Democracy
Reclaiming Participatory Governance: Social Movements and the Reinvention of Democratic Innovation – review
In Reclaiming Participatory Governance, Adrian Bua and Sonia Bussu bring together analyses of social movements around the world that engage with democracy-driven or participatory governance. Although the essays in this volume reveal the challenge of bringing grassroots organising into our political systems, they advocate compellingly for nurturing these practices to create fairer and stronger democracies, writes Andrea Felicetti.
Reclaiming Participatory Governance is a compelling investigation of the potential for bottom-up forms of democratic innovations to vitalise our democracies. Anchored on Adrian Bua and Sonia Bussu’s concept of “democracy-driven governance” (DDG), this edited volume critically investigates the “potential, limits and opportunities” of social movements’ engagement with participatory and deliberative institutional designs. This is no small feat since social movements and democratic innovations are often seen as crucial in strengthening our democracies.
[Democracy-driven governance] is considered in its capacity for effectively ‘[o]pening up spaces for a deeper critique of minimalist liberal democratic institutions and the neoliberal economy that underpins them’.
From the introduction, expectations are high. Pitted against forms of “governance-driven democratisation” (GDD) that tend to be seen as top-down and markedly bureaucratic, DDG is considered in its capacity for effectively “[o]pening up spaces for a deeper critique of minimalist liberal democratic institutions and the neoliberal economy that underpins them”. Of course, this needs to occur at a time when “space for meaningful citizen input is increasingly constrained by technocratic decision-making and global economic pressure”.
The book presents a highly coherent and impressive collection of in-depth analyses that span theory and empirical research, with a great variety of cases. Spain takes centre stage, and there are no case studies from English-speaking countries, going markedly against the tide. Theory is at the heart of the first section. Drawing from fascinating cases in Germany and Iceland, Dannica Fleuss shows the urgency of thinking about democracy beyond liberal institutions. Nick Vlahos introduces the idea of “participatory decommodification of social need” as an interesting way to think about how participatory governance can combat the worst effects of capitalism, with examples from Toronto, Canada. Based on his extensive fieldwork in Rosario, Argentina, Markus Holdo discusses the concept of “democratic care” to unearth the work performed by activists that needs to be recognised in participatory governance. Finally, Hendrik Wagenaar offers a compelling analysis of strengths and weaknesses of the GDD/DGG pair from a political economy standpoint, building on a well-established threefold distinction between the dominant economic, financial system, the political, administrative sector and civil society.
Vlahos introduces the idea of ‘participatory decommodification of social need’ as an interesting way to think about how participatory governance can combat the worst effects of capitalism
The second part is markedly empirical. Paola Pierri analyses the Orleans Metropole Assise for the Ecological Transition, in France, showing a case of “collaborative countervailing power” that reminds us that the seminal work of Empowered Participatory Governance by Archon Fung and Erik Olin Wright remains highly relevant to understand participatory governance. Lucy Cathcart Frodén investigates the parallels between prefigurative social movements and participatory arts projects as well as their potential to contribute to democratic renewal. A rather effective collaboration between “right to the city” activists and local administration is documented in Roberto Falanga’s in-depth analysis of the participatory process for the regeneration of one of the main squares in Lisbon, Portugal. Giovanni Allegretti shows clearly how anticolonial protests irrupt into and benefit participatory experiments in Kalaallit Nunaat, Greenland. Mendonça and colleagues, instead, systematically explore strengths and weaknesses of Gambiarra, an unconventional means social movements in Brazil use to break into elites-dominated elections at local and parliamentary level. Bua, Bussu and Davies offer the ultimate comparison about the GDD and DGG models as embodied in the historical trajectories of participatory governance of the cities of Nantes and Barcelona respectively.
The third section highlights problems and limitations. Joan Balcells and colleagues unveil the tension that lay at the basis of the famous participatory platform Decidim. Always focusing on Barcelona, Marina Pera and colleagues look at the Citizen Assets Program showing how lack of trust prevented this very advanced form of democratisation from being embedded into its context. Fabiola Mota Consejero considers another case from Spain where Madrid’s progressive local government broke with a longstanding tradition of conservative patronage but failed to turn its main innovation, Decide Madrid, into an effective means for participatory governance. Patricia Garcia-Espin, instead, shows the fatigue and disappointment of activists involved in another innovation of Madrid’s new municipalist government, the local forums. Finally, Sixtine Van Outryve looks at a fascinating case of a local Yellow Vest organization in Commercy, France, trying to set up an open citizens assembly to have a communalist project represented in the local government that ultimately failed.
Virtually every chapter of this book details a host of challenges participatory governance faces in the context of minimalist democracies dominated by neoliberal economics.
The findings in this book are rather sobering. Employing a rigorous approach devoid of self-celebration or ideological dismissal, virtually every chapter of this book details a host of challenges participatory governance faces in the context of minimalist democracies dominated by neoliberal economics. In many case studies, elements of both GDD and DGG coexist, and sometimes one morphs into the other. Second, empirical investigations highlight weaknesses with DGG. This reduces our expectations about this model of democratisation, yet it also lends it a more realistic and useful outlook. Third, while the theoretical section highlights the political economy of participatory governance as a crucial issue, that remains in the background in the empirical analysis, as it tends to happen in the field. This kind of investigation remains essential.
Further, after reading this book, one has the feeling that contemporary participatory governance grapples with two important limitations. First, the promotion of participatory governance remains primarily within the purview of a select group of political actors: progressive parties, particularly those with a robust radical left presence. As we move to the centre of the political spectrum, the idea of reinvigorating democracy, let alone doing so by means of radical participatory governance, seems to lose attractiveness. Indeed, the book consistently shows that, in those uncommon cases in which progressive parties that champion participatory governance take power, they downscale their democratisation ambitions as they face the challenges implied in participatory governance. These can vary from administrative hurdles in implementing innovation to more endogenous problems relating, for example, to internal conflicts arising from differing conceptions of democracy that exacerbate fatigue and disillusionment. Second, the book gives the sense that contemporary participatory governance still has a mass democracy problem. It is still missing any substantial connection with the public at large. Except for occasional influence during electoral campaigns, none of the studied experiments have garnered sustained support or substantial interest from the public at large.
This volume stands as proof of the ongoing efforts to use participatory governance in critical and democratising ways around the world
This might seem disheartening, especially because there is no practical solution in sight. The electoral defeat of Spanish municipalism, central to this book, heightens this sensation. Yet, there is not much use in despairing, and a temporal prospective might offer some hope. As Gianpaolo Baiocchi reminds in his refreshing concluding remarks, it is not so long ago that the idea of participatory democracy made its irruption in our democracies. Initially championed by social movements and to a lesser extent Left political projects in the 1960s, this idea was later taken up by mainstream policymakers and international agencies. Unsurprisingly, participatory governance has not been able to singlehandedly compete with the broader political trend towards neoliberal governance; indeed, it has had to adapted to it to some extent. The resistance it meets today shows major limitations. Yet, this volume stands as proof of the ongoing efforts to use participatory governance in critical and democratising ways around the world. It also speaks to the fact that there is great social scientific scholarship trying to understand and strengthen this phenomenon.
The book often refers to the value of learning from and with activists. Indeed, one of its the most significant contributions is its ability to forge an expanded understanding of participatory governance.
The book often refers to the value of learning from and with activists. Indeed, one of its the most significant contributions is its ability to forge an expanded understanding of participatory governance. This volume goes beyond the perpetual dispute between different conceptions of democracy. It shows how participatory governance todays draws from a rich tapestry of diverse ideas and practices – both old and new. The fact that concepts such as “care”, the “right to the city”, “communalism”, “new municipalism”, “gambiarra” and “decolonisation” are brought together in this volume speaks to the eclectic nature and vitality of contemporary participatory governance. Despite its challenges, participatory governance continues to attract the ingenuity of people and their eagerness for democracy. Persistence is crucial, as these are fundamental ingredients in the struggle to build a more equal and just world.
Note: This post gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Dedraw Studio on Flickr.
Wishful Verbiage
This is the theme of a lovely New Statesman article by Armando Iannucci. It contains this short paragraph which neatly sums up the utter inanity of today’s current Conservative ‘government’ politics: Realpolitik is giving way to the new Feelpolitik, where doing stuff is replaced by just saying the stuff you would like to have done.... Read more
The housing rental market
Housing is one of life’s essentials but ‘our’ government in treating it like another market, seems to have somehow conveniently forgotten how essential the basic security of a roof over your head is… The dysfunctional purchasing of housing to live in which has everything to do with bank credit and little to do with providing... Read more
Exclusive: Corbyn’s Islington North CLP system access suspended by Labour
Local party officers’ access to Labour’s ‘Organise’ campaign platform revoked as party tries to shut down local democracy, say locals
A banner from Corbyn’s Islington North constituency (image: S Walker)
The Labour party has suspended former leader Jeremy Corbyn’s local Labour party in Islington North, but hasn’t bothered to tell local members or elected officers of the ‘CLP’, according to inside sources.
Instead, Labour has revoked officers’ access to the party’s ‘Organise’ campaign system, without telling them why or even that it had been done.
The ‘Organise’ manoeuvre is the latest in a long line of party moves to kill local member democracy to try to secure candidates and outcomes Starmer wants – and exposes yet again the regime’s deep contempt for party members and their rights. Starmer broke Labour’s rules to suspend Corbyn, prompting thousands of current and former party members from all over the UK to say they will travel to London to campaign for Corbyn in the seat at the next election. So far Labour has not named a candidate to stand against him.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Students occupy Bristol uni building in protest at ‘profits from genocide’
Students demand divestment and an end to academic ties
Bristol University students have taken control of one of the university’s Wills Memorial Building in a protest to demand an end to its ‘complicity with arms companies’ and to call for a series of actions on its part to ‘support Palestine and Palestinians’:
The demanded actions include:
- an end to cooperation with weapons manufacturers
- protection for Palestinian students and special consideration for those taking exams who have been affected by Israel’s slaughter in Gaza
- protection for anti-Zionist beliefs among staff and students – an issue on which Bristol university has a shameful record and has been the scene of intense pressure campaigns by pro-Israel groups claiming that anti-Zionism, opposition to the settler-colonial state that has displaced Palestinians and treats them as inferior
- recognition of the existence of Palestine – an existence denied by hardcore supporters of Israel
- scholarships for Palestinian refugees
Israel has killed over forty thousand Palestinian civilians, more than two thirds of them women and children, and injured twice as many, in its genocidal assault on Gaza and has ignored orders from the International Court of Justice to cease its slaughter and allow food, fuel and medicines into Gaza immediately. Gaza is now in famine, with experts predicting that more will die in the coming months from hunger and disease than from Israel’s bombs, missiles and bullets, with children again worst affected.
Palestinian flags can be seen through the Wills building’s doors. The figures in the second image have been blurred to protect identities.
The group is also demanding an end to the use of a ‘check-in’ system that tracks the location of students.
Wednesday’s action is not the first by Bristol students demanding justice for Palestinians and an end to discrimination against them and their supporters. Four months ago, students protested in the university’s ‘profits from genocide’:
And earlier this month, a group occupied Bristol University’s Victoria Rooms in a pro-Gaza protest.
The British government has mounted a pressure campaign against universities, threatening to defund them if they allow ‘extremism’ or ‘antisemitism’ in the form of pro-Palestinian speech and activism. Shamefully, a number of universities have capitulated to pressure from the UK state and from pro-Israel groups claiming that speech against Israel’s crimes and occupation of Palestinian land infringe on their rights and constitutes ‘hate’ toward Jews, even though many UK Jews oppose Israel’s actions and oppression of Palestinians.
Last month, former Bristol professor David Miller won a landmark employment tribunal case against the university, which had sacked him after pressure from pro-Israel groups, despite lawyers it appointed to run two investigations finding that he had said nothing antisemitic. The win set a precedent that anti-Zionist political beliefs are a protected characteristic under equalities law and cannot be used as grounds for dismissal. Skwawkbox understands that Prof Miller is not involved in the students’ protest.
Solidarity with students in Bristol and elsewhere who are demanding an end to complicity in war crimes.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
A ‘Damning Indictment’: Eight Million Voters May Be Disenfranchised in General Election, MPs Find
A staggering eight million people could be disenfranchised and prevented from voting at this year’s crucial general election in a "damning indictment" of the UK's democracy, a new parliamentary report has found.
The House of Commons’ Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee has found that the current electoral registration system is inefficient and ineffective, and the new requirement of having to show mandatory voter photo ID at the ballot box will make matters worse.
Labour MP Clive Betts, the committee's chair, said: “Elections are the cornerstone of our democracy and yet we are burdened by a system which is both ineffective and inefficient, where millions of people are disenfranchised because they are incorrectly registered or not on the electoral register.
“In the year of a general election, this is a damning indictment of the UK’s electoral registration arrangements and a threat to the rights of British voters.
“Our voter registration system is creaking. Recent changes such as voter ID have been tacked onto a Victorian era system which is failing voters, political parties, and election officials.
“We need a major review of our election arrangements to boost voter registration and to ensure our elections are seen as credible and legitimate. It is a major and fundamental defect in our democratic system that many millions of UK citizens face being unable to make their voice heard at election time.”
The report singles out young people, renters, ethnic minorities, and those in lower socio-economic groups as significantly less likely to be registered to vote.
The committee was also told that some disabled people do not feel supported to register to vote, and that they particularly struggle with the lack of variety in communication channels.
The report calls for a widening of acceptable forms of voter ID – including travel passes outside London, emergency services passes, and police warrant cards.
The Government did not agree to extending the list of acceptable photo voter ID passes, but research has shown that, at last year’s local elections in May, some 740,000 people – about 4% of the voters – were turned away because they did not have adequate ID.
As reported by Byline Times previously, the Government has been focusing on changing the law to allow more British citizens living abroad to vote. The move would enable an approximately 3.4 million more expatriates living overseas to participate in the next election – though secondary legislation to do this has yet to be passed by Parliament and no guidance has so far been issued.
The committee states that it is concerned about how the change would be "fully implemented by the next election" and that the "remaining provisions are more complex to introduce than voter ID, exacerbating the pressures of election time because of applications for voter authority certificates, overseas applications, and the reapplication of postal votes".
“This increases the risk of something major going wrong at a national election, including large numbers of people being turned away or voters not put on the registers in time to vote which would impact the current high level of confidence in the electoral system,” it adds.
The committee also wants to see people be encouraged to register to vote, through other bodies signposting individuals as to how they can get their names on the electoral register. It suggests that bodies such as the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs, the Driver Vehicle and Licensing Agency, and HM Passport Office could do this.
The report recommends that registering to vote also be signposted when national insurance numbers are issued to citizens, when they turn 16, as a way of ensuring that more young people are placed on the electoral register. It cites Canada, which has a similar electoral system to the UK as a good example – there provincial authorities have mandatory lessons in schools helping pupils to register to vote.
A spokesperson for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said: “We are committed to ensuring everyone can have their say in our democracy.
“Individual electoral registration has stopped fraud and ensured a more accurate register. The 2019 General Election was contested on the largest ever electoral register.
“As recommended by the independent Electoral Commission, we have introduced identification for voting in person across Great Britain, mirroring long-standing arrangements in Northern Ireland. 99.75% of English voters in the polling station cast their vote successfully at local elections in May last year and councils will provide free identification certificates to anyone who asks.”
The Government has been accused of watering-down the independence of the Electoral Commission by drawing up a "strategy and policy statement" for its work.
Since 2019, there have been just four proven cases of voter fraud, resulting in one conviction and three cautions, as shown by Electoral Commission figures.
The Threat to Democracy Runs Deep, But Mathematics Could Address the Abominable State of Representation and Voting
In November 1990, an election took place in Bosnia, my home country, that changed the...
‘Liberty’ criticises ‘extremism’ definition
At the start, I should make clear that Akiko Hart is the director of Liberty and gives her simple objections in just over a minute. I also should point out that I am also one of Liberty’s members: Liberty, have, in spite of their name, been very factual, restrained and even diplomatic. Not so, the... Read more
Is the UK’s ‘debt’ ‘sustainable’?
My very simple and straightforward submission to the House of Lords’ enquiry into the sustainability of UK debt is now within their website. My effort (downloadable from the above link) is written below – I tried to give the submission a final twist: WRITTEN EVIDENCE SND0013 – SUSTAINABILITY OF THE UK’S NATIONAL DEBT INQUIRY 1.What... Read more
Trams and tides
I was interested in the number of trams in France and here we have the answer. Lots! When Avignon with a population of a mere 92,000 has trams, then it is woefully apparent that in the UK where Leeds with a population of c 600k has none – and indeed is the largest city in... Read more