El cuidado en la escuela pedagógica experimental (E.P.E).

The discussion in the prior section leads into a discussion on localism. In the United Kingdom, while councils remain at the heart of local decision-making, processes are being put in place to encourage a more vibrant democracy and give control of local decision to a larger group of active citizens. Devolution to neighbourhood governance is being pursued for civic, social, economic and political reasons (Office of Public Sector Information, 2008) Neighbourhoods are seen as an ideal unit through which to promote citizen engagement and better accountability (Lowndes et al., 2006; Pratchett, 2004). The idea of using

neighbourhoods is based on several propositions. From a civic perspective, neighbourhoods give citizens a better opportunity to participate effectively in decisions. From a social perspective, the neighbourhood is the ideal unit for a citizen-based approach to governance, and at this level governance is more meaningful to a participant (Lowndes & Sullivan, 2008). Interestingly, neighbourhoods are also held as being ideal for growing stakeholder and associative democracy (as required in the LGA 2002 for developing outcomes).

Pattie, Seyd, and Whiteley (2004) join Lowndes and Sullivan (2008) to note that at a political level, governance in the form of neighbourhoods is more accessible for local citizens and neighbourhood leaders are more likely to be aware of issues first hand and so be more responsive. These reflections are similar to Drage’s (2008) findings on participation in the New Zealand context. The consequence to improved transparency is that citizens of smaller or neighbourhood units can better hold leaders accountable for their decisions. Additionally, Lowndes and Sullivan (2008) point out that localisation has economic advantages because it

can also encourage superior use of resources because waste is easier to identify and needs are easier to recognise.

While neighbourhood governance has some clear strengths, it also has significant weaknesses, particularly in terms of communities of interest other than those that are

geographically defined, or where citizens do not have the resources to participate. Thus many researchers (Brackertz, 2007; Carson, 2008; Cheyne, 1997; Nash, 2007; Sharp & Anderson, 2010) have suggested an alternative or additional approach to democratic decision-making in New Zealand’s present context – that of deliberative democracy.

As discussed in Chapter Two, the clear intent of present local government legislation is to increase the responsiveness of local government to changing community needs. Participative decision-making is the mechanism now required by legislation to enable the involvement of the community in decision-making. Nevertheless, one of the problems with participative democracy is that it cannot involve all the people it affects (Parkinson, 2004), and there remains the possibility that increasing participation opportunities may in reality only increase the power for those that already have it (Zwart et al., 2005). Hence, there appears to be a need for aggressive targeting of audiences, or the consideration of a deliberative approach to democracy (Sharp & Anderson, 2010).

Where participative decision-making is described as a bottom-up process, Carson (2008) describes deliberative decision-making as a top down approach. Giving a more specific description of the process in a more recent paper, Carson (2011, p. 40) draws on historic democratic theory to explain the top down approach.

Two things are essential for this deliberative democracy to work well. Firstly, deliberative processes need to involve what is known as a ‘mini-public’. According to John Adams, the second President of the United States, a legislature should be ‘in miniature an exact portrait of the people at large’. A mini-public can create an almost exact miniature of an entire population, using random selection and transparent procedures to match population demographics for gender, age, education and race. Matching the population in order to create a microcosm helps build confidence among citizens that the mini-public consists of ‘people like me’ and that the decision-making is in good hands, beyond vested interests and political ambition.

Deliberative approaches involve participative interaction and decision-making, together with an inclusive selection approach for the participating groups to ensure representation across all community factions (Zwart et al., 2005). In a practical example, where a community has a large proportion of Pacific Islanders who remain silent during consultation then there would be active recruitment of this ethnic group in the deliberative approach to ensure

representation. Carson (2007, p. 1) makes further comparison with participative democracy.

Deliberative democracy is different from the traditional form of consultation, like a non- interactive public meeting or a permanent advisory committee or an opinion poll or a call for written submissions or even a design workshop with invited participants. These traditional methods are consultative but fall short of the ideals of a DDP (deliberative democracy) which is both deliberative, i.e. involving interaction between participants and choice making as a group, and inclusive, i.e. involving people selected in a way to ensure they are a microcosm of the community.

Deliberative democratic processes are not a traditional form of consultation, but a recognition that traditional consultation struggles to gather a representative response. Yet the proponents of deliberative democracy do not advocate the replacement of participative approaches to decision-making with deliberative practices. However, the addition of a top down approach, as advocated by Carson (2007, 2008, 2011), does provide a practical solution to the

acknowledged difficulties of gathering representative comment through participative processes.

3.1.4 Conclusion

Theory and research on the respective characteristics and value of representative versus participative democracy from political, philosophical and communication viewpoints is wide ranging. In contemporary writing there is a groundswell of support for the ideal of an

approach to decision-making that enables citizen participation. Yet the weaknesses of participative democracy are significant enough to prompt further investigation. Smaller neighbourhood units are suggested as one way to remove barriers to participation, and enhance community/submitter satisfaction. Another is the top down approach of deliberative

gather feedback relevant to the needs of that community of place, interest, or need. The pragmatic efficiency arguments of representative democracy are countered by the value- added approach of participation.

Local government has a leading role in determining how representative and participative processes can be complementary, and there is value in each approach. Social changes in expectations of local government and the changing economy mean that leadership and visioning responsibilities are now emerging as more important (Sullivan, 2004), yet these must be shaped by, and represent community aspirations (Cheyne, 1997).

Providing philosophical and academic arguments on the search for responsiveness and indeed better decisions goes some way towards providing the theoretical background for the changes in local government legislation that now require consultation in support of community

participation in decision-making. British academics and democratic systems are further advanced in their discussion than is New Zealand. It seems though, that the solution of neighbourhood empowerment is incongruent with New Zealand’s present liberalist approach to politics, and current local government legislation which is aimed at reducing the number of local government identities, not further subdivide decision-making responsibilities.

Notwithstanding the many positive outcomes gained through a participative approach to democracy, deliberative democracy appears an effective and pragmatic solution to the rising issue of democratic deficit and the need to be responsive to an increasingly diverse

community.