A governance commons to support the commons economy? Conversation with Dr Sonia Bussu

Liberal democracy supports capitalism. What kind of governance system would support the commons economy?

Dave Darby of Lowimpact.org and Stroud Commons in conversation with Sonia Bussu, Associate Professor in Public Policy at the University of Birmingham and project lead for INSPIRE (looking at democratic innovations and their limitations – particularly around marginalised people), about participatory democracy and its role in helping build the commons economy. Here’s an abbreviated transcript:

Dave: as you know, I’m involved with a network of people trying to build the foundations of a commons economy. I’d like to see a type of governance that supports the commons economy in the same way that liberal democracy supports capitalism. I want to try to work out what kind of governance that might be – and I think you might be a very good person to talk with about that.

Sonia: possibly. We’re all trying to figure it out. I don’t think there’s an easy panacaea. It requires a lot of collective wisdom. The problem with liberal democracy is that it’s premised on political and civic equality, but within a political economy based on capitalism, that entrenches social and economic inequalities. So it becomes a paradox – how can you exert your political rights within a context where you might not have access to basic economic rights? Another paradox is that we tend to think of democracy as institutional arrangements, but I see it more as everyday practice. It should be embedded in our everyday life. Then it’s not about trying to replace one form of government with another, but trying to democratise spaces that are currently not democratic, like workplaces or schools. Democratising the economy is crucial.

Dave: there’s so much corporate money in the political system. And so many corporate lobbyists. And politicians with shares in corporations and sitting on the boards of corporations. And corporate directors are invited into government. (as we speak, the US secretary of defence is an arms dealer! And that’s the Democrats!).

Sonia: I don’t think we can look at the political, social, economic and environmental crises in isolation. They’re all closely interrelated. It’s not enough to tweak the electoral system. We really need to think about how we move towards different modes of production and governance – not just via elections every 4 or 5 years.

Dave: power is mainly economic in the modern world, so we can’t change the governance system without looking at the economy, because that’s where power really is.

Sonia: it’s also about culture and ideas. People struggle to see any alternative to neoliberalism. There’s a lack of imagination. There’s so much to explore and experiment with – from commons economy and co-operative principles within all spaces in society, not just the political arena. Participatory democracy as a theory is about embedding democracy in everyday life. Carol Pateman wrote a lot about this – one of many scholars on participatory / deliberative democracy – rational discussion beyond identity-based positions.

Dave: can you help people understand the labels? Is participatory democracy or deliberative democracy an umbrella term.

Sonia: there are different theories of democracy. Participatory democracy sees democracy as embedded in everyday life, and as a developmental process – the more people participate, the more confident they feel about participating. Deliberative democracy comes from Habermas and enlightenment ideals around rational argumentation – trying to move beyond our own self-interest towards common interests by engaging with other perspectives, active listening, transparency and accessing unbiased information.

Dave: how do people understand the different labels? I’ve heard about citizens’ assemblies, councils, juries, people’s assemblies, community assemblies etc.

Sonia: there’s a big family of democratic innovations.

Dave: how do we know which innovations to use for which situation?

Sonia: you’ll get different opinions, but I think it can be quite arbitrary, depending on who’s involved etc. It’s good to think of all these tools as part of a participatory ecology. You can experiment – but really, it’s all about creating spaces for dialogue across differences, to build trust in our communities.

Dave: I like the concept of participatory democracy because it doesn’t involve professional politicians, who are just thinking about the next election, not the long-term, and I don’t see how it can be influenced by corporate money or lobbyists (or at least it would be more difficult). But even if there’s a huge ecology of local, national, even global assemblies, it doesn’t actually get rid of the professional politicians. So what if the state doesn’t like the decisions arrived at and just says no?

Sonia: this is why having citizens’ assemblies alone isn’t enough. They have to be linked to other things, like campaigning and other grassroots work – like the work that you’re doing with the commons. It’s all part of a process towards wider change. Many new democratic initiatives are tokenistic, because they don’t really challenge power or the status quo. Take participatory budgeting, initiated in Porto Alegre in Brazil – it became so popular that it was embraced by international organisations like the World Bank, and as it spread, it became de-radicalised, and incorporated into the neoliberal language of good governance. It stopped challenging the status quo and was used instead to legitimise it – promoting transparency and accountability, which is great – but not challenging the unequal political economy or the balance of power in society. So you can’t rely on one method – we need to think about entire processes of change. If we want to democratise the local economy, we can make alliances with local government. Community Wealth Building is a good example.

Dave: it’s a patchwork of initiatives?

Sonia: exactly – it’s about making democracy real. But I don’t think elections and parliament are easily replaceable.

Dave: that’s what I wanted to ask you. Is there any possible roadmap for participatory democracy to replace electoral politics? Or is that crazy talk?

Sonia: I honestly think it’s fine to experiment, but being aware that every system has trade-offs, and there’s no ideal system. As I said, I think it’s about trying to democratise different spaces, not just thinking about the political arena.

Dave: the reason I’m thinking about electoral politics is that it can overrule everything we do – regardless of whether there’s a huge patchwork of democratic institutions. It can just ensure that the corporate system continues – so I’m very interested in how we might change that.

Sonia: that’s why democratising the economy is crucial, right? It starts from the bottom up – creating networks, like commons, new municipalism, campaigns around sustainability, youth mental health etc. – communities of interest, not just geographical. I think it’s important to find ways to support these networks and inspire each other. If we have a citizenry with stronger critical thinking and democratic skills that would be good. We’re becoming more alienated, distanced from each other. A lot happens online, on commercial platforms, that use algorithms that no-one understands. There’s no transparency, and there’s engineered polarisation, creating bubbles so that we don’t understand each other any more. This creates fear that is easily exploitable by political opportunists. I don’t think the local authority should be seen as an enemy – we have to think about how we can create alliances. Local councillors are local residents and part of the community. It’s important to reclaim the political role of local authorities, who are becoming more and more just deliverers of services in a context of ongoing cuts. If we can build alliances (including regional alliances), the periphery could become stronger versus central government. Again, the commons is crucial in this, with local governments as a potential ally.

Dave: local government for sure. I want to also ask you about sortition (as with jury service) to make sure all sectors of society are involved. But won’t the educated middle classes have an advantage, when it comes to speaking in public? And what about introverts, and autistic people? Won’t they be disadvantaged?

Sonia: there’s a lot of work happening to make these spaces more inclusive. Sortition can be good, but it’s not a panacaea. The idea that sortition guarantees inclusion and representation. Not everyone selected will feel confident to participate, as you say. There will be differentiation along educational and cultural lines – hidden hierarchies of expertise and power. That’s why we shouldn’t rely on just one method. There are lots of ways of involving different groups – which is why we include participatory theatre, arts-based approaches, games etc. For me, co-designing, with the participants, new ways of doing participation is important. If we see the resources and barriers from their perspective, we can work out different ways of doing things, that we’re not aware of at the moment.

Dave: you’re also involved with digital platforms for deliberation. Those could be useful for people who are not so confident in face-to-face meetings.

Sonia: but they also exclude other people, who might have problems with access or lack digital skills. Every way of involving people has pros and cons. That’s why we need to think in terms of ecologies. I start with groups that are marginalised – thinking about barriers to their participation, and how we can remove them – or create new spaces of participation entirely. There’s a lot of experimentation with digital platforms – free and open-source, as an alternative to commercial platforms, so that citizens can own their own data, and be more able to shape their own spaces online. Platforms like Decidim are interesting. I think people do need to meet in person though – to build trust, and online platforms can be amplifiers. We should all be free to experiment more, and not be fixated on just one solution or blueprint.

Dave: – an ecology, a patchwork, yes. Can you talk more about the pros and cons of assemblies organised by the state, and those organised bottom-up, in communities.

Sonia: I don’t want to fall into the trap of romanticising the bottom-up. Social movements and communities can also be exclusive. I think we need both. You can have interesting and inclusive movements led by communities and the commons, but they might not have the resources or influence to make the changes required. On the other hand if the process is started by the state, it might not be as open as we’d like, because the agenda is already framed. And there’s the danger that politicians will cherry-pick the recommendations that fit their existing agenda, rather than being open to proposals that challenge the status quo. But if you look at the records, influence on policy actions is a problem whether the process is via community or the state. Maybe we need to think about hybrid approaches.

Dave: states are all obsessed with GDP growth. So if assemblies start to question that, I can see them being closed down or ignored.

Sonia: very few people know that these assemblies are happening. The media don’t seem to be interested, and I think one of the problems is that local media in this country is almost non-existent, and national media is more interested in conflict, scandals and clickbait. The visibility of these processes is important, and linking them to civil society / campaigns can help to get recommendations implemented, or get explanations if they’re not. These processes are not magic wands that can change things by themselves.

Dave: in Stroud, we’re connecting together commons groups in different sectors of the economy, sociocratically. So we’re currently looking at sociocracy for commons governance (i.e. governance of the commons economy), and assemblies as potential governance commons, if you see what I mean. What do you think?

Sonia: it’s interesting, and I think what you’re doing is really inspiring. Sociocracy is based on non-hierarchical principles – I know it’s quite popular within co-operatives; and assemblies can catalyse change – it’s all part of the ecology. How are you envisaging your relationship with the local council?

Dave: it’s all very marginal at the moment, isn’t it? I’d love to talk to you again, maybe in a year’s time, when things have hopefully grown a bit, to see how things might pan out.

Sonia: if you manage to mobilise your community around commons economy / governance, there’s so much experimentation that can happen, and so much learning there. Do you have local co-ops / businesses supporting this process / providing resources?

Dave: we’re starting to build alliances with local businesses and organisations.

Sonia: that’s the way to do it – and with citizens’ assemblies working with the local government. There are councils that have been trying to do this, even in the UK. You should maybe talk with people in Camden – they’ve been trying to change their statutes to include more participatory ways of policy-making and local governance. It’s not easy to give full power to a citizens’ assembly in the context of representative democracy – there could be legal repercussions. It’s always more complicated than it first seems, but it’s worth exploring.

Dave: how do people keep up to speed with what you’re up to?

Sonia: Linkedin. Plus there are some brilliant networks like People Power – a global hub for participatory democracy; and Participedia – a global network of people involved in democratic innovation. If you want to talk with more people, you could talk with activists in the UK or elsewhere, especially people from the Global South.

Dave: any recommendations?

Sonia: yes, I’ll send you some.

Dave: that would be great. Good talking with you, and I’d like this conversation to continue.

Sonia: definitely – we’ll keep in touch. I think what you’re doing in Stroud is really inspiring, so keep me updated, and hopefully we can collaborate.

A few links to follow some work in this space:

INSPIRE | INSPIRE_Horizon

People Powered – Global Hub for Participatory Democracy

Open Spaces

Fearless Cities

Homepage | CoP CC on Participatory and Deliberative Democracy

Highlights

1. It’s important to democratise spaces that are currently not democratic, like workplaces or schools. Democratising the economy is crucial.
2. It’s good to think of all these tools as part of a participatory ecology. You can experiment – but really, it’s all about creating spaces for dialogue across differences, to build trust in our communities.
3. Having citizens’ assemblies alone isn’t enough. They have to be linked to other things, like campaigning and other grassroots work – like the commons.
4. We have to think about how we can create alliances with local authorities. Local councillors are local residents and part of the community.