If we imagine that the world is ever going back to the way it was pre COVID-19 it is almost certain it will not. In local governance in Tasmania, we have seen instances of almost incredulous level of bureaucratic dysfunction that cannot be attributed, directly, to the COVID-19 Crisis. Quite simply the crisis exposed it.
The dysfunction has nevertheless, been there in background and while extreme instances have been, and are being, ‘smoothed over’ it is increasingly evident that the ‘elected representative democracy model’ ERDM (AKA indirect democracy) once might have been adequate, increasingly, in local governance at least, its shortfalls are revealing themselves.
ERDM has evolved out of the Roman Republic and has since taken on various machinations to the point that in the Western world in the 20th Century ERDM became the standard to be aspired towards by the dominating ‘world powers’.
While this is many ways is an over simplification of history, in essence it holds true. Increasingly ERDM can be seen to be failing populations around the world as 21st C technologies enable more direct communication making for increasing opportunities to demand transparency and accountability in governance until recently thought unthinkable.
The direct democracy model DDM (AKA pure democracy) in a 21st C context promises greater accountability and transparency in governance. DDM is also known as the DDD model (Direct Deliberative Democracy)
In a representative democracy people vote for representatives who then enact policy initiatives.
Whereas in direct deliberative democracy model, people decide on policies without any intermediary.
Depending on the particular system in use, direct democracy might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials, and conducting trials.
Participatory democracy
There are two leading forms of direct democracy and they are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy.
Participatory democracy emphasises the broad participation of constituents in the direction and operation of political systems. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power and thus that all democracies are participatory.
However, participatory democracy tends to advocate more involved forms of citizen participation and greater political representation than the ERDM that has become 'traditional' in the Western world.
.
Putting tradition aside, 21st C technologies offer increasing opportunities for ‘the people’ to participate more directly in policy determination and the development of appropriate strategies to achieve common goals.
That the bureaucratic wing of governance might argue against, and as often been the case and quite often vigorously, is hardly surprising in that their discretionary powers are disrupted and ultimately diminished.
Tasmania’s Local Govt. Act 1993 empowers bureaucracies to the point where senior executives can override the authority of the elected representatives and there are concerning examples of this.
The provision in the Act that affords this is SECTION 62/2 that says, “The general manager may do anything necessary or convenient to perform his or her functions under this or any other Act.”
Taken to its extreme, which all too often it bis, SECTION 62/2 renders the elected representatives redundant. Arguably, it also renders elections for local governance redundant.
Arguably this provision of the current Act, invoked as it was in 1993, sets in place all the circumstances that can allow an appointed General Manager to totally undermine the authority of the elected representatives.
More importantly ‘the people’ do not have an available mechanism overturn a General Manager’s decision making.
This is but one factor in play that effectively distances ‘the people’ from local governance in Tasmania while it masquerades as inclusive ‘democracy’.
Post COVID-19 there must be something of a stocktake in regard to the weaknesses and failures to be local governance at least. Returning to some version of the status quo on the assumption that a patch here, a tweak there or an adjustment wherever ‘will fix it’ would seem to be folly in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
If a direct democracy model (DDD) of local governance is applied in Tasmania decision making would be arguably be more accountable and by necessity much more transparent. This proposition is ever likely to be resisted by the incumbents in the faltering indirect representative model – ‘elected representative democracy model’ ERDM – currently in place – and strongly so. Quite obviously they’ll perceive that ‘they will’, one and all, lose something – not their constituency but they themselves. Clearly change is politically unpalatable to incumbents given the evident self interest often on display.
Nevertheless, the COVID-19 Crisis has shuffled the deck of cards somewhat and this has brought and new previously discountable factors to the fore. Traditional approaches are faltering, and sometimes failing in their bureaucratic sluggishness, causing a questioning of the status quo that has become so unpalatable and very recently.
Politicians are even invoking that old truism that says, “the definition of insanity is doing more and more of the same old, same old and all the time expecting change for the better”. This may well have something to do with their constituency banging on their doors demanding answers.
If this is indeed a ‘change indicator’ what change, and how much of it, will be contemplated. Given that the COVID-19 virus has thrown all the balls in the air, it is a matter of conjecture as to where they might land.
Wherever it is that they do, the pre COVID-19 status quo aught not tolerated given its failures and weaknesses.
If the faltering indirect representative model – ‘elected representative democracy model’ ERDM – currently in place is to be abandoned in favour of a 21st C direct democracy model (DDD) ( pure democracy model) what might that look like? Indeed would/could it be ‘pure’ or a blend? Speculatively, it is possible to consider eliminating all ‘local councils’– all 29 of them – all with sets of elected councillors and full blown relatively expensive, often dysfunctional, operational bureaucracies.
However, replacing them with what? Again speculatively, given Tasmania’s half million or so population it would be feasible to imagine two, possibly three, ‘commissions’ with appointed full-time members replacing these 'councils'. Also, it is more than feasible to imagine such commissions being quite capable of serving the constituency well.
What is more, they are likely to be more effective while delivering the full spectrum of social, cultural and financial dividends expected of local governance.
Traditionalist will scream all kinds disputing arguments asserting sacredness, and the “inviolable social licence” invested in elected representative democracy. However, it is worth considering that in Tasmania voting in local government elections was not compulsory.
In fact, In one jurisdiction, typically less than 50% of eligible voters bother to vote. This means that to be elected a councillor needed to win something like 16% of that 50% which begs the question, what was so sacred or even ‘representative’ in these numbers?
So arguably, an appointed ‘commissioner’ might well enjoy the authority, and the same/similar social licence, as any elected councillor/alderperson. Indeed, depending on the genuineness of the selection process better equipped personnel might well be enlisted to the task of strategic and transparent policy determination. Likewise, it would even be feasible to impose immediate accountability all too often missing currently.
Here we might well quote noted public intellectual, Alice Miller ... “Clinging uncritically to traditional ideas and beliefs often serves to obscure or deny real facts of our life history.”
With say three commissions in place there will need to be direct engagement mechanisms with ‘the constituency’ to ensure against delinquent commissioners and or their operational bureaucrats inappropriately commandeering the trust and authority invested inn them. Here there are two promising, tried and true mechanisms in ‘citizen’s assemblies’ and ‘citizen initiated referenda’.
Geography and governance
 |
| CLICK HERE TO GO TO SOURCE SEE THIS MAP ALSO |
Placemaking is what local governance is all about and no matter from what other vantage point we might want to start out to interrogate ‘governance’ unavoidably we will very quickly find ourselves talking about place and ‘placedness’ relative to a geography. There is no escaping it.
It should be no surprise that in the current COVID-19 Crisis, Tasmanians were very quick to distinguish 'their place' from everywhere else. ‘Borders cum boundaries’ were quickly shut down before other jurisdictions attempted anything similar. There were no ifs, no buts, Tasmania’s ‘placedness’ was quickly understood and asserted.
So, when we talk about ’governance’ in Tasmania it would be sheer folly to do so without ‘placedness’ being front and centre in the discourse. It turns out that Tasmania’s Lands Department, at some time circa 1980, in an attempt to better understand the island’s placedness, the department mapped, catalogued and numbered every river catchment.
Starting on Flinders Island where its ‘catchment’ was designated the number one, from that vantage point working down the island’s east coast, up the west coast and across the northern coastline each and every catchment was designated a number. There was no attempt to rank them in some assumed order of importance. Each catchment won its number according to a dispassionate assessment of its geographical location and its placedness within the scheme of things.
Guided by this class of understanding of the island’s placedness it is possible to cluster catchments relative to their geographic placedness as a foundation for understanding and invoking a relevant 21st C governance model.
This would seem to offer an inclusive a way forward free of other contentious understanding of ‘place’ littered as they are with histories, acknowledged and unacknowledged, traditions, embraced, sometimes forgotten and other times suppressed, and the there is the issue of 'heritage' likewise celebrated and suppressed.
Dispassionately as possible, each ‘local government commission’ could be assigned an appropriate cluster of catchments to focus their policy determinations and strategic alignments in and around. Likewise, within each ‘commission’ it is possible to bring into play appropriate ‘assemblies’ (citizen’s assemblies?) as advocate bodies for a place/catchment.
If our policy determiners are to be appointed rather than elected it needs to be understood that there is in both options, a very significant element of randomness. Elected representatives are not automatically appropriately skilled and applicably experienced for the task of policy determination on behalf of a constituency. There is no shortage of commentators ready and willing to argue to the contrary – and with what they regard as 'the evidence' to back their opinion. In addition, it is worth considering that currently in local government’s 'senior management' is there and there are no personnel who are elected. And very often they see themselves as only being accountable to themselves – and especially so given the provision of SECTION 62/2 in the Act.
The old adage “six of one and half a dozen of the other” rings loud and clear here in regard to appointment and election.
Taking all that on board, there are very good reasons to believe that appointed ‘commissioners’ might well be better equipped than ‘elected representatives’ dependant of course upon the ‘selection process’. To a large extent in both cases there is a significant element of chance. Arguably, appointed appointed commissioners can be dismissed as expediently as they were appointed.
Building a commission
Building a commission
Inevitably the appointment of people to be commissioners will be a contentious process yet there should be plenty of candidates. That will only be enhanced if adequate recompenses come with the appointment of full time commissioners and stipends commensurate with the skills, qualifications and experience called for. The money required to pay 'commissioners' is already being spent and drawn from rates levied by Councils to pay 'councillors'. Local government commissions will receive their funding in the same way. However, with fewer commissions than the current 29 councils adequate funds should be available and arguably it would be spent more effectively and on fewer people.
There are any number of remuneration scales to guide the determination of the appropriate amount. There are also appropriate mechanisms in place to make fair and just determinations at arm’s length. However, it needs to be said that commissioners need to be totally dedicated to their post and whatever they are paid needs to be sufficient to enable them to make that kind of full time commitment. It also needs to be said that salaries in the ‘corporate sector’ have, in many instances, reached an absurd level and should not be used as any kind of yardstick.
Aspirants might well self-nominate with sufficient community support backing their nomination. Likewise, constituents, that is Tasmanian residents, with the support of an appropriate number of residents and other constituents might well nominate a candidate/s with their approval. The people appointed will need, collectively, have an appropriate mix skills, qualifications and experience. Their function and role must be focused on 'policy determination, that is strategic policy determination' called for in regard to ‘civic placemaking’.
.
Thus, the selection process needs to be focused upon attracting people who can make the time commitment and finding people who possess the requisite skill sets.
Likewise, these people will be charged with the task of appointing 'managers' with the skills and experience to implement the policies they determine. Most importantly the separation between 'governance and management' must be clearly established and maintained – no ifs, no buts.
The selection process for commissioners needs to be done at ‘arm’s length’ by competent and an appropriately authorised body. Oversighted by the Minister for Local Govt.,the Governor and Legislative Councillor working in concert might well be such a body.
There would be other alternatives. From time to time this body might well be required to deal with the termination of a commissioner’s authority along with other matters in order to maintain the ongoing credibility of a commission.
Similarly, the Minister and/or the Governor could be petitioned to act on a matter with sufficient justification to do so being demonstrated to the Governor and Council members.
Putting a finger to the wind, a starting point for determining the number of commissioners required, that number might be say 11 per commission, as a starting point. A commission like any such body would need a designated leader and that could be determined by either the commissioners or s
Whatever, it is important that commissions do not become politicised.
The tenure of a commissioner needs to be clearly determined at the outset but it would seem that it should be no more than five years initially with some standing down earlier than that in order to ensure a rotation of membership. Further into the implementation of this modus operandi it may be necessary to reassess whatever the initial plan turns out to be.
The purpose of any ongoing community engagement and consultation process is all about planning, placemaking and placescaping. In turn that is to with the Community of Ownership and Interest's (COI) shared aspirations inn regard to development and transformation processes that grant 'places' – a streetscape, a precinct, a destination a cultural landscape – its ‘placedness’. To obtain a COI's input, the layering of ideas and the various contributions to 'the vision', plus the consequent objectives and rationales, these things need to be reflected in 'the master plan'.
In order to be relevant, that is truly relevant, the initiatives that take these things forward for a 'place' – town, city, precinct, region, whatever – must belong to the COI. The key components being deeply embedded any master plan. In other words the initiative needs to be 'done with' the COI's input, rather than to a community.
Therefore, COI engagement programming should:
• Ensure that a broad range of members of the COI are reached through the engagement and planning process;
• Ensure that the COI is well informed about the opportunities available as an integral part of the engagement program;
• Ensure that all layers of the COI are both respected and included in the placemaking; • • • Consult with the diversity of COI to identify opportunities, concerns and issues to improve and progress the placemaking;
Involve members of the COI in maximising the benefits for the people as the outcome of a 'development'.
In regard to the placemaking, the need to obtain COI input needs to be 'front and centre', Their ideas and investments into to the 'vision', the objectives determined and strategies to be employed are vital all this must be the key component to any master plan.
The COI engagement and consultation in any planning processes should include a broad range of activities staggered over the anticipated time frame for any development cum transformation program.
.
Participation across a wide range of people, groups organisations, etc, within the 'place' – precinct region, town, city, whatever – is vitally important. The intention being to ensure that a diverse array of people – by age, occupation, gender, background, geography and interest – have an opportunity to be involved in the placemaking in the place they belong to and its 'placedness' in the end is all theirs.
.
Ongoing and consistent engagement with the COI is central to the development and success of any placemaking strategy, give that inescapably the vision, objectives and initiatives for a 'place' must be the key component to any master plan.
The COI will/should play a central role in generating ideas, identifying opportunities and facing the challenges in any
ongoing ‘placescaping' cum cultural landscaping’ vision/s.
Seven key goals stand-out for any effective COI Engagement Program, namely:
1. INFORM – Comprehensively inform the COI in regard to the 'place', a development, a destination branding and/or placemaking implementation and in ways that enables them to contribute.
2. CONSULT – Obtain feedback and comments from the COI regarding the proposed a development, a destination branding and/or placemaking implementation and in ways than enable to continue to contribute and support effort
3. INVOLVE – Draw ideas, new initiatives and suggestions from the COI to enhance the a development, any destination branding and/or placemaking implementation and in ways that enables them to continue to contribute.
4. CAPTURE – Identify effective methods for capturing and distributing feedback and idea to the COI .
5. DISSEMINATE – Share the feedback and insights received.
6. COLLABORATE – Partner with the COI and especially so in regard to special interest groups and/ investors.
7. CONTINUE – Adopt an approach of continuous information to ensure that the COI is involved in each step of any 'transformation process'.
Francis Fukuyama and panelists debate alternatives to democracy
The First Human (Evolution Documentary) | Timeline
Grassroots Participatory Budgeting Process
President Emmanuel Macron – Why Use a Deliberative Process
newDEMOCRACY Foundation https://www.newdemocracy.com.au/category/library/our-work/project/
Voting Reformation: 3 Alternate Approaches to Participatory Democracy | Dan Ariely https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj2fk_5Fcdw
‘No Representation Without Consultation’
A Citizen’s Guide to Participatory Democracy
digitdemos participatory democracy intro video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibOJhEcGCik
What we mean by Participatory Democracy
Is your Country Elitist, Pluralist or Participatory Democracy?
Create more possibilities https://solutions.thischangeseverything.org/value/creates-more-possibilities
STRATEGIES FOR STRENGTHENING PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY IN INDIA
The Moment for Participatory Democracy https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_moment_for_participatory_democracy
OPINION The Problem With Participatory Democracy Is the Participants https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/sunday/the-problem-with-participatory-democracy-is-the-participants.html
A theory of participatory democracy based on the real case of Porto Alegre ...https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23991165_A_theory_of_participatory_democracy_based_on_the_real_case_of_Porto_Alegre
Difference between participatory democracy and representative democracy http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/difference-between-participatory-democracy-and-representative-democracy/
No comments:
Post a Comment