The central point in all this amalgamation hype is the missing mechanism of “participatory partnership democracy” (for lack of a better description). We see nothing, we hear nothing, we taste nothing about enhancing the involvement of the population in their hometown affairs.
The size, location and make-up of local councils are comparable to the body and engine of a car. However, it is the direction in which this imaginary vehicle is to travel, that makes all the difference to those within. If we are talking local government reform, we have to go beyond the nuts and bolts of administration and move on to philosophical direction, policies, and implementation – in that order.
Local government is the easiest level of government that can be enhanced by introducing mechanisms of participatory democracy with binding outcomes. “Binding” being the crux of the matter. “Binding” meaning, that decisions taken by “the people” are binding, not merely consultative and then dismissed at the whim of the next best official or councillor vote.
By “participatory partnership democracy” we mean the active and broadly based involvement of the population in the affairs of their localities and immediate neighbouring lands. Active involvement means participation in the formulation of policies, the sharing of responsibility and supervising the quality of the implementation. In other words, people need to have a mechanism for co-ownership in the decision making.
In practical terms this could mean (for instance) that localised decision making cells along natural and culturally evolved perimeters could be (re)established, provided with a budget and charged with prioritising the projects on which the money should be spent.
Once binding decisions like these are made they are then handed over to an “administrative hub”, which implements them with the help of skilled and engaged professionals. The size and location of such “administrative hubs” is of lesser consequence and it is conceivable that some rationalising (and improvement of skills, interdepartmental co-operation and workflow) could indeed be achieved by enlarging some of these admin centres.
“Administrative hubs” can also provide professional assistance to the local communities in educating them to the dos and don’ts of planning, technical frameworks, regulations and all the rest of the technicalities that have to be taken into consideration when it comes to dealing with public infrastructure and land use planning.
The spirit and relevance of policy and financial decisions (within the framework of state laws and regulations) rests with the people in their immediate environment.
Local government reform is far more complex and sensitive than just bulldozing developer driven interests into ever higher windrows servicing the big end of town.
Informed, active people participation and sharing of responsibility will energise the population and thus likely produce better and more durable outcomes, which in turn will create engaged and satisfied citizens. From the point of view of the population this is what we should be aiming for in the last instance.
However, the existing political environment, with it’s widespread anti democratic discretionary might being gifted into the hands of individual ministers, makes a joke of the push for amalgamation in the name of the common good. One must resist the pressure until a proper discussion of present and future needs is considered. Until then, frantic spin to amalgamate can only be seen as an opportunistic cementing of the status quo. The amalgamaters are just taking advantage of the widespread dissatisfaction about mismanagement in local government. While such criticism is very often justified, reorganisation without overhauling the philosophical fundamentals is counter-productive.
