Collective Decision Making Around the World

127 pages

English

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Collective Decision Making Around the World , livre ebook

Kettering Foundation

Découvre YouScribe en t'inscrivant gratuitement

Je m'inscris

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

127 pages

English

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

Is public deliberation rare? How widespread has it been? Are deliberation's organic practices at the very core of collective decision making? Did it exist before governments developed?The case studies included in this book, edited by Kettering Foundation program officer Ileana Marin, begin to answer these questions. The research suggests, rather paradoxically, that deliberation may have been widespread throughout the world and throughout history. Taken as a whole, the case studies also show that deliberation is both fragile and powerful. It can be destroyed by top-down politics, but like a sturdy plant, if eradicated in one area, it reseeds itself in another.Collective Decision Making around the World includes chapters written by international colleagues of the Kettering Foundation. In spite of the challenge of finding accurate historical records, this volume contains six case studies describing deliberative practices in six countries: Albania, Cameroon, Colombia, New Zealand, Romania, and Russia. Chapters in this volume include:Introduction, Julie Fisher and Ileana MarinBackground Paper: The Political Anthropology of Civil Practices, Noelle McAfee and Denis GilbertTraditional Decision-Making Processes: The Case of the Baka People in Cameroon, Joseph Sany NzimaArtisan Democratic Societies: Colombia, 1830-1870, Catalina Arreaza and Gabriel MurilloAncient Public Deliberation and Assembly in the Code of Leke Dukagjini, Daut DautiPacific Ways of Talk-Hui and Talanoa, David Robinson and Kayt RobinsonThe Romanian Sfat: A Historic Deliberative Experience, Ruxandra PetreEarly Traditions of Collective Decision Making in Russia, German Artamonov and Denis V. MakarovAfterword, David Mathews

Informations

Publié par	Kettering Foundation
Date de parution	01 janvier 2006
Nombre de lectures	0
EAN13	9781945577314
Langue	English

Informations légales : prix de location à la page 0,0474€. Cette information est donnée uniquement à titre indicatif conformément à la législation en vigueur.

Extrait

Collective Decision Making Around the World

Acknowledgements

The editor would like to thank Julie Fisher, John Dedrick, and David Mathews for their genuine interest in this topic and for their ongoing support throughout the entire process prior to publication.

A note of appreciation to Paloma Dallas and Melinda Gilmore for their professional help and high degree of collegiality.

Copy Editors:Ellen Dawson-Witt, Lisa Boone-Berry Design and Graphics:Graphic Design, Inc. Long’s

This dook is pudlishe dy Kettering Founation Press. Any opinions, finings, conclusions, or recommenations expresse in this dook are those of the authors an o not necessarily reflect the views of the Charles F. Kettering Founation, its trustees, or its officers.

For information adout permission to reprouce selections from this dook, write to:

Permissions Kettering Founation Press 200 Commons Roa Dayton, Ohio 45459

This dook is printe on aci-free paper. First eition, 2006 Manufacture in the Unite States of America. ISBN-978-0-923993-18-4

Lidrary of Congress Control Numder: 2006930841

CONTENTS

Introduction

Background Paper: The Political Anthropology of Civil Practices

raditional Decision-Making Processes: The Case of the Baka People in Cameroon

Artisan Democratic Societies Colombia, 1830–1870

Ancient Public Deliberation and Assembly in the Code of Lekë Dukagjini

Pacific Ways of alk—Hui and alanoa

he Romanian Sfat: A Historic Deliberative Experience

Early raditions of Collective Decision Making in Russia

Afterword

Julie Fisher & Ileana Marin

Noëlle McAfee & Denis Gilbert

Joseph Sany Nzima

Catalina Arreaza & Gabriel Murillo

Daut Dauti

David Robinson & Kayt Robinson

Ruxandra Petre

German Artamonov & Denis V. Makarov

David Mathews

Introduction

By Julie Fisher & Ileana Marin

The question of whether people have always engaged in public deliberation has often been posed at the Kettering Foundation. David Mathews, president of the foundation often says that deliberation is a natura l process. Indeed, democratic practices probably appeared before the termdemocracywas invented, and direct self-rule through deliberative talk predates the Greeks in a number of cultures. Even though people may not have always deliberated by sp ecifically spelling out pros, cons, and tradeoffs of different options, decisions based on alternative courses of action have often been made by communities. At times, communities revert to deliberation as a k ind of default mechanism during a crisis. For example, during the collapse o f East Germany in 1989, citizens 1 spontaneously began to organize round tables to exp lore what to do next. In Argentina, after the economic collapse in 2001-2002 , neighbors flocked to the streets in front of their houses to talk about their proble ms. This sort of “crisis” deliberation however is not u sually sustained; democracy requires that we keep on deliberating beyond crisis situations. In Tupelo, Mississippi, it took a series of crises, combined with innovativ e leadership, to produce a long-term commitment to informal community deliberation. The Kettering Foundation has been interested in thi s topic for over ten years. A background paper on this topic by Noëlle McAfee and Denis Gilbert is included in this book following the introduction. In 2003, the Kettering Foundation decided to sponso r a series of research papers on “historic deliberation.” The papers were written by international colleagues, none of them historians by profession. Despite the chall enge of finding accurate historical 2 records, we received ten case studies from eight countries that included accounts from colonial records of the open town meetings in nineteenth-century Colombia to an interview with an 81-year-old man in a mountaino us region of eastern Romania. Six of these studies representing as many countries were selected to be included in this volume. The first case study looks at traditional decision-making processes in Cameroon. Joseph Sany Nzima, the author, pays particular atte ntion to the Baka people of his country. Next, Gabriel Murillo and Catalina Arreaza are the authors of a case study that describes the artisan democratic societies of Colombia in the nineteenth century. Daut Dauti of Kosova presents the ancient forms of public deliberation as found in one of the oldest codes of Albania, and David Robin son and Kayt Robinson conducted research on “Pacific Ways of Talk” in New Zealand. The Romaniansfat, one of the oldest forms of deliberative assemblie s in a community, is the topic of Ruxandra Petre’s case study. German Artamonov and Denis Makarov of Russia describe the early traditio ns of rural collective decision making in their country.

Sustainability

Most of the case studies reveal that particular man ifestations of deliberation in its traditional form have died out. However, Russian pe asant communities and their regional or tribalvechessurvived in some areas until 1917. The Council of Elders preceding meetings of the peasant assemblies includ ed a singer to preserve organizational history. In Albania, communism put a n end to centuries of deliberation fairly recently. The Illyrians used deliberation to control the power of kings as long ago as the eighth century. With the introduction of the Ottoman rule in the late

fourteenth century, the Albanians withdrew to the h ighlands, and a ruler named Lekë Dukagjini (1410-1481) wrote down and codified delib erative practices that had been valued and passed on for centuries. These practices continued among Albanians in Kosova and survived the loose Yugoslav version of c ommunism until the United Nations occupied the country in 1999 and began prom oting Western-style democracy. The practices ofHuiin New Zealand andTalanoain Fiji survived to the present day, perhaps because of references to people from the past not present in the room. In Fiji, a modern version of Talanoa has been used to heal polarization among politicians. In Romania, seven unusually prosperous small mountain towns where deliberation is still practiced were discovered. An d among the Baka, or Pygmy, in Cameroon, deliberation remains a key to the surviva l of small hunting-and-gathering communities. The diversity of cases, despite the fact that only a few have survived, suggest, rather paradoxically, that deliberation may be wide spread, albeit ephemeral, throughout the world and throughout history.

Contrasts with Modern Deliberation

How do historic examples of deliberation differ fro m present practices? In Fiji and among the Māori people of New Zealand, the Talanoa and Hui provide opportunities for all voices to be heard, not just all views, as in a modern forum. National assemblies and regional assemblies in Albania used the phrase “to beat a matter” the way Americans would say “to beat a matter to de ath.” Deliberations among the Baka in Cameroon sometimes last for many days. A second major distinction with modern forums is th at traditional deliberation did not typically include women or young people. In Alb ania, citizens were represented by household heads, and in Russia, every tenth head of a household was drafted to serve in the peasant assembly. Among the Māori in N ew Zealand, women convene the Hui but are not part of it. Here again, however, there are exceptions. Among the Baka in Cameroon, deliberation is based on horizontal kinship, and everyone in a community of 1,000 is important for survival. No on e has institutionalized power; authoritarianism is criticized; and leadership shifts, depending on talents and tasks at hand. How democratic were these forums in other respects? In Russia, Albania, Romania, and the South Pacific, elders were given p rivileged positions, either as a separate council or within forums. Russia reacted to the long Tartar invasion that 3 began in the thirteenth century by centralizing pow er, and thevecheswere less able to restore democratic processes. Further deterioration occurred with the introduction of serfdom in the seventeenth century. Yet Russian assemblies had two chambers, and the upper aristocratic assembly’s decisions had to be approved by the lower assembly of commoners. Within the Albanian forums, the position of the priests and imams was not privileged. The artisan democratic societies and the town meeti ngs in nineteenth-century Colombia excluded the indigenous population. Howeve r, the first artisan society in Colombia, founded in 1838, included both artisans a nd peasants. Along with other groups, such as the Masons and literary association s, the societies promoted the idea of an informed rational public opinion. As Gab riel Murillo and Catalina Arreaza write, “Deliberation did not just happen in their c hambers”; they also “made sure it happened outside and made it accessible to the mass es.” Through the civic education provided by these groups, tradesmen learn ed to speak in public, read newspapers, and contact politicians. Members could propose themes for internal deliberation. Ultimately, it was the bipartisan heg emony of the Liberal and Conservative parties that ended the role of the artisan societies. Since this

hegemony eventually culminated in the civil war of 1948, the survival of these societies might have led to a more positive form of political development. The Russian tribal unions also clashed with authori ties and provided a kind of rough check on state power. The community assembly in Smolensk prosecuted Governor Schein after his military loss to Polish invaders in 1626. Although governors generally negotiated between the community assembly and the czar, it was harder for the community to replace a headman o f the council of elders than a state-appointed governor. The czar sometimes replie d to a request to stop a subsidy with, “you elected him, you solve the problem.”

The Process of Deliberation Although evidence is limited, the case studies sugg est differences in the deliberative processes: • Hui and Talanoa in New Zealand “go in circles” and “repetition is common.” 4 People drinkkava, and gifts are presented. During a Hui, an elder listens to the contributions of all, then pulls them together into a decision. Women are not allowed to speak but are traditionally the peacemak ers behind the scenes. • In Russia, elders organized lists of speakers and subsequent voting. When no decision was made, “going to the wall” meant that a physical fight might be the only way to settle an issue. • In Albania and Kosova, “beating a matter” was foll owed by the best orators presenting their opinions based on the “common bene fit,” followed by majority vote. • Among the Baka of Cameroon, tense situations are a voided by paying no attention to the speaker. Deliberation involves lon g, meticulous discussions of alternatives and the one with least opposition is c hosen. Despite contrasts with modern deliberation and differences among traditional processes, there are also similarities with the more structured process used today. During thesfatin Romania, participants consider the interests of people not in the room. Then all opinions are presented, followed by the effects of alternative decisions. The elders enforce rules, such as the “n eed to find the best solution,” but the decision is made without voting. It is simply recorded on a blackboard and implemented. Community members who did not attend the sfat told Ruxandra Petre and her colleagues that they trust whatever decisio n is made. For example, one sfat and the mayor’s office jointly started building a l ocal clinic, which helped them lobby for support from the government. In Russia and Albania, assemblies were also courts that could try people accused of crimes. Thus, deliberative juries may have commo n historical roots with deliberative forums. Just as courts today settle ci vil disputes, traditional assemblies were also involved in peacemaking. In Albania, loca l assemblies often helped communities avoid blood feuds. People not allied wi th either side, after getting the respect of both sides, got people to talk to one an other openly. Sometimes blood feuds were settled at the expense of the individual victim whose suffering had prompted the feud in the first place.

Conclusions Is deliberation rare? Is it a part of the cultural basis for democracy? How widespread has it been at any one point in history? Are its organic practices at the very core of collective decision making? Was it ubi quitous before governments developed? These case studies only begin to answer these questions. However, 5 they do support the views reflected in Amartya Sen’s contemporary work as well as the Kettering Foundation background paper and others who challenge the notion that

democracy is an exclusively Western practice. Taken as a whole, the case studies also show that d eliberation is both fragile and powerful. It can be destroyed by top-down politics but seems to also be as natural as a sturdy plant eradicated in one area and reseeding itself in another. Sustainability seems to be related to codification, references to the past within the process itself, and how ingrained it becomes in the overall politic al culture. The preservation and recovery of unique public plac es in the twenty-first century could help resurrect deliberative democracy as well as community and collective decision making. Democracy becomes effective when those who have the capacity and will to live by its rule are able to deliberate together about what really matters in their community life. If there was once an openness to deliberation in a community, then maybe this could resurface with new opportunities.

____________________ 1 Cristiane Olivo, “The Practical Problems of Bridging Civil Society and the State: A Study of Round Tables in Eastern Germany,”Polity31 (Winter 1998): 245-267. 2 The case studies not included in this volume were:

Melanie Beauvy, “Political Participation at the Village Level in the Frankish Kingdom during the Middle Ages.”

Elfidio Cano del Cid, “Guatemala: Santiago Atitlan: A Case of Contemporary Civic and Political Participation.”

Gheorghe Cretu, “Decision Making Process in the Romanian Togetherness Villages.”

Lariza Pizano and Sandra Martinez, “The Cabildo of Santafe de Bogota: Between Deliberation and Representation.”

Luciano de Privitellio and Luis Alberto Romero, “Civil Society Organizations, Civic Traditions and Democratic Culture: The Case of Buenos Aires, 1912-1976.”

Parichart Sthapitanonda, “The Deliberation Process in the Urban Society: A Case Study of the Civic Group in Banglumpoo Area, Bangkok, Thailand.” 3 Etymologically,vechecomes from a word meaning “to speak” or “to talk.” In early Russia, the word was used to denominate town meetings. 4 Kava (Piper methysticum) is an ancient crop of the western Pacific. Kava is related to black pepper; both have heart-shaped leaves and flowers similar to the flower spike of the anthurium. Kava also has a peppery taste. Kava has long been a part of religious, political, and cultural life throughout the Pacific. Kava is traditionally consumed as an herbal tea. 5 Amartya Sen, “Democracy and Its Global Roots,”The New Republic(October 2003).