Climbing the Participation Ladder

I am told by my father that I saw the launch of Apollo 11 and watched as Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon a few days later. I'm sorry to say that I don't have a memory of it because I was a 19-month old. Nevertheless, I still use the moon landing as a moment that helps many people get a sense of how long it has been since other events of its time.

In the same month that humans first stepped on the face of the moon, an article was published in the Journal of the American Institute of Planners entitled "A Ladder of Citizen Participation." Written by Sherry R. Arnstein, it proposes that there are different levels of citizen participation. Inasmuch as different public participation techniques are employed, citizens have power and influence over the outcomes of governmental activities.

Rungs of the Ladder

The ladder, as depicted in the article, has eight rungs. Arnstein states that, in truth, "there might be 150 rungs with less sharp and 'pure' distinctions among them." The point is that there are different levels of public participation in public decision making. The rungs she chose are (from bottom to top):

1. Manipulation
2. Therapy
3. Informing
4. Consultation
5. Placation
6. Partnership
7. Delegated Power
8. Citizen Control

Arnstein describes the first two levels as "Nonparticipation" which gives the powerholders (her word) the illusion of encouraging public participation, but is designed to, as Arnstein puts it, "cure" the public of its alternative views. The next three levels are flavors of "Tokenism" where the powerholders grant the citizenry the ability to hear and be heard, but reserve the decision-making to themselves, preventing any threat to the status quo. The highest three levels Arnstein describes are expressions of actual citizen power: "Partnership" where citizens have the right to actively negotiate with powerholders to gain concessions; "Delegated Power" where citizens hold the majority of the seats on the decision making body; and "Citizen Control" where the citizens possess all of the authority.

Taking the Stairs

When the government does not live up to your expectations, there is the feeling that there's nothing to be done. "You can't fight city hall," they say. But, there is an alternative. If the government doesn't let you take the ladder, take the stairs. Resolve not to be trapped by their designed limits.

When the public sector does not satisfy your needs, remember that the private sector and the non-profit (or Non-Governmental Organization/NGO) sectors are still there. Rallying business interests, provided your interests coincide with yours, can be helpful in making sure that your voices are heard. Also, simple neighborhood action without the formal structure of an organization, is part of your American freedom.

Take, for instance, the case of the trees on Bernard Street on Spokane's South Hill. The City had signed the death warrant on a number of trees because they were in the way of a street improvement. The neighborhood objected and, while some plans were changed to accommodate some of the concerns (saving six of the 23 trees was called a reasonable balance), the community expected to be empowered to save those trees based on their interpretation of the city's comprehensive plan.

The neighbors in the community rallied and, in the end, changed city government: they were instrumental in ousting the mayor, and installed one of their own on the city council. This time, when Lincoln Street was reconstructed, the neighborhood had more input and there wasn't the uproar that only a few blocks and a few years away had experienced.

Thoughts

You can tell much about a community by their default level of citizen participation. And, it's not just a matter of whether people participate or not, but also what they've been taught to expect and what the government offers as a conduit for public opinion into their processes.

It goes without saying that there is a tendency, even in a old republic such as America, for those in power to retain as much authority as they think they can reasonably (or unreasonably) hold. It's not entirely unreasonable for powerholders to state that they have been duly elected and thereby have the responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the electorate. However, even in the best democracies, a small group of people cannot fully represent the vast opinions and experiences of the populace. Additionally, there are times when the powerholders' claim of authority exceeds their actual level of concern. The result is always a tragedy when a decision maker cannot legitimately claim to care about the outcome enough to pursue the optimal solution, yet decides nevertheless.

Let's not also claim that the public always has the best intentions, however. The public must be restrained in matters of people's rights. We can still see the tendency for an officially secular and egalitarian nation (like the United States) to host manifestly discriminatory people whose wont is to harm others through official means. In this case, it's entirely appropriate for powerholders to put boundaries on citizen power, and I would argue that can be a primary role for them. Unfortunately, taking such a stand can often interfere with their personal need to remain a powerholder. It's not uncommon enough for powerholders to prey upon people's biases and use the promise of institutional discrimination to gain votes.

And while the powerholders may harness the power of rockets to put men on the moon, they can't always seem to empower the very people who authorized the government to exist in the first place. But, unfortunately, that's exactly what some of them intend. It's up to you, as planners and as citizens, to prevent that from happening.