Participation Democracy Development
How important are participation and democracy in policies for sustainable development and social inclusion?
Participation and democracy in politics are important factors in policies for sustainable development and social inclusion. Participation in the democratic process can help the implementation of policy in all areas of policymaking but is particularly relevant to these two areas. A representative system of democracy that can represent the views of minority groups or those at the bottom of the economic scale in society is crucial in the formulation of successful policies for social inclusion, whilst sustainable development by definition is linked to a process of development that manages to satisfy a combination of environmental, social and economic goals. Of the two, democracy and participation can be seen as most important when related to sustainable development due to its emergence as a form of environmental thinking that takes account of human communities rather than just nature and the environment as had earlier environmental thinking and policy making.
Addressing firstly the role of democracy and participation in the formulation of policy on social inclusion it is important to have a clear definition of both social inclusion and social exclusion. They are closely linked. Social inclusion is effectively a process for dealing with social exclusion and integrating individuals into society. The Centre for Economic and Social Exclusion has stated:
“Social inclusion is the process by which efforts are made to ensure that everyone, regardless of their experiences and circumstances, can achieve their potential in life. To achieve inclusion, income and employment are necessary but not sufficient. An inclusive society is also characterised by a striving for reduced inequality, a balance between individuals rights and duties and increased social cohesion” (p6 Raje F, Transport, Demand and Social Inclusion, Ashgate Publishing, London 2004). Even from this simple definition, there is an inferred reference to rights and duties which can be translated into an obligation to take some form of participatory role in the community and for citizens to play their part in the democratic process.
Social exclusion is also linked closely to poverty and it is important to note that those at the bottom of the economic sale often have little participation in the democratic process. The 1983 Living in Britain Survey was the first of its kind to try and address exactly what standard of living is deemed unacceptable by society with the view that a person would be in poverty if their standard of living fell below that deemed necessary by current public opinion (p85 Mack J and Lansley S, Poor Britain, George Allen and Unwin, London 1985). One of the most notable conclusions of this survey was that respondents felt that poverty was not strictly a financial situation - people do not restrict their interpretation of the basic necessities of life to the basic material needs of shelter, diet, fuel and clothing, there are other social customs, activities and obligations that many of the population see as amongst the most important necessities of life.
What is striking here is that participation in some of the basic functions of society is seen as something that promotes social inclusion and can help individuals move away from poverty. The 1985 PSE Survey had identified five crucial aspects of social participation that if lacking could foster social exclusion:
- Non-participation in common activities such as an occasional evening out, a leisure activity or an annual weeks holiday away
- Social networks
- Support available to individuals on a routine basis and in a time of crisis
- Engagement in political and civic activity
- Freedom of movement - confinement could result from a fear of crime, disability or other factors (p138 Pantazis C, Gordon D & Levitas
- R, Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Policy Press UK, 2006
In terms of policy making, what this survey suggests is that participation in social and community activity along with involvement in the democratic process are key elements in any policies likely to be successful in promoting social inclusion.
Looking again at definition, a clear definition of social exclusion can be that:
“An individual is socially excluded if (a) he or she is geographically resident in a society but (b) for reasons beyond his or her control. He or she cannot participate in the normal activities of citizens in that society, and he or she would like to participate” (p14 Agulnik P, Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford University Press 2002) and as such it seems evident again that participation is key to social inclusion. Of course there can be exceptions - some citizens or groups may wish to voluntarily exclude themselves from society. Prisoners also are exempt from playing a part in the democratic process but there are extenuating circumstances behind this form of social exclusion.
It should also be noted that whilst it is generally accepted that those socially excluded are either minority groups or amongst the poorest in society, this is not necessarily the case. The apartheid regime in South Africa saw a white minority exclude over eighty per cent of the population from significant educational, occupational and political positions, whilst the tendency towards gated communities in the US has seen some of the wealthiest citizens looking to purposefully exclude themselves from the rest of the population.
There is however a clear link between wealth/poverty and social inclusion. Those at either extreme of the economic scale will often find themselves excluded in different ways - the poorest excluded simply as they are unable to participate in society and the richest because they choose to do so and access services outside of the remit of policy making for the majority of society. There are a number of examples to show this. In the US for example, citizens living in inner city ghettoes receive little police protection and those who live in gated communities receive little as they can afford private security; those at the bottom of the economic scale tend to have little involvement in the democratic process (including voting) whilst those at the top do not need to as they can access important decision makers directly through lobbying and Public Action Committees. Even the system of financing public services in the US prohibits social inclusion as the quality of services in each area reflects the level of prosperity in the area (p18 Agulnik P 2002). Looking more specifically at social inclusion in the UK, it can be argued that there is a similar look to the way the health services are accessed. Those at the bottom of the economic scale can sometimes find it difficult to engage with health services and other public sector organisations, whilst the wealthiest citizens will choose to exclude themselves from the public sector and access health care and other services privately.
Sustainable development policy is also closely linked to participation and democracy and it can be argued that sustainable development is largely a way of thinking that that has evolved as a more democratic and inclusive from of environmentalism Axtmann writes:
“One of the central aims of environmentalism, ‘sustainable development' has at its heart a concern with extending democracy and enhancing democratic institutions and citizenship participation in decision-making” (p304 Axtmann R, Understanding Democratic Politics, SAGE Publishing 2003) and this is as clear a definition as any, emphasising that there is almost an interdependence between sustainable development and participation and democracy.
Sustainable development is a type of environmentalism that emerged from the 1970s when environmentalists attracted criticism in that their concerns where seen somewhat as an elitist doctrine that put the basic needs of the worlds poorest people secondary to concerns about the environment and nature. There was little in terms of participation or democracy in this type of environmentalism - it was seen as completely separate to development issues and driven by an agenda with little concerns for social justice. At this point environmental groups were often unable to engage local communities in either the developed or developing worlds with their projects or ideas on policy. Environmentalism, before sustainable development and its more inclusive and democratic doctrine, was not a creed that could be easily adopted by people across the world more concerned with their own economic well-being or even survival than issues around conservation and nature.
Sustainable development has been an ethos that has changed this view of policy making on the environment and made green politics more participatory and more in line with policies to address poverty and promote social inclusion. There is a view now that environmental groups are interested not simply in the natural world but in the human communities that live in it also. The 1987 Brundtland Report led the way in this - it was a report that stated the need for a worldwide environmental policy that would meet the current needs without compromising the ability of future generations to do the same. In particular, the Brundtland Report was the first notable research to point to the fact that environmental damage from global consumption falls most heavily on the poorest of the worlds populations and the fact that the large number of landless and poor people in the developing world put a great pressure on the natural resource base in their regions as they struggle to survive. Resource depletion through deforestation, desertification, water scarcity and over fishing then only continues a seemingly vicious circle as the worlds poorest are force onto more ecologically fragile lands where they continue to do environmental damage. Focussing on the interdependence between environmental and developmental issues which had not previously been explored, the Brundtland Report drew attention towards important issues such as trade relations between developed and developing nations, aid, industrialisation and third world debt. (p70 Adams W, Green Development, Routledge Publishing, London 2001).
Brundtland was ultimately important because it placed development and the environment alongside one another both in domestic and international policy making and rightly argued that sustainable development is not possible whilst poverty and social injustice continue. As Adams quotes from the report:
“The environment does not exist as a sphere separate from human actions, ambitions and needs, and attempts to defend it in isolation have given the very word ‘environment' a connotation of naivety in some political circles” (p69 Adams 2001).
Since Brundtland there have been other strategies developed by international organisations that have spoke of the need for sustainable development to develop in tandem with participation by communities and democracy. In 1991 The World Conservation Union (IUCN) published Caring for the Earth - A Strategy for sustainable living, a document that in itself was far more participatory that previous consultations. The authors of the report actually described it as “unashamedly a social and political document…aimed at improving the condition of the world people” and an integration of conservation and development that would help “people everywhere to enjoy long, health and fulfilling lives” (p76 Adams 2001). There were also clear indications of a commitment to participation and democracy in policy making.. Caring for the Earth made reference to respect and care for the community of life, to a change in personal attitudes and practices, to enabling communities to care for their own environments, to forging a global alliance in respect of sustainable development and to individual nations providing their own national frameworks for integrating development and conservation. The overall vision of sustainable development was one of participating sustainable communities:
“a sustainable community cares for its own environment and does not damage those of other. It uses resources frugally and sustainably, recycles materials, minimises wastes and disposes of them safely. It conserves life support systems and the diversity of local ecosystems. It meets its own needs so far as it can, but recognises the need to work in partnership with other communities.” (p78 Adams 2001). One notable point here is that the participation of communities in protecting the environment is crucial. From basic tasks such as recycling waste, communities can play their part in delivering on policies that will support sustainable development.
One of the clearest examples of the relationship between participation, democracy and sustainable development is the Local Agenda 21 (LA21) that was adopted by the United Nations following the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. LA21 established that the goal of sustainable development would be to oblige local authorities to consult widely and involve a range of stakeholder from within local communities to develop local environmental plans for sustainable development, effectively linking sustainable development to democracy and participation. The UN has stated that LA21s:
“turn into local sustainability plans, they reveal that sustainable development is not just about environmental protection and the meeting of social needs. It's also about the revival of democracy itself (p305 Axtmann 2003). This is a crucial point - consultation with communities on environmental projects is vital to their success and the greater the involvement that local people have in formulating local policy on sustainable development, the greater the likelihood would appear to be of success.
It is unarguable that the democratic process can have a profound impact on environmental policy. Governments facing election have to consider the social and economic implications of any measures to be environmentally friendly - a tax on petrol may alienate voters and hinder the social inclusion of the poorest in society for example or legislation obliging companies to invest in green technology may lead to job losses. This permeates to local level - communities will always be wary of the economic or social cost of environmental initiatives and again this is why participation and use of the democratic process is so important in developing policy.
The UK government has developed its own sustainable development strategy to attempt to build environmental policies that have the input of communities - this is not solely an altruistic gesture, in this aspect the government can at least argue that its policies are electorally viable. Power to implement policy has been devolved as far as possible, to regional assemblies, local authorities, local strategic partnerships and ultimately as far as area and neighbourhood partnerships and voluntary and community organisations. There appears to be an understanding in the UK at least that sustainable development is largely dependent on the goodwill of communities and electorates. The Government has also set up Sustainable Development Commission to act as an independent watchdog on government progress in this area. (p154 HM Government Securing the Future: delivering the UK sustainable development strategy. London; Stationery Office 2005), something that allows for a thorough scrutiny of the democratic process in the formulation of sustainable development policymaking and delivery of legislation.
The theory of green democracy is also relevant here. This suggests that the democratic regulation of markets and the economy are vital if sustainability and green environmental policies are to be achieved. Such a theory is closely linked to a socialist view of society in that measures such as external democratic regulation and planning of production, energy use and transport are used to ensure delivery of policies of sustainable development, equality, social justice and social inclusion. Green democracy is not necessarily a force in UK policymaking at present but its basic principle of sustainable development answerable to communities is relevant.
Any discussion as to the relationship between democracy and environmental policy also raises questions as to whether the principles of science and democratic participation can complement each other in the management of environmental risks. To some extent this is true, yet democracy and science can at times bring about a confusion that do not lead to the best decision making and the additional ingredients of trust and community can be crucial. As Jasanoof writes on the relationship between democracy and the environment:
“Building institutions that foster knowledge and trust, participation and community, is one of the greatest challenges confronting today's human societies (p2 Jasanoff S, The Dilemma of Environmental Democracy, Issues in Science and Technology, VOL 13 issue 1 1996)
The importance of democracy has increased greatly since sustainable development became an accepted way of thinking in environmental policy making circles. Although the democratic message was focussed initially at developing nations, democracy can be seen in action formulating sustainable development policies in developed nations also, through citizen initiatives and the democratic consultative process. It is important, if sustainable development is to succeed globally that all local interests, from isolated rural communities to poor inner-city areas can participate in policy making and planning decisions. Particularly in wealthier countries, democracy has help to legitimise sustainable development policy, particularly where environmental initiatives may have a detrimental economic impact on individuals or businesses. As in all areas of policy making, if information is made available and people are given the opportunity to participate in the decision making process, then they may see the necessity for sometime unpopular measure and be will to accept the economic sacrifices that a required policy initiative may involve.
Participation and democracy should be at the heart of policy making in all aspects of life, yet in the spheres of sustainable development and social inclusion it is all the more important that they are as such. Both are closely linked to the everyday lives of individuals and communities and policy making in these areas really does have an impact on the physical and economic well being of people. Sustainable development and social inclusion are concepts that all societies should aspire towards - with participation of individuals and communities and with democratic systems that allow engagement between citizens and policymakers, there is every chance that successful policies will emerge.
Bibliography
Adams W, Green Development, Routledge Publishing, London 2001
Agulnik P, Understanding Social Exclusion, Oxford University Press 2002
Axtmann R, Understanding Democratic Politics, SAGE Publishing 2003
Blowers A & Hinchcliffe S, Environmental Responses, John Wiley and Sons 2003
HM Government Securing the Future: delivering the UK sustainable development strategy. London; Stationery Office 2005
Jasanoff S, The Dilemma of Environmental Democracy, Issues in Science and Technology, VOL 13 issue 1 1996
Mack J and Lansley S, Poor Britain, George Allen and Unwin, London 1985)
Pantazis C, Gordon D & Levitsa R, Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Policy Press UK, 2006
Raje F, Transport, Demand and Social Inclusion, Ashgate Publishing, London 2004
We provide a professional essay writing service that thousands of our customers use as an effective way of improving their grades, improving their research and saving them lots of time.
