One of the things that concerns me the most as a politician is the sense of alientation of individuals and communities about important decisions that affect them. I am a firm believer in representative democracy, and I acknowledge that people do not necessarily want to be constantly consulted about every decision. However I think we as a country, over a very long time, have drifted to the point that a large number of people feel totally disconnected from politics and politicians and how decisions are made about their communities. I also believe that there is an important role for the community in the development and delivery of the services they receive.
These issues are not confined to New Zealand of course. In the UK there have been some very interesting developments at a local level to encourage much greater participation by communities. The latest of these is a proposal to make the Lambeth Council in London a ‘John Lewis Council’. John Lewis was businessman in the early 20th century who developed a business model based on a co-operative approach and profit sharing with employees.
In Lambeth they are looking at a co-operative council with residents helping to runs services, and the possibility of financial involvement further down the line. Some of the key initiatives being considered are
- An “active citizens’ dividend” offering a council tax rebate to those involved in community organisations or mutuals that take responsibility for services.
- Allowing service users and local residents to vote on turning local services such as local primary schools, Sure Start centres and youth clubs into citizen-led mutuals.
- Offering tenants more control of their housing estates by setting them up as co-operatives.
- Setting up “micro-mutuals” for people to use their personalised budgets for care service users.
It will be interesting to see how this develops. The approach is not without its pitfalls, and the capacity of local communities to take on decision making and delivery roles needs to be handled with care. The Labour led Council is keen to differentiate what they are doing from the Tory run Council in Barnet, that has been dubbed, the EasyCouncil because they are using the model of budget airlines, whereby they offer a basic service, with additional services on offer for purchase. The Leader of the Labour Council puts it this way
But while Barnet have come up with a plan to pare back what services they offer, we don’t want to. Instead we’re looking at a different settlement that will move the boundaries of who does what, getting users involved in putting together the services they want. Mutual and co-operative values will be our compass. We’ll give the voters a clear choice – cuts if you vote Tory but with us, not only fewer cuts, but also positive side- effects around community cohesion.”
I think it is entirely possible to have a level of devolution of control and decision making without it being about an ideological crusade about smaller government and cutting services. I will be watching closely to see how this develops.
One of the problems, Grant, is regardless of who is in power people come to feel, or are cajoled by clever electioneering type PR that the current Government “knows what is good for them”.
The Super City railroading is an absolute example of an ideology driven by the idea that only those in business actually really know what is best for everyone else.
The cleaner discussion on here is interesting because I wonder if underlying the belief that “market forces” determine wages, not people, and your point about being disconnected is that in many powerful/influential and monied parts of NZ their is a genuine belief that the unskilled actually don’t really know or understand what is good for them because they just aren’t bright enough or experienced enough or “successful” enough.
parties and the media have to stop talking down to people, assuming they dont understand unless it is 2 minutes or less and celebrity-ised. – I hasten to add that I think that is the very basis of National’s campaign in 2008 and it appeared to work. The question is whether it worked because people are stupid or because they were prepared to give national a chance and take them at their word. I believe it’s the later.
While unions are berated by the right for their political influence, the right seem shamefully quiet on the impact in our political system of private money, like Shirtcliff, Round table members etc…
Of course what they are proposing is workable at Lambeth, the problem is that certain ideologies, left and right on the spectrum require the masses be apathetic, in fact they depend on it.
Great post, Grant.
I’m a fan of the decentralization of power and shifting it closer to the community wherever possible and broadening it. Both the left and the ride side of politics have tendencies to centralize power. On the right it happens through the empowering of big business and the centralization of wealth in the private sector – on the left it happens when power is focused toward the upper levels of the state apparatus.
I would encourage the left in New Zealand to focus towards a political course that encourages co-operative systems both in the political sphere but also the business sphere – spreading the means of capital. Encourage community involvement in local politics and empower local community politics over and above the power of the national state body – push the power down and out. Encourage the voice of the individual and empower that voice to have influence.
@Frank the problem with giving local governments more power than national governments is you get alot of conflict of interest, take electricity for an example. Farmers of a rural community probably wont want powerlines running through their land but workers in the city will want it. So what happens? In every situation you need someone to be able to put their foot down, too much democracy means too much arguing, and if its an issue people are passionate enough about it could end up in infighting and maybe even civil war.
Not everyone can be happy and thats the reality of it, and at the same time there are a fair few people who don’t want to get involved. Theres a reason why centralised Governments are one of the few constants civilisation has held over the past milennia, we need it, and no country can function without it.
You can take this even further and say that the interest of the individual has never been prominent in any successful civilisation. Rome had slavery which is the interest of the individual sacrificed for the master, Fascists have sacrifised the individual interest for the country, the left has asked you to sacrifice your interest for all people, and the right for the Bourgouise. America was built on slavery and now has workers not receiving back all the fruits of their labour, as we do. It is a simple fact that the interest of the individual cannot prevail in any functioning society, fascist (rome), socialist or capitalist.
The real question is; What do you want to sacrifice your individual interest for? Either that or become a member of minority who is receiving the sacrifices.
All these rules go for politics aswell as economics, any project needs discipline, organisation, decision making and leadership. You can have Democracy and it is a good tool to use to fight corruption, but Democracy can only go so far in a large successful group such as a country.
Scary, I actually agree with some of that.
Though I think I need to think on it a bit …
The New Zealand Cooperatives Association has all manner of resources and contacts with people in this country and overseas with knowledge and experience of mutuality in practice –http://www.nz.coop.
Interesting analysis Dylan.
What is your definition of a successful society?
Ancient Rome?
British Empire
Facist Germany
Napoleonic France?
I’m also not sure that greater decision-making ability at council level and central government are mutually exclusive?
It seems to me we ought to know by now the models which don’t work, or the aspects of some models that don’t work. My sense is we need to have courage (by we I mean voters and politicians) to try something different, even if it is a twist on something existing. This idea that we keep with something cos it’s the “best system we can think of” is a cop out (not that I am suggesting you are saying that, far from it).
What I do know is that the politics and ideas of the 1980’s and parts of the 1990’s don’t work, so why do we countenance time standing still for those things (as National is).
I don’t presume to support ACT but they, at least, think far outside the square, which can serve society usefully from a challenging perspective, as can some Green policies (how the existence of that party has changed our political landscape in a relatively short period of time for example) and the idea of Maori sovereignty.
Instead of dismissing these things,let’s debate them, think about them, challenge ourselves and each other.
The BIGGEST problem that so -called civilised societies have, in my opinion, is the almost rabid fear of changing anything and a fear which drives so many to want the “good old days” back, which were never as good as people think.
The status quo is the enemy of ideas and progress and yet the majority feel safest there.
Sorry Dylan, I just re-read my post and don’t want you to think I think you define those societies as successful. I posed the question because there are those who still think those were successful societies, those who throw out everything they did (baby with bathwater), and the over riding thing which is that within those societies for a large period of time the majority believed they were within a successful society.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks for us today, I believe, is the increased and pervasive influence of policy strategists/PR machinery/ Branding and what I like to call coersion by repetition (advertising, repeating phrases over and over until people accept it as a fact). Example, John Boscawen this morning had basically the same answer to every question on the RNZ debate ” we are borrowing $250m each week. $1b each month” if he said it once he said it 12 times.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. A point of clarification, I am not saying that we should be giving more power to local government per se. The nature of our governing relationships is different than in the UK. What I am saying is that the concepts and ideas here are interesting to explore.
I do agree that there is an exploitation at times by political parties of the limited time that busy people have to focus on politics and decisions that are made. What is important is giving people the opportunity to understand issues and the time and incentives to play a part in dealing with them.
Also this is not an argument about central and devolved decision making being mutually exclusive. It is a balance. There will always need to be centralised decision making to deal with prioritising and balancing interests. However there is definitely room for greater involvement, and ownership (in afigurative and possibly a literal sense) by communities in decisions that affect their lives.
Sorry Tracey but I actually used America and our country as examples of civilised societies too (I said explicitly America used slavery and now has workers as sacrificers), thanks for purposely ignoring one of my points so you can take a crack at me for the sake of debate
Dylan,
I predominantly agree with you and believe that there is a balance that needs to exist between state and local governance… hence the insertion of “wherever possible”.
A nation’s power grid, where it crosses local lines is certainly an example where the decisions need to take place at a national level, though I would advocate a forum that allows for the voice of the local to be involved in the decision making… though I would suspect that with this example specifically, moves towards more sustainable forms of energy will lead to more localized control of electrical outputs anyway.
I would agree that decision making must have a place where the buck stops, so to speak – a point where if a consensus decision cannot be reached, there is a person (or governing body) that makes the necessary call… but that can take place in many different forms at many different levels depending on the issue.
One of my main concerns that drives this thinking is that many kiwis view parliament with distrust and feel dis-empowered. How many people know about select committee processes and the ability they have to influence policy? I would imagine not many. In order to combat that, are there ways we can empower decision making to push it closer to the people?
Will there be people who don’t want to be involved? Sure, but I would imagine more people would get involved if they felt their contribution was being heard and actually made a difference – at both a national and local level. People want to feel like they matter.
Individual’s do need to make sacrifices for the greater good, but there is a difference between the state forcing sacrifice and the individual realizing it through increased proximity to their community and awareness of need – now, not all will exercise such sacrifice, but I have enough faith in humanity to believe that participation and sacrifice increases in individuals when they are empowered and brought into better and closer relationship with those around them within their communities. An isolated individual is more prone to drawing inward toward their own selfish tendencies. By taking power away and centralizing it at the top, we allow people to isolate themselves more and we remove responsibility.
The examples you point out as successful civilizations are not representative of successful human communities, they are examples of powerful empires and what it takes to build a homogenized society covering vast areas of land that encapsulate many people groups, and yes, within those systems some must be forced into submitting to the empire to serve, but I would argue that rather than serving the good of the many within those civilisations, those sacrifices actually served a select elite, whether they be the privately wealthy or those running the governance of the state.
I think there is room to look at a more developed collective tribal system that sees local groups operating as “tribes” alongside an overarching governance body (central government), with the aim to spread power and empower the involvement of the individual.
Hopefully I am making sense as I quickly type my thoughts out…
I agree with you Grant.
I also agree with you Dylan – There needs to be a hierarchy and a centralized government that holds most of the power or there will be chaos.
…and in case it gets read as such, I’m not seeing this as a debate at all. I see it as an interesting discussion with interesting possibilities where so many different thoughts can be brought to the table.
A great example where the possibilities could be played out is in the creation of the Auckland Super City. I would argue that the process has dis-empowered people and centralized the decision making far too much, so most people now feel indifferent and apathetic about the whole thing, leading to a level of distrust.
Ok sorry for hasty reply Tracey but I really did use America as a successful example as a country with control (corporate control) it’s really a matter of deciding which form of control is the best. By successful I simply mean lasting and technologically advancing with at least a minimal welfare system.
And yes I totally agree with you that being conservative is a problem. We should not fear change, its inevitable and if we stay with what we have now we will never improove/advance. You have to be careful though that your not going for a change for the sake of change, you really have to give it a good think and experiment.
Which is hard in this case because I don’t think there has ever been a country with no leadership and that is run mostly by the individual and has no form of self sacrifice to compare to the systems we have had and have now (maybe because its impossible?)
@Frank – I think you make a good point about drawing people in. I have a minor concern about this putting an extra burden on people when there are already people being paid to do this work.
Supercity scary.
Spud, I hear you
I wonder if we could stop paying people to do that work in some instances and instead fund people to facilitate community decision making and participation.
Dammit Frank again I was not just using Empires as examples I MENTIONED AMERICA. And then compared it to us, New Zealand.
Also I see your compromising on our ideas, its just that originally you said that the local governments should get strong enough to ‘push the power out’. But maybe I misunderstood what you exactly meant by that.
What you said about the individual needing to realise he needs to make sacrifices for the greater good and not the state forcing them too: Well that is getting really specific, I believe the state can be a method of making our sacrifices for the good of society rather than the good of profiteers. How else would we do it? The state is really the only other power apart from corporation that has that kind of capacity for economic organisation. The state doesn’t have to force anyone into anything, a party running for state can tell the people that they can organise things so their sacrifices will go towards the good of people and country rather than a fat cats pocket, and then the people can vote them in, its the people deciding not the state, and thats the point of Democracy.
I’m glad you see the need for centralised power, its just you didn’t sound like it in your first post, I see now what your getting at is how extensive should it be? Your right, Democracy should be able to go into decisions of the nation rather than just whos going to make the decisions of the nation/elections. It would be good to see more of that in place, there are people out there who care. It’s just you couldn’t let it get to the point where it overrode the state which is really what you were saying in your first post.
You don’t see America as an empire? Albeit maybe not in the traditional sense, but it has all the main hallmarks of an empire without officially colonizing other countries.
I fear in the rush to write comments without spending too much time on them I’m not communicating my thoughts properly
With that in mind and the fact that I’m going to turn my computer off and cycle home, I shall leave it there. Have a great weekend! 
Ok frank try every country that ever existed has had individual sacrifice in some form or another and has centralised governance and that is how it remains a country. there. including switzerland and… luxembourg… and any tiny neutral country that never had empire. K
Agreed, Dylan.
See the Website
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/5123
for another interesting approach to involving people locally in political decision making
Dylan “to much democracy” I doubt that there is any such thing I am unable to think of any instance where war civil or otherwise can be attributed to too much democracy,too much government certainly.
Your electricity example is an excellent one the reason farmers do not wish to have pylons on their property is that Lines companies Trans Power etc expect to put them on the farmers land for free, and then restrict the land use within a certain distance.Thats a govt department interfering with private property rights.
Tracey Ive been following the posts on the cleaners wages debate and I am unable to find a post where any body has said or implied that the cleaners are stupid,dont know or dont understand.
The “private” sector is the only place that wealth can be concentrated, for it is the only sector that earns or produces wealth, Governments only tax and take.
Sideoiler first of all Governments can concentrate, earn and produce wealth if they have state owned enterprises and that can replace tax whilst still keeping public services.
Second of all I meant too much power to local governments could mean civil war, not too much democracy, sorry if I did not word myself right.
And trans power doing what it does is a perfect example of how centralised government is Needed because there is a conflict of interest in those involved in providing electricity and those getting the electricity. Since electricity is so important there could be serious conflicts of interest if there was nobody to put their foot down.
Personally I think trans power in paticular is a bad example because they should offer some sort of compensation to their farmers (free electricity?) but they are a bit too harsh about it. It’s an embarassment to the state really, SOE’s should not be run that way.
Dylan,
as we’ve already played out, I’m not arguing for the complete dissolution of central government and I certainly have not argued against individuals making sacrifices for the well-being of a functioning society.
To clear up any confusion, if I were to distil the rather confusing thoughts I have thrown up here, my chief concern is the participation of the people in the decision making processes. Ultimately I am most happy with whatever best encourages and facilitates that.
@ Dylan Whilst I agree govts can concentrate wealth,The idea that they earn and produce wealth is a little bit of a stretch.
Concentrate certainly, if you look at the recent financial crisis the only entity that has money to “BAIL” anyone out is the govt, how did a govt end up with all the cash.
Trans power is an excellent example, they operate with no competition, they have the public works act and the electricity act that allows them to operate as they do,some thing that would never be granted to a private company. I dont think that free electricity is going to cover it for compensation.
Land owners need to be compensated for the decrease in the value of the property,interuption to production for maintenance purposes, land use restrictions within a certain distance of pylons lines etc.
Lastly I agree too much power by any form of govt either central or local is extremely dangerous,and counter productive.
Sadly the population has very little protection from the excesses of govt, no ability to hold the govt to account in the courts, because there is an election every three years doesnt mean we have democracy,I apologise if I misunderstood your post.Too much democracy no such thing.
meanwhile, back on the actual topic of Grant’s post, Barnet and Lambeth Unison (council employees union) branches have responded to the “Easycouncil” versus “John Lewis” models debate:
http://www.barnetunison.me.uk/?q=node/410
which highlights the unease staff feel when they hear suggestions of “handing over some of the council’s more simple tasks to the voters to sort out for themselves” – and that’s under the supposedly superior John Lewis model.
Yes, thankyou.
Sideoiler you keep bringing up points against yourself but thinking they are for you in some obscure indirect way, Bail outs show that the private sector cannot function and that no buisness can truley be private because the free market does crash, and whenever it does they put their hands out to the state for help even after all their ranting about how the state should keep its nose out of economic affairs. The fact of the matter is if the state did not involve itself heavily in our economics our market would be nothing today.
Good point Dylan.
When people say keep government out of business, they don’t mean completely. Business is often looking to government to put in place or remove regulations it wants… businesses do seek help from the Government when things go wrong (Banks etc). Taxpayers even subsidise research and development which ought to be the life blood of a producing company… the first thing invested in… NZ companies are notoriously bad and prioritising R & D
Yeah its terribly ironic isnt it Tracey, it’s shocking that after all the recent multi billion dollar bail outs from the state into private buisnesses and saving them, that someone can still come onto political blogs and say that government intervention is ‘counter productive’…
For those interested in whether this might work in New Zealand, Irish journalist Paul Gosling has an useful comment on cooperatives as a means of running local government. It can be found at
http://www.paulgosling.net/2010/03/co-ops-for-everyone-co-operative-news/