CAHIERS DU CRISES
–
COLLECTION ÉTUDES THÉORIQUES
–
NO
ET0908
42
Even I only thought of my own street when I first took part in participatory
budgeting. But then I met other people and communities and learned of much
greater problems. What I thought of as a huge problem was nothing
compared with the situations of some of the others. The question of having
no place to live, sleeping under a piece of cloth, or open sewage close to
where the children run and play. I forgot about my street, so that even today
it still hasn’t been paved. (Solidariedade 2003: 105).
This points at the significant transformation of an individualistic Weltanschauung into one
based on solidarity – from ‘I’ to ‘we’, as Baiocchi put it (Baiocchi 2003). This clearly
indicates the emergence of the positive educative aspects linked to citizen’s governance. The
number of local initiatives in Porto Alegre, in contrast to other capital cities in Brazil,
increased in the 1990s. This can be attributed to the particularly high motivation of the people
to mobilise because they were aware that this would allow them to directly improve their
living conditions.
Problems arose in connection with long term strategic planning which was difficult to
integrate into the participatory process, where the budgetary cycle restricted the horizon for
participatory planning to one year. Environmental problems were also hardly ever tackled,
which was illustrated by the high spending priority on paving roads, which results in cleaner
and more accessible environments but also enables cars to pass through more quickly, while
children lose these spaces for playing. The problematic approach to ecology is even more
striking in terms of sewage management – the expansion of the sewage network was
undertaken without considering waste water treatment
Nevertheless, Porto Alegre is one of the
most important examples for socially innovative practices and has thus been the main model
for new concepts such as “participatory publics” (Avritzer 2002), “empowered participatory
governance” (Fung/Wright 2003) and a public state (Novy/Leubolt 2005). Especially
concerning lobbying, Porto Alegre is an interesting model, as lobbying for resources continued
to exist, but was managed in an open and democratic way, thereby bypassing the above
mentioned problems – this was especially visible, as groups which tend to be excluded from
decision making – women, ethnic minorities and poor people were very strongly represented
in the PB process. But as socially inclusive practices have to include bottom–up processes, the
model of Porto Alegre cannot simply be copied to other places. Even though not copied, the
PB has – apart from being adopted to various cities throughout the world – been up-scaled to
the regional level of the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul (cfl. Schneider/Goldfrank 2002;
Leubolt 2006). This experience showed the potentials of up-scaling, as the scope of action was
considerably bigger. The increased number of involved actors also led to increased conflicts
with established actors. For Porto Alegre’s citizens this also created problems concerning time
to attend both participatory processes. Nevertheless, the idea of up-scaling still seems to be a
GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY
–
KATARIS PROJECT
43
promising strategy, as dangers of localism can be avoided. Problems with economic policies
on the national scale limited the possibilities for social inclusion on both the local and the
regional scales – especially concerning employment opportunities, which largely depended on
national policies and international influences and thus could only marginally be tackled in the
described cases.
3.3. Tower
Colliery:
Nurturing Alternative Space
9
Tower Colliery is the last deep mine in the UK South Wales coalfield. It is situated in one of
the most economically disadvantaged areas in Great Britain. In 1994, under the Conservative
government’s energy re-structuring policy, the mine was closed. However, despite a vote by
the miners to accept redundancy, a campaign was started by Tower members of the National
Union of Mineworkers (NUM) which organised an employee buyout to establish a workers
cooperative. A group elected by the workforce, the Tower Employment Buyout Team
(TEBO), assembled a business plan, a technical plan, bank loans, support from the local
authority and the Wales Co-operative Centre, donations and, finally, a pledge of almost £2
million composed of the £8,000 redundancy money from each of 239 miners. The Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI) accepted the TEBO’s bid of £10m in November, 1994 and Tower
reopened on 2nd January, 1995 as a worker-owned co-operative business enterprise. The
stated objective was to create jobs and, at the time of writing, it has prospered as an alternative
business enterprise for over 10 years.
Legal ownership of these physical assets is vested in the employee-owners who enjoy all the
conventional rights of company shareholders. In common with the initial personal financial
investment made by the original members, any new member has to invest £8k in a share when
starting “employment” at Tower. Low interest bank loans are available for new starters to
purchase the share. (In addition, whenever possible, arrangements are made to ensure new
members are given overtime to help them pay off these loans.)
The co-operative is a private limited company which is structured to ensure members enjoy
direct control over company policy on the basis of ‘one-share-one-vote’. Although the value of
individual shares varies depending on when the member joined the co-operative, no member
has more than 1 vote.
9
This chapter was written by: Len Arthur (UWIC, Cardiff), Tom Keenoy (University of Leicester), Molly Scott Cato (UWIC, Cardiff)
Russell Smith (UWIC, Cardiff).