Slow Democracy (review)
Whether you are an aging activist, annoyed elected official, or aggrieved citizen, the recently published Slow Democracy is the elixir for returning citizens to their rightful role in self governance.
Our country was founded on participatory democracy. It has largely devolved into a faux democracy where we elect others to “represent” us. And when they don’t, we scream, march, blog, and organize in order to be heard. Such blunt instruments may produce short term results but they also leave permanent scars that divide our communities.
Slow Democracy challenges us to implement real democracy at the local level through a prescription of deliberation.
The deliberation as defined by Authors Susan Clark and Woden Teachout is long and careful and inclusive. Creative forums for communication and understanding are the foundation for better decisions.
The book beautifully demonstrates the sharp contrast between our fast food democracy with its mandatory “public” hearings, reliance on “experts,” and top down mandates, versus a deliberative process that allows all parties to be heard, encourages investigation, and empowers diverse groups of citizens to move forward on difficult issues like water, education, and planning.
Authors Clark and Teachout hail from Vermont. My first thought was, sure, I can see it in small town Vermont, but not megalopolis California. But their examples of deliberative processes stretch from coast to coast.
In Felton, California residents fighting dramatic water rate increases wanted to buy back their privatized water system. They mobilized to pass a bond measure and, under threat of eminent domain, were able to regain control. Along with lower water rates and increased transparency, they built a solar installation and preserved 250 acres of watershed. Citizen participation added tremendous value to the results.
In Gloucester, Massachusetts, residents, armed with the success of the Felton experience, were determined to buy back their town’s drinking water from the private corporation that had let its quality deteriorate until it was no longer drinkable.
A diverse group of residents mobilized and wrote a mission statement: “to accurately inform the public, to share in the civil discourse, and to participate in the decision making process.”
They conducted community meetings, targeted residents in every way possible, and empowered the local citizenry. The city council unanimously approved a resolution declaring “local control of their water as a democratic right.”
Their deliberative approach guaranteed the community members a place in the decision making process.
The most satisfying experiences I have had in local government, as both an activist and an elected official, have been those rare deliberative processes that somehow snuck into our traditional “Roberts Rules” top down governance structures. Where members of the public, along with city staff and elected officials, take the time to deliberate over an issue, the results can be magical.
By contrast, wounds become septic at public hearings where millions of dollars have been spent, decisions have already been made, the vote is just a formality, and where everyone speaks and no one listens.
Resilient communities happen where people listen together, investigate together, plan together and act together.
At a recent water meeting in my community, a group of residents who have been fighting a water project for the past ten years were almost bowled over when one of the board members suggested that perhaps they should conduct a workshop so that the project’s opponents would have an opportunity to explain their concerns.
It may be ten years too late or it may be a fresh start toward greater participation.
Either way, Slow Democracy provides a roadmap. Slow Democracy: buy it, share it, apply it.
Help build resilience. DONATE NOW