1. Introduction
1. Good democratic governance is a challenge at all
political and administrative levels. However, being confronted with
the multiple challenges of urban growth and development to a greater
extent than smaller municipalities, large metropolises are facing
particularly complex situations when it comes to good democratic governance.
Subsequently, as regards both development and governance issues,
they very often prove to be places of innovation where new working
methods are conceived and tested on the ground.
2. For many years, citizen participation has been considered
an important element of democratic governance and decision-making,
in particular in a context where political and administrative information
has become more easily accessible for many, not least thanks to
information and communication technologies, and where younger generations
are increasingly aware of their rights and responsibilities as citizens.
3. The Council of Europe and its different bodies, including
the Parliamentary Assembly, have underlined the importance of citizen
participation for many years and promoted the concept through different
binding and non-binding instruments. In compliance with these European
standards and thanks to the multiple exchanges of good practice
between European local authorities of different sizes and in various
forums, citizen participation has, to a greater or lesser extent,
become an integral element of urban development policies in most
Council of Europe member States.
4. In my report, I will look into governance approaches of several
metropolises of Greater Europe in order to identify “good practices”
in terms of citizen participation. The objective will not be to
present participatory models and methodologies in detail or to promote
specific mechanisms, but to identify the experience of big cities
which may be useful for others.
5. Counted amongst the largest metropolitan areas of Greater
Europe, Istanbul and London (estimated at approximately 12.5 million
and 7.8 million inhabitants respectively in 2010), followed by Berlin
on a smaller scale (4.4 million inhabitants in 2010), shall serve
as examples in this report.
2. Large
metropolises and main challenges of good governance and citizen
participation
6. “Metropolis”, a term often used synonymously with
other notions describing major cities (global city, megacity, etc.),
originates from the Greek word mitrópoli meaning
“mother city”. A metropolitan area is generally described as a densely
populated urban region covering a large territory, in which a central
city is interconnected with surrounding urban units, for example
through labour and service relations. Given that practically all
metropolises have expansive urbanised surroundings, the two terms
of “metropolis” and “metropolitan area” will be used synonymously
in this report
7. Due to their characteristically high density of population
and their various urban functions, for example as central locations
for business enterprises, administrative institutions, educational
facilities or cultural services, the authorities (and inhabitants)
of metropolitan areas are confronted with a multitude of political, technical
or social issues on a daily basis, such as road traffic, public
transport, sanitation services, environmental quality or social
services. This also contributes to the fact that metropolitan areas
are often perceived as motors for social and economic development
for the whole country.
8. In parallel to physical urban development, the administrative
organisation and functioning of large cities needs to continuously
evolve in order to ensure that effective and efficient responses
can be given to complex tasks and challenges, and, not least, to
guarantee continuous support to local government by the local electorate.
However, the current economic crisis puts the budgets of local authorities
under extreme pressure, sometimes making it impossible for them
to even fulfil their mandatory responsibilities or deliver basic
services in a satisfactory manner. In this respect, the issue of
citizen participation becomes a particular challenge, both in terms
of financial responsibility when it comes to maintaining relevant
(and sometimes costly) institutions and procedures, and in political
terms when it comes to gaining citizen support for major urban projects
sometimes involving unpopular decisions by the local government.
9. The fact that citizen support is required for the smooth implementation
of major urban projects today may be illustrated through two concrete
examples: Whilst the development of the London Docklands, managed
by the London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) in the 1980s,
was undertaken with limited citizen participation,
the
inhabitants of the German city of Stuttgart, in the face of urban
and commercial development around the main railway station of the
city, have recently started claiming their right to participation
at a moment when the planning and construction process had already
well progressed, forming a true protest movement.
10. Several determinants further contribute to the complexity
of citizen participation in metropolitan areas: they are, in most
cases, not governed by a single local authority but through a two-tier
system of local government, and the number of stakeholders inclined
to influence urban development is generally higher due to the higher
density of private companies (and their financial interest in certain
developments) and civil society organisations, which are often better
organised in bigger cities.
11. Furthermore, the issue of local democracy of metropolitan
areas is closely linked to national interests and policies: in view
of the large population of these areas, decisions taken locally
very often concern a greater part of the national population, such
as in France, where the population of the Paris metropolitan area represents
around 18% of the national population.
In most cases, metropolitan areas
are also the capital city of the country, which provides them with
a specific role and influence in the national political and administrative system.
12. These and other determinants lead to the fact that there is
an increased interest to study and promote the experience of metropolitan
areas across and beyond the national territory through various available channels,
such as governmental action, international urban networks or activities
by associations of local and regional authorities. Such dynamics
could finally contribute to a “learning process” having a positive
impact on the overall standards of democracy in a given country.
Amongst international networks, the “Metrex” network has gained
in prominence in recent years, and all three metropolises covered
in this report participate in it more or less actively.
3. Good governance
and citizen participation: general concepts
3.1. Global definitions
and challenges
13. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has
defined governance in general as “the exercise of political, economic
and administrative authority in the management of a country’s affairs
at all levels. It comprises the mechanisms, processes and institutions,
through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise
their legal rights, meet their obligations and mediate their differences”.
According
to another United Nations definition, “good governance” promotes
equity, participation, pluralism, transparency, accountability and
the rule of law. Institutions and processes to be considered “good”
and “democratic” therefore need to be transparent, free of corruption
and accountable to the people. The greatest threats to good governance
come from corruption, violence and poverty, all of which undermine
transparency, security of participation and fundamental freedoms.
14. Good governance within metropolitan areas encompasses all
forms of co-ordination and regulation that contribute to an increased
efficiency of the political and administrative system and increase
the liveability of the region. Widespread criteria for the evaluation
of local governance structures and processes are the principles of
transparency, participation, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency,
coherence and sustainability,
though
lists of criteria may vary slightly according to the socio-economic
and professional context.
15. For many years, citizen participation, in particular, has
been considered a valuable element of democratic governance and
decision-making. Its positive effects on democracy and in particular
individual democratic citizenship have been recognised, as it increases
issue knowledge, civic skills and public engagement and contributes
to the support for decisions among its participants. Over recent
decades many countries have gained experience with one of the four
main types of participatory mechanism: deliberative forums, surveys,
referendums and participatory policy-making projects.
Techniques and working
methods for citizen participation can then be further differentiated
according to the institutional context in which they are employed.
In citizen participation arrangements at the local level, different
stages are often distinguished, beginning with the provision of
simple information to citizens, followed by consultation and then
co-operation, to reach the level of co-decision-making (or even
self-administration).
16. However, one of the major challenges as regards democratic
processes and procedures in many countries will be to ensure that
citizens have equal access to participative procedures and benefit
from their positive effects in an equitable manner. In current times
of economic and financial crisis, it becomes increasingly evident
that poverty and social exclusion (and their numerous expressions)
also lead to the actual or perceived exclusion of citizens from
democratic processes. This specific issue is currently being examined by
another report under preparation in the Committee on Social Affairs,
Health and Sustainable Development.
It is
also perceived as a matter of concern by the European Commission,
as we could see from the speech delivered by Mr Lászlo Andor, European
Commissioner responsible for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion,
on “Fighting poverty and preserving democracy through social investment”
at the Council of Europe Conference on Poverty and Inequalities
in Societies of Human Rights (Strasbourg, 21 February 2013).
17. It has been known for a long time that “governments must invest
adequate time, resources and commitment to building robust legal,
policies and institutional frameworks, developing appropriate tools
and evaluating their own performance in engaging citizens in policy-making”
as “poorly designed and inadequate measures for information, consultation
and active participation in policy-making can undermine government-citizen
relations” and may be counterproductive if citizens discover that
their efforts and feedback have no impact or remain unaccounted
for.
3.2. Standards for local
and regional democracy at Council of Europe level
18. Both citizen participation and more recently, good
governance, have been the object of binding and non-binding Council
of Europe instruments and texts in recent years. Although major
progress has been made towards their implementation and specific
assistance is provided through several mechanisms, member States should
continue to promote and monitor them, given that governance structures
at all levels, including at local and regional level, continue to
evolve and may include innovative working methods at any time.
19. Local and regional democracy has been a priority area for
a number of consecutive chairmanships of the Committee of Ministers
of the Council of Europe. In particular, the issues of citizen participation,
direct and indirect involvement of citizens in decision-making processes,
as well as new approaches involving the wide use of new technologies
in the context of the so-called “e-democracy”, were discussed at
the conference organised by the Armenian Chairmanship in co-operation
with the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities on 19 June 2013
in Yerevan.
20. Amongst the main texts adopted by the Committee of Ministers,
we can quote Recommendation Rec(2001)10 on the participation of
citizens in local public life; Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)2 on the evaluation,
auditing and monitoring of participation and participation policies
at local and regional level, the Additional Protocol to the European
Charter of Local Self-Government (ETS No. 122) on the right to participate in
the affairs of a local authority (adopted in 2009, entered into
force in June 2012), calling on member States “to secure to everyone
within their jurisdiction the right to participate in the affairs
of a local authority”, as well as the Convention on the Participation
of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level (ETS No. 144) in 1992.
21. The additional protocol to the charter, as a binding instrument,
allows supervising institutions and procedures in the framework
of the monitoring mechanism ensured by the Congress of Local and
Regional Authorities. However, it remains quite general and does
not elaborate in great detail on how, and according to which methods,
citizen participation should be carried out, whilst the non-binding
texts provide very concrete lines of action and tools for the implementation
of citizen participation mechanisms. The latter also take into consideration
specific aspects such as gender equality in local politics and the
interests of citizens having greater difficulties in becoming actively
involved for various reasons.
22. Closely related to these standards and instruments, the Congress
of Local and Regional Authorities has adopted a number of reference
texts on citizen participation, notably Resolution 326 (2011) and Recommendation
307 (2011) on citizen participation at local and regional level
in Europe and Resolution 332 (2011) on education for democratic
citizenship – tools for cities, as well as on good governance, notably Recommendation
188 (2006) on good governance in European metropolitan areas and
Recommendation 219 (2007) on the status of capital cities, which
have been taken into consideration for this report. Since 2007, activities
of the Congress also include, “European Local Democracy Week” (ELDW),
an annual European event where local authorities from all the 47
member States of the Council of Europe are invited to organise public
events to meet and engage with their citizens on issues of current
interest, with the purpose of promoting and fostering democratic
participation at a local level.
23. The Parliamentary Assembly, for its part, has never adopted
a text relating to citizen participation at the local level as such,
but has covered various specific aspects in resolutions relating
to the right of migrants, women, disabled people and children to
participate in public life or decisions concerning them; texts which
shall not be listed in more detail here. It is worth noting, however,
that the Assembly adopted its
Resolution
1947 (2013) on popular protest and challenges to freedom of assembly,
media and speech most recently and subsequent to the popular protest
observed around an urban development project in Istanbul (Turkey),
as referred to in greater detail below (see chapter 4.3).
24. Amongst intergovernmental activities of the Council of Europe,
I also wish to recall the various assistance programmes aimed at
developing local democracy standards which are offered by the Council
of Europe governmental sector, including programmes for “democratic
stability” and “capacity building programmes”, the latter being
led by the “Centre of Expertise for Local Government Reform”. In
this context, the “Twelve Principles of Good Democratic Governance
at Local Level”, elaborated in 2007 and adopted by the Committee
of Ministers in March 2008 as part of the “Strategy for Innovation
and Good Governance at the Local Level”, assign great importance
to citizen participation. Last but not least, it is also worth mentioning
the “Code of Good Practice on Civil Participation in the Decision-making
Process” published in October 2009 by the Conference of International
Non-governmental Organisations (INGOs) of the Council of Europe,
which presents some of the principles, levels and methods of citizen
participation in an easy-to-understand and user-friendly manner.
25. With regard to existing Council of Europe texts and activities
in the field of citizen participation and good governance, I would
conclude that central reference texts exist and are sufficient to
ensure good standards of citizen participation in Council of Europe
member States. Good governance at local and regional level has been largely
debated and is being followed up concretely through the Strategy
for Innovation and Good Governance and other activities. Subsequent
work should continue to focus on the implementation of standards
and should help member States to further improve democratic governance
and citizen participation at the local level, not least by the exchange
of good practices on citizen participation methods and tools.
4. Metropolitan governance
in Europe – the examples of Berlin, Istanbul and London
26. The metropolitan areas of Berlin, Istanbul and London
served as case studies for the present report. They are presented
here in alphabetical order. These cities were chosen as examples
to combine a certain (though surely not complete) geographical balance
with easy access to information. Examining the situation in London
in particular allowed me to bring in some of the experience of my
own country, the United Kingdom. Berlin was perceived as a useful
example due to the significance that citizen participation at the
local level has in Germany. Istanbul had been chosen as an example
well before the beginning of the popular protests around Gezi Park
and Taksim Square. However, these events further underlined the
interest of studying this metropolis in more detail.
4.1. Berlin: the challenge
of inclusive participatory mechanisms
The
metropolis of Berlin – basic facts
The
metropolis of Berlin is Germany’s federal capital and biggest city
with an estimated population of 4.4 million in 2010. Together with
parts of the surrounding region of Brandenburg (which functionally
belong to the agglomeration) and according to the national urban
classification system, it forms the metropolitan region of Berlin-Brandenburg
with an estimated population of about 6 million in 2012. Klaus Wowereit
has been Mayor of Berlin since 2001 and was re-elected in 2011.
Institutionally,
Berlin is at the same time considered as a local government and
a regional government as it constitutes a Land of
its own with its own regional Constitution. The political and administrative
structure of Berlin is based on a two-tier system, including the
Senate as a main administration in which a given number of senators
are in charge of specific administrative divisions (currently eight
senate administrations), and 12 boroughs (Bezirke)
which have both administrations and political bodies of their own
(but without legislative power).
|
27. In the margins of the meeting of the Committee on
Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development held on 14 and
15 March 2013 in Berlin, I had the occasion to study the case of
Berlin and was provided with written material by local stakeholders.
Berlin
has a tradition of citizen participation in various forms and contexts
since the post-war period. Explicit requests for more participation
were raised in the western part of the city during the late 1960s,
followed by efforts made to involve citizens more actively in decisions
related to the development of particular urban districts such as
the Kreuzberg area. These efforts were pursued in the so-called
“sound urban renewal” programmes, carried out first in Western Berlin
in the 1980s and later in the 1990s covering the whole of Berlin.
28. From the end of the 1990s, a “Social City” programme, jointly
financed and carried out by German federal and regional governments,
came into being to support the development of district management
offices, district councils and district funds. Since 2008, the city
government has been following its new framework strategy on “Social
urban development”. Berlin also involves citizens through its representative
democracy based on a decentralised city organisation which is composed
of a central Senate (local council and administration) and 12 borough
councils (Bezirksräte).
29. In their range of participative elements, the city (and federal
region) of Berlin include far-reaching elements such as legislative
initiatives, referenda and citizen councils. The authorities also
rely on the participation of informed citizens in borough councils
and the regular hearing of lobbying and interest groups (amongst
other external experts). The citizens themselves may make use of
petitions and disciplinary complaints to ensure that their opinions
are heard.
30. Finally, amongst institutions, the Berliner
Stadtforum (City Forum of Berlin), a forum for open debate regularly
organised between city managers, experts and citizens, has sometimes
achieved a prominent role over past decades. It still exists today,
although it is of course currently perceived as less innovative
and in a context where debate fora in various institutional contexts
have multiplied.
31. To ensure that the local administrative staff can accompany
citizen participation procedures in an instructed manner, the Senate
of Berlin has most recently published a “Handbook on Citizen Participation” aimed
at motivating staff to apply participative procedures in their area
of responsibility, at making them aware of possible obstacles to
overcome and at giving concrete recommendations for action. The
handbook has been distributed at national level and thus constitutes
one element of exchange of best practice at this level. Moreover,
the handbook contains tools for the implementation of citizen participation,
such as detailed checklists for municipal decision-makers and staff.
It will soon be edited in English and
will thus constitute a tool for the international exchange of good
practice.
32. In the case of Berlin, methods of citizen participation seem
to be extremely differentiated. They include, for example, the continuous
follow-up of developments occurring in specific urban districts
by taking into account citizens’ ideas and wishes, the participation
of citizens in the planning processes of larger urban projects and
even their consultation on budgetary procedures and decisions.
33. Recommendations elaborated in Berlin with a view to developing
effective citizen participation include an early and comprehensive
analysis of problems and the search for alternative solutions, the
clear communication of alternatives and non-flexible conditions
to citizens, the professional moderation of consultation processes,
the identification and support of social groups who cannot easily
articulate their interests and the prevention of unrealistic expectations
of a decision to be taken.
A particularly sensitive
issue amongst these recommendations is certainly the identification
and support of groups who cannot easily articulate their interests.
With regard to this aspect, perceptions within the city may significantly
vary between stakeholders and participants of development processes
in urban areas. An exchange with representatives of a local social
assistance association of the district of Neukölln has shown that
many citizens do not feel concerned by urban developments in their
area.
34. Amongst the local population of the Rollbergviertel,
which is largely of a migrant background (Kurdish, Turkish and Palestinian
from Lebanon), many resources seem to be allocated to family subsistence
and bringing up children. Public participation procedures very often
do not reach less well educated categories of the population, and
certainly do not reach them in time, which means that in many cases
people only react when it is too late and when construction works
for a new development project begin in their area. New communication
technologies such as social media are not the right way of reaching
out to these populations, but are rather more easily accessible
by the well-educated urban middle class. For the staff experiencing
this social context daily, one of the biggest challenges, therefore,
is to show inhabitants how to take ownership of the public space
surrounding them beyond the private sphere that their attention
is most focused on. After long years of experience with the official
participation mechanisms of the city of Berlin, local experts therefore considered
that these have so far entirely failed to reach out to their local
population.
4.2. Istanbul: the challenge
of preserving local democratic institutions in the face of larger national
interests
Greater
Istanbul – basic facts
Istanbul is a fast-growing
metropolis split between the Asian and the European continent: whilst
in 2010, at a time when the city was European capital of culture,
its population was estimated at 12.6 million, the number of inhabitants has
reached around 13.8 million according to the latest figures of 2012.
The city is represented by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality
(IMM), which is also one of Turkey’s 81 provinces. It is headed
by the metropolitan mayor and the metropolitan council (consisting
of 39 district mayors and one fifth of district councillors since
the latest administrative reform in 2008). Istanbul’s urban administration
is therefore also based on a two-tier structure. Below district level,
it has approximately 1 000 neighbourhoods called Mahalle.
Furthermore, Istanbul has 27 000 associations, forming a lively
civil society.
Both metropolitan and district municipalities
have decision-making powers in so far as the metropolitan administration
is responsible for macro-level decisions concerning the entire city,
while districts are responsible for decisions related to traditional
municipal services. Istanbul is one of three metropolitan authorities
introduced following the end of military rule in 1984, the others
being Ankara and Izmir. In each case, the metropolitan authority represents
an additional tier of government in order to perform strategic functions
across the metropolis. Istanbul’s metropolitan Mayor is Kadir Topbaş
(AKP), elected in 2004 and re-elected in 2009.
|
35. Istanbul has a long-standing tradition of citizen
participation through its 39 districts and more than 1 000 neighbourhoods
(
Mahalles), in which local
headpersons have been elected since the 18th century (
Muhtars). The current institutional
setting is an outcome of the democratic and decentralising efforts undertaken
since the 1980s.
Modern participation mechanisms
include a compulsory consultation for strategic plans, the consultation
of various stakeholders at local committee meetings, and, more recently,
the citizens’ assemblies, which are semi-autonomous bodies with
increasing significance, in particular in small to middle-sized
towns. Municipalities also have various possibilities for leading
joint projects with voluntary organisations. The significance of
the Internet in communicating with citizens is also on the increase
in Turkey, and European Union standards are regularly applied nowadays
as regards access to information. In his time as Mayor of Istanbul,
and before becoming Prime Minister, Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had
also organised citizen participation through the 3 000 mosques of
the city.
36. In practice,
some
of the existing mechanisms meet certain obstacles: In Istanbul,
the citizens’ assembly could not be established due to the lack
of a clear majority and there are claims of regular interference
by the national government. The well-known Planning Authority of
Istanbul (once employing 500 professionals) was abolished in recent
years, some of its competences assigned to competent ministries
at the national level and the Istanbul Metropolitan Planning and
Urban Design Centre (IMP), a new organisation operating alongside
political and bureaucratic bodies of Istanbul. Participation of
local stakeholders at the metropolitan level often seems to be restricted
to less important issues.
37. This erosion of real participation at metropolitan level seems
to have different causes, including certain cultural traditions
(for example a tradition of indirect communication via intermediaries
to express unpleasant positions), the structure and functioning
of political parties in Turkey and a limitation of powers of the
local government (namely very little possibilities to impose direct
local taxes except for garbage collection tax, thus little margin
to raise funds for local priorities). Indirect participation often
takes place through oral or written complaints or via cases taken
before the court. Many people currently have high hopes for evolving communication
cultures (including social media) and the upcoming new Constitution
which may lower the current electoral threshold of 10% for new parties
to enter deliberative bodies; a measure that would allow for more
diversity in various decision-making bodies.
38. The recent protest movements around Taksim Square, where an
old park (Gezi Park) was to be partly destroyed to make room for
new housing and commercial developments, have shown the extent to
which national decisions can influence urban developments as well
as the importance of a meaningful dialogue between the government
and local communities. Based on an existing citizen’s initiative,
this project sparked extensive citizen protest and violent confrontations
with police forces. Although extremist groups joined some of the
demonstrations, the majority of protesters (many hundreds of thousands
of people at the peak of the movement) took to the streets to express
their dissatisfaction with the government’s style of governance,
the lack of decision-making powers at local level and the use of
popular and sometimes historic urban areas for commercial developments.
The
latest development in this affair is the court ruling which blocks
the envisaged development but which may still be appealed by governmental
authorities.
39. However, Gezi Park is only one example of many projects which
are meant to give a boost to Istanbul’s development. About 50 neighbourhoods
in Istanbul alone are earmarked for urban renewal projects and 7.5 billion
Turkish liras (approximately 2.9 billion euros) were set aside for
Istanbul’s public development projects in 2012. Sectorial government
policies are facilitating such developments, for example through
new laws granting the government far-reaching decision-making powers
over which local areas are to be developed (sometimes for reasons
of earthquake prevention) or opening the Turkish real estate market
to foreign investors.
40. Facing such developments, several experts criticise the lack
of coherent urban planning (there does not seem to be any global
overview of projects) and the lack of public debate prior to the
announcement of major reconstruction projects.
They also warn that vulnerable populations,
including the poor or ethnic minorities, are increasingly being
pushed to the edges of the city, thus diminishing social diversity
in the city and displacing populations from locations where they
had been settled for a long time.
41. According to some Turkish academic experts, local governance
in Istanbul is an expression of the overall political context characterised
by an overdominance of State over society combined with a populist
political culture
. In particular in big cities such
as Istanbul two factors seem to contribute to such populism: the efficient
response to vital demands for jobs and housing generated by mass
urban migration since the 1960s, and an understanding of democracy
reduced in its simplest form to voting.
42. Moreover, the metropolitan administration of Istanbul follows
the “powerful mayor and weak council” model which finally leads
to a situation in which city-wide decisions are discussed and criticised
in the media and by professional associations only after they have
been made. Although such developments regularly fuel complaints
about the decision-making process and the strong influence exerted
by the central government, much popular support is generated by
the fact that fundamental and urgent infrastructural problems are
actually being addressed, including by central government measures.
43. Notwithstanding the overall political context and culture,
citizen participation seems to function relatively well in modern
Istanbul at district and neighbourhood levels: local citizens’ assemblies
regularly involve different groups such as young people, the elderly,
women and handicapped people, and even 200 years after their introduction,
local headpersons – a very popular function amongst citizens – remain
important interlocutors for local people. However, despite all efforts
of local administrations to establish city councils and foster stronger
ties to civic groups, Istanbul’s biggest obstacle seems to be the
fact that the majority of its citizens are either not organised
or take part in hierarchically structured “community” groups.
4.3. London: the challenge
of citizen involvement for sustainable local communities
Greater
London Area – basic facts
Greater London,
a metropolitan area of almost 8 million inhabitants today (7.8 million
according to official figures in 2010), expected to reach the 10
million threshold by 2020, has had a directly elected mayor since
2000 (Boris Johnson since 2008, elected again in 2012). The Greater
London Authority (GLA) is mainly responsible for transport, strategic
planning, economic development, environment, safety, housing and
leisure for the whole city. The Greater London Assembly is composed
of 25 members, 14 of which are elected in constituencies (comprising
several boroughs) and 11 of which are “top-up” members.
The metropolitan area
is divided into 33 boroughs (32 boroughs and the City of London,
which essentially represents the city’s financial centre). The boroughs
are responsible for providing various social services and other
local services such as education, childcare, etc. Across boroughs,
there is an overall number of 1 800 local councillors who are elected
every four years in their respective wards (next in 2014). The London
Councils, which are a joint administrative structure carried by
all boroughs, are in charge of specific infrastructure matters such
as transport (parking, etc.) or waste collection. It is also their
task to negotiate with the Greater London Authority when it comes
to matters where responsibilities are contested between the central
authority and the boroughs.
|
44. As regards the capital of my own country, the United
Kingdom, I had the opportunity to examine the issue of citizen participation
through a fact-finding visit, involving a number of expert meetings,
undertaken on 18 July 2013.
This
has allowed me to get confirmation of the fact that the current
financial situation of local government is being perceived as a
major challenge by most local stakeholders and sets the conditions
for many local development issues, including citizen participation.
45. According to the Local Government Association (LGA), citizen
participation is not necessarily a priority for local government
in the current economic and financial context. In recent years,
central government transfers to local government have been cut by
33%.
Further cuts up to 10% are expected
under the current coalition’s spending plans for 2015/2016.
Municipal agendas in the United
Kingdom are therefore driven by finances and focused on reorganising
service provision by combining local authorities in greater economic areas
and ensuring front-line services through greater involvement of
voluntary services or community enterprises.
46. In this context, participatory services, which are not statutory
but discretionary tasks, are expected to fall first in many municipalities
and many communities already make less use of traditional instruments
such as “citizen juries”. At the same time, local politicians increasingly
communicate with their citizens via social media (Twitter, blogs
and Facebook), though there seems to be a certain “digital divide”
in the use of such tools, which is amongst others determined by
levels of income and education.
47. According to the London Councils, all boroughs of London still
have a more or less extensive budget dedicated to citizen participation,
and mechanisms remain quite well developed across London. Nevertheless, the
choice of participation methods has become more limited today given
that local governance is more about administering scarce resources
to fulfil a great number of statutory duties. Before the financial
crisis, citizen participation had sometimes been about letting people
participate in public choices via innovative methods. Today citizen
involvement is more about making boundaries of action clear to citizens,
and local authorities are increasingly facing the dilemma that less
citizen participation is possible despite a greater need for informing people
in a context of austerity. Many citizens seem to be frustrated because
they do not see any results after having been consulted and their
participation evidently does not increase the resources available.
48. Good practice in citizen participation in the Greater London
Area can in particular be seen in engaging young people in political
processes (such as through the youth parliament and youth mayor
of Lewisham borough) and in keeping services running through the
voluntary sector. In the United Kingdom, citizen participation therefore
comprises different concepts: informing and consulting citizens
regarding upcoming developments on the one hand and active engagement
for the development of the community on the other hand.
49. In this respect, the 2012 Olympic Games have had a very positive
effect on co-operation within communities “in the spirit of the
Games” and, locally, subsidies have been provided for related projects. However,
despite some good practice examples, the current Prime Minister’s
“Big Society” approach,
which includes attempts to set
certain local services onto a more voluntary basis, has not been
successful everywhere, for different reasons. In the current situation
of local finances in the United Kingdom, it will therefore be of
utmost importance to generate new income through local growth and
to deliver services in a more rational manner; these were, by the
way, the objectives of the central government when it introduced
the radical budget cuts.
50. As regards the relationship between the central authority
and local boroughs, London can be described as a “bottom-heavy”
two-tier system where the boroughs have a strong say and the central
mayor has less power than in other big cities; the current mayor,
moreover, has not made excessive use of the powers he has. His administration,
the Greater London Authority (GLA) seems to have quite a clear vision
and strategy for citizen involvement at the metropolitan level,
based on the awareness that the relationship between the city and
its citizens is marked by mutual expectations: whilst some of the
city’s concerns remain totally abstract to people, the central authority
needs to understand and actively respond to citizens’ concerns (“demand management”).
51. In doing so, methods of liaising with citizens have significantly
evolved in recent years: having been largely based on opinion polls
in the past, they are now turned towards an “engagement approach”,
including “digital engagement” as a cost-effective measure even
though traditional methods such as annual debates or question times
for local people are still in use. Concrete examples for new methods
are the digital platform “Talk London” and the “London City Dashboard”,
a website presenting city policies by sector in a transparent manner (backed
up by a so-called “Datastore”). Amongst the first target groups
of new participation mechanisms have been the numerous volunteers
for the Olympics Games.
52. Experiences in Greater London have shown that social media
and communication technologies play an important role in achieving
“tangible” results. An example is the borough of Barnett, where
people can access a “brokerage website” for service exchange within
their community. In some areas, gatherings initialised through social
media have led on to concrete projects in the educational sector.
It has also been observed that people are increasingly mobilising
around social media since the “London riots”.
Community television channels and
radio stations play a role in certain ethnic communities (for example
a Greek radio station in Barnett), and local politicians regularly
make appearances in this context.
53. The public relations department “engagement team” of the GLA
tries to link up in particular with some of the most disadvantaged
areas where people have less access to social media. From their
point of view, which I very much appreciate in this context, the
real difference to be made is that participation must not remain
“a box ticked” by local authorities but represent a real approach
of people and ensure that their voices be heard. Much attention
is currently paid to policies in the field of “demand management”
(for example hospitals, fire and police stations). It is important,
however, not to raise people’s expectations beyond what is feasible.
54. The representative of the London borough of Haringey confirmed
some of the information previously received on the Greater London
Area: local citizen participation is still easier for statutory
tasks and increasingly difficult when it comes to in-depth exchanges
with citizens. Nevertheless, through active partnerships between local
stakeholders and the targeted use of communication technologies,
much could still be achieved. An example was the partnership regarding
the development of local high streets (including elected officials,
traders and citizens), which involved a dialogue partly led via
the website “Haringey online” (regularly used by more than 2 500
citizens) and through which community control could be achieved
over illegal gambling activities whilst limiting gentrification
to an acceptable minimum.
55. Less educated people, having limited access to social media
and finding it more difficult to express themselves, are often engaged
through concrete projects of interest to them, such as gardening
in public spaces of their neighbourhood. Such projects are also
an opportunity to consult local citizens on other development issues
as well and to create some continuity in community engagement. Once
mobilised, citizens are often approached by local politicians who
use these opportunities of joint projects to consult them on other issues
as well (such as on food recycling in council estates).
56. Another example of community mobilisation is the “Save Lewisham
Hospital Campaign”. Here, up to 10 000 and 20 000 people have been
mobilised for various protest events since the end of 2012 (including
a visit by the GLA mayor, Boris Johnson), less through social media
but rather through traditional campaigning methods (knocking at
doors, information stands at local events, promotional leaflets
distributed in train stations or schools, etc.). For the time being,
the campaign seems to have been successful: whilst the definite
closure of the hospital was decided by the National Health Service
(NHS) before the summer of 2013, a recent high court ruling judged
that the reduction of substantial health services would be unlawful;
however, according to the latest
news, the government intends to appeal this judgment.
57. Finally, many of these most interesting findings concerning
London were confirmed by British academic researchers who have identified
the following general trends and requirements of validity beyond
the United Kingdom:
- The overall
level of trust in public decisions seems to be in decline;
- It is when people should be most involved that this is
often made most difficult (for example through the financial crisis);
- Not getting people involved may save money for local authorities
in the short term, but creates huge, and more expensive, problems
in the long term;
- As regards social media, local authorities are still in
a learning process, not so much regarding the purpose of using them
for participation, but rather regarding data collection and “one-way”
transmission of information to citizens;
- Capacity building, a crucial means for improving citizen
participation, should take place within a local authority, and hiring
external experts for “one-off” events should be avoided if sustainable
results are to be achieved;
- Today, good practice examples are rather to be found outside
of Europe (in the United States or Latin America; through the “21st
Century town meetings”), given that European politicians are anxious
to keep control in these times of crisis and austerity;
- Essential conditions to effectively develop citizen involvement
are qualifications and political willingness, especially in large
metropolises where more resources are generally available; but few
leaders of metropolises seem to take up this opportunity.
5. Conclusion:
creating the framework conditions to facilitate and foster good
democratic governance and citizen participation at the local level
58. The three examples of Berlin, Istanbul and London
have shown some of the recurring challenges, difficulties and obstacles,
but also good practice examples of citizen participation in large
cities, which are capitals and/or economic driving forces of their
countries. Whilst stakeholders we met in Berlin seemed to be mostly
pre-occupied with getting the most disadvantaged groups involved
in local development and generating a feeling of responsibility
with the community, Istanbul currently faces an evolution of political
cultures, which sometimes leads to confrontational situations due
to high pressure for urban and commercial developments. In my own
capital, London, where local finances have undergone significant
changes and reductions in recent years, local partners are looking
for new partnerships and tools for citizen participation.
59. Challenges identified in the three metropolises examined therefore
vary to a great extent, although this perception may be partly linked
to the selective approach of local interlocutors. In any case and
to a certain extent, all the major challenges identified seem to
be symptomatic for large metropolises in the current times of economic
and financial crisis; they therefore deserve some generalisation
and help us to draw first conclusions.
60. The very basis of democratic bodies and processes at the local
level is the institutional set-up which should, to the greatest
extent possible, assign planning competences to local authorities
and endow them with financial resources adapted to their responsibilities.
Moreover, decisions made by national governments but having an impact
at local level should be implemented in the most transparent and
accountable manner possible.
61. Citizens should be involved in political decisions both through
top-down (public authorities consulting citizens) and bottom-up
approaches (including demand management, taking into consideration
local citizens’ own concerns). Local politicians should avoid developing
“hollow” and ineffective participation mechanisms serving their
own reputation without truly giving a voice to local inhabitants.
Amongst the central determinants of engaged, effective and innovative
approaches of citizen participation are political willingness of
local decision-makers, capacity building within local administrations,
the availability of resources for discretionary tasks like participatory
mechanisms and the ability to build up a relationship of trust between
local inhabitants and politicians.
62. Fostering social and economic development at the local level
is a precondition for dynamic local democracies and citizens to
develop an interest in active participation and community involvement.
Only citizens who have satisfactory living conditions and are not
confronted on a daily basis with the basic challenges of supporting
their family, will find their way to engaging with their local community.
63. To get local people involved, accessible and appropriate means
of communication need to be employed, which may vary according to
age groups and socio-economic categories. There is no use communicating essential
developments via the Internet or social media if greater parts of
the local population do not consult this medium for that purpose.
On the other hand, the use of the Internet should be fostered in
the realm of local democracy wherever appropriate (e-democracy,
e-participation, etc.) with regard to the younger generation amongst
whom the use of such tools is widespread. The right mix of communication
tools to get in touch with the local population should be chosen
on a case-by-case basis.
64. The international exchange of good practice and awareness-raising
measures aimed at the improvement of local democratic processes,
also through appropriate national conditions, should be strengthened.
Our joint objective should be to promote high standards of local
democracy and citizen participation across Europe, including in
countries where threats are currently posed by the economic situation of
local authorities and citizens, or authoritarian national policies.
65. Good governance and citizen participation at the local level
– and in large metropolises as a specific category of local authorities
– are central issues of modern democracy and closely related to
one of the pillars of the Council of Europe’s work. Active participation
of citizens in local development involving both citizen consultation
in decision-making processes and community engagement, is a key
to creating sustainable local communities and ensuring best standards
of democracy across Europe.