From Socrates’ questioning of all assumptions to Rorty’s assumption that nothing is beyond questioning, the history of philosophy can give the impression that little progress is ever made in reflecting on how we should live. But the intellectual journey from Thomas More’s communal utopia to our communitarian conception of synetopia would suggest that, provided the process of questioning is systematically linked to the formulation and revision of the way we live together, we can improve society over time.
Questioning the claims and commands of those who expect others to accept them is essential if the misguided and devious do not slip through along with sound assertions and orders. However, such questioning must be anchored to objectives that can be genuinely shared by all involved, and these would have to revolve around a combination of their personal and collective wellbeing. It also has to be carried out in a robust and responsible manner so that bad reasoning and inadequate evidence are challenged, while lessons learnt are retained until they are superseded by better explanations or new findings.
The development of the synetopia thesis has been driven by adaptations to shared experiences of what helps and what hinders the cultivation of cooperative problem-solving. Collaborating under conditions of equal respect and mutual support, people achieve far more than they ever could as isolated individuals, or worse, as enemies who plot to undermine each other.
Of course it is possible that some people would prefer to go with their own inclinations, however irrational or repugnant these may strike others, even if it means that other people’s wellbeing could be adversely affected. In some cases, even their trade-off to gain some gratification at the expense of other aspects of their lives may appear absurd to other people. But as Wittgenstein might say, the differences between such people and the rest of us are foundational – in the sense that they cannot go any further beyond the bedrock of justification. We may prefer to cooperate so as to maximise our personal and mutual good in harmony, but there are those who would rather follow their own short-term desires irrespective of any wider consequences; inflict pain on the innocent; build empires by subjugating the powerless; lose themselves in mind-numbing addictions; boost their low self-esteem through bullying; enrich themselves by deceiving the trusting; or indulge in personal obsessions with no thought for anyone else.
The ultimate difference is that while we can reach out and invite others to join us in what are genuinely common endeavours, the variants of self-centred exploits cannot be presented as a philosophy that is open to all.
In other words, synetopia is where reciprocity is taken seriously (see: ‘Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism’). Throughout history, as this ethos evolves, cooperation expands and diverse strands of joint deliberation and democratic power sharing come together to form a worldview directed at the building of inclusive community life (see: ‘Communitarians: an introduction’; ‘Cooperative & Communitarian: a common heritage’; and ‘The Radical Communitarian Synthesis’).
When it is applied to the functioning of local and national government, it generates further learning on how inclusive communities can be developed and sustained (see, for example, ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment'). This in turn helps to inform the formulation of ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’, which provides a general framework for assessing what needs to be improved.
The reasoning that underpins the synetopia thesis that mutual questioning and systematic cooperation will help advance us towards better human conditions is set out in detail in the following books:
• Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics & citizenship (Macmillan 1998): a comprehensive statement of the core principles, and their justification and applications. Reviews of the book can be found here.
• Progressive Politics in the Global Age (Polity 2001): a collection of writings by European and American thinkers on progressive communitarianism.
• Against Power Inequalities: a history of the progressive struggle (Birkbeck 2015): an exposition of the barriers to the development of more inclusive communities, and how they were overcome over the past centuries.
• Responsibility and Personal Interactions (Edwin Mellen Press 1990): a detailed study of how our responsibility to one another is connected to the type of personal interactions we seek to sustain with others in society.
• Punishment, Excuses & Moral Development (Avebury Press 1996): a collection of communitarian writings on what judgement and response would be appropriate in relation to the behaviour of other people.
--
If your university or local library has a copy of the International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition; James D. Wright, editor-in-chief; Oxford: Elsevier; 2015), then you can access a useful summary of communitarian ideas in the article, ‘Communitarianism, sociology of' (by Henry Tam, in Vol. 4, pp.311-316).
Friday, December 25, 2015
Friday, December 18, 2015
The Synetopia Protocol
‘Synetopia’ denotes the ‘cooperative place’, where people work together so that the sum of what is achieved for everyone is greater than all the outcomes they would have managed to attain as isolated individuals. It marks the departure from ‘utopia’ where the ‘good place’ is either too abstract a notion to serve as a guide, or is premised on such impossible terms that it is in effect an unrealisable ideal (or ‘ou-topia’ - ‘no place’). By contrast, synetopia is achievable precisely through forms of interaction that have been tried and tested in diverse contexts, and proven to improve human relationships and improve the quality of life. The challenge is to put the essential elements in place consistently and extensively. To this end, a protocol has been devised with the ‘SYNETOPIA’ acronym spelling out those elements:
S hared Mission
Y ou-and-I Mutuality
N imble Membership
E ducative Collaboration
T esting of Claims and Assumptions
O pen Access to Information
P articipatory Decision-Making
I mpartial Distribution of Power
A ccountability for Action
The Synetopia Protocol is designed to provide a simple framework to help review any group (voluntary, commercial, or governmental) in terms of how it is performing under each of these nine elements, and map out how they can be improved and sustained on a continuous basis. There is no perfect future to reach, but simply a cooperative process to render the present better than the past.
Shared Mission
All members of the group have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group provides an effective and visible vehicle to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
Measures of success: How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members? How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
Indicators of deficiency: Members feel a lack of cohesion, concerned that they are isolated and insecure, are indifferent or antagonistic towards other members.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there is genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none can amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Measures of success: Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits? How confident are members that the arrangements will operate reliably and impartially?
Indicators of deficiency: Members believe that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group, and they are constantly marginalised and deprived of their share.
Nimble Membership
There is a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Measures of success: Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members? Do members know what is expected of them individually? Is there a clear decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
Indicators of deficiency: There are too few/too many members to function effectively; current members are distrustful of the process of accepting and/excluding people as members.
Educative Collaboration
All members of the group are enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the relevant evidence as well as proposals for change.
Measures of success: Is there a culture of lifelong learning? Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
Indicators of deficiency: Members are detached from thinking through why things are done in their group; they casually accept or reject ideas & instructions. There is a lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group does not accept that there is any claim or assumption that is fundamentally unquestionable. It is prepared to subject all proposals and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Measures of success: How confident are members in questioning claims put forward by those in more highly ranked positions? Is everyone aware that nothing (in the name of ‘tradition’ or anything else) can be ring-fenced from empirical analysis? Is open and critical discussion of current and new ideas encouraged and facilitated?
Indicators of deficiency: Irrational beliefs are allowed to take hold & undermine intelligent considerations. There is widespread perception that there is no point or scope in subjecting any activity to critical questioning.
Open Access to Information
Nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception are in place, and demands for secrecy are independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Measures of success: How reliable are the communication channels in place to facilitate inspection, audit, whistleblowing, peer review to keep wrongdoing at bay? How easy is it for members to discover and access relevant and accurate information about the group’s past performance and future options?
Indicators of deficiency: There is common suspicion that systematic or reactive shielding of irresponsible actions is perpetrated; there is unjustifiable refusal or obstruction to members seeking to find out more about what has been done in the group and why.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group enables and encourages all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensures everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Measures of success: Are the procedures for decision-making clear to all members? How extensive are training and participation opportunities made available? And how effective are they in ensuring that no one will be ignored or disrespected? Does the joint decision-making apply to how to divide and distribute the resources generated by the group?
Indicators of deficiency: A significant number of members either lack the information or skills to make sensible decisions, or decline to become involved in decision making altogether. Insufficiently thought-through or biased decisions harm the group & its members.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power is monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Measures of success: Are there safeguards in place to stop individuals or sections in the group accumulating power? Is there a regular and effective redistribution of power so that even concentrated powers for emergencies are only granted on temporary basis? Are there checks and balances so that no one can hold others to ransom by threats?
Indicators of deficiency: There is suppression of dissent and pervasive enforcement of reluctant compliance. Members show fear, resentment, distrust towards the leadership.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, are held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges are resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
Measures of success: Are there transparent electoral or selection process to replace those with positions of authority? How easy is it to detect unjustifiable actions? Are there reliable mechanisms for all to trigger to summon potential wrongdoers to account for their actions? Are members supported in being vigilant in challenging decisions that appear to be illegitimate?
Indicators of deficiency: Some are able to stay in positions of power regardless of the severity and frequency of concerns raised; some are suspected of placing their own personal interests and/or those who bribe them above the collective interests of the group.
--
The elements identified for the synetopia protocol are derived from a combination of academic research, international exchange of policy ideas, and a review of the findings of the ‘Together We Can’ action learning programme I carried out as the UK Government’s Head of Civil Renewal between 2003 and 2010. More details on each of the nine elements that constitute synetopia can be found in the essays on those elements listed in the 'Guide to Synetopia'.
S hared Mission
Y ou-and-I Mutuality
N imble Membership
E ducative Collaboration
T esting of Claims and Assumptions
O pen Access to Information
P articipatory Decision-Making
I mpartial Distribution of Power
A ccountability for Action
The Synetopia Protocol is designed to provide a simple framework to help review any group (voluntary, commercial, or governmental) in terms of how it is performing under each of these nine elements, and map out how they can be improved and sustained on a continuous basis. There is no perfect future to reach, but simply a cooperative process to render the present better than the past.
Shared Mission
All members of the group have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group provides an effective and visible vehicle to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
Measures of success: How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members? How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
Indicators of deficiency: Members feel a lack of cohesion, concerned that they are isolated and insecure, are indifferent or antagonistic towards other members.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there is genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none can amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Measures of success: Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits? How confident are members that the arrangements will operate reliably and impartially?
Indicators of deficiency: Members believe that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group, and they are constantly marginalised and deprived of their share.
Nimble Membership
There is a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Measures of success: Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members? Do members know what is expected of them individually? Is there a clear decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
Indicators of deficiency: There are too few/too many members to function effectively; current members are distrustful of the process of accepting and/excluding people as members.
Educative Collaboration
All members of the group are enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the relevant evidence as well as proposals for change.
Measures of success: Is there a culture of lifelong learning? Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
Indicators of deficiency: Members are detached from thinking through why things are done in their group; they casually accept or reject ideas & instructions. There is a lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group does not accept that there is any claim or assumption that is fundamentally unquestionable. It is prepared to subject all proposals and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Measures of success: How confident are members in questioning claims put forward by those in more highly ranked positions? Is everyone aware that nothing (in the name of ‘tradition’ or anything else) can be ring-fenced from empirical analysis? Is open and critical discussion of current and new ideas encouraged and facilitated?
Indicators of deficiency: Irrational beliefs are allowed to take hold & undermine intelligent considerations. There is widespread perception that there is no point or scope in subjecting any activity to critical questioning.
Open Access to Information
Nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception are in place, and demands for secrecy are independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Measures of success: How reliable are the communication channels in place to facilitate inspection, audit, whistleblowing, peer review to keep wrongdoing at bay? How easy is it for members to discover and access relevant and accurate information about the group’s past performance and future options?
Indicators of deficiency: There is common suspicion that systematic or reactive shielding of irresponsible actions is perpetrated; there is unjustifiable refusal or obstruction to members seeking to find out more about what has been done in the group and why.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group enables and encourages all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensures everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Measures of success: Are the procedures for decision-making clear to all members? How extensive are training and participation opportunities made available? And how effective are they in ensuring that no one will be ignored or disrespected? Does the joint decision-making apply to how to divide and distribute the resources generated by the group?
Indicators of deficiency: A significant number of members either lack the information or skills to make sensible decisions, or decline to become involved in decision making altogether. Insufficiently thought-through or biased decisions harm the group & its members.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power is monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Measures of success: Are there safeguards in place to stop individuals or sections in the group accumulating power? Is there a regular and effective redistribution of power so that even concentrated powers for emergencies are only granted on temporary basis? Are there checks and balances so that no one can hold others to ransom by threats?
Indicators of deficiency: There is suppression of dissent and pervasive enforcement of reluctant compliance. Members show fear, resentment, distrust towards the leadership.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, are held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges are resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
Measures of success: Are there transparent electoral or selection process to replace those with positions of authority? How easy is it to detect unjustifiable actions? Are there reliable mechanisms for all to trigger to summon potential wrongdoers to account for their actions? Are members supported in being vigilant in challenging decisions that appear to be illegitimate?
Indicators of deficiency: Some are able to stay in positions of power regardless of the severity and frequency of concerns raised; some are suspected of placing their own personal interests and/or those who bribe them above the collective interests of the group.
--
The elements identified for the synetopia protocol are derived from a combination of academic research, international exchange of policy ideas, and a review of the findings of the ‘Together We Can’ action learning programme I carried out as the UK Government’s Head of Civil Renewal between 2003 and 2010. More details on each of the nine elements that constitute synetopia can be found in the essays on those elements listed in the 'Guide to Synetopia'.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Together We Can: resources for cooperative problem-solving
Introduction
Together We Can is a set of practical resources drawn together from the national ‘Together We Can’ programme (carried out by the UK Government 2003-2010 as an action-learning exercise to empower citizens to cooperate with each other and with public bodies to solve problems); the international Cooperative Problem-Solving research (at the Forum for Youth Participation & Democracy, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge); and the ‘Working with Communities’ initiative (implemented for a local authority over a 4 year period to strengthen democratic participation, and subsequently recognised with a Best Practice Award from the Prime Minister in 1999). These resources have also informed the development of the Synetopia Protocol.
What are the key issues to reflect on
• How can we show that people are ready to engage in public decisions provided they are actually given a meaningful say?
• What are the key ingredients for effective cooperative problem-solving?
• What are the main lessons to learn from civic disengagement?
• How to build sustainable democratic action when those hostile to such action are in power?
• Why greater focus should be given to tried and tested techniques than reinventing short-term ‘innovative’ projects?
How to get hold of the resources
The following cover a range of ideas and findings on the value of adopting cooperative problem-solving, and they are all accessible for free online:
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving & Education': on the evidence for suggesting why cooperative problem-solving should be taught more widely (published by the Forum Journal, 2013).
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’: on the key elements of successful cooperative problem-solving, as jointly agreed with a group of academics and practitioners (Question the Powerful, October 2012).
• ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment’: on the lessons from the ‘Together We Can’ programme and ‘Working with Communities’ initiative (first published in Forum Journal, Vol 53, Number 3, 2011).
• ‘The Case for Cooperative Problem-Solving’: on why cooperative problem-solving is needed in tackling social, economic and environmental problems (Question the Powerful, May, 2012).
• 'The Cooperative Gestalt': on the role of lifelong learning in developing a cooperative mindset (Question the Powerful, November 2013).
For case study materials based on the ‘Together We Can’ programme, you can download the following from the national archives at no charge:
• ‘Together We Can’ action plan: the cross-government plan with commitments in the key public policy areas.
• Annex to ‘Together We Can’ action plan: with details of the proposed initiatives.
• ‘Together We Can’ 2005/2006 review: reports from the Secretaries of State and Ministers on progress in 12 Government Departments.
Options for further engagement
• Contact Henry Tam with any question about his experience in devising and delivering these local and national programmes.
• Share the Together We Can resources with others to promote effective cooperative problem-solving between citizens, and between state and citizens.
• Set up a meeting to discuss evolving strategies for community empowerment citizen action.
• Draw on the resources to develop democratic campaign groups and cooperative alliances to strengthen community solidarity and challenge the irresponsible acts of the powerful.
Supplementary Materials
The following works provide more information on how the Together We Can approach has evolved to become key to the cultivation of the cooperative gestalt in citizen-state cooperation:
• 'The Importance of Being a Citizen’: in Active Learning for Active Citizenship, ed. by John Annette & Marjorie Mayo, (NIACE, 2010)
• ‘Civil Renewal: the agenda for empowering citizens’, in Re-energizing Citizenship: Strategies for Civil Renewal, ed. by Gerry Stoker, Tessa Brannan, and Peter John, (Macmillan Palgrave, 2007).
• Serving the Public: customer management in local government (Longman: 1993)
The following links will take you to range of resources on how citizens can play a more influential part in shaping their communities and their state:
• ‘Take Part’: resources for ‘Active Learning for Active Citizenship’.
• ‘Guide Neighbourhoods’: how communities can learn cooperative problem-solving and civic activism from each other.
• ‘Civic Pioneers’ first report and second report: collaborative working between local authorities and citizens to improve local quality of life.
• ‘Quirk Review’: report on community management and ownership of public assets.
• ‘Asset Transfer Unit’: resources to support the transfer of assets to community-based organisations.
• ‘Participatory Budgeting’: resources to expand the use of participatory budgeting in deciding how to allocate public resources.
• ‘Councillors Commission’: report with recommendations on how to improve the democratic role of elected local councillors and facilitate citizen participation.
Together We Can is a set of practical resources drawn together from the national ‘Together We Can’ programme (carried out by the UK Government 2003-2010 as an action-learning exercise to empower citizens to cooperate with each other and with public bodies to solve problems); the international Cooperative Problem-Solving research (at the Forum for Youth Participation & Democracy, Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge); and the ‘Working with Communities’ initiative (implemented for a local authority over a 4 year period to strengthen democratic participation, and subsequently recognised with a Best Practice Award from the Prime Minister in 1999). These resources have also informed the development of the Synetopia Protocol.
What are the key issues to reflect on
• How can we show that people are ready to engage in public decisions provided they are actually given a meaningful say?
• What are the key ingredients for effective cooperative problem-solving?
• What are the main lessons to learn from civic disengagement?
• How to build sustainable democratic action when those hostile to such action are in power?
• Why greater focus should be given to tried and tested techniques than reinventing short-term ‘innovative’ projects?
How to get hold of the resources
The following cover a range of ideas and findings on the value of adopting cooperative problem-solving, and they are all accessible for free online:
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving & Education': on the evidence for suggesting why cooperative problem-solving should be taught more widely (published by the Forum Journal, 2013).
• ‘Cooperative Problem-Solving: the key to a reciprocal society’: on the key elements of successful cooperative problem-solving, as jointly agreed with a group of academics and practitioners (Question the Powerful, October 2012).
• ‘Rejuvenating Democracy: lessons from a communitarian experiment’: on the lessons from the ‘Together We Can’ programme and ‘Working with Communities’ initiative (first published in Forum Journal, Vol 53, Number 3, 2011).
• ‘The Case for Cooperative Problem-Solving’: on why cooperative problem-solving is needed in tackling social, economic and environmental problems (Question the Powerful, May, 2012).
• 'The Cooperative Gestalt': on the role of lifelong learning in developing a cooperative mindset (Question the Powerful, November 2013).
For case study materials based on the ‘Together We Can’ programme, you can download the following from the national archives at no charge:
• ‘Together We Can’ action plan: the cross-government plan with commitments in the key public policy areas.
• Annex to ‘Together We Can’ action plan: with details of the proposed initiatives.
• ‘Together We Can’ 2005/2006 review: reports from the Secretaries of State and Ministers on progress in 12 Government Departments.
Options for further engagement
• Contact Henry Tam with any question about his experience in devising and delivering these local and national programmes.
• Share the Together We Can resources with others to promote effective cooperative problem-solving between citizens, and between state and citizens.
• Set up a meeting to discuss evolving strategies for community empowerment citizen action.
• Draw on the resources to develop democratic campaign groups and cooperative alliances to strengthen community solidarity and challenge the irresponsible acts of the powerful.
Supplementary Materials
The following works provide more information on how the Together We Can approach has evolved to become key to the cultivation of the cooperative gestalt in citizen-state cooperation:
• 'The Importance of Being a Citizen’: in Active Learning for Active Citizenship, ed. by John Annette & Marjorie Mayo, (NIACE, 2010)
• ‘Civil Renewal: the agenda for empowering citizens’, in Re-energizing Citizenship: Strategies for Civil Renewal, ed. by Gerry Stoker, Tessa Brannan, and Peter John, (Macmillan Palgrave, 2007).
• Serving the Public: customer management in local government (Longman: 1993)
The following links will take you to range of resources on how citizens can play a more influential part in shaping their communities and their state:
• ‘Take Part’: resources for ‘Active Learning for Active Citizenship’.
• ‘Guide Neighbourhoods’: how communities can learn cooperative problem-solving and civic activism from each other.
• ‘Civic Pioneers’ first report and second report: collaborative working between local authorities and citizens to improve local quality of life.
• ‘Quirk Review’: report on community management and ownership of public assets.
• ‘Asset Transfer Unit’: resources to support the transfer of assets to community-based organisations.
• ‘Participatory Budgeting’: resources to expand the use of participatory budgeting in deciding how to allocate public resources.
• ‘Councillors Commission’: report with recommendations on how to improve the democratic role of elected local councillors and facilitate citizen participation.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
A Place called SYNETOPIA
Thomas More famously called his fictional society ‘utopia’ – which has the double Greek meaning of ‘ou-topos’ (i.e., no such place), and ‘eu-topos’ (i.e., the good place). Understandably, a society free from the kind of excessive wealth and poverty More so deplored is one that is for him both good and, sadly, nowhere to be found.
Since More’s Utopia was published in 1516, there have been many attempts to transform the world into a more perfect state. Some have raised hopes, made little sustained impact, and faded away as feeble utopian dreams. Others have pushed through completely new systems, brought sweeping changes, and created what turned out to be frightful dystopian nightmares. But in between the extremes, progressive reformists have been experimenting cautiously and over time their accumulative learning provides a substantial resource to guide us on how to improve human association and social structures.
In ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’, we looked at how the three communitarian principles of mutual responsibility; cooperative enquiry; and citizen participation, can guide us towards better governance of groups from a local organisation, to a national state or a global institution. By applying those three principles to each of the three core dimensions of human association (namely, its culture for problem-solving, its power structure, and its system of accountability), we arrived at nine elements, the strengthening of which would continuously improve the wellbeing of the group and its members.
We can now build on these nine elements to develop a general model for any place or group where people can cooperate together on the basis of objective reasoning and mutual respect to work out how to better themselves individually and collectively. We call this model: SYNETOPIA.
Shared Mission
You-and-I Mutuality
Nimble Membership
Educative Collaboration
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
Open Access to Information
Participatory Decision-Making
Impartial Distribution of Power
Accountability for Action
In addition to being an acronym for the nine elements, it is a composite of the Greek words, ‘synergatiki’ and ‘topos’, denoting a cooperative place.
A brief description of the nine elements is given below. They have been drawn from the reform ideas in the development of small groups, businesses, and public institutions, so that the essence of each is identified and separated into the smallest number of categories. One of the key projects relating to the ‘Question the Powerful’ collection of resources will be to formulate more detailed exposition of each of these elements, so that they can be more closely examined and practically applied to different forms of organisation.
--
Summary of SYNETOPIA
Shared Mission
All members of the group should have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group should be effectively and visibly organised to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there should be genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none should amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Nimble Membership
There should be a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Educative Collaboration
All member of the group should be enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have lifelong opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the world as well as ideas for change.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group should make sure no claim or assumption is privileged as unquestionable. It should subject all doctrines and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Open Access to Information
There should be open access so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception should be in place, and demands for secrecy must be independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group should enable and encourage all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensure everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power should be monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, must be held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges should be resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
--
More details on each of the nine elements that constitute synetopia can be found in the essays on those elements listed in the 'Guide to Synetopia'.
Since More’s Utopia was published in 1516, there have been many attempts to transform the world into a more perfect state. Some have raised hopes, made little sustained impact, and faded away as feeble utopian dreams. Others have pushed through completely new systems, brought sweeping changes, and created what turned out to be frightful dystopian nightmares. But in between the extremes, progressive reformists have been experimenting cautiously and over time their accumulative learning provides a substantial resource to guide us on how to improve human association and social structures.
In ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’, we looked at how the three communitarian principles of mutual responsibility; cooperative enquiry; and citizen participation, can guide us towards better governance of groups from a local organisation, to a national state or a global institution. By applying those three principles to each of the three core dimensions of human association (namely, its culture for problem-solving, its power structure, and its system of accountability), we arrived at nine elements, the strengthening of which would continuously improve the wellbeing of the group and its members.
We can now build on these nine elements to develop a general model for any place or group where people can cooperate together on the basis of objective reasoning and mutual respect to work out how to better themselves individually and collectively. We call this model: SYNETOPIA.
Shared Mission
You-and-I Mutuality
Nimble Membership
Educative Collaboration
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
Open Access to Information
Participatory Decision-Making
Impartial Distribution of Power
Accountability for Action
In addition to being an acronym for the nine elements, it is a composite of the Greek words, ‘synergatiki’ and ‘topos’, denoting a cooperative place.
A brief description of the nine elements is given below. They have been drawn from the reform ideas in the development of small groups, businesses, and public institutions, so that the essence of each is identified and separated into the smallest number of categories. One of the key projects relating to the ‘Question the Powerful’ collection of resources will be to formulate more detailed exposition of each of these elements, so that they can be more closely examined and practically applied to different forms of organisation.
--
Summary of SYNETOPIA
Shared Mission
All members of the group should have a shared understanding of their common mission or purpose. The group should be effectively and visibly organised to enable its members to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
You-and-I Mutuality
Instead of ‘Me’-centred individualism or ‘We-subsume-all’ collectivism, there should be genuine mutuality in distributing the benefits and burden connected with the group, and none should amass what comes from the group’s joint endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
Nimble Membership
There should be a transparent and responsive membership system that underpins who is brought into the group or excluded from it, and sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the group and its members.
Educative Collaboration
All member of the group should be enabled to share ideas, learn through collaborative exchanges, and have lifelong opportunities to study, formulate and discuss interpretations of the world as well as ideas for change.
Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group should make sure no claim or assumption is privileged as unquestionable. It should subject all doctrines and findings to continuous testing, and revise them in the light of the latest evidence.
Open Access to Information
There should be open access so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared. Processes to detect and expose deception should be in place, and demands for secrecy must be independently scrutinised for their legitimacy.
Participatory Decision-Making
The group should enable and encourage all members to participate as equals in the making of decisions that affect them, and ensure everyone can contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
Impartial Distribution of Power
The distribution of power should be monitored and where necessary revised to minimise the likelihood that an individual or an alliance of them can come to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
Accountability for Action
All members, especially those entrusted with the authority to act on behalf of the group, must be held accountable for any action against individual members or the wider interest of the group. Disputes over charges should be resolved through independent mechanisms and judgements carried out in accordance with the rules.
--
More details on each of the nine elements that constitute synetopia can be found in the essays on those elements listed in the 'Guide to Synetopia'.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
The Noble Art of Governance
Although some commentators regard ‘governance’ as a relatively recent concept, it has been regarded since ancient times as the prime subject deserving of the greatest attention.
In the beginning, this was associated with the nobility who, having established or inherited their status to make decisions that affect the lives of others, recognised that it was important they learnt to approach the making and carrying out of such decisions in the most responsible manner. Later the very notion of the ‘noble’ transcended any title linked to family ties, and became the appellation for the highest characteristic of any person acting in the wisest and most considerate manner.
‘Nobility’ (in Latin), ‘Junzi’ (in Chinese), ‘Mahana vyakti’ (in Hindi) all went from being terms to describe the aristocratic ‘high-born’, to becoming terms of praise for the morally admirable, great and worthy. The noble-minded are not born, but developed through learning to gain a deeper understanding of how to facilitate effective governance over any domain entrusted to their stewardship. They are the ones who fulfil the duty they owe to those who rely on their guidance and decisions to chart a course that will serve the good of all.
To teach the noble art of governance, the most cogent ideas must be synthesized, and their application promoted as widely as possible. There are essentially three parts to this endeavour.
First, we need to engage the heart. Dramatisation of trends and events can move people to reflect and act more than mere factual accounts. From Shakespeare’s historical plays on the wisdom and folly of successive rulers, to modern dystopian novels depicting threats that need to be overcome to preserve well-governed societies, steering emotions towards a determination to counter injustice and pursue the common good is vital.
Secondly, we need to inform the head. There are many facts and arguments about how organisations and countries have prospered from effective governance, or degenerated as a result of misrule. Without a critical grasp of what differentiates between good and bad approaches to securing order and collaboration, the best will in the world may nonetheless end up heading in the wrong direction. A diet of democratic theory, political history, and socio-economic analysis is essential to keep misguided outlook at bay, and set out the correct vision.
Thirdly, we need to guide the hands. Beyond appreciating the importance of governing well, and recognising what it should entail, practical know-how is required to turn ideas into actions. Management and sociological studies have captured many examples of what works and what does not when it comes to motivating and communicating in order to get large groups of people to join forces effectively. Their lessons must be learnt to enhance leadership skills and strategies.
There is nothing nobler than to dedicate oneself to the advancement of good governance at the local, national or global level. Educators can play a major role in cultivating true nobility of character in raising interest in and understanding of what constitutes such governance.
--
If you would like to know more, see ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’; and see also the resources listed in the ‘Question the Powerful’ collection.
In the beginning, this was associated with the nobility who, having established or inherited their status to make decisions that affect the lives of others, recognised that it was important they learnt to approach the making and carrying out of such decisions in the most responsible manner. Later the very notion of the ‘noble’ transcended any title linked to family ties, and became the appellation for the highest characteristic of any person acting in the wisest and most considerate manner.
‘Nobility’ (in Latin), ‘Junzi’ (in Chinese), ‘Mahana vyakti’ (in Hindi) all went from being terms to describe the aristocratic ‘high-born’, to becoming terms of praise for the morally admirable, great and worthy. The noble-minded are not born, but developed through learning to gain a deeper understanding of how to facilitate effective governance over any domain entrusted to their stewardship. They are the ones who fulfil the duty they owe to those who rely on their guidance and decisions to chart a course that will serve the good of all.
To teach the noble art of governance, the most cogent ideas must be synthesized, and their application promoted as widely as possible. There are essentially three parts to this endeavour.
First, we need to engage the heart. Dramatisation of trends and events can move people to reflect and act more than mere factual accounts. From Shakespeare’s historical plays on the wisdom and folly of successive rulers, to modern dystopian novels depicting threats that need to be overcome to preserve well-governed societies, steering emotions towards a determination to counter injustice and pursue the common good is vital.
Secondly, we need to inform the head. There are many facts and arguments about how organisations and countries have prospered from effective governance, or degenerated as a result of misrule. Without a critical grasp of what differentiates between good and bad approaches to securing order and collaboration, the best will in the world may nonetheless end up heading in the wrong direction. A diet of democratic theory, political history, and socio-economic analysis is essential to keep misguided outlook at bay, and set out the correct vision.
Thirdly, we need to guide the hands. Beyond appreciating the importance of governing well, and recognising what it should entail, practical know-how is required to turn ideas into actions. Management and sociological studies have captured many examples of what works and what does not when it comes to motivating and communicating in order to get large groups of people to join forces effectively. Their lessons must be learnt to enhance leadership skills and strategies.
There is nothing nobler than to dedicate oneself to the advancement of good governance at the local, national or global level. Educators can play a major role in cultivating true nobility of character in raising interest in and understanding of what constitutes such governance.
--
If you would like to know more, see ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’; and see also the resources listed in the ‘Question the Powerful’ collection.
Sunday, July 12, 2015
Reciprocity & Progressive Communitarianism
One of the oldest questions in philosophy is: how should we live?
On some reading of the history of philosophy, we are no closer now at finding an answer than when the question was first widely discussed across the ancient world two and a half thousand years ago.
But this is a misleading picture, reinforced in part by the common fascination with pointing to the differences between thinkers rather than paying more attention to their shared ideas.
Let us look again at the challenge before us: How should we live in relation to each other when there are divergent views and preferences? How should we organise social relationships and power structures? What would be the most desirable approach to adopt in governing our institutions?
One of the first things we may notice is that there is in fact a substantial consensus on what should guide us in working out our responses to these related questions. Admittedly this consensus does not cover individuals who are dismissive of ethical concerns for other people – they care only for their personal gratification, and regard any negative consequences the pursuit of their own interests may have for others as purely something to ignore if at all possible, either by having enough power to ride roughshod over others or by deceiving others into thinking they are not doing anything to encroach on their wellbeing.
For the vast majority of people, the guiding principle they should live by cannot be clearer – namely, the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. The selfish fringe may lack empathy for the feelings of other people, but humankind in general recognise that they should do to others as they would have them do unto them. It is true that not everyone lives up to this maxim all of the time, but it is the basis of our conscience in distinguishing what is to praise and endorse, and what is to blame and curtail.
Not only is the Golden Rule of Reciprocity embedded in the moral code of every civilization, it is reflected in the social interactions of human groups for thousands of years – people hunting and gathering food together and sharing them out without a few taking a disproportionate share while leaving others to starve. Developmental psychology has found that children instinctively share with others without discrimination, and expect to be treated on equal terms whenever they carry out tasks with others.
Even after the emergence of exploitative hierarchies, which enabled self-centred oppressors to take unfair advantage over others, the cultural judgement as indicated in literature and history shows disquiet over such oppression, and yearns for a more inclusive path.
Some authoritarian leaders have tried to justify their seizing greater power and wealth on the grounds that it is supposedly better for everyone. But studies comparing reciprocal cooperation with elite control have consistently found the former is incomparably better for everyone. From business productivity, workplace satisfaction, to conflict resolution and game theory analysis of divergent strategies, the findings all point to the superiority of reciprocity.
In practice, what actions and arrangements will lead to greater mutual benefits has to be ascertained through a reciprocal process of critical assessment. Since no one can claim that he/she is uniquely infallible and everyone else must accept whatever he/she declares to be true, an open exchange of evidence and reasons, backed by a shared commitment to consider arguments on an objective basis, is necessary to test proposals and revise them where appropriate. Even where some people may insist they are speaking for God it is obvious that there is no guarantee that the person is not delusional or mistaking evil commands from whatever source as the authentic voice of their deity.
Drawing on the centrality of reciprocity in ordering human interactions and the need for cooperative endeavours in establishing the reliability of claims and proposals, a group of thinkers have over time developed what has been termed the outlook of progressive communitarianism, which encapsulates these ideas in three core principles (see ‘Communitarians: an introduction’):
• The principle of cooperative enquiry
• The principle of mutual responsibility
• The principle of citizen participation
The first two principles deal with how people should work out what beliefs they can count on, and why they accept their responsibility for helping others as they would want others to help them, respectively. The third requires any decision that affects a group of people be subject to the deliberative input of those people.
Progressive communitarianism is the articulation of reciprocity as a guiding philosophy. It is neither authoritarian nor anarchic, but radically democratic in its emphasis on equal respect and opportunity for all concerned to participate in assessing beliefs and making decisions. It is not nostalgically conservative in rejecting new practices, nor is it casually iconoclastic in attacking past customs; but simply concerned with reforming what on the available evidence can become better. It neither romanticises any particular community as the source of all values, nor glorifies unencumbered individuals as bearers of inalienable rights to do whatever they want; but regards human relationships as full of potential for mutual enrichment provided the governance arrangements in place facilitate their development.
--
For an introduction to the kind of governance proposed on progressive communitarian grounds, see ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’.
On some reading of the history of philosophy, we are no closer now at finding an answer than when the question was first widely discussed across the ancient world two and a half thousand years ago.
But this is a misleading picture, reinforced in part by the common fascination with pointing to the differences between thinkers rather than paying more attention to their shared ideas.
Let us look again at the challenge before us: How should we live in relation to each other when there are divergent views and preferences? How should we organise social relationships and power structures? What would be the most desirable approach to adopt in governing our institutions?
One of the first things we may notice is that there is in fact a substantial consensus on what should guide us in working out our responses to these related questions. Admittedly this consensus does not cover individuals who are dismissive of ethical concerns for other people – they care only for their personal gratification, and regard any negative consequences the pursuit of their own interests may have for others as purely something to ignore if at all possible, either by having enough power to ride roughshod over others or by deceiving others into thinking they are not doing anything to encroach on their wellbeing.
For the vast majority of people, the guiding principle they should live by cannot be clearer – namely, the Golden Rule of Reciprocity. The selfish fringe may lack empathy for the feelings of other people, but humankind in general recognise that they should do to others as they would have them do unto them. It is true that not everyone lives up to this maxim all of the time, but it is the basis of our conscience in distinguishing what is to praise and endorse, and what is to blame and curtail.
Not only is the Golden Rule of Reciprocity embedded in the moral code of every civilization, it is reflected in the social interactions of human groups for thousands of years – people hunting and gathering food together and sharing them out without a few taking a disproportionate share while leaving others to starve. Developmental psychology has found that children instinctively share with others without discrimination, and expect to be treated on equal terms whenever they carry out tasks with others.
Even after the emergence of exploitative hierarchies, which enabled self-centred oppressors to take unfair advantage over others, the cultural judgement as indicated in literature and history shows disquiet over such oppression, and yearns for a more inclusive path.
Some authoritarian leaders have tried to justify their seizing greater power and wealth on the grounds that it is supposedly better for everyone. But studies comparing reciprocal cooperation with elite control have consistently found the former is incomparably better for everyone. From business productivity, workplace satisfaction, to conflict resolution and game theory analysis of divergent strategies, the findings all point to the superiority of reciprocity.
In practice, what actions and arrangements will lead to greater mutual benefits has to be ascertained through a reciprocal process of critical assessment. Since no one can claim that he/she is uniquely infallible and everyone else must accept whatever he/she declares to be true, an open exchange of evidence and reasons, backed by a shared commitment to consider arguments on an objective basis, is necessary to test proposals and revise them where appropriate. Even where some people may insist they are speaking for God it is obvious that there is no guarantee that the person is not delusional or mistaking evil commands from whatever source as the authentic voice of their deity.
Drawing on the centrality of reciprocity in ordering human interactions and the need for cooperative endeavours in establishing the reliability of claims and proposals, a group of thinkers have over time developed what has been termed the outlook of progressive communitarianism, which encapsulates these ideas in three core principles (see ‘Communitarians: an introduction’):
• The principle of cooperative enquiry
• The principle of mutual responsibility
• The principle of citizen participation
The first two principles deal with how people should work out what beliefs they can count on, and why they accept their responsibility for helping others as they would want others to help them, respectively. The third requires any decision that affects a group of people be subject to the deliberative input of those people.
Progressive communitarianism is the articulation of reciprocity as a guiding philosophy. It is neither authoritarian nor anarchic, but radically democratic in its emphasis on equal respect and opportunity for all concerned to participate in assessing beliefs and making decisions. It is not nostalgically conservative in rejecting new practices, nor is it casually iconoclastic in attacking past customs; but simply concerned with reforming what on the available evidence can become better. It neither romanticises any particular community as the source of all values, nor glorifies unencumbered individuals as bearers of inalienable rights to do whatever they want; but regards human relationships as full of potential for mutual enrichment provided the governance arrangements in place facilitate their development.
--
For an introduction to the kind of governance proposed on progressive communitarian grounds, see ‘Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide’.
Friday, July 10, 2015
Communitarian Governance: a 9-point guide
The effective governance of any group or organisation is essential to its success. No matter if we are concerned with how to run a firm (corporate governance), a neighbourhood or city (local governance), a country (national governance), or an international body (global governance), we need to have the most reliable approach for ensuring that all those involved will act in pursuit of their common objective.
Political, management, and psychological theories all point to a spectrum of ideas with an authoritarian system at one end and an anarchic model at the other. Between the authoritarian (which places the power to decide and command in an unquestionable elite) and the anarchic (which relies on decisions and actions backed by the unanimous agreement of individuals at every turn), there are communitarian approaches that combine democratic cooperation for making rules with universal enforcement to tackle irresponsibility and free-riding.
Communitarian governance rejects both handing power irrevocably to a few to dictate to others, and granting everyone a veto to block anything that does not on a given occasion suit them. Instead it relies on three tried and tested principles for enabling people to work together, namely the principles of mutual responsibility, cooperative enquiry, and citizen participation (see ‘Communitarians: an introduction’ for an outline of the three principles; see ‘Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship’ for a book-length exposition). And it applies these to the three key domains of group interaction, namely, problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system (see ‘Together We Can’ for further resources on how to develop a cooperative problem-solving culture; see ‘Against Power Inequalities’ for a historical review of power structures; and see ‘Responsibility’ for an analysis of the conditions under which people should be held responsible for their behaviour).
This gives us 9 essential communitarian elements for achieving the most effective governance:
Embedding mutual responsibility in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
1. Shared Mission
All members of the group need to have a shared understanding of their collective mission or purpose. They should see that the group is organised to enable them to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
* Measures of success: How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members? How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
* Signs of weakness: Disorder – individuals sense chaos, insecurity, indifference, constant conflict, and the sum being notably less than its parts.
2. You-&-I Mutuality
The benefits/resources generated by the group are shared on terms of genuine mutuality, and no individual or section is at liberty to amass what comes from the group’s collective endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
* Measures of success: Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits? Are all members confident the arrangements will operate reliably and impartially?
* Signs of weakness: Exploitation – some members feeling that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group, and they are constantly marginalised and deprived of their share.
3. Nimble Membership
There is a responsive and transparent membership system that underpins who is brought into the group and who may be excluded from it, and makes clear to all those who are on board what their rights & duties are in relation to the group.
* Measures of success: Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members? Do members know what is expected of them individually and that they will be held to account through appropriate reviews if they act irresponsibly? How clear is there a decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
* Signs of weakness: Unsustainability – with too few/too many members to function effectively; having unsuitable members to utilise the resources; or members distrustful of the process of determining their membership, and/or that for accepting/excluding new ones.
Embedding cooperative enquiry in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
4. Educative Collaboration
All member of the group are able to learn together what they should do and what changes would be suitable to make.
* Measures of success: Is there a culture of lifelong learning? Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
* Signs of weakness: Thoughtlessness – members detached from thinking through why things are done in their group; they casually accept or reject ideas & instructions. There is a lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources.
5. Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group does not privilege any doctrine or assertion as unquestionable, nor does it grant anyone the authority to make claims that others must accept without due evidence or reason.
* Measures of success: How confident are members in questioning claims put forward by those in more highly ranked positions? Is everyone aware that nothing (in the name of ‘tradition’ or anything else) can be ring-fenced from empirical analysis? Is open and critical discussion of current and new ideas encouraged and facilitated?
* Signs of weakness: Dogmatism – irrational beliefs taking hold & undermining intelligent considerations. Widespread feeling there is no point or scope in subjecting any activity to critical questioning.
6. Open Access to Information
There is a vibrant information system so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared.
* Measures of success: How reliable are the communication channels in place to facilitate inspection, audit, whistleblowing, peer review to keep wrongdoing at bay? How easy is it for members to discover and access relevant and accurate information about the group’s past performance and future options?
* Signs of weakness: Concealment – the systematic or regular shielding of irresponsible actions; the deliberate refusal or obstruction to members seeking to find out more about what has been done in the group and why.
Embedding citizen participation in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
7. Participatory Decision-Making
The group respects every member equally in being entitled to participate in the making of decisions that affect them, and enables all members to contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
* Measures of success: Are the procedures for decision-making clear to all members? How extensive are training and participation opportunities made available? And how effective are they in ensuring that no one will be ignored or disrespected? How well are joint decision-making facilitated so it is carried out rationally and inclusively? Does the joint decision-making apply to how to divide and distribute the surplus generated by the group?
* Signs of weakness: Disengagement – a significant number of members either lack the information or skills to make sensible decisions, or decline to become involved in decision making altogether. Insufficiently thought-through or biased decisions systemically harm the organisation & its members.
8. Impartial Distribution of Power
The group abides by the democratic ethos so that no one is permitted to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
* Measures of success: Are there safeguards in place to stop individuals or sections in the group accumulating power? Is there a regular and effective redistribution of power so that even concentrated powers for emergencies are only granted on temporary basis? Are there checks and balances so that no one can hold others to ransom by threats?
* Signs of weakness: Oppression – the suppression of dissent and pervasive enforcement of reluctant compliance. Fear, resentment, distrust of the leaders.
9. Accountability for Action
The group is protected by a robust accountability system so those entrusted with higher authority to act on behalf of all members are unlikely to take actions that are against the wider interest of the group or are to benefit themselves solely without due consent from the group.
* Measures of success: Are there transparent electoral or selection process to replace those with positions of authority? How easy is it to detect unjustifiable actions? Are there reliable mechanisms for all to trigger to summon potential wrongdoers to account for their actions? Are members supported in being vigilant in challenging decisions that appear to be illegitimate?
* Signs of weakness: Corruption – some stay in positions of power regardless of concerns raised; some are suspected of placing their own personal interests and/or those who bribe them above the collective interests of members in general, and subvert the group for the gains of a few.
Conclusion
Anyone interested in the theoretical foundations for the nine elements we have set out can refer to the supplementary resources cited above. For those who want to focus on their practical applications, they can cross-check each of the nine elements against their own organisation’s governance, and mark each one out of ten. This will provide them with a snapshot of their relative strengths and weaknesses, and also how robust their governance is overall. Each element can be further specified with more detailed criteria. But for the purpose of offering a framework for assessing governance in general, this guide is a good place to start.
Political, management, and psychological theories all point to a spectrum of ideas with an authoritarian system at one end and an anarchic model at the other. Between the authoritarian (which places the power to decide and command in an unquestionable elite) and the anarchic (which relies on decisions and actions backed by the unanimous agreement of individuals at every turn), there are communitarian approaches that combine democratic cooperation for making rules with universal enforcement to tackle irresponsibility and free-riding.
Communitarian governance rejects both handing power irrevocably to a few to dictate to others, and granting everyone a veto to block anything that does not on a given occasion suit them. Instead it relies on three tried and tested principles for enabling people to work together, namely the principles of mutual responsibility, cooperative enquiry, and citizen participation (see ‘Communitarians: an introduction’ for an outline of the three principles; see ‘Communitarianism: a new agenda for politics and citizenship’ for a book-length exposition). And it applies these to the three key domains of group interaction, namely, problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system (see ‘Together We Can’ for further resources on how to develop a cooperative problem-solving culture; see ‘Against Power Inequalities’ for a historical review of power structures; and see ‘Responsibility’ for an analysis of the conditions under which people should be held responsible for their behaviour).
This gives us 9 essential communitarian elements for achieving the most effective governance:
Embedding mutual responsibility in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
1. Shared Mission
All members of the group need to have a shared understanding of their collective mission or purpose. They should see that the group is organised to enable them to join forces for their respective wellbeing.
* Measures of success: How widely is the core mission owned and appreciated by all members? How convinced are members that they have an organisation which has the rules and capacity to achieve their mission?
* Signs of weakness: Disorder – individuals sense chaos, insecurity, indifference, constant conflict, and the sum being notably less than its parts.
2. You-&-I Mutuality
The benefits/resources generated by the group are shared on terms of genuine mutuality, and no individual or section is at liberty to amass what comes from the group’s collective endeavours to enrich themselves at the expense of others.
* Measures of success: Are there arrangements in place to prioritise, adjudicate & enforce the fair distribution of benefits? Are all members confident the arrangements will operate reliably and impartially?
* Signs of weakness: Exploitation – some members feeling that others have privileged access to what is produced by the group, and they are constantly marginalised and deprived of their share.
3. Nimble Membership
There is a responsive and transparent membership system that underpins who is brought into the group and who may be excluded from it, and makes clear to all those who are on board what their rights & duties are in relation to the group.
* Measures of success: Is there a sustainable and non-discriminatory process to recruiting, inducting, rejecting & expelling members? Do members know what is expected of them individually and that they will be held to account through appropriate reviews if they act irresponsibly? How clear is there a decision path for assessing membership issues such as merger/federation with other groups?
* Signs of weakness: Unsustainability – with too few/too many members to function effectively; having unsuitable members to utilise the resources; or members distrustful of the process of determining their membership, and/or that for accepting/excluding new ones.
Embedding cooperative enquiry in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
4. Educative Collaboration
All member of the group are able to learn together what they should do and what changes would be suitable to make.
* Measures of success: Is there a culture of lifelong learning? Are members supported to engage in deliberative exchanges to inform their beliefs, policies, and practices?
* Signs of weakness: Thoughtlessness – members detached from thinking through why things are done in their group; they casually accept or reject ideas & instructions. There is a lack of interest in learning from each other or from other sources.
5. Testing of Claims and Assumptions
The group does not privilege any doctrine or assertion as unquestionable, nor does it grant anyone the authority to make claims that others must accept without due evidence or reason.
* Measures of success: How confident are members in questioning claims put forward by those in more highly ranked positions? Is everyone aware that nothing (in the name of ‘tradition’ or anything else) can be ring-fenced from empirical analysis? Is open and critical discussion of current and new ideas encouraged and facilitated?
* Signs of weakness: Dogmatism – irrational beliefs taking hold & undermining intelligent considerations. Widespread feeling there is no point or scope in subjecting any activity to critical questioning.
6. Open Access to Information
There is a vibrant information system so nothing untoward is hidden and useful information is widely shared.
* Measures of success: How reliable are the communication channels in place to facilitate inspection, audit, whistleblowing, peer review to keep wrongdoing at bay? How easy is it for members to discover and access relevant and accurate information about the group’s past performance and future options?
* Signs of weakness: Concealment – the systematic or regular shielding of irresponsible actions; the deliberate refusal or obstruction to members seeking to find out more about what has been done in the group and why.
Embedding citizen participation in the problem-solving culture, power structure, and accountability system of the group/organisation in question
7. Participatory Decision-Making
The group respects every member equally in being entitled to participate in the making of decisions that affect them, and enables all members to contribute to those decisions on an informed and deliberative basis.
* Measures of success: Are the procedures for decision-making clear to all members? How extensive are training and participation opportunities made available? And how effective are they in ensuring that no one will be ignored or disrespected? How well are joint decision-making facilitated so it is carried out rationally and inclusively? Does the joint decision-making apply to how to divide and distribute the surplus generated by the group?
* Signs of weakness: Disengagement – a significant number of members either lack the information or skills to make sensible decisions, or decline to become involved in decision making altogether. Insufficiently thought-through or biased decisions systemically harm the organisation & its members.
8. Impartial Distribution of Power
The group abides by the democratic ethos so that no one is permitted to possess so much power that they can intimidate or dictate terms to others.
* Measures of success: Are there safeguards in place to stop individuals or sections in the group accumulating power? Is there a regular and effective redistribution of power so that even concentrated powers for emergencies are only granted on temporary basis? Are there checks and balances so that no one can hold others to ransom by threats?
* Signs of weakness: Oppression – the suppression of dissent and pervasive enforcement of reluctant compliance. Fear, resentment, distrust of the leaders.
9. Accountability for Action
The group is protected by a robust accountability system so those entrusted with higher authority to act on behalf of all members are unlikely to take actions that are against the wider interest of the group or are to benefit themselves solely without due consent from the group.
* Measures of success: Are there transparent electoral or selection process to replace those with positions of authority? How easy is it to detect unjustifiable actions? Are there reliable mechanisms for all to trigger to summon potential wrongdoers to account for their actions? Are members supported in being vigilant in challenging decisions that appear to be illegitimate?
* Signs of weakness: Corruption – some stay in positions of power regardless of concerns raised; some are suspected of placing their own personal interests and/or those who bribe them above the collective interests of members in general, and subvert the group for the gains of a few.
Conclusion
Anyone interested in the theoretical foundations for the nine elements we have set out can refer to the supplementary resources cited above. For those who want to focus on their practical applications, they can cross-check each of the nine elements against their own organisation’s governance, and mark each one out of ten. This will provide them with a snapshot of their relative strengths and weaknesses, and also how robust their governance is overall. Each element can be further specified with more detailed criteria. But for the purpose of offering a framework for assessing governance in general, this guide is a good place to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)