Category Archives: democratic reform overseas

participatory budgeting in Chicago

Participatory budgeting started in Brazil, when residents of poor urban neighborhoods were given control over capital budgets. They now meet in large groups and decide how to spend government funds deliberatively. The outcomes of participatory budgeting in Brazil include better priorities, greater public trust in government, and much less corruption. The last benefit might seem surprising, but it appears that when people allocate public money, they will not tolerate its being wasted.

Participatory budgeting is one of many important innovations in governance that have originated overseas and that should be imported to the US. Now is a time of great creativity in democratic governance, with the US generally lagging behind. We suffer from too limited a sense of the options and possibilities.

I believe there has been some participatory budgeting in California cities. And now Chicago Alderman Joe Moore announces:

    As a Chicago alderman, I have embarked on an innovative alternative to the old style of decision-making. In an experiment in democracy, transparent governance and economic reform, I’m letting the residents of the 49th Ward in the Rogers Park and Edgewater communities decide how to spend my entire discretionary capital budget of more than $1.3 million.

    Known as “participatory budgeting,” this form of democracy is being used worldwide, from Brazil to the United Kingdom and Canada. It lets the community decide how to spend part of a government budget, through a series of meetings and ultimately a final, binding vote.

    Though I’m the first elected official in the U.S. to implement participatory budgeting, it’s not a whole lot different than the old New England town meetings in which residents would gather to vote directly on the spending decisions of their town.

    Residents in my ward have met for the past year — developing a rule book for the process, gathering project ideas from their neighbors and researching and budgeting project ideas. These range from public art to street resurfacing and police cameras to bike paths. The residents then pitched their proposals to their neighbors at a series of neighborhood “assemblies” held throughout the ward.

    The process will culminate in an election on April 10, in which all 49th Ward residents 16 and older, regardless of citizenship or voter registration status, are invited to gather at a local high school to vote for up to eight projects, one vote per project. This process is binding. The projects that win the most votes will be funded up to $1.3 million.

I am strongly opposed to discretionary budgets for legislators. That’s just a way for them to buy reelection with public funds. But the fact that Alderman Moore has such a budget is not his fault, and he is using it for an excellent experiment.

village democracy in India

One of the most remarkable innovations in democracy comes from India, where the Constitution requires every village (but not urban areas) to have both elected councils and empowered open meetings called “gram sabhas” (GS’s). Vijayendra Rao of the World Bank and Paromita Sanyal of Wesleyan write, “The GS has become, arguably, the largest deliberative institution in human history, at the heart of two million little village democracies which affect the lives 700 million rural Indians.” PDF

Apart from the scale of this experiment, its most remarkable features are (1) the right to active participation that is enshrined in the Indian Constitution, and (2) the steps required to promote equality of gender and caste.

As the government itself explains, Article 40 of the original Indian Constitution required “that the State shall take steps to organise village panchayats [councils] and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.” But there were problems with the representativeness, fairness, and power of the panchayat system. As a result, in 1992, the Indian “Constitution was amended to … provide for, among other things:

  • direct elections to all seats in Panchayats at the village and intermediate level, if any, and to the offices of Chairpersons of Panchayats at such levels;
  • reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their population for membership of Panchayats and office of Chairpersons in Panchayats at each level;
  • reservation of not less than one-third of the seats for women;
  • devolution by the State Legislature of powers and responsibilities upon the Panchayats with respect to the preparation of plans for economic developments and social justice and for the implementation of development schemes;
  • [funding for the Panchayats from] grants-in-aid [and from] designated taxes, duties, tolls and fees;
  • barring interference by courts in electoral matters relating to Panchayats.

There must be a gram sabha in each village at least once per year, although I think that is a statutory provision and not contained in the Constitution itself. “A Gram Sabha may exercise such powers and perform such functions at the village level as the Legislature of a State may, by law, provide.” Apparently, some make substantial decisions about spending and planning.

The most remarkable impact of this reform has been to strengthen the confidence, standing, and voice of the poor, of women, and of low-caste individuals. Rao and Sanyal conclude that the “GS facilitate the acquisition of crucial cultural capabilities such as discursive skills and civic agency by poor and disadvantaged groups. … The poor and socially marginalized deploy these discursive skills in a resource-scarce and socially stratified environment in making material and non-material demands in their search for dignity.”

the view from South Africa

(Washington, DC) Xolela Mangu, a distinguished South African social scientist and columnist, joined our conference last week on the Obama civic agenda. In his national column, he reflects on “service” (with its hints of moral obligation, on one side, and dependency on the other) versus civic empowerment:

    LAST week I participated in a cross-Atlantic conference with officials and academics closely aligned with the Obama administration.

    On this side, I was joined by the distinguished scholar-activist, Harry Boyte.

    The conference was convened to ask one question: how far has Obama gone in fulfilling his campaign promise of making active citizenship the centre of his administration?

    The chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Alan Solomont, provided a wide-ranging account of what the administration had done in increasing funding for public service and getting the youth actively involved in community service work.

    The administration has also done well in opening up the government.

    Obama’s foreign policy speeches have also set the tone for civic engagement around the world.

    However, Harvard University’s Marshall Ganz was more cautious about the emphasis on service as opposed to building community.

    Boyte could sense technocracy creeping into the language of the administration, from the mobilising theme of “yes, we can”, with the government and the people working together, to “yes, we should”, which is more about doing for communities.

    My own view is that instead of foreign policy discussions proceeding only in terms of the human rights/national interest dichotomy, we should be exploring international collaboration around issues such as active citizenship.

Interestingly, the masthead editorial in the same edition of the same newspaper (The Weekender) echoes the same themes. Commenting on recent grassroots protests in South Africa, The Weekender says:

    The community-based protests have been the catalyst for a long-overdue conversation on the “service delivery” issue, which was all but drowned out of the election campaign earlier this year by the power struggle within the ANC and Zuma’s battle to avoid prosecution. But it is not clear the party has any viable alternative to vague promises based on a top-down delivery model–hence the hastily arranged national summit to establish the cause of the flare-ups. …

    There is a lot more to it than unrealistic expectations, though. The very basis of the term “service delivery” needs to be revisited–what is meant by it, how is it understood by the poor, and is it appropriate given the capacity and skills challenges the state faces?

    “Service delivery” implies from the outset that poor communities are passive recipients of state largesse, and this clearly accords with the view of many ruling party politicians, who unashamedly link political support with handouts. Yet it has been shown the world over that community involvement in projects such as infrastructure development not only helps ensure that the product is looked after but enhances individual confidence, self- respect and skills levels.

    Several commentators have pointed out that the nub of the protests is not so much about delivery–although that clearly leaves much to be desired in most parts of the country–but the fact that communities are seldom consulted about what they really want.

“Community service” is not the same thing as “service delivery.” The former usually involves amateurs who are unpaid or given small stipends; the latter, agencies and professionals. Yet it is no coincidence that the two phrases share a word. Their shared problem is a conception of people as needy clients, not as active agents. In both the United States and South Africa, now that left-of-center governments hold power, there is a quiet struggle underway between “service” and civic agency.

nonviolence and the Palestinian cause

For several months, I have been thinking of a post about nonviolent resistance in the Palestinian territories. I’m finally writing now because of a thoughtful and well informed article on that very subject: “The Missing Mahatma: Searching for a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King in the West Bank,” by Gershom Gorenberg in the Weekly Standard.

I recommend the whole piece. It reinforces my sense that a nonviolent struggle could produce a Palestinian state on somewhat more advantageous terms than are now available. One could say that Israel is “vulnerable” to a nonviolent strategy, but equally Israel needs to escape from the nightmare of occupation. The Jewish State seems incapable of achieving a resolution by itself–which may be the nature of a master/slave dialectic–so a nonviolent victory for the Palestinian cause would also be the best thing that could happen to, and for, Israel.

Gorenberg documents what I already knew in less detail: there are, and have long been, nonviolent Palestinian resistance efforts. They are usually small-scale and always overshadowed by violence. That is hardly surprising. Nonviolence takes tremendous commitment, coordination, and discipline. Nonviolent efforts are very easily broken up, discouraged, or overshadowed by forces on either side of the conflict that prefer violence. Successful nonviolent campaigns are exceedingly rare. The Palestinian case is typical rather than strange.

For me, the core principle is not nonviolence. I’m glad we invaded Normandy in 1944, and I hope the Taliban loses on the battlefield. I’m not a pacifist, but I do think that self-limitation is crucial. Lord Acton was right; unlimited power corrupts. Revolutionary struggles (the ones that aren’t crushed) typically end in tyranny or fratricide, because their leaders can’t stop using the tools that have brought them to power.

We could even view liberal democracy as a device for promoting limited political movements. There are enough openings at different levels of a democracy–and enough civil rights–that political causes don’t automatically fizzle out. Yet each movement is always checked by its rivals, causing it to be limited and disciplined. The Palestinians don’t have a democratic context in which to organize. Their leaders and partisans must limit themselves, must set their own rules. Fatah is a case study of what happens when they don’t. Within its own sphere, it is corrupt and violent. Beyond its domain, it is weak. If Fatah somehow wins, the Palestinian people will have to struggle to get a decent government out of it.

Nonviolence is an example of a self-limitation, but it is not the only one. The American revolutionaries of 1776 fought with guns, yet they showed admirable restrain that paved the way for a successful republic. In the First Intifada, the Palestinians managed to avoid guns and bombs in favor of stones for the better part of two years. The signature of the Intifada was children throwing things at tanks. As Gorenberg writes:

    The uprising was unarmed, if arms refers to guns and not to gasoline-filled bottles. The leaders of the uprising were “opposed in principle” to using firearms and explosives, says Yaakov Perry, who was deputy chief of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, at the start of the Intifada and became head of the agency soon after. The uprising’s leaders deliberately sought to turn weakness into political strength, knowing that “in the international arena, Israel could not deal with the picture of the boy holding a rock facing a tank,” Perry says. This is close to Gandhian logic, but only close, unless one imagines Gandhi urging followers both to go on strike and to master the slingshot. Unarmed did not mean nonviolent.

I think the tactics of the First Intifada could be effective today, but true nonviolence would be better. I say this not because of an ethical scruple but because of the nature of collective action. To get people to do something very hard, and all at the same time, requires a very clear definition of what they must all do. You need a bright-line test, or else individuals will start pushing the limits, and discipline will break down. “Don’t ever hurt anyone physically” is a clear rule, a bright line. Using stones and Molotov cocktails but no bombs is too vague and ad hoc; it invites escalation.

Of course, a clear definition of rules is not the only condition of success. Leadership is also essential, although I think Gorenberg somewhat overestimates the individual contribution of Martin Luther King. (There were many other key leaders in that movement.) He does recognize the importance of a third factor: ideological commitment to nonviolence itself. When we face brutality and oppression, the temptation is overwhelming to strike back. (“I and the public know / What all schoolchildren learn, / Those to whom evil is done / Do evil in return.”) It helps enormously if participants in a social movement believe in nonviolence (or in other serious restraints)–not just as wise precautions or clever tactics, but as deep moral imperatives. For instance, it helps if they think that God wants them to turn the other cheek.

Islam is not more violent than Christianity or Hinduism. All three religions are generally soaked in blood, and Islam has modeled tolerance and restraint as often as the others have. But it helped both Gandhi and King that there were minority traditions in their own faiths that were extreme and radical about pacifism. As King asked rhetorically from the Birmingham Jail, “Was not Jesus an extremist for love? ‘Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.'” Franciscans, Quakers, and others before King had made rigorous pacifism a tradition that he could evoke. Although there are certainly peaceful and peace-loving traditions in Islam, I’m not sure there is anything as uncompromisingly and ascetically pacificistic as we find at the margins of Christianity and Hinduism.

But Palestinians have an opportunity to create their identity out of nationalist, ethnic, religious, and cosmopolitan strands. As for their majority religion, Sunni Islam, it is dynamic and flexible, as all faiths are. Gorenberg shrewdly writes:

    Religious traditions come blessed with contradiction. The Hebrew Bible declares in the Book of Isaiah that “in the days to come .??.??. they will beat their swords into plowshares.” In the Book of Joel it proclaims, “Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears.” For the individual believer, there is an “essential” Islam, Judaism, or Christianity constructed by taking one part of the tradition as obvious truth, interpreting others in its light. Seen from the outside, a religion is only a set of possibilities.

If Palestinians could develop the pacifist possibilities that are available in their various traditions, the future could be much better for them, and for the world.

conservatism in the Nation of Shopkeepers

The British Conservative Party wants to make the preservation of small, locally-owned business a major objective. Their Leader, David Cameron, says, “Small shops are the lifeblood of local economies and provide a lifeline to local residents – and their survival is vital. … If we care about our communities, and the local, independent retailers that give them their character, then it’s our responsibility to support them.” A Conservative Party report has argued that small shops “reflect something of what is best about modern Britain itself. They are independent and entrepreneurial, they display a rich cultural and ethnic diversity, and their eclectic differences add real character to our towns, cities, and villages.” But these small businesses are closing fast, in part because of big chains.

The Tories are conjuring up images that I recognize with some nostalgia, having grown up substantially in Britain. “High Street” businesses over there include ancient pubs, independent butchers with sawdust on the floor, kabob stands, hobby stores selling stamps and model airplanes, corner groceries owned by South Asians, cafes with bottles of “brown sauce” on the formica tables, dusty antiquarian book shops, and newsstands lined with specialist magazines. As the Conservatives say, these business support an everyday culture that has British roots but that is deeply diverse today, both ethnically and regionally. It wouldn’t be British if there weren’t Asian, West Indian, and Irish owners and workers among the white, Anglo-Saxon ones.

I think the Tories’ new emphasis is a politically smart move, because there is much affection for local businesses and the local cultures they support, and this affection crosses national and party lines. (Crunchy liberals are also enthusiastic about small, locally-owned businesses.) I guess you could criticize the Tories’ position on at least two grounds: 1) They won’t actually be able to save small businesses, so it’s just rhetoric, and 2) they are promoting a kind of communitarianism that is nostalgic and soft and not sufficiently concerned with power. Then again, maybe they will figure out policies to revive and preserve local business, and maybe local business are a real source of power, a counterweight to transnational markets. In any case, this move seems like a genuine form of conservatism, much more authentic than the weird mixtures of libertarianism and authoritarianism that are common on the American right today.