Social Ecology London


Neighbourhood government
October 26, 2009, 2:40 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

Review of Neighborhood Government: The Local Foundations of Political Life by Milton Kotler*

In September a newspaper in Southend, Essex ran a feel good story about a community project run by Christian evangelicals in the poorest ward of the town. The project’s motto, “Reaching Out, Changing Lives” “couldn’t be more apt” as hundreds of lives had been turned around, the paper said. But behind the breezy optimism and “tea and toast” alongside bible study every Friday, was a bleakness of aspiration. Local residents were given confidence training, job skills and help to overcome their addictions. But the idea that the area’s problems were rooted in a basic lack of economic and political power and the solution might be to collectively fight to gain power, rather than just adapt people to the demands of a competitive economy, was completely absent.

Four decades ago, when Milton Kotler wrote Neighborhood Government the sense of what was possible was very different. 1968 was a tumultuous year but amid the revolutionary outbreaks and anti-war protests, Kotler discovered “a movement for local control” across America. In the poorest parts of US cities, people were coming together to change their lives in a tangible, political sense. They were demanding the transfer of political authority to institutions they directly controlled, and were using that democratic power to pass their own laws and control rents, prices, banks, taxation, schools, housing and welfare programmes.

Kotler locates this movement for self-rule in the neighbourhoods of cities. The neighbourhood has a special meaning for him. It is not, as commonly assumed, just a place where people live and socialise. It is, buried deeply under the surface of central state control, a political unit. The neighbourhood is a “political settlement of small territory and familiar association, whose absolute property is its capacity for deliberative democracy,” he says.

Kotler delves into American history to show how the neighbourhoods of many US cities were once independent self-governing territories before being annexed and then subjugated by larger entities around them. Originally, many US cities were directly democratic: political decisions were made by town meetings of citizens. In these town democracies there were factions but not organised political parties. This popular democracy was gradually replaced in the nineteenth century by what he calls “aristocratic government” through elected representatives.

But this was not just an American phenomenon. Kotler says that the “fundamental character” of modern revolution has been local insurrection against the central power of the state. Like Murray Bookchin in The Third Revolution, he sees this movement for grassroots control in the Parisian sections of the French Revolution and the factory and neighbourhood soviets of the Russian Revolution; a flowering of decentralised democracy that was stamped out by centralising Girondists and Bolsheviks.

In late ‘60s America, in cities like New York, Philadelphia and New Orleans, that revolutionary tradition was being revived. Kotler describes in detail the experience of one attempt to develop neighbourhood democracy in Columbus, Ohio which began with the formation of the East Central Citizens Organization (ECCO) in 1965.

ECCO started as a local service provider in a neighbourhood of 6,500 residents with an unemployment rate far above the city’s average. The participants decided to legally incorporate the neighbourhood, creating an organisation open to all local residents. They vested legislative power in an assembly, and elected an executive council to carry on the administration of decisions between meetings of the assembly. Political clubs in each of the four districts of the neighbourhood had the task of initiating discussions and new programmes which were put before the main assembly.

Within three years, the organisation was operating a public health service programme and a veterinary clinic, purchasing houses for rehabilitation, operating a credit union and was planning to open a supermarket. But, says Kotler, ECCO does just regard itself as a provider of necessary services to local people. It wants “territorial jurisdiction over public activities”. It controls federal anti-poverty programmes in the neighbourhood and has de facto control over programmes for young people. It also has jurisdiction over the local library, appointing the librarian and selecting books. It hopes, in time, (the book was written in 1968) to be legally designated a political entity of the municipal government.

Kotler says the significance of ECCO lies in its “liberation of practical political deliberation”. “For the first time,” he writes, “residents legally decide certain matters of community life. They are steadily practising the art of political decision-making and living with and learning from the consequences of their decisions. ECCO residents are now orators and officials, and practical political wisdom is developing in a community where earlier the only expressions were frustration and escape.” This is the essence of philosopher Hannah Arendt’s definition of political freedom – the right to be a participant in government.

Despite this transformation, Kotler says that ECCO has only travelled a few steps towards genuine self-rule. He likens poor neighbourhoods to colonised countries. Everything sold inside the community is owned outside. Everything earned flows to outside ownership. To redress this, neighbourhoods need regulate their own territorial economy. They need the authority to tax businesses and citizens and to decide how that revenue is spent. Local people need to control local production and be employed in local enterprises. “It’s reasonable,” says Kotler, [for neighbourhoods] “to control prices, rents, licensing and banking.”

Kotler says that were a community to constitute itself to weld such economic and political power, it would form a neighbourhood government. It is worth dwelling on what he means. He is not referring to greater public participation in centrally planned political programmes. He is not talking about local people taking or being given, control over single institutions, such as schools – which would be in effect, if isolated from any collective democratic structure, a form of privatisation. And he does not have in mind the informal participation of ephemeral protest movements or free-floating assemblies brought together to deal with single issues. Self-rule means, to him, the transfer of the legal authority of the state, to permanent, legally-constituted, directly democratic entities, open to all citizens and possessing their own formal constitutions and rules.

“Political power has two components,” says Kotler, “prudent decision and forceful action.” This definition view of government as potentially the directly democratic exercise of self-rule by a community – entirely separate to government by a state – has also been made by Bookchin. “A government – or better still, a polity – is an ensemble designed to deal with the problems of consociational life in an orderly and hopefully fair manner,” he writes in The Communalist Project. “Every institutionalized that constitutes a system for handling public affairs – with or without the presence of a state – is necessarily a government.”

Neighbourhood government is posited by Kotler as the democratic alternative to national representative government, which purports to be the apogee of democracy but isn’t. “We have been told so often that our government is ‘democratic’ that we have failed to realise that is only representative,” he says. “Once we elect our representatives, our voice in day to day political decision is lost.” But in neighbourhood government, law-making power remains in the demos, the people.

Kotler undertakes an extensive justification of this form of government against the familiar claims of its representative opponent. When faced with any experiment in direct democracy, the advocates of representative government usually claim that it is has no legitimacy because few people will actually participate. Kotler takes as an example ECCO, where attendance fluctuates from between 10 and 25 per cent of the membership. But even attendance at the low end of this range “is quite sufficient to bring all political positions of common concern and interest to the forum for deliberation,” he says. “Even a 10 per cent quorum usually encompasses the widest existing range of political opinion and emotion.” A local councillor by contract may be elected by as little as 10 per cent of the electorate, and will have ultimate power to decide on political matters for the whole community until the election comes around again.

Neighbourhood democracy is also more likely to serve the common interest than representative government where the interests of the wealthy intercede between the voters and the council or government they elect. “Law-making by an assembly of citizens will favour the many rather than few simply because wealth and special interest have a smaller voice in the assembly than in elected council,” says Kotler. But this does not mean that there will be no stratifications of power or divisions in assemblies. Factions and internal political groups will exist – without them neighbourhood democracy – would have no motion or direction, but they won’t turn into political parties attempting to gain control of the state.

Kotler distinguishes the neighbourhood power movement from other political theories that used the local community as the springboard for political activism. Most notably, he rejected the approach of the father of community organising Saul Alinsky, whose Chicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation was later to train the current Commander in Chief of the United States. In Kotler’s view, Alinksy saw the neighbourhood in instrumental, rather than political terms. Alinsky wanted to organise neighbourhood power to exert a continuous pressure on central government in order to extract political concessions in areas such as housing, jobs or wages. He never saw the potential of the neighbourhood as a place of community self-rule

The neighbourhood power movement in American cities, the beginnings of which Kotler chronicled, spread to more cities during the 1970s before subsiding after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. But as the Argentinian neighbourhood assemblies and experiments such as Marsh Farm in the UK show, the impulse for face to face democracy and self-rule – or what has been called, historically, the political realm – keeps recurring.

There are limitations in Kotler’s vision. He is hazy about how citizens’ organisations in different neighbourhoods should federate together. He assumes that neighbourhoods merely need to control economic enterprises within their boundaries. There is – understandably for 1968 – no mention of ecology and he establishes an unnecessary conflict between the desire for social equality and political liberty, while summarily dismissing class struggle. But as a description of how citizens’ assemblies can constitute themselves and begin to take political power and authority, the book has valuable lessons for social ecologists and communalists.

* The book was first published in 1969 and re-published in 2004

.

Advertisements

2 Comments so far
Leave a comment

In the UK,during the 70′-80’s, the moves to liberate local communities in neighbourhoods was pioneered by the Community Education Movement.The object was to operate schools as local resources for social services – teachers, social workers,local counsillors, community workers,doctors and nurses, local police. Community schools became the centres for local democracy. In the first place,local residents were invited to help run the schools. Next,the resources in the schools enabled the residents to write and publish and circulate local newspapers.Then,the local residents along with community workers and teachers, organised campaigns for change including demonstrations and protests.At the same time, the schools were opened to adult residents for further education. It was realised that the inadequacy of previous education leading to lack of knowledge had resulted in lack of confidence of local residents in many neighbourhoods.Neighbourhood government requires resources, education, knowledge and know how.
In 1988 Margaret Thatcher and Kenneth Baker sponsored a National Curriculum which ruled that schools are only for children. This brought the Community Education Movement to a halt.

Comment by J.Kelvyn Richards

Power is vested in money. The Community projects developed by the Community Education movement, the Community Education Development Centre, during the 70/80s promoted neighbourhood action with a view for neighbourhood government e.g Sidney Stringer Community College in Coventry; the Sutton Centre in Nottinghamshire; the Meadows Project in Nottingham;other projects in Derby, in Belper; to name a few in which I was involved; all prospered as long as the local politicians and civil servants were not ‘threatened’. As soon as it became clear that the projects were about neighbourhood government, all resources in terms of staff and money and premises were withdrawn, closed, forbidden.None of the projects had any resources, so were dependent and unable to survive the initial stages.Neighbourhood government, like communalism, and social ecology, require different ways of thinking and doing. They are part of alternative choices.

Comment by J.Kelvyn Richards




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: