(o) Some Thoughts on Democracy: The Polling Booth, Imposed Guided Choices and Grassroots Participation

In the Western democracies we rely -- sometimes too heavily -- on the power of the ballot box to keep our politicians honest and intent on improving the lot of all citizens. In Fiji, the Bainimarama government, with limited consultation, is setting up structures it hopes will produce a fairer Fiji for all its citizens, but in seeking to do so it is largely excluding the people whose lot it says it seeks to improve, although a small group of leading citizens are being asked their opinions.

Put nicely, government sees itself as a benevolent dictatorship that knows best what is needed. Less generously, it is imposing its ideas, excluding those with contrary or moderating views, and doing too little to harness or mobilize grassroots opinion in support of its cause. 

The hope is that this approach will bring about permanent beneficial changes for Fiji. I fear it could be mistaken. The four years to elections is too short a time to change ethnically-moulded mindsets unless ordinary people, the so-called grassroots, are actively engaged in the transformation. One way of doing this -– long known and advocated by some NGOs and development thinkers –- is by participatory democracy. Engaging vocal or otherwise prominent representatives of the people is not the same as directly engaging the grassroots. 


Before disguarding the idea as too idealistic, think how useful mataqali (and not NTLB) discussion could be on land use, and joint local Fijian and Indo-Fijian discusions on leases and land rents. Think how the problems of the sugar industry could be lessened or resolved if the ordinary people affected had a say.  Think how useful it would be for local communities to voice and have some control over their own development priorities. Think what could happen if women and young people, and if Kai-Solomoni and other marginalized groups, were fully involved in local discussions. Think how beneficial it could be if ordinary citizens were encouraged, through their local committees, to carefully think through race relations and the sort of Fiji they want for their children. And think what could happen if they asked their children.

In the Pacific, the work of the Solomon Islands Development Trust provides an early example of this approach, and ECREA's squatter empowerment work a later Fiji model. The Pacific can also learn from others' experience.


Two old friends emailed me this example from Brazil. The Brazil situation did not last forever, and it need not in Fiji, but the idea of neighbourhood democracies, also practised in Singapore, intent on addressing local issues and seeing how best to locally implement the People's Charter, could, with adaptation, be "a way to go" in Fiji.  

Promoting Participatory Local Democracies: Brazil

One means of building people’s power and confidence in social change is supplied by the system of participatory democracy in the city of Porto Alegre in southern Brazil. In her book  “Inventing Local Democracy” Rebecca Abers reports on her two years of studying this system.

Abers’ study of grassroots politics in Porto Alegre under the Workers Party [Partido Trabalhadores or PT] traces the growth of participatory budgets and their effect upon the social and political lives of “the excluded . PT was formed in 1980 and was influenced by Paulo Freire’s ideas about educating and mobilising the oppressed. Freire was a foundation member.

In 1988 a PT mayor was elected and almost immediately his party began on a “participatory budget" policy, in which the grassroots initiated and decided what they wanted in their areas of the city and negotiated with the local government for this. The outcome was a beginning of people’s power over an important part of their lives and was a new concept to those used to being ignored, oppressed and living as they could.

Abers tells us: “ One of several reasons that the PT was politically successful in Porto Alegre was that, through participatory policy it fostered the organization and development of a large number of neighbourhood-based groups in the city.”

People set up groups or joined existing groups in neighbourhoods. There the needs of the neighbourhood were discussed and priorities decided. Delegates from neighbourhoods then debated in regional groups what should be done first in the region. If a neighbourhood was not active or could not find a full delegation to the regional meeting, there was a likelihood that its requests would be turned down. Active participation became the key.

Initially only a small minority of people in neighbourhoods took part, but those who did so knew local problems and could turn to the task of formulating solutions. This action was self-selecting. Anybody was welcome to take part. The more who did so in a neighbourhood the more regional delegates it was entitled to.

While the elected City Council maintained its constitutional rights to decide on policy, in practice a great deal of the initiative came from and remained in the hands of the people in neighbourhood groups. Conflicts with official views and city hall priorities certainly occurred. In many cases the result was a compromise acceptable to the residents, or the change was gained but deferred till the Council could do it.

In this complex city society, encompassing grinding poverty as well as relative comfort, it was inevitable that claims affected by class differences or bureaucratic practices of local government, or even the unreasonable expectations of the poor would lead to controversy. But this, however, did not result in the participatory system being abandoned; rather there occurred increasing activity within it. Conflict with authority and its power was thus put into a form of action.

The following excerpts from Abers   “Conclusions”  summarise her findings.

“Today dozens of regular forums and councils discuss nearly every aspect of local decision making. Seminars, conferences and community meetings, in which state officials and citizens discuss and decide together on issues ranging from street lighting to economic development policy are an everyday occurrence.

In sum the political strategy of the administration led it to encourage rather than fear the organization of civic groups that were capable of resisting co-optation.....”

“... the fact that the government’s legitimacy stood on its democratic reputation actually helped participants pressure administration officials to change the policies when questioned. Certainly the government always sought to convince participants that its positions were correct. But controlling the details of policy-making was less important than maintaining a strong grassroots support base and an image that it was responsive to citizen demands. ....”

This state of affairs ended with the loss of power of the PT in 1992. The new PT national president Lula da Silva decided to repay World Bank loans instead of helping the poor of Brazil. His party imploded and the Porto Alegre mayoralty was lost. Some party members said they were torn by leaving the party but could not remain as sellouts. Lula had gone from a peasants smock to a dark suit. The ideology of the suits had changed him radically.

-- Flip flop Photo: themoderatevoice.com