Post in I am a citizen not a consumer

Aug 01 19:50 UTC

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.