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in Empowered
Participatory Governance, London & New York, Verso, 2004 (224
pp). ISBN 1-85984-466-9 (paperback) RRP $39.99.
Greg Patmore (ed.) The Vocal
Citizen, Fitzroy, Victoria, Arena & Australian Fabian Society,
2004 (216 pp). ISBN 0-95981-817-0 (paperback) RRP $27.50.
In 1991, when I was a local government councillor,
I proposed that the Lismore City Council convene a citizens’ jury
to deliberate on the vexing issue of flood management. My fellow
councillors claimed a mandate for decision making. But because the
community was polarised, councillors were unexpectedly willing to
consider bringing together a cross-section of the community to
wrestle with this apparently intractable problem. The deliberative
innovation I proposed would involve randomly selected citizens who
would discuss flood management options, assisted by a skilled,
neutral facilitator. Recommendations from this diverse, informed
group of citizens could then inform councillors’ decision making.
|
 |
|
 |
However, the following day, my proposal for a
citizens’ jury was dismissed by a prominent, local Australian
Labor Party identity as foolish in a media release to the local
newspaper (‘Jury idea “the height of stupidity”’ 1991, p. 1). He
had never heard such a silly idea: councillors were elected to
make the hard decisions and citizens’ input stopped at the ballot
box or with a phone call to their elected representative. He had
no time for this ‘public participation’ nonsense and was obviously
unaware of the type of deliberative innovation that was, by then,
happening throughout the world. Citizens’ juries had been convened
in the United States since the late 1970s, planning cells were
introduced in Germany around the same time, and consensus
conferences have been part of government decision-making in
Denmark from the late 1980s.
VOCAL CITIZENS, DEEPENING DEMOCRACY
|
 |
Nothing is quite as satisfying as an
edited book that defines a set of principles and
adheres to them throughout.
|
|
It was with some interest, then, that I approached
The Vocal Citizen, edited by Glenn Patmore, because the
collection is published by Arena in association with the
Australian Fabian Society, under the banner Labor Essays 2004.
The back cover promises ‘influential and exciting researchers,
thinkers and actors who are well placed to write about citizen
engagement and public decision making’. Perhaps things have moved
along since 1991 and, heck, the Left has been turned upside down
‘by Labor’s “love affair” with neo-liberalism’ (Burgmann citing
Conley in The Vocal Citizen, p. 128) so maybe the party is
now more predisposed to public participation.
I read The Vocal Citizen having just
devoured Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in
Empowered Participatory Governance edited by a young American
political scientist, Archon Fung, and sociologist Erik Olin Wright
(who has been writing about injustice for as long as many of the
contributors to The Vocal Citizen). These two books span
generations, continents, and ideologies and, combined, are like a
rich stew and a light salad.
The Vocal Citizen has gathered writings and
speeches from fifteen contributors, the majority of them from
Victoria, with a healthy mix of researchers and practitioners who
each explore how citizens can, as the back cover says,
‘reinvigorate our democracy’. The contributors to Deepening
Democracy would approve of The Vocal Citizen, I
suspect, because it attends to democratic practice. Though
Deepening Democracy is a weightier volume (by kilogram and
conceptual matter), its twelve contributors are all academics and
so it lacks the direct experience of some contributors to The
Vocal Citizen. Nevertheless, Deepening Democracy is the
rich stew, making a thick sauce for four case studies (from
Brazil, India, and the United States), which are stirred slowly
through internal references, reflection, and commentary.
One book’s strength is the other’s weakness. There
is nothing quite as satisfying as an edited book that defines a
set of principles and adheres to them throughout, with all
contributors in heartfelt collaboration. Deepening Democracy
arose from a conference at which participants sound like they were
practising what they were preaching; each was asked to comment on
the same ‘empirical cases of innovative forms of participatory
democracy in different parts of the world’ (p. viii). This book
reflects the richness of their dialogue and refinement of earlier
writing. Fung and Wright crystallise it all into principles,
characteristics, and enabling conditions for democracy (p. 24).
|
 |
Promoting inclusive, deliberative
methods might well be the key to reinvigorating our
democracy.
|
|
The Vocal Citizen also reflects its title:
its contributors are boisterous and often interesting but there is
little reference to each other’s words. This book draws on some
disparate ingredients: a couple of recycled speeches (by Matthew
Taylor and Greg Combet), some citizenship survey results (by Clive
Bean), a piece on the citizen as public artist (by Linda
Williams), a sketch of e-democracy (by Karin Geiselhart),
citizenship education (by Tristan Ewins), community development as
activism and entrepreneurship (by Sue Kenny) and a brief overview
of Australia’s deepening democracy (yes, John Wiseman uses the
term in his chapter’s title and several contributors to The
Vocal Citizen also draw on the Fung and Wright book). One
strength of The Vocal Citizen for Australian readers is its
Australian content. Too little is written about citizen
participation in political decision making in Australia and this
book helps to remedy the deficit.
Both books tackle the problem of declining public
trust in politics, and I realised that my private trust was
declining while reading The Vocal Citizen. The chapter by
British policy maker Matthew Taylor reports on a ‘Gallup survey
undertaken at the end of 2002 [in which] 47,000 citizens in 36
countries rated 20 institutions in those countries in terms of
trust’ (p. 24). Yet in their introduction to the book, Joyce Chia
and Glenn Patmore refer to ‘a late 2002 Gallup survey of 34,000
citizens in 46 countries [that] rated 17 institutions’ (p. 8).
Hmmm, I wondered, has anyone actually edited this book?
PURPOSE AND POWER OF PARTICIPATION: THE NON-VOCAL
CITIZEN
However, what really is missing from The
Vocal Citizen (except for Wiseman’s chapter and then too
briefly) is attention to the voiceless citizen. Why engage in
public participation if only the usual suspects, the already-vocal
citizens, are involved? Contributors pay scant attention to the
disengaged, to those citizens who have engaged with formal
political institutions and been wounded by the experience. The
book focuses on engaged citizens as activists and
advocates, and on increasing the number of these engaged citizens
through the usual methods. I hungered for some attention to the
currently unengaged, those who can be captured through
random selection and invited to participate in one-off events
early in the life of a policy or decision.
Deliberative, inclusionary processes can be
influential and we have ample evidence of their power in other
countries: for example, Brazil’s participatory budgets or
Denmark’s consensus conferences on technological issues. These
processes depend on capturing missing voices and bringing them
into a deliberative space. However, they don’t require a long-term
commitment to a movement or organisation. Promoting these methods
might well be the key to reinvigorating ‘our democracy’ (the
promise of The Vocal Citizen), through corporations,
workplaces, schools, policy making, urban planning and more. Thank
goodness for Wiseman’s chapter, which does canvass innovations
that allow democracy to break out and enable active citizenship
for busy or marginalised citizens.
|
 |
Deliberative, inclusive processes are
not panaceas for our democratic deficit.
|
|
In her contribution to The Vocal Citizen
Mary Gardiner notes that ‘the theory and practice of citizenship
have evolved from within a model of society constructed by males’
(p. 148). (This led me to look at the proportion of female
contributors in both books: 40 per cent in The Vocal Citizen,
25 per cent in Deepening Democracy.) Deliberative
innovations should be the method of choice to address the gender
inequities that Gardiner raises—again, creating appropriate forums
for those missing voices. In my experience, these methods are
inclusive in two important ways. First, they often rely on random
selection, which ensures that women and males are equally
represented. Second, independent, skilled moderation enables
unequal power relations to be interrupted.
In her contribution, Verity Burgmann argues that
the market is anti-democratic, as is privatisation; in hers, Sue
Kenny acknowledges the vulnerability of NGOs to undemocratic
practices. In my experience, also undemocratic are most schools,
workplaces, and unions. We inherited and have maintained and
redesigned these undemocratic practices but they have always been
with us. NGOs replicate the systems found across the political
landscape even though these systems are flawed, unrepresentative,
and non-deliberative.
However, it is also true that times have changed
and, as Alistair Davidson remarks in his contribution,
‘Individuals are living in a new space’ (p. 191). Taylor attends
to the core principle of influence—that is, that citizens’
recommendations should be influential—but few of the contributors
to The Vocal Citizen seem to grasp the key principles of
representativeness and deliberativeness. It is business as
usual—via lobbying of elected representatives, membership of
non-government organisations, campaigning and so on. In this ‘new
space’ perhaps we don’t need to tug our forelocks and cling to the
coat-tails of elites. But perhaps this new space needs to be
expanded to bring in many more missing voices.
DEPTHS OF DEMOCRATIC POSSIBILITY
Fung and Wright, by contrast, wade through the
depths of democratic possibilities, trying to make sense of
deliberative processes and their capacity to be truly inclusive.
They consider that the ‘state is the problem, not the solution’
(p. 4) and that institutional design is essential. They suggest
common features of their case studies that are encapsulated by a
form they label ‘empowered deliberative governance’ (p. 5). They
introduce their framework, offer the case studies, and allow the
other contributors to comment on the strengths and weakness of
their theoretical model. The Vocal Citizen would have
benefited from a similar adherence to defined principles or
practices or enabling conditions.
Deepening Democracy focuses on reforms that
redress administrative and regulatory failures or reforms that
restructure democratic decision making. Its case studies are:
school councils and community policing in Chicago; stakeholder
committees for habitat management in the United States;
participatory budgeting in Port Alegre, Brazil; and village-level
participatory planning in West Bengal and Kerala, India. The case
studies from Brazil and India are the most satisfying and the most
salient for the Left. They offer examples of disadvantaged classes
wielding public power that was formerly held by powerful elites.
Porto Alegre’s budgets have attracted attention from other South
American cities that have admired the shift from political pork-barrelling
(patronage-based budgeting) to a ‘bottom-up, deliberative system
driven by expressed needs of city residents’ (p. 11). What has
been impressive about Porto Alegre is the involvement of very
poor, previously marginalised people in decisions that affect
them: roads, sewage, health care and so on. Even though their
success is qualified because ‘progress thus far has been promising
but incomplete’ (p. 14) contributors to Labor Essays might take
note.
|
 |
Deepening Democracy is
immensely rewarding because it moves beyond interest
groups and protest.
|
|
Deliberative, inclusive processes are not panaceas
for our democratic deficit even if they offer hope for a more
engaged citizenry. Two chapters in Deepening Democracy by
Jane Mansbridge and Rebecca Neaera Abers exemplify clear,
insightful writing that wrestles with the challenges and paradoxes
of participatory democracy—for example, self-interest,
incompetence, inexperience, apathy, elitism, conflict-avoidance,
and biased moderation. The Epilogue by Fung and Wright neatly
draws together the contributors’ concerns in a thoughtful
reflection on the ‘best prospects for participatory collaboration’
(p. 286). Deepening Democracy is immensely rewarding
because it moves beyond interest groups and protest—the stroppy
citizens that The Vocal Citizens focuses on and which so
much writing in political science is about. Participatory
collaboration has ‘escaped the analytic gaze of social scientists’
and ‘there are few conclusive findings’ (p. 285). However, as
Cohen and Rogers remind us in their chapter, these emerging
practices allow citizens to engage in collective problem solving
that is ‘informed by local knowledge’ and improves ‘on the
performance of a distant command-and-control central state’ (p.
239). They are timely stories of active citizenship that we need
to hear.
At a time when dissatisfaction with politicians is
glaringly evident, the solution is not less democracy, of course;
it is deeper democracy. As Thomas Isaac and Patrick Heller
point out in their contribution, deeper democracy interrupts
corruption and ‘routinized plunder’ (p. 104) and raises levels of
accountability through heightened participation. The municipal
legislature in Porto Alegre might not like the participatory
budgets that it has approved each year since participatory budgets
took root but it is mighty difficult to oppose something which has
withstood so much public scrutiny and justification (Baiocchi, p.
65).
The combination of these two volumes is a complete
meal. The Vocal Citizen offers a tasty entrée that will
have the reader picking through the interesting local ingredients.
Deepening Democracy offers a hearty meal that leaves little
room for dessert because it takes a long time to fully digest and
appreciate. The latter volume reminds us of the purpose and power
of participation, especially when it captures missing voices and
draws them into a deliberative space.
REFERENCES
‘Jury idea “the height of stupidity”’, The
Northern Star, 9 November 1991, p. 1.
Dr
Lyn Carson is a senior lecturer in applied politics with
Government and International Relations, University of Sydney, and
author (with Brian Martin) of Random Selection in Politics
(1999). Also see
http://www.activedemocracy.net.
View other articles by Lyn
Carson:
|
 |