Democracy and Governance

We are cursed, as the saying goes, to be living in very interesting times. We have:

• Governance issues – from Nolan to the EU Constitution;
• Restoration of Government Committee;
• Strategic Planning – economic development, regeneration of rural and urban, spatial planning, service planning and development;
• Review of Public Administration – a lot on who may do what but little on how;
• Multi-level partnerships – local and central government;
• Local Strategic Partnerships – social partners, public, private and community/voluntary sectors;
• Task forces
• Funding agencies and Programmes.

I am excited by the possibilities that our current fluid situation may create but almost overwhelmed by the fragmented plethora of relevant bodies, active debates and reforms. The ‘big picture’, or options on same, seem unclear to me.

I am more that a little concerned that, in the midst of it all, we will miss our opportunity to truly remake our version of democracy and our political systems and processes. We will settle for another mixture or pattern of representational democracy that will address the day to day societal requirements of laws and taxes and services etc. but will not halt the deepening apathy and disengagement of the populace. Whilst this apathy may be convenient for some – witness the ability of the Sun newspaper (Rupert Murdock) to set the political agenda – I believe we in Northern Ireland have already reaped enough of the fruits of such paternalism and disengagement over the last thirty plus years.

Might this be the moment to research, and table for the widest possible discussion, other political frameworks that might assist the evolution of representational politics, perhaps to that of participatory democracy?

To give an example of such efforts elsewhere, I have summarised below some points in an article I read recently by Michael Albert entitled Venezuela’s Path. Initially the model looks familiar. The bottom layer focuses on local communities with perhaps 200 to 400 families and about 2000 people in each Group. Sub groups are possible even at this level. The Group elects a “spokesperson�? to a higher level with a broader geographical base and so on up to the national level. It is clear that those decisions with relevance to the local Group are taken by the Group but those with a wider bearing are taken up through the “spokesperson�? to the appropriate level. However, the appropriate level does not take the decision but, rather, is charged with the responsibility for disseminating the proposal to all the relevant local Groups for their discussion and consideration and ultimate consensual decision.

But what of those politicians used to making decisions on behalf of the people? Surely they would resent the diminution of their role? It was agreed that about “60% of local bureaucrats were trying to put the brakes on the proposal.�? The question was also asked if the Chavez Government will assist “ the assembly system reach its full development or that after a while the assembly system will have to push the Government to get full power?�? In both instances the answer was that “only the organised population can decide.�? Much was made of the fact that “spokespeople�?, while elected, were not representatives as in our democracy.

And so to the question of how to encourage people to create these local assemblies or Groups. Firstly these new structures are being built alongside existing structures and in an organic and incremental fashion. Not by conflict or edict but by the success of the new assemblies is progress to be made towards participatory democracy. The support of the Government in many practical ways is, therefore, essential at this stage. Below are some of the spheres in which local Groups are active.

In the economic sphere co-ops are the favoured organisation. Not only are they being encouraged by Government to take over failed or failing enterprises, they are also being formed to compete with the translational companies. These co-ops are worker self managed with a minimum social wage but reduced overheads are achieved through, at most, a three in one ratio in salary structures.

In the fields of education and health, the same parallel evolution is taking place. Local health clinics have been introduced. These are run by Cuban doctors who live in the local communities and react to local priorities. Literacy and numeracy problems have been addressed in the same localised way and now boast the elimination of illiteracy in less than two years as verified by UNESCO. These and others are the tools that Venezuela is using to evolve, explore and test out new participatory models of governance.

What might be our issues and tools? Firstly I think we should count as a major asset our community/voluntary infrastructure. It may not be universally strong or coherent but it is vibrant and becoming better organised and more vocal, both in the rural and urban areas of the region. Just as elsewhere we have our reservoir of social responsibility and pride in our local areas and customs to tap into. We are no less generous a people. With a sense of purpose and some funding much has been accomplished by our voluntary/community sector. I would argue that this is to the point where the public sector fundamentally and increasingly relies on the voluntary/community sector to help deliver programmes and take part in statutory consultations. How much more might be contributed if increasing control and decision-making were to be devolved incrementally within a participatory, consensual framework? But weariness and frustration with the consultative model is evident within the sector, I believe, and is being made worse by the lack of any clear and coherent thinking on replacement options. Attendance at DPPs is just one example despite the interest in matters of crime, law and order by us all.

So what vehicles or opportunities might we have? What of the Social Forum? As supported by grass roots based networks e.g. NICVA and RCN, what role might it yet evolve to play, for example, in the Review of the Public Sector? Secondly, even if two major sets of decisions have already been handed down to us by the Direct Rule Ministers in regard to local Government organisation and services and those of our quangos, how might participation by the populace, for example, in the running of these enlarged Councils be ordered or organised? As in the Venezuelan model, and its parallel process of development, it might take a few councillors to adopt the “spokesperson�? model for their constituency to demonstrate the possibilities in contrast to the traditional representative model. How might they be encouraged to so organise themselves?

Could the spokesperson carry more authority because of their supporting, participatory structure? Surely the timing could not be better given the encouragement afforded by the increased power the local council will have over local issues of planning and development, regeneration and public service synchronisation? Thus there might be hope for a virtuous circle of participation that endorses authority and which in turn guides real power decisions thus increasing motivation to participate.

Ultimately would the regional government also be “ infected�? by such participation – either directly or even indirectly via the arguably greater authority of such a local government? (Witness the impact of the elected Mayor of London.) It is said that, although our Executive initiated the Review in 2002, our local politicians would never have been able to see those decisions through to implementation. Perhaps this is so. However, if operating as spokespersons within the participatory consensual model, their role in such a process might have been at once more comprehensive (if not exhausting!) and also more assured and authoritative and thus more successful.

Forgive me for how this paper rambles as I struggle to put on paper the ideas and thoughts generated by some little reading. Our point in time in regard to political structures is fluid, or could be so. The reforms are fragmented but extensive in their impacts on our lives and in how they should engage us. The individual issues are concrete – from health to planning services, from the economic to the social to the ethical but they are almost overwhelming in number and impact differently in different parts of the region. Yet our general engagement is patchy and very single issue driven.

Much in the above is not entirely thought through! Its purpose is to generate debate. Much would have to be tailored to our circumstances, albeit they are not that unique. Majoritarianism, sectarianism, racism, inter-community strife/competitiveness and disaffection are problems felt beyond our boundaries! As one Venezuelan said, we are limited by imagination. I think we are also limited by courage; apathy or even unapplied thinking is much more comfortable. So I offer the debate in Venezuela as one point of reference. I would be delighted to receive any feedback and I am happy to send anyone the full article as posted on the Znet website.

Thank you for your time in reading this.