All posts in the topic I am a citizen not a consumer (Short link)
Summary
- There are 23 posts — by 11 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Michael Allan at 2008 Aug 03 03:36 UTC
| From | File | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Steve Magruder | steve.vcf | 2008 Jul 22 19:59 UTC |
On 22-Jul-08, at 12:45 PM, Simon Smith asks:
> But why set up an opposition between the roles of customer and
> citizen? Can't we do/be both?
(I assume that is rhetorical question and not central to your
identity, so I will challenge the idea and hope you take no personal
offense.)
I'd say no, we cannot perform both roles at the same time on the same
topic in the same way.
However we could juggle the two roles like this: I was in a coffee
shop having a lively spontaneous discussion about the possible closure
of the neighbourhood school. I was having this discussion with some
neighbours and the school trustee who seems to hang out in this
particular shop.
- Citizens were having a discussion.
- Consumers bought cups of coffee.
They were the same biological life forms in the same space and time
but purchasing coffee and discussing politics were quite different
activities.
Here's the distinction I impose on the definitions.
The word "consumer" explicitly identifies one half of a transactional
relationship -- the half that pays for something.
Citizen implies a state of being. I could be three-legged, purple
skinned, and mentally eccentric BUT intrinsically a citizen of the
place where I was born. I was a citizen before I was a consumer and
will remain one afterwards too.
Calling citizens consumers is an attempt to diminish the role -- a
subtle coup when applied to political discussions instead of economic
transactions.
Using the term "consumer" to describe citizens in a public
consultation process implies that "someone else" actually "owns" the
public realm where discourse can occur. If I accept the term then I am
delivering even more power to those who claim ownership of political
power, what I jokingly call "autodisempowerment". As a result, a) in
the future I will need to "pay" for access to discussions that affect
me, and b) I get to whine, complain, blame, and resent.
"Citizen" implies that I have the right -- even an obligation -- to
discuss and act on the issues that affect everyone. I may not have
absolute power over any singular decision, but I live among and am
affected by my fellows. I am a citizen when I volunteer and whenever I
demonstrate care.
So I implore public officials to refer to me as a "citizen" when I am
engaged in discourse about public issues on any level. When you are
selling me something, you place me in the role of "consumer" so when
one starts by calling me a "consumer" I assume they have something to
sell.
By typing out these lines in this forum I am participating as a
citizen because there is no transaction, not even of the ideas I am
sharing. Perhaps I should print and sell a t-shirt that exclaims,
"I'm a citizen not a consumer!"
naw. Some other time.
Have a wonderful day.
John Miller (BA, MA, CPF, CTF)
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Wow! Thank you John! My sentiments exactly. I too often bristle at
these two words being used interchangeably, and for the same reasons.
The following file was added to this topic:
Interesting responses from John & Steve - some days ago I put this in my research blog - http://greatemancipator.com/2008/07/15/bread-and-circuses/ Juvenal in the Satires referred to the political practice of populism as the people abdicating their duties for 'bread and circuses', this compares with the emphasis placed in traditional Roman society upon 'civis Romanus sum' or 'I am a Roman citizen', by which the privilege of being a member of Roman society was balanced by the acceptance of rights and duties. What has this to do with e-government? Its back to the current practice of describing citizens as customers! By talking about customer need, satisfaction or whatever I would contend that we are in danger of offering them 'bread and circuses', and forgetting to associate it with the privilege of citizenship and all it entails, such as the duties. This was captured in a Canadian document of 1996, 'A Strong Foundation - Report of the Task Force on Public service, Values and Ethics' from a group chaired by John C. Tait QC. Tait's task force picks up on the tensions between treating citizens as user, customer or client and makes a number of important points such as on page 36: "In every public service transaction or activity, the true public servant must be alive to issues of equity and fairness to a degree that is rarely required of private sector managers." Tait's report also identifies the conflict between New Public Management (NPM) and public administration but importantly does not state that we mustn't use the expressions but be actively aware of the tensions they introduce. We can call the citizen a customer but ensure that both the public servant and the citizen are aware of their respective duties and obligations. With government's concern over active citizenship I purport that it is time to focus on the expectations of citizenship and that this can be used to encourage feedback on services and assistance in improving or developing them.
Steve Magruder - Louisville History & Issues forums administrator
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:52 PM
> Wow! Thank you John! My sentiments exactly. I too often bristle at
> these two words being used interchangeably, and for the same reasons.
Like Steve, I would support John Miller's analysis and position. But I would
remind the international membership of this group,
that here in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there are
no "citizens" - we are all "subjects of the
monarch" (English constitutional law taking de facto precedence over the
constitutional law of the other parts of the UK). In
saying that I am not playing with words, nor am I expressing some anti-royalist
sentiment. Rather I am concerned with the residual
(but very real) political effects of being a "subject" and not a "citizen".
This is most obviously manifest in the "royal
prerogative", exercised in all matters of any importance by "the crown in
Parliament", i.e. the Prime Minister of the day. Some PMs
have reduced the sole ability of their office to exercise the royal prerogative
by making some decisions subject to a vote of the
(horribly unrepresentative) UK Parliament. But all that has done is to spread
"the crown in Parliament" among a very slightly
larger political elite. This has reinforced the view of most professional
politicians, and many others, that Parliament is
"sovereign" - it most certainly is not the "subjects" who are sovereign.
(There is a different view in Scottish constitutional
law, but English constitutional law takes de facto precedence in such matters
within the UK.)
We have had devolution in governance at various levels within the UK, and that
is to be welcomed, but devotion ("from the top,
down") is all part of our being "subjects" and not being "citizens". That was
expressed succinctly in the phrase "Power devolved
is power retained" (attributed to Enoch Powell MP, an opponent of devolution).
If we were citizens, power would be built from the
bottom, up. That would be subsidiarity, not devolution.
I live in a development of 146 dwellings (mainly flats) in which subsidiary is
provided and enforced through a Deed of Conditions
that both burdens and benefits every property within the development. I alone
am sovereign in making decisions that affect only the
inside of my flat. The proprietors (owners) of the 21 flats in my block are
sovereign in making decisions that affect the common
areas of this block. For decisions that affect, say, the roof of the whole
building (four blocks comprising 62 flats), the 62
proprietors of those flats are sovereign. For decisions affecting the common
areas of the whole development (e.g. gardens, car
parks), sovereignty lies with the 146 proprietors. So the power of
decision-making is built from the bottom up. I sometimes wonder
whether any of the new opportunities e-facilities provide could help make
subsidiarity a reality in the wider public sphere - but
I suspect the real barriers to such a revolution will remain.
(However, don't think such "citizen power" will automatically result in great
increases in participation, e- or otherwise. If our
experience within the development where I live is anything to go by, only a
very small proportion will participate, even when it’s a
simple postal vote that directly affects their future personal expenditure!
Perhaps they have lost sight of their being "citizens"
and have accepted their lot as "customer subjects"!!)
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1565 - Release Date: 21/07/2008
18:36
John,
In my opinion, citizens have a larger role in governance of the state or
community, whereas consumers have rights as long as they are a consumer of
goods or services. The consumer role ceases once you are no longer a
consumer, but a citizen's role extends from birth to death or womb to tomb
and even beyond!
Kris Dev
India
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:10 AM, John Miller <email obscured>>
wrote:
Hello all,
I find the citizen vs. customer discussion interesting. I've also made many of
the same points in the past. But I wonder in an age of globalization, is
citizen really more inclusive than customer?
Citizen is a legal term that excludes a large number of individuals that live,
pay taxes, and contribute to the economy of a country. John Miller seems to use
the term "citizen" in a much broader sense as "a state of being." But most
people think of citizen as something much more tangible - a set of rights,
privileges, and responsibilities. Who is or is not a citizen is very much
defined by government. But when talking about public services I can see
customer being much broader than citizen.
For instance, as representative of citizens, the connection between a public
official and non-citizen is ambiguous and vague. Some argue that we have little
responsibility for the needs of non-citizens. Others take a more altruistic or
pragmatic view, arguing that we should address the needs of non-citizens
because it's the right thing to do or because it makes the most economic sense.
But when a public official asks a bureaucracy or agent of the state to treat
customers with more respect, I think included in that notion of customer are
all individuals who have contact with that public institution whether it's
users of public utilities, public education, or public services.
I do not dispute the earlier points. As I say, I think they're on target. But
as immigration increases I wonder about inclusiveness of citizen vs. customer.
On 23-Jul-08, at 10:20 AM, Mark Cassell wrote:
> when a public official asks a bureaucracy or agent of the state to
> treat customers with more respect, I think included in that notion
> of customer are all individuals who have contact with that public
> institution whether it's users of public utilities, public
> education, or public services.
Exactly the kind of distinction that needs to be held in mind by
everyone in our public institutions: governance and operations.
Sometimes as a resident of a particular jurisdiction I am a consumer
of services delivered by public sector institutions. As a citizen I
heap expectations upon politicians to govern the public sector
institutions in a manner that suits my perceived needs.
If the politicians who govern in this jurisdiction are of any
description (from dictators to popularly and directly elected
democrats) there's still a whole lot of interpretation going on in
that relationship between governing politician and citizen. Hackneyed
example: Mussolini made the trains run on time, so he was meeting the
needs of consumers not by becoming a train engineer but by governing
in a manner that somehow reflected some of the expectations of citizens.
On 23-Jul-08, at 10:20 AM, Mark Cassell wrote:
> as representative of citizens, the connection between a public
> official and non-citizen is ambiguous and vague. Some argue that we
> have little responsibility for the needs of non-citizens. Others
> take a more altruistic or pragmatic view, arguing that we should
> address the needs of non-citizens because it's the right thing to do
> or because it makes the most economic sense.
I think most elected politicians don't have a problem with this. If
they rely on popular votes for re-election then they know that non-
voters know voters and the issues always overlap. eg: the immigrant
was sponsored by a voter, and the youth will become voting age some
day. They still might choose to demonize immigrants and blame those
pesky teenagers for problems or address the issues. The real problem I
think this whole thread might be about is the shift politicians make
into selling themselves in public rather than governing.
...john miller (sorry to post so much yesterday and today. I just
started a bit of vacation and haven't shut off the computer yet. I'll
stop now. Thanks for the ongoing stimulation)
>> But why set up an opposition between the roles of customer and >> citizen? Can't we do/be both? >(I assume that is rhetorical question and not central to your identity, so I will challenge the idea and hope you take no personal offense.) No offence taken! Actually mine was a more of naive than a rhetorical question. Rhetorical implies one knows the answer, and I wasn't claiming to. As for my identity, it's multiple and fragmented. In common with most people, I play several different roles in the course of each day (e.g. family member and worker as well as citizen and consumer), and I was assuming the two roles we're discussing would be relevant in *different*situations (i.e. not 'at the same time, on the same topic in the same way'). Although reading Miles' interesting contribution, those dividing lines might not be as clear-cut as I thought.... I guess most of us probably have a negative reaction when we read in policy documents or hear politicians and officials using the words customer or consumer when we feel they ought to be addressing 'citizens'. A straightforward substitution like that *is** *a narrowing of our rights (as well as our responsibilities), and I would join you in resisting it. But remember that action by people as *consumers* can often be very powerful. Think of the impact the health consumer movement has had on the whole healthcare sector over recent decades. In the UK, it's issues like the right to choose doctors and hospitals, to co-decide treatment options, to access drugs not available through the National Health Service (or sometimes in a particular health district), not to mention demand for/experimentation with alternative therapies, that have brought together groups of people, latterly as virtual communities. Only more recently have policy-makers taken up the cause of 'patient empowerment' in response. Or take the idea of devolving the running of some public services to neighbourhood-based user groups: that's also arguably an example of people mobilising as consumers rather than as citizens. Though one can lead to the other. I'm trying to think of a way to bring this discussion back towards eGovernment and eDemocracy! Maybe Mark's point about inclusiveness provides an opening. I'd suggest that it's often easier to engage not just immigrants but a range of other 'hard-to-reach' groups as users of a particular service rather than as citizens per se *as a first step*. For example, in eGovernment take-up has been improved by re-training the staff of agencies who deal with socially-excluded groups to act as information intermediaries, becoming proxies for their clients' access to online services across the range of their everyday needs (see the section on Inclusive eGovernment in the progress report on the EU's i2010 eGovernment Action Plan<http://www.egov.vic.gov.au/index.php?env=-inlink/visit_link:m1757-1-1-8-s-0:l-8369-1-1-->). Maybe that's an example of how 'consumer empowerment' (in this case 'service user empowerment') can pave the way towards expressions of a broader sense of citizenship for groups who, whether they are officially recognised as citizens of a jurisdication or not, currently tend not to exercise their citizenship very much? Enjoy your holiday, John :-) Simon Smith
John Miller wrote:
>
> ... The real problem I think this whole thread might be about is the
> shift politicians make into selling themselves in public rather than
> governing.
I wonder if the government is confused about roles. Mick inspired
this thread by pointing to a distinction of roles for people:
* consumer of government services (passive)
* citizen (active)
Here's an overview of all the roles. (I hope you can see this. You
may need to switch to a fixed-width font.)
Relations between Lifeworld and System
from the Perspective of the System
Institional
orders of the Interchange relations Media-steered
lifeworld subsystems
=================================================================
1)
P'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Labour power
M
< - - - - - - - - - -
Income from
employment
Private Economic
sphere 2) system
M
< - - - - - - - - - -
Goods and
services
M'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Demand
=================================================================
1a)
M'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Taxes
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Organizational
accomplishments
Public Administrative
sphere 2a) system
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Political
decisions
P'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Mass loyalty
=================================================================
M = money medium, P = power medium
(From Habermas. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 2.)
This shows that the government (bottom right) has come to see us in
two roles. First, it sees us as a "public consumer", exchanging taxes
for services (1a). This is mostly a passive role. We are *forced* to
pay taxes, and we have neither *final* nor *immediate* say on the
services we receive in turn. (Note how this is unlike our role as a
"private consumer" (2), where we usually have choice. Simon is
concerned with mechanisms to help overcome this problem, and to
improve the efficiency of the exchange.)
But the problem mentioned by John (and hinted earlier, by Mick) seems
to issue from our other role, where we exchange mass loyalty for
political decisions (2a). It's a little unclear - what exactly is
this role? Is this the role of a free and responsible citizen? Or is
this where the "selling" is going on, and the "circuses" are being
organized?
May we look at the interchange of (2a) in more detail? I think it's
at the root of the problem being discussed. I wish to propose a
possible solution.
Our role in this particular interchange is that of active citizen. It
is unlike the role of passive consumer in (1a), which affords no
choice of service providers. Instead we are periodically offered a
choice in (2a). We can switch governments. No government can hold
power without sooner or later seeking our assent, our approval - and
that is what we supply in this particular interchange.
I wish to make a suggestion. When a government takes on the role of
"selling" itself, or of organizing "circuses", it is attempting to
generate assent. For whatever reason - either it has developed an
insatiable appetite for the stuff, or we have provided an insufficient
quantity - the government has taken to manufacturing assent. It
reaches into our homes via the mass media, and via the political
parties, and it artificially "inflates" the public sphere.
One possible solution is to enable the public sphere to generate its
own assent. The missing facility appears to be entirely technical.
All that's needed is a framework in which people can register
agreements with each other, and scale them up to the level of a broad
consensus. When this facility becomes available, and when people
start using it, they will begin to re-inflate the public sphere from
within. This will probably alter the interchange (2a) to a more
rational one (2a'), as shown here:
=================================================================
1a)
M'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Taxes
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Organizational
accomplishments
Public Administrative
sphere 2a') system
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Political
action
A'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Political
decisions
=================================================================
A = assent medium, M = money medium, P = power medium
The old input of "mass loyalty" (mediated by power) is here replaced
by one of "political decisions" (mediated by assent). Its operation
is simple. Whenever the public sphere has reached consensus on a
political decision, the government accepts that decision (input). If
the decision is immediately actionable, then the government acts on it
(output). Otherwise, it explains its reasons for inaction, and there
is further interchange (back and forth) between the two sides.
This arrangement would solve the problem being discussed in this
thread, because it would remove the need of political manipulation.
The government would be able to obtain all the assent it needs simply
by acting on consensus decisions. It would naturally ensure that the
public sphere was strong, independent and sufficiently supplied with
resources in order to deliver a continual stream of decisions.
For example: Suppose the young people in a particular neighbourhood
wish to make improvements to their local playground or park. So they
come up with a plan, and they promote it throughout the neighbourhood.
Others disagree with their plan, and propose alternative plans.
Together, they use the facilities of the medium of assent in order to
highlight their differences, and resolve them one by one. Eventually
they reach a broad enough consensus that the plan is brought to the
attention of City Council. The City agrees to send a safety inspector
to the site, and to truck in some sand. With a little help from
government, the young people complete the improvements to the park.
Leaving aside the technology (which I can vouch for) would this work?
Do you agree it would solve the problem?
I don't think it would work, because it misses the fundamental purpose of
government - to decide on issues when there is no consensus.
If instead of the friendly example about changes in the local park, you think
about extending an airport, or introducing congestion charging, it's more
obvious that a broad consensus may never happen. So a system that requires a
broad consensus before taking any action is a recipe for inertia, a licence to
filibuster.
Because governments have to take some decisions that some people disagree with,
they need to aggregate assent over multiple decisions to maintain legitimacy.
They'll obviously want to include some decisions that would command broad
consensus, to gain some degree of assent from everyone, so they won't want to
let go even of those decisions that could be handled by a consensus mechanism.
My view would be falsified if it were demonstrated that by some means
(irrespective of technology) mass consensus can actually be achieved, even on
issues that initially appear deeply divisive, within a useful timescale. I'm
not aware of any such evidence. NB this does have to be mass consensus, not
just consensus within a small select group like a citizens' jury.
Interestingly, latest New Statesman - http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2008/07/ginsborg-book-democracy- marx
Pete Thomson wrote: > I don't think it would work, because it misses the fundamental > purpose of government - to decide on issues when there is no > consensus. ... If instead of the friendly example ... So government is still the decision maker for divisive issues? Yes, that seems inevitable (or at least government still has a crucial role). > Because governments have to take some decisions that some people > disagree with, they need to aggregate assent over multiple decisions > to maintain legitimacy. They'll obviously want to include some > decisions that would command broad consensus, to gain some degree of > assent from everyone, so they won't want to let go even of those > decisions that could be handled by a consensus mechanism. So there's a bigger picture... I'm thinking now that the missing piece is an understanding of how consensus might be built within a power structure. I've never understood that part, but now it's becoming clearer. I don't want to hijack John's thread, so I've posted separately to the research list. See if you agree with my arguments: http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/47GTfRhVa6dOa0G7BXMxfp
> > Pete Thomson wrote:
> > Because governments have to take some decisions that some people
> > disagree with, they need to aggregate assent over multiple decisions
> > to maintain legitimacy. They'll obviously want to include some
> > decisions that would command broad consensus, to gain some degree of
> > assent from everyone, so they won't want to let go even of those
> > decisions that could be handled by a consensus mechanism.
> Michael Allan wrote:
> So there's a bigger picture... I'm thinking now that the
> missing piece is an understanding of how consensus might be
> built within a power structure. I've never understood that
> part, but now it's becoming clearer.
Quite apart from having to make the decisions with which significant numbers of
electors will disagree, there is another expectation
of government, namely that it will pursue a coherent set of policies and
actions across the whole of the political sphere. (Of
course, governments often fail in this - for a variety of very different
reasons - but that does not affect the expectation.) As
individuals, not subject to the practical constraints of having to make and
implement the decisions, we may well support policies
that are mutually incompatible - though we would probably not campaign for both
at the same time! So the extra-governmental
discussion framework needs to be able to draw in the wider considerations, many
of which will not have occurred to the single-issue
campaigners or will have been deliberately ignored by them.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1578 - Release Date: 28/07/2008
17:13
Miles Fidelman > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:19 PM
> Or to take a different example: When there's a pothole in the street, I
> view it as both a consumer (of public works) and as a citizen worried
> about tax rates and performance of public officials. It gets even
> clearer when thinking about water and sewer services - those are
> delivered as paid utility services, but by a citizen owned
> organization.
Yes, it does get clearer, but here in the UK, not in the way you had in mind.
Nearly all of our utility services, including water
and sewer services, are now provided by commercial companies, many of which are
not even UK companies. Successive UK governments
really have turned us into customers.
James Gilmour
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.3/1565 - Release Date: 21/07/2008
18:36
James Gilmour writes: "Successive UK [& other] governments really have turned
us into customers."
Ok.
Taking that as a given,
I guess the fundamental question of this list server is, how can the tools of
electronic communication be used to extend what it takes to be a citizen (not
just a consumer)?
.john miller
(somewhere in rural British Columbia Canada at the moment)
James Gilmour wrote: > ...there is another expectation of government, namely that it will > pursue a coherent set of policies and actions across the whole of > the political sphere. ... I've just answered you here: http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/2ma78lpfH1ZqdOZv2k7R6j (see 2nd post) In that example (park planning), decision making by the neighbours has actually *enhanced* the overall coherence of policy and action. Here the neighbours are taking on the role of active, responsible *citizens*. A centrally planned approach to the same ends (useful parks) would be less coherent and less feasible. Here the neighbours would be taking on the role of passive *consumers* of park services. (This is the status quo.) John Miller wrote: > I guess the fundamental question of this list server is, how can the > tools of electronic communication be used to extend what it takes to > be a citizen (not just a consumer)? One answer (as I've explained) is to provide ourselves with the tools to make political decisions. Government is not going to provide those tools to us, as a consumer service. If we want them, we must develop them and employ them ourselves. That's a good thing. (Some of us have already made beginnings in this direction.) Is there a reason why that cannot work? Any reason at all? Or is there another option that can stand up to rational argument?
James Gilmour wrote:
> ...there is another expectation of government, namely that it will
> pursue a coherent set of policies and actions across the whole of
> the political sphere. ...
and Michael Allan replied:
> In that example (park planning), decision making by the neighbours has
> actually *enhanced* the overall coherence of policy and action ...
> A centrally planned approach to the same ends (useful parks) would be
> less coherent and less feasible.
but I think they're talking about different kinds of coherence. If I've
understood rightly, James means a rational coherence that wants an overall plan
and might say things like "based on a needs assessment, that particular park is
not a priority for investment this year". Michael is talking about a political
coherence that makes political backing rather than rational planning the basis
for every decision, and so makes politics an integral part of the decision
process in a way that doesn't happen for most decisions in typical
representative democracies.
Michael, do you believe that's what has to happen to make people behave as
citizens rather than consumers? James, do you think it would have that effect?
Hi James Gilmour wrote: > ...there is another expectation of government, namely that it will > pursue a coherent set of policies and actions across the whole of the > political sphere. ... and Michael Allan replied: > In that example (park planning), decision making by the neighbours has > actually *enhanced* the overall coherence of policy and action ... > A centrally planned approach to the same ends (useful parks) would be > less coherent and less feasible. I suspect that when James talk about the whole of the political sphere is talking about a wider approach than the objective of useful parks. For example, useful parks are likely to have an impact on our health (physical and mental) as well as make a place more attractive for tourists and investment. In both these I think that the neighbours are playing the part of citizens -in the health instance because they're working together on a societal goal and in the 2nd, well the same -the citizens are kind of working like "staff" of the country. Which would give the government a kind of management task -Ella Ella Taylor-Smith International Teledemocracy Centre Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh, EH10 5DT Telephone: +44 (0) 131 455 2392 Fax: +44 (0) 131 455 2282 Email: <email obscured> http://itc.napier.ac.uk Napier University is the best modern university in Scotland* and number one in Scotland for graduate employability** (*Guardian University Guide 2009) (**HESA 2008) This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without the permission of the sender. It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by the University. Napier University is a registered Scottish charity. Registration number SC018373
Pete Thomson wrote:
> ...but I think they're talking about different kinds of
> coherence. If I've understood rightly, James means a rational
> coherence that wants an overall plan and might say things like
> "based on a needs assessment, that particular park is not a priority
> for investment this year". Michael is talking about a political
> coherence that makes political backing rather than rational planning
> the basis for every decision, and so makes politics an integral part
> of the decision process in a way that doesn't happen for most
> decisions in typical representative democracies.
An integral part, maybe that's the key. I imagine the ideal (echoing
Ella) is a seamless union of rational planning and political backing,
in which both are entwined in mutual support. Maybe we can look for
this locally too. Imagine in the scenario (link above) that a few of
the more technically minded of the young planners were to become
carried away with the engineering side of the plans, proposing
amendments that had plenty of technical merit but suffered from
contingent drawbacks (cf. airport expansions). Nothing would preclude
them from drawing up narrowly technocratic plans of this sort, but
votes would naturally tend to shift away toward other plans that were
more socially acceptable. So, while the nuts and bolts are being
hammered out, social consensus is also being built simultaneously.
The whole then comes to reflect not only what is feasible, but also
what is desirable.
What's not shown in the scenario is the larger rationale for approving
the eventual consensus. When the plan crosses the desk of the Parks
Planning Coordinator, her main criterion for approval (budget aside)
is going to be its compliance with the overall City Parks Policy. If
it fails compliance then it will be rejected. At this point, however,
you may recall, "Hanging in the balance are a good number of votes
(ultimately for the Mayor), which can shift at any time." Since the
request has come straight from a branch of the power structure that
supports the Mayor, it raises the possibility of political pressure
swaying the judgement of the Planning Coordinator.
The solution is that (ideally) the City Parks Policy is *also* a
consensus document. Like the local plan, it is an initiative of the
citizens and it has their active political support in the form of
votes; in this case, from all across the city. So the Planning
Coordinator can rest easy and make a purely technical judgement. But
the net effect of her coordination between the two documents will be
both technical and political; she will be reconciling not only the
logic of plan and policy, but also the aspirations of a neighbourhood
and a city.
> Michael, do you believe that's what has to happen to make people
> behave as citizens rather than consumers? James, do you think it
> would have that effect?
I try to imagine asking the neighbours in the scenario. The answer
might depend on who we asked: the young people who initiated the park
improvement, the local leader who shepherded it along, or the parents
who ensured that safety considerations were paramount. Whatever the
answers, it strikes me that their common stance is not so much in a
relation to the state, but rather in a working relationship amongst
themselves. They seem to have defined for themselves what it means to
be a citizen. Indeed, by working together they have achieved a kind
of political integration, the very essence of citizenship.
The alternative (status quo) is to look to government for these
benefits. Government will do its best to provide us with political
integration. Where it fails or perceives shortfalls, it will resort
to "selling" itself and putting on "shows". In return for our votes,
it will try to reassure us that everything is under control and is
going to work out for the best. Our role here is that of consumers.
Our fate is to be isolated from each other, and looking to government
to solve our problems.
Ella > Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 9:30 AM
> James Gilmour wrote:
> > ...there is another expectation of government, namely that it will
> > pursue a coherent set of policies and actions across the whole of the
> > political sphere. ...
>
> and Michael Allan replied:
> > In that example (park planning), decision making by the neighbours has
>
> > actually *enhanced* the overall coherence of policy and action ... A
> > centrally planned approach to the same ends (useful parks) would be
> > less coherent and less feasible.
>
> I suspect that when James talk about the whole of the
> political sphere is talking about a wider approach than the
> objective of useful parks. For example, useful parks are
> likely to have an impact on our health (physical and mental)
> as well as make a place more attractive for tourists and investment.
>
> In both these I think that the neighbours are playing the
> part of citizens -in the health instance because they're
> working together on a societal goal and in the 2nd, well the
> same -the citizens are kind of working like "staff" of the
> country. Which would give the government a kind of management task.
The park planning example illustrates some coherent policies. But what about
when the city council (local government) decides to
rezone a "redundant" school playing field for much needed local housing? Then
there will less green space in the city, fewer places
for organised sport, fewer places for local children to play, and with what
overall consequences? An example of incoherent
policies perhaps, but what about the priority need for more housing?
We have just had a new lamppost installed to illuminate a dark junction in our
street. If the overall budget for street lighting
was fixed, as it almost certainly was, who elsewhere in the city didn't get
their new lamppost? If we both got new lampposts, which
other part of the council's budget was raided? and with what consequences?
At a much higher level of government, there are separate and overlapping
segments of the UK electorate who want: more public money
spent on transport infrastructure; more public money spent on public transport;
more public money spent on health services; general
levels of taxation of all kinds reduced. (The list is almost endless!) We
expect government to bring forward and implement a
coherent set of policies for everything that government can or should do. But
when we campaign, locally for a new lamppost or
nationally for better health services, we do not attempt to address the wider
issues and resolve the inevitable conflicts, much less
attempt to devise a coherent approach to the whole public sphere. It may be
unfair ("It's not my job"), but we do expect it of
government. Maybe the reason why there is no grassroots clamour for
subsidiarity is that we do not want the difficult task and
responsibility of resolving the conflicts and developing coherent policies, not
even at the most local level on our little patch.
James
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.526 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1584 - Release Date: 31/07/2008
12:00
James Gilmour wrote:
>
> The park planning example illustrates some coherent policies. But
> what about when the city council (local government) decides to
> rezone a "redundant" school playing field for much needed local
> housing? Then there will less green space in the city, fewer places
> for organised sport, fewer places for local children to play, and
> with what overall consequences? An example of incoherent policies
> perhaps, but what about the priority need for more housing?
I guess this is a second type of problem. Let's say we've already
"lived through" the first problem. To recap, we promoted ourselves
from passive consumers of park services to active "park citizens". We
used the electoral medium to vote up our local plans, and to run our
communication and power lines into City Hall. Soon our neighbourhoods
were all healthily competing with each other, striving to develop the
best parks, and learning from each other's efforts. Then we ran into
this problem:
Conflict of Particular over General
We were blindly pursuing our own local plans, with no thought for a
coherent policy across the city. The bureaucracy was becoming
confused by our conflicting demands. To solve this problem, we
extended our decision-making responsibility to cover the whole Parks
Policy. We began voting up alternative policies until we attained a
rough consensus across the entire city. This left the central
planning bureaucracy with the purely technical task of reading plans
in the light of policy - the particular by the general - acting on
those plans that were in compliance, and striking down any others. By
that simple trick, as though by magic, our planning had become at once
competitive and cooperative, diverse and aiming at common goals.
Conflict of General over Particular
Now we have the opposite problem. In response to a general need for
affordable housing, consensus is forming on a large-scale development
project to alleviate the shortage. But there's a stickler. The
project depends on the rezoning of green space in several
neighbourhoods. These neighbourhoods are going to lose a few parks.
Consequently, as the popularity of the project grows across the city,
resentment is mounting in the affected wards. The Councillors are
becoming alarmed. They meet with the Mayor to express their concern.
If the housing project hits the floor of Council, they'll all be
paying a high price at the polls. The Mayor agrees. She needs the
support of these Councillors, and she does not want to be caught in
any crossfire, herself.
A few days later, the Mayor brings up the subject in her regular news
conference. She highlights the positive contributions of both sides
in the looming dispute: the project planners have shown initiative in
working to resolve the housing shortage; the local residents have
shown dedication in caring for their park facilities. The City
planning departments are striving to keep up with these initiatives.
Sometimes they need guidance from the wider public, and an area of
particular concern at the moment is the approval of development
projects where green space is at stake. Planning coordinators
currently lack rules to follow in these situations. What balance of
parkland is desired in the city? How are rezoning conflicts to be
resolved when parks and recreation facilities are involved?
Then the Chief Planning Coordinator speaks. He explains that the
current set of zoning guidelines is out of date and needs to be
revised. The planning office will not attempt its own revision at
this time. Instead, the Mayor hopes to see new ideas from the public,
and preferably a rough consensus on a new set of guidelines. In the
meantime, the office is temporarilly suspending the approval process
for any development projects that affect green space.
The next morning, as always, the Mayor reviews the latest election
results. She looks first at her standing across the city, then at
each of the wards affected by the housing project. It's still too
early to judge, but it looks like she's gaining in the wards...