Arnstein Summary

One final argument for direct democracy in the UK is that it increases the people’s political participation and engagement in current issues. When people are given the opportunity to have their say, they are more likely to get involved in the process, thus increasing the accuracy of the judgement. A successful and fully functional democracy relies on the involvement of the general public and the people it will be directly

When it comes to politics and the power associated with it, the first thing that must be noted is that much more is involved than the people, or in this case, the politicians. Ideas and concepts play a crucial role in the political process. Therefore, just like the previous example of the hospital, there are lots of moving parts, hence, actors, involved in politics. There are people, places, and communication mediums involved. Even getting a message out depends on a channel or venue through which that message must travel to reach the

By empowering people to make decisions for themselves wherever possible and by protecting people who lack capacity by providing a flexible framework that places individuals at the heart of the decision making process.

Arn wants death more while in the United States because he expects his new American life to be almost perfect, but it is not. Because of how America is glorified as the land of freedom, Coca-Cola, and television, Arn expects to arrive in a paradise that will be ideal for his recovery from his recent trauma. Unfortunately, this is not the case. When he encounters unfamiliar American problems, it is almost impossible for him not to give up because the place that had once been the solution is now a new nightmare. To him, if America is not the answer, there must be no answer. He sees the ugliness of American life, and despite trying to "think about all the good [things] here in this good place . . . [he realizes that] now being [rescued] is something [he has] to survive" (McCormick 195).

As the notion of autonomy demands a more participatory role in a sub state national communities affairs, it is important to include the concept of justice. Which, for Fraser, “has a single principle, the capacity to participate as a peer with everyone else, that can apply as a single principle to other demands such as the economy” (D’Arcy, October 28). This idea of justice, also encompasses the segment that justice has a reflexive nature, which is to say that it can “correct itself and be corrected” (D’Arcy, October 28) when need be. There is a political dimension of justice that Fraser describes as concerning “the scope of the state’s jurisdiction and the decision rules by which it structures contestation” (Fraser 2010, pg.17). This is much more than solidifying a sense of self belonging within the community that a member feels or establishing the criteria to become a member of these communities, but of “the circle of those entitled to a just distribution and reciprocal recognition. Establishing decision rules […] set the procedures for staging and resolving contests in both the economic and cultural dimensions” (Fraser 2010, pg. 17). Most importantly, is that “it tells us not only who can make claims for redistribution and recognition, but also how

Many communities have expressed that consultation processes left them with feelings of tokenism and powerlessness to affect decision making. A report by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in 2002 suggests a need to move away from consultation towards negotiation, as a process which enables equal power relationships to develop. The notion of negotiation as opposed to consultation is not new in global literature. Many models of engagement cite Arnstein’s original ‘ladder of participation’, which ranged from citizen control to tokenism (Arnstein 2011; Cornwall 2008). The UK Health for All Network describes in depth this scale of engagement, describing a continuum in which the community has control, has some delegated powers, is

Civic participation is a fundamental component in one’s life when they become citizens to a country. It begins with an informed decision to engage as a citizen in the democratic process. There are a myriad of ways in which citizens can be active in society. This includes; being involved in political parties, government-making decisions, joining particular organisations of interest as well as the community and its local affairs. It is through this engagement that one attains a sense of identity. However, barriers can also arise when one attempts or chooses to actively participate in the community. This therefore, hinders individuals from further obtaining a form of inclusion amongst society. This overarching idea is evident in Julia Gillard’s misogyny speech. This speech is an excellent exemplar of how gender roles and prejudice against women can trigger and prohibit individuals from actively participating in society.

As Habermas puts it “the relationship of the individual to the state has increasingly become one of client or consumer services, rather than citizen” (Roberts & Crossley, 5). Due to the limited agency (citizens’ roles) within this sphere, we can conclude that the ongoing competition and negotiation for a role in the public sphere ends with strictly dominant views. In such a monarchy, ordinary citizens such as lower classes and women have limited input when debating politics among other things. The ideal of a place where all opinions are counted, so to speak, fails to provide a sense of individual identity. This is due to the fact that it is pre-destined by the state itself and then turned back to the people- telling them what they will think about particular issues; shown especially through the controlling lens of the media.

These ideas bring forth the questions of where knowledge comes from. As mentioned technical knowledge comes from institutional experiences and empirical science. Allowing for representative governors to make seemingly well informed decision as they have more access to experts (Matsusaka 2005). Within the framework of direct democracy, the average citizen does not have the same access. However, direct democracy does allow for citizens to make value judgements (Matsusaka 2005). The proletarian ability to make value based decisions may be attributed to experiential knowledge termed metis. In the particular case of the EIA, metis should be view not in terms of mastery of a particular skill through experience but in the ability to follow one’s intuition.

The introductory chapter situates the book within the current literature, provides a cursory overview of its intent, and outlines what it uniquely has to offer regarding critically informed understandings of governance and democracy. They provide an introduction to a relational understanding of existence and cautionary notes on the intent of establishing ideal-types that are necessary to critique governance; despite known philosophical weaknesses, Stout and Love present this material throughout in an accessible manner, even for the uninitiated student in public administration. Their intent in the following chapters is three-fold. First, they situate the motivation for changing governance practices by asking the simple question, why now: “contemporary governance theory is revisiting three fundamental questions – that of sovereignty, the role of government, and the methods of democratic participation” (p. 17). Moreover, shifts in power have produced social, economic, and environmental crises, and as a result, people are insisting upon practices of direct and participatory democracy (emphasis added). Next, they ground governance in ontology XXXX. Finally, in chapter 4, Stout and Love discuss the usefulness of a dialectical analysis an analytic frame to not only compare and contrast concepts but also construct ideal-types to explore anticipated implications. consisting

According to Brady, Schoeneman and Sawyer (2014), it is useful to consider how power is utilised in any given situation. Community work would be critical of: ‘power over’ vs ‘power with’ (Taylor, 2003). According to Taylor (2003), ‘power over’ occurs when an individual, group or institution assumes the right to make decisions for others or assume they know ‘what is best’ for groups and communities without consultation or collaboration (p.12). An example of this is white Australia assuming that removing Aboriginal children from their families is in the ‘best interests of the child’ (Barta, 2008). Whereas ‘power with’ involves: mutual respect, collaborative partnerships, social justice at all levels, and a commitment to self-determination

In recent years, development focuses have shifted from leaving the power in the hands of multilateral organizations to distributing the power to a range of actors. The idea that the government has the ultimate knowledge and power an out-dated (CCIC, 1). Partnerships and participation refer to the stakeholders in decision-making for projects and development and how they interact. These strategies ensure that every one has a voice in decision-making and the project is being implemented in a fair way. These strategies include all of the international development agents; NGOs, CSOs, governmental institutions, working in partnerships for international development.

Several forms of government have been formed since the development of centralized power. The form of government that has showed the most international growth in the last century is democracy. There are currently over 160 democracies in the world today. These democracies, however, are not complete democracies. They are representative democracies that have been created by the leaders of our predominantly patriarchal international system. Due to this, many citizens of these democracies are considered second class citizens and their views are not heard by their supposedly democratic society. A solution to this problem is participatory democracy. Participatory democracy is better than the existing patriarchal society because it allows the

The treatment of the role and meaning of the concept of "power" within the theory of Jurgen Habermas, as it was elaborated in the two volumes of The Theory of Communicative action and later in Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action,(1) has undergone some significant changes in his latest work: Between Facts and Norms.(2) In this new book he introduces the term Communicative power which has to be seen in the context of his ambitious project of theorizing deliberative democracy, or, in his words "government by law". (BFN, p.132) According to the advocates of deliberative democracy, citizens’ participation in the democratic process has a rational character. Deliberative democracy explains the process of opinion and will-formation as a public discursive activity where citizens are engaged in argumentation that is aimed at promoting the more generalizable interests by the force of a better argument. View in this light,

The rapid increase in books, articles and journals that describe how “grassroots” communities develop from the bottom-up and form new types of power relations in and around the state (Nelson, 2000; Bartoli, 2002) demonstrates that non-state actors also have the ability to create different types of social linkages and alternative economic spaces. For post-development scholars like Escobar (1992) and Rahnema (1997), pluralistic social movements that respond to the concerns of local communities are the type of actors that can shift development studies from imperialist domination to the good life of “beauty, fragility and simplicity” (Corbridge, 1998, p. 139). The point being that there is a need to reinforce the fact that communities are not passive victims of development and that less powerful actors are able to explore a range of alternative development pathways.