ANDREW HETRICK reviews Hilary Wainwright’s book, ‘Reclaim the State‘:

““My argument is that the views of knowledge developed in practice, if not in theory, by the democratic social movements of the late 1960s onwards have an unrealised relevance today. They provide some otherwise neglected tools to provide an alternative to the social-engineering state other than that presented by neo-liberalism; tools for democratising public institutions rather than privatizing them. These are by no means the only important resources for the creation of a participatory left, however. One of the hopeful features of the new global movements, with their exchange of ideas alongside the coordination of campaigns, is the discovery of how similar ideas are being arrived at through very different experiences and traditions, producing an important spur to further clarification and development. The chapter on participatory politics in Brazil, for example, illustrates the powerful influence of the educational philosophy and methods of Paulo Freire, which in their understanding of human creativity and the conditions for its development provide essential foundations for participatory democracy,” (p. 26).

Drawing upon specific examples from Porto Alegre in Brazil, as well as in East Manchester, Newcastle, and Luton in England, Hilary Wainwright explores the current revitalization of what seems like an old idea: power to the people. The idea of a democracy is not new. Practiced by the ancient Greeks and pushed into the forefront by the United States of America, democracy has remained an experiment that must remain flexible with the times. In the case of representative democracies, those represented have often come to feel neglected and misrepresented by those in power. Corruption, special interests, and gentrification have become the norm. In some places, however, people have demanded more participation in the decisions that affect them locally.

In Porto Alegre, the radical Worker’s Party thought up the participatory budget in which citizens of the city had the opportunity to voice their concerns and interests throughout the entire process of creating the city’s budget. Back in England, Wainwright watched the unfolding of the government’s promised ‘community-led’ regeneration of public spaces, the process of a community taking control of re-establishing broken neighborhoods, and pushing forward for an alternative to (the often mis-)representative democracy.

Representative governments have often started as a way to “get the government off the citizens’ back” but have then led to privatized, corporate interests. As Wainwright writes, “In reality the aim was to get the people off the back of the government, out of the public sphere and to push expectant citizens back into the privacy of the market and the family. The goal was effectively a state free of the people, except for periodic elections to choose who managed it, elections in which fewer and fewer people would participate – an almost accurate picture of the US today,” (p. 39).

Many of these experiments in creating a more participatory democracy have proved vulnerable. With Wainwright as a witness, government representatives acted aloof and unwilling just as much as citizens became self-interested and divided. It became necessary to put forth common goals and ideals, to re-establish the concept of a community, and in the always longer-than-expected process of rebuilding a system, compromises had to be made. Despite the headaches and red-tape, though, something magical seemed to be happening: the people of the communities were excited to participate, had something to say, and had visions for what their communities could be. Disinterested in bringing privatized companies and financially out-of-reach new housing to their communities (or, ultimately, gentrification), the communities were interested in building youth centers relevant to their youth and building new homes that the current residents could afford to move into. Moreover, through endless open meetings and a system of shared responsibilities, the communities were, for the most part, willing to work and participate in making the positive change happen.

“…participatory democracy in these [Brazilian] cities is not only about the structures, it is also about sustaining a culture through which people gain the confidence and sense of solidarity to feel able to participate,” (p. 67)

After several chapters of evaluating these experiments in a more grassroots-based, community level participation in local governments, Wainwright lays out a series of proposals for turning what is usually seen as resistance into a lasting and effective form of a new democracy. This is not socialism – this is the expansion of “the great experiment” of democracy. Among her proposals are bargaining power (sustained leverage over government), political follow-through (breaking through hierarchies), and a new kind of political party that follows through not only locally but globally.

“The problem with present forms of political power is not people’s apathy or an unwillingness to participate. When there is a chance of having a real influence over the allocation of resources, a real chance to improve the quality of life of a neighborhood, and when people are aware of it and are at least half convinced that it could make a difference, then they engage,” (p. 109).

“The old systems of local government have failed – partly through their own mistakes, partly through forces beyond their control. The only alternative to escalating chaos, followed in all likelihood by the authoritarianism of either the state or the far right, is an organised democratic participation in the management of public funds backed by real redistribution of resources to the poorer communities,” (p. 143).”