avatar
The New Politics Initiative: Towards a Living Democracy


Ponniah

& Judy Rebick

What

is participatory democracy? It is government that involves citizens at every

level of decision-making. The form of participatory democracy we know best in

Canada involves consulting citizens about policy. While experiences like the

citizens constitutional conferences before the Charlottetown Accord are an

important contribution to expanding our notions of democracy, the problem with

them is that they have no power to make decisions. They are strictly

consultative. Real participatory democracy, like the budget process in Porto

Alegre, Brazil, actually involves citizens in decision-making. Other kinds of

participatory democracy include citizens’ participation in the administration of

government, as in the case of citizens’ committees choosing members of boards or

agencies or citizen cooperatives running public services or citizen groups

solving community challenges via local initiative projects that are publicly

funded. For the New Politics Initiative (NPI), participatory democracy would

combine with representative democracy to form a new kind of politics.

Participatory democracy is government by the people and there are many examples

of its emergence today.

Why

Participatory Democracy?

On a

global economic level it has become clear that top-down planning is not the best

process to solving the world’s problems. Over the last twenty-five years, the

World Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) economists, scientists

and academics have attempted to impose their economic, technological and

cultural “expertise” onto the rest of the world with disastrous and violent

results. The countries of the Global South are less economically productive,

poorer and more heavily burdened by debt than they were before they took the IMF

and World Bank’s advice.

The

Left has also come to realize that the most progressive legislation can be

quickly wiped out by the election of a conservative government. This is

precisely what happened in Canada’s biggest province from 1995 to the present.

From 1990 to 1995, a social democratic government, the New Democratic Party (NDP)

ruled Ontario, home of one third of the Canadian population. Despite its

shortcomings, the party implemented many progressive policies and laws

including, employment equity, stronger labour laws, expanded pay equity, and

improved environmental protection. With the election of the Harris led

Conservatives, citizens of Ontario have watched the new government eliminate

every piece of progressive legislation that had been implemented over previous

years.

Finally every government, even social democratic ones, can lose touch with their

electorate and therefore need regular interaction with the populace.

Participatory democracy not only provides that interaction but it also gives a

left-wing government a base of power outside of the corporate and bureaucratic

elites. The most significant appeal of Porto Alegre’s budget process lies in its

radical reform of the relationship between public, government and business. It

is a “radical reform” because while it does not overthrow capitalism, it

undermines corporate domination of the democratic process and gives left-wing

governments and popular mobilizations legitimacy against corporate power.

Porto

Alegre’s Budget

The

annual participatory budget process of Porto Alegre, that has taken place over

the last twelve years, is structured by a number of phases. The budget process

begins in March with citizen forums across sixteen geographic and sectoral areas

of the city. The forums of five hundred to seven hundred people elect two

representatives and two alternates to serve for one year on the participatory

budget council. In April and May, the forum representatives organize smaller

assemblies to propose the priorities that the public wants to see funded over

the following year. Between May and mid-July, the proposed priorities are

forwarded to the current, electorally chosen municipal council. Simultaneously,

the forum representatives attend training sessions on municipal finance. A draft

budget is constructed by the participatory budget council and municipal

bureaucrats and is sent to the mayor and the municipal council (33 councilors

elected by traditional democratic means) for consultation. Between October and

December, the participatory budget council amends and completes the budget for a

final rubber stamp from the municipal council and for its eventual

implementation in January. Together the four phases aim at maximizing public

involvement in setting the city’s social and economic development priorities.

Further

Alternatives

A

similar example of government attempting to implement participatory democracy

occurred with England’s Greater London Council (GLC) in the 1980′s. Before the

Thatcher government dismantled it, the Council had attempted to change the

internal structure of the state in a number of ways. The GLC tried to share the

limited power it had as a municipal government with citizens’ groups. One of

their ideas was to shift power to the users of public services. The key to

shifting power to users lay in strengthening user groups that offered support,

legal advice and advocacy. Strengthened user groups led to greater awareness and

participation from the public. In Canada, advocacy groups have tried to play

this role over the last few decades but governments have stopped listening and

reduced resources have meant that such groups are less able to represent the

constituencies they serve. We need to develop new forms and broader forms of

citizen representation in the delivery of public services. Most important is the

involvement of the users of that service along with the workers providing the

service in making decision about how a given public service will be delivered.

For example, instead of the social service ministry controlling administrative

policy on welfare, a board in its majority of welfare recipients and former

welfare recipients might decide policy.

In a

citizen’s democracy, welfare workers would play a different role as well.

Instead of policing welfare recipients, for example, a welfare worker would be

their advocate, assisting them in organizing to improve their lives not just as

individuals but as a group, including making demands on the government.

One

of the dangers of participatory democracy is that it would reproduce the class

exclusion and marginalization present in our current system. A true system of

participatory democracy would prioritize the involvement of those most

marginalized in our society, like poor and homeless people.

Participatory democracy can be promoted not only by progressive parties coming

into power but also by citizens’ groups tackling challenges through publicly

funded local initiative projects. An example of grassroots democracy is

Foodshare’s “Field to Table” program in Toronto. The program provides

subscribers with a box of fresh, healthy food every week for fifteen dollars.

Food is distributed to volunteers in various neighborhoods and poor and

middle-class people enjoy the same benefits for the same price. The basket is

available for free or at a reduced price for poor people, who in exchange work

in the distributing center. They are asked to work only as much as they are able

to. Because Foodshare deals directly with farmers, the price is kept low.

Therefore instead of going to a food bank and getting charity, poor people are

able to purchase fresh food just like everyone else. Significantly, the program

moves away from the hierarchical relations ensconced in food banks and towards

creating a cooperative, participatory process in relation to social and economic

services.

Participatory Democracy and the Party

Too

often our own organizations on the left reflect the top down hierarchical

structures of representative democracy. Whether in unions, social movement

groups or left-wing parties, the elected leadership tends to take power from the

membership and exercise it on their behalf. The biggest challenge for the NPI

will be to develop new ideas for participatory democracy inside a political

party. Some people in the New Democratic Party believe a first step in this

direction would be one member one vote where every member of the party, whether

or not they can attend convention, gets to vote on the leader and perhaps major

policy or constitutional changes via referendum. While this has considerable

appeal in terms of inclusion, it also poses numerous problems, like giving power

to people who sign up just to support a particular leadership candidate and

contribute nothing to the party. Another problem with OMOV is how affirmative

action measures can be implemented or the fairness of the province which happens

to have the most members because the party is in power there or a recent

leadership convention having the most influence. How can a left-wing party

empower its individual members at the same time as avoiding these pitfalls?

OMOV

also seeks to remove the structural relationship between the labour movement and

the NDP. This relationship has become very bureaucratic and is no longer a

reflection of grass roots union members if it ever was. However, NPI seeks to

extend the close relationship between the party and the labour movement to a

variety of social movements. How would this be structured using principles of

participatory democracy?

One

idea might be to include two levels of party decision-making with a type of

party Senate with social movement/labour movement representation. Finally how

does the leadership political party, which has to make rapid decisions, remain

accountable to its membership. Can a relationship between the parliamentary

caucus and the grass roots of the party be more effectively structured to give

the grass roots more power?

A

Living, Participatory Democracy

The

New Politics Initiative, building on the examples above, believes that citizens,

not corporations, must be involved at every level of social and political

policy-making and policy implementation. Towards this end, the NPI proposes

creating a democratic political process that enables public participation. A

participatory democratic process recognizes that its citizenry is constituted

through different experience and expertise as both individuals and members of

communities. The struggles of people of colour, lesbians/gays/bisexuals/transgendered

and women over the last thirty years has highlighted the diversity of Canada’s

citizenry and demonstrated how our traditional institutions and processes of

democracy have marginalized and suppressed the diversity of our voices. Over the

past decade, poor people have been increasingly marginalized to the point of the

creation of a growing underclass.

Participatory democracy is a form of politics that celebrates diversity, and

encourages participation from a variety of constituencies, especially those who

are most marginalized in our current system. Different viewpoints enhance our

country’s creativity and capacity to tackle old and new challenges. For example,

immigrants, drawing from their own traditions, have promoted innovations in

healthcare such as acupuncture, shiatsu therapy and other alternative forms of

healing. As well, many immigrants from countries like Chile, South Africa and

India have participated in creative linkages between people’s movements and

political parties and have many insights to contribute to the left in Canada.

Participatory democracy principles also appreciate that people understand their

own situation best. Participatory democracy recognizes that it is people in

their own communities that understand what is best for them. It is citizens

consulting experts who should be making decisions not experts consulting

citizens.

Most

importantly, participatory democracy does not only recognize and celebrate the

diversity of public participation but also promotes its proliferation.

Participatory democracy encourages the development of new voices, new

communities, and new social movements as part of an ongoing process of

democratization. New issues such as biotechnology, the World Trade Organization,

economic apartheid, the creation of a global consumer culture, and the USA’s

newest military space technologies need to be debated by the public in forums

that are dominated by citizen participation not by the corporate-owned media.

Via the promotion of a living democracy, the NPI hopes a new progressive party

could create a direct relationship between the public and its government.

 

 

 

Leave a comment