DIALOGUE AND ETHICAL GOVERNANCE

SYSTEMIC GOVERNCANCE FOR PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AND

1.3 DIALOGUE AND ETHICAL GOVERNANCE

“The closest we can get to truth is through dialogue.” (McIntyre-Mills, 2000, in order to achieve just outcomes)

“. . .The whole biosphere-our planetary ecosystem – is a dynamic and highly integrated web of living and nonliving forms. Although this web is multileveled, transactions and interdependencies exist among all its levels.” (Capra, 1982:

297)

26 Could it compound the silence of those who are non-citizens or marginalized by poverty, illiteracy, innumeracy, language or lack of confidence in the wired spaces (as per Castells, 1996)? The resonance between the Greek slaves and the underrepresented women in the past and marginal others today without access to country, safe communities, safe wa- ter, sanitation, housing, education or employment becomes increasingly important and needs to be placed at the forefront of our thinking, when addressing the pitfalls of gov- ernance practice (particularly e-governance). Creating access is central for participatory governance and peace (particularly those outside the wired communities (Castells, 1996, 1998).

1. Systemic Governcance for Participatory Design and Accountability 19 Historically “win-lose / either or” thinking and practice has led to the chessboard approach in social, economic and environmental terms. The po- litical time frame and goal is the next election by advocating clear-cut ide- ologies. People and the environment are a means to an end and are com- modified in a process of negotiation and tradeoffs. A philosophy of profit and loss underpins much of the thinking without considering the opportunity costs in the short, let alone the long term. To make a leap from discussing the importance of local participation and decision making to the importance of respecting diversity in a wider national and international sense is quite sensible.

“The job of government is to provide the stitches that link the patchwork, not prescribe the colour, shape and texture of every separate piece of the quilt. The best of the new links will be created by people who rely on their own practi- cal, tacit knowledge of what is needed and who harness their own anger and frustration into a new and positive energy. They may well be uncomfortable for politicians and bureaucrats alike, but that is what democracy is all about. People problems are not neat and tidy packages to be handled by experts at the center.”

(Edgar, 2001: 193)²⁷

According to Florini (2003: 5):

“The difference between rosy and gloomy scenarios boils down to a single word: governance. Governance is something more than the familiar processes of governments. Governance refers to all the ways in which people collectively make choices.”²⁸

The literature on welfare shows how Australia and many Western democ- racies have moved away from universal welfare provision to more residualist approaches. The more residual the welfare, the lower the social capital and this in turn impacts on the economy, because social networks of trust are vi- tal for all forms of socio-economic activity (Mendes, 2003; Putnam, 1995).

Jamrozik (2001) in Social Policy in the Post Welfare State: Australians on the Threshold of the 21st Century argues that Australia spends a small pro- portion of its GDP on welfare in comparison with other OECD countries and that although the proportion of people on welfare has grown the spending is amongst the lowest in welfare states. He also stresses that the amount of available money for spending on basic needs such as transport, power and water has decreased. Mendes stresses that residual welfare has become en- trenched in Australia by both the major political parties who talk of targeted

27 This refers to remaking the democratic project in the Australian context. But it is of equal relevance to remaking governance nationally and internationally.

28 The second quotation refers to good governance and stresses that it is about collective co-creation of meanings and is about creating partnerships that enhance better commu- nication.

welfare and mutual obligation. Those who can prove they are needy or de- serving are given assistance. Social control seems to be the new approach to poverty, but there are other ways of addressing the major challenges of the day, namely poverty, pollution, climate change and conflict expressed as terror and ‘war on terror’. Our emphasis needs to expand beyond the state, market and society to include the system and the environment.

Systemic governance is conceptualized as ongoing cycles of communi- cation informed by processes that support different ways of knowing and structures that support inclusion. Systemic governance refers to working across:

• Conceptual boundaries and lived experience,

• Networks, interest groups and organizations,

• Cultures and identities,

• Socio-geographic boundaries to establish broader arenas locally, nation- ally and internationally, in order to achieve sustainable social, economic and environmental futures.

Other concepts²⁹on which systemic governance draws are “bonds” that draw us together, porous “boundaries” drawn by individuals and groups and

“norms” that guide the behaviour of groups³⁰and “transformation and emer- gence” to explore not merely “culture in interaction” (Elias and Lichterman, 2003) but the processes for bringing about change.³¹ Bonds are the con-

Diagram 1.1. PAR is iterative thinking and practice (derived from Checkland and Holwell, 1998: 13).

29 Drawing on the following papers by Brubaker, R., Loveman, M. and Stamatov, P., 2004,

“Ethnicity as cognition”, Theory and Society, 33: 31-64. Brubaker, R. and Cooper, F., 2000, “Beyond identity”, Theory and Society, 29-1-47.

30 Elias, N. and Lichterman, P., 2003, “Culture in interaction”, The American Journal of Sociology, 108(4): 735-794.

31 Such as: structural differentiation (Maturana), dissipative structures (Prigogine and Stengers), moving equilibrium (Parsons), autopoesis (Maturana and Valerela), eternal

1. Systemic Governcance for Participatory Design and Accountability 21 nections we draw across self, other and the environment. These concepts are worked with, rather than applied, in order to inspire creativity. Systemic Governance is based on cycles of construction and deconstruction, based on iterative questioning by the stakeholders who are to be affected by deci- sions. Thus it is made and remade in context by people at the receiving end of decisions. Iterative thinking (see modified diagram from Checkland and Holwell, 1998) assists in this process.

PAR enables both “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) and supports par- ticipatory democracy (see Edgar, 2001).³² The shift is from framework to perspectives and then to dynamic computerized maps of the area of concern where multiple voices and texts jostle. The dialectic of one argument, the clash or contrast with another creates a synthesis if there is a will to engage.

If not, then space for difference is recognized and the meaning is recog- nized. The loops stands for questioning and reflection. The methodology is participatory, reflexive (systemic) and critical.

The emphasis is on respectful dialogue and the need to test out ideas, not in the sense that they are falsified, but in the sense that they are ex- plored by many stakeholders, in order to assess their implications for all those who are to be at the receiving end of a decision, to establish what works, why, how, to what effect and in whose opinion. The testing process is about exploring viewpoints in terms of the three worlds of the ‘perceived objective, perceived subjective and the perceived intersubjective’ domains and their implications for the stakeholders through ‘unfolding’ the values of the participants and ‘sweeping in’ the social, cultural, political and eco- nomic values within context. Systemic governance is based on an expanded form of pragmatism for working and re-working the boundaries across self- other and the environment. This is argued to be essential for sustainability, creativity, social justice and socio-economic wellbeing, hence the title of volume 1 of the CW Churchman Series Rescuing the Enlightenment from itself: Critical and Systemic Implications for Democracy.

• The authors explore the paradox, namely that openness and sharing ideas (the idealist version of democracy and a transformed enlightenment ap-

return (Deleuze and Guattari), boomerang effect (Ulrich Beck), dialectic (Habermas) and ‘unfolding’ or ‘sweeping in’ (See West Churchman and Lovelock’s notion of Gaian interconnections). They form the basis for what I call Systemic governance based on agape communication for emergence, developed in the chapters that follow.

32 In working with Churchman’s 1979 concept of ‘A design for inquiring systems’, I draw on the work of Borradori (2003) in conversation with both Derrida and Habermas along with the work of Donna Haraway and Michelle Fine, Bhaba and Foucault in an attempt to develop critical and systemic insights across the boundaries of self, other and the environment.

proach) requires trust. Trust in turn requires openness, sharing ideas and compassion.³³

The more inclusive and the wider we can draw the boundaries of par- ticipation for risk management and protection of “the other”, the greater the potential for creating trust and the closer we can move towards social and environmental justice that is supported by norms supported by interna- tional agencies such as the United Nations Aarhus Convention to protect against environmental hazards across geographical boundaries (October 30, 2001)³⁴ (through accountability to citizens and non government organiza- tions) and The International Criminal Court.³⁵ The rider should be added

33 The argument extends the work of Connolly, W., 1969, The Bias of Pluralism Atherton, New York. It is possible for trust to develop across species and this is the basis for communication, where both instinct and constancy in behaviour and signaling leads to shared meaning. Interspecies trust is indicated by Dolphins saving drowning sailors and Killer whales working pragmatically with human beings to herd and kill whales in Eden.

The Aboriginal whalers called the whales their family. The co-operation ended, partly because of falling numbers of whales, caused by unsustainable whaling practices and because one of the leaders was killed and thus the trust was broken. ABC documentary on Killer whales in Eden 9 October 2005.

34 Svitlana Kravchenco, 2001, in a paper entitled “The doors to democracy are opened!”

quotes Kofi Annan: “The Aarhus Convention is the most ambitious venture in environ- mental democracy undertaken under the auspices of United Nations. Its adoption is a remarkable step forward in the development of international law as it relates to partici- patory democracy and citizens’ environmental rights. . .Its entry into force today, little more than three years after it was adopted, is further evidence of the firm commitment to those principles of the Signatories- including States in Eastern Europe and Central Asia whose role in this process clearly demonstrates that environmental rights are not a luxury reserved for rich countries.” He goes on to cite the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights Mary Robinson as follows: “The convention is a remarkable achievement not only in terms of protection of the environment, but also in terms of the promotion and protection of human rights, which lie at the heart of the text. As such, Aarhus is a key step in the progress of integrating human rights and environmental issues. . .It entry into force is a key signpost for the future of human (sic) and the environment in all parts of the world. . .The great value of this Convention lies not only in the promise of protection it afford the people and the environment in Europe, but also in the model it provides for similar action in other nations and regions in the world.”

35 According to Human Rights Watch (http://hrw.org/campaigna/icc/ accessed 7/28/2004)

“The statute outlining the creation of the court was adopted at an international conference in Rome on July 17, 1998. After 5 weeks of intense negotiations, 120 countries voted to adopt the treaty. Only seven countries voted against it (including China, Israel, Iraq, and the United States) and 21 abstained. 139 states signed the treaty by the 31^stDecember, 2000 deadline. 66 countries – 6 more than the threshold needed to establish the court – ratified the treaty on 11 April, 2002. This meant that the ICC’s jurisdiction commenced July 1, 2002. From February 3-7, 2003, the court’s Assembly of States Parties – the ICC’s governing body-elected the court’s first 18 judges. The resulting. . .judicial bench (the judges include 7 women. . .) were sworn into Office on March 11 in The Hague. . .”

1. Systemic Governcance for Participatory Design and Accountability 23 that the United Nations is a bureaucracy and like all other bureaucracies it needs to be open to scrutiny and cycles of self analysis, in order to pre- vent and redress misuse of resources. Australia signed up to the ICC after the deadline on 1July 2002. The purpose of the ICC according to the Rome Statute is to support “peace and justice”. In the words of Koffi Annan, United Nations Secretary General:

“In the prospect of an international criminal court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realisation. We will do our part to see it through to the end. We ask you. . .to do yours in our struggle to ensure that no ruler, no State, no junta and no army anywhere can abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they, too, may sleep under the cover of justice, that they too, have rights, and that those who violate those rights will be punished.”

“For nearly half of a century – almost as long as the United Nations has been in existence – the General Assembly has recognized the need to establish such a court to prosecute and punish persons responsible for crimes such as genocide

. . .that the horrors of the Second World War – the camps, the cruelty, the ex-

terminations, the Holocaust – could never happen again. And yet they have. In Cambodia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Rwanda. Our time – this decade. . . has shown us that man’s capacity for evil knows no limits. Genocide. . .is now a word of our time, too, heinous reality that calls for a historic response.”

Human consciousness is a continuum from compassionate caretakers who are mindful or conscious of the many factors that are required for sus- tainable governance to passionate fundamentalists in West and East who are ruled by either religion or the market. Zealotry is symptomatic of emo- tive decision-making that takes into account only some connections and not others. We need to realize that we can project our perceptions onto others.

Thinking can change practice. Practice in turn, can and does change think- ing. Knowing is a process based on a range of experiences, senses and on communication, whereas fundamentalism can be defined as refusing to ac- cept knowing as an ongoing intersubjective process.

Critical and systemic thinking and practice are required for better in- ternational relations and governance. Global governance requires space for diversity and should operate as a form of checks and balances.

Boyle (2005)³⁶ discusses the potential for human beings to evolve in many different directions. In the past human beings had many relatives.

36 Boyle, A., 2005, “The Human Strain”, Weekend Australian, May 14-15, discusses the potential for human beings to evolve in many different directions. In the past human be- ings had many relatives. Should we consider the implications of creating environments of privilege and environments of deprivation and their implications for various life forms?

The haves use technology in their own narrow interests without considering the long term implications of what they are doing.

There is no reason why speciation cannot occur again. ‘The haves’ will be able to use technology to extend their intelligence and enhance their health, wellbeing and appearance. The ‘have nots’ will live outside the networked world and be less able to make decisions to shape their lives (Castells, 1998;

Banathy, 2000). A critical and systemic perspective on governance attempts to work with rather than within boundaries of knowledge paradigms to ex- plore the relationships across ‘self – other’, sentient beings and the environ- ment. This comprises being mindful of this generation and the next and to think about what we are, could be and ought to be and to share our learnings with those who are concerned about ensuring a viable and peaceful future for this generation and the next. The process enables people to give discur- sive details about the quality of their lives and details³⁷ about what works for them, how and why.

Fundamentalism is one of the greatest challenges for the future, whether it is religious or economic. Ideally democratic process ought to enable or- dinary people to give discursive details about the quality of their lives and details about what works for them, how and why. ‘Deepening democracy’³⁸ needs to be underpinned by sustainable thinking and practice and based not only on detailed descriptions of what people think they need, why and how their needs could be addressed. We can think of ways to improve sustain- ability by getting people to use social movements, for example to address carbon emissions. This requires detailed, discursive description or “thick description”, in the words of Clifford Geertz³⁹ that supports “thick democ- racy⁴⁰ which is essential for social and economic wellbeing, perhaps the representation of ‘other’⁴¹ could be assisted not only by advocacy but the use of narrative and art for expression.

37 Deepening democracy (Fung, Wright et al., 2003) needs to be based or “thick descrip- tion” (Geertz, 1973) that supports “thick democracy” (Edgar, 2002). Capacity building is needed in many arenas to enhance the ability of people to think holistically. Partici- patory Action Research (PAR) as a methodology can assist with the process of thinking systemically and combining many methods through questioning.

38 Fung, A. and Wright, E.O., 2003, Deepening Democracy. Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance. The Real Utopias Project 1V. Verso. London.

39 Geertz, C., 1973, “Thick description: towards an interpretive theory of culture.” In C.

Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. Selected essays (3-32). New York: Basic books.

40 See Edgar, D., 2001, The Patchwork Nation: Rethinking Government-rebuilding Com- munity, Sydney, Harper. Australian Local Government Association, 2002, Regional Co- operation and Development Forum, Regional Economic Governance, Alice Springs, 3rd November.

41 Sentient beings such as apes can express themselves in art. London’s Mayor’s Gallery has shows ape artists since the 1950’s, many of which were facilitated by Desmond Morris. “Apes are capable of painting beautiful and moving works”, admits art critic, Waldemar Junuszczak, Weekend Australian, 8-9 October 2005.

1. Systemic Governcance for Participatory Design and Accountability 25

Table 1.1. Towards systemic governance: Adapted from Burrell and Morgan’s 1979 Grid⁴² Sociology of Change

Objective Subjective

Radical structuralism Radical Humanism

For e.g. Governance can emphasize change through legislation and struc- tural change of the state.

For e.g. Governance can emphasize change through civil participation and systemic networking processes

Functionalism Interpretive

For e.g. Governance can emphasize order through legislation and work- ing across departmental structures. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Governance relates to “politi- cal, economic and civil institutions”

(Verspaandonk)⁴³e.g. list of ways that governance is applied in Australia Par- liamentary library Sociology of Order

For e.g. Governance can emphasize in- dividual rights and responsibility at the expense of state and society

A design of inquiring systems could assist in this regard. The inquiring system (adapted from West Churchman, 1971) addresses subjective, objec- tive and intersubjective domains of knowledge (see Chapter 4).

The world comprises many different life chances and economies (see Volume 1). Lack of education, citizenship and discrimination cannot be de- nied in a world where the global markets know few limits and where infor- mation technology can empower the literate, the numerate and those with access to electricity or at the very least access to mobile phones. To talk of the “borderless information economy” (Long, 2002) makes sense for some, for others it is still a dream. The challenge for governance and international relations is not only to try to redress the divides between those who can access digital economy and those who cannot, but also to consider the chal- lenge of different ways of knowing, different ways of being and earning a living that are now presented simultaneously as options for the privileged and as boundaries for the less mobile majority. The starting point is identify- ing connections within and across self – other and the environment. Green- field (2000) stresses that consciousness is about connectivity across multiple neurons within the highly plastic human brain.⁴⁴ To the extent that we can

44 Consciousness is emergent from the complex interplay of matter, body and brain within an environment. It is a recursive experience that no two people can experience in exactly the same way. We share much in common, but our individuality and perceptions are a product of personal experiences, life chances and our personal emotions.