Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Thursday, 4 October 2018

How City Squares Can Be Public Places of Protest or Centres of State Control

by Majdi Faleh, University of Melbourne, The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/how-city-squares-can-be-public-places-of-protest-or-centres-of-state-control-102275

File 20180927 48631 18r10z2.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Seven years after Tahrir Square became the focal point of the Egyptian Revolution, towering metal gates now control access. Ahmed Abd El-Fatah/Wikimedia, CC BY

Today’s urban public spaces tend to represent governments and cities rather than people and citizens. In the past seven years, disturbing scenes of protests in city squares have been seen across the Arab world and Europe, but these public protests existed long before the 21st century. So how can city squares support or inhibit protests through their spatial characteristics and settings?

Public squares have been considered as places of encounter and exchange since the time of the Greek Agora and the Roman Forum. While often the sites of protest, these spaces also can reflect the idea of power and constrain revolutions and social uprisings.


Read more: Neighbourhood living rooms – we can learn a lot from European town squares


Design and scenography can be used to intensify agoraphobia, or a fear of public spaces. Thus these spaces of expression can, at times, be silenced, putting at risk the geography of freedom of speech.

Reminders of the power of the state

Public spaces around the world have been not only places for people to gather and interact but also to demonstrate and, at times, to face their death.

In 2014, Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiev was at the centre of the Ukrainian Euromaidan Revolution. It was a deadly revolution of dignity. Yet the consequences of other protests largely attest to how the design of these spaces can intimidate protesters.


Read more: Four years after the Euromaidan revolution in Ukraine: key gains and losses


In 1989, students demonstrated in Beijing during the so-called Tiananmen Square protests, which ended in a massacre. This immense city square of the capital is now known for its “strange emptiness”, as Evan Osnos described it. Benches and shade trees have been removed to discourage public gatherings.

The monumentality created by the forbidden city and the government buildings, including the Great Hall of People, adds to the feeling of emptiness and intimidation. The 44-hectare public square is now considered “the opposite of a public space”:
Its totalitarian scale dwarfs the individual and forces people to feel subservient to the power of the state.


Read more: Tiananmen 25 years on: CCP now fears the masses gathering online


One can see striking similarities, in terms of scale and setting, with Red Square in Moscow. Red Square had been the scene of the 1968 demonstration against the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, a landmark moment in the Soviet dissident movement.

Red Square, Moscow, has been the scene of both public demonstrations and state parades.

In Egypt, seven years after the revolution that toppled Hosni Mubarak, people tend to be cautious about expressing their views in public. Tahrir Square, the birthplace of the protests, is at risk. Towering metal gates have been erected around the square to avoid protests. These stand as a reminder of the powerful state control that the regime of Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has reasserted over public spaces.

Protest in the Arab world: the case of Tunisia

Tunisia’s Habib Bourguiba Avenue was the main stage of the 2011 Tunisian Revolution. This public space, considered the historical, political and economic heart of the city, is broad and lined with trees and government buildings, hotels and street cafes. The two paved and heavily trafficked roads on either side of the median strip isolate the pedestrian “island”.

Habib Bourguiba Avenue. Majdi Faleh

This staging of the avenue reflects the power, control and prohibition of protests during 23 years of dictatorship. Other intimidating landscaping elements add to the obstacles for demonstrators who might wish to use the public space for political debates.

Despite intimidation through design, Tunis’s layout made L'Avenue, as Tunisians like to call it, the perfect place to stage the Arab Spring.

Police and protesters clash in the popular uprising that forced Tunisia’s longtime dictator to flee in 2011.

This avenue, planned in the time of French colonisation (1881-1956) for the city’s elite, resembles the Parisian Avenue of Champs-Élysées. Interestingly, even Haussmann’s celebrated Parisian boulevards, built under Napoleon III in the 1860s, were designed to help quell the city’s rebellious populace.


Read more: Australians don't loiter in public space – the legacy of colonial control by design


Strategically located near the end of Habib Bourguiba Avenue is the Interior Ministry, an icon of dictatorship and control. The “austere” grey facade and black wrought iron windows and gates create a sense of control. Its brutalist architecture, which has architectural similarities with the FBI headquarters in Washington DC, participates in shaping the public space. Razor barbed wire fences have surrounded the avenue during the time of protests. Landscaping around the ministry played a role in blocking protesters from getting closer to the monument of control.

Habib Bourguiba Avenue is named after the first president of Tunisia, a tradition for main avenues in Tunisian cities. A simple Google search produces a list of major and small Tunisian cities forced into this autocratic system of political nomenclature as an instrument of control.

The image of power and control starts with the name of the place. It continues at the end of the avenue intersecting with the previously known Place 7 Novembre, named after the date of former dictator Ben Ali’s ascension to power in a coup d’état.

Ibn Khaldun Fenced Garden with a banner of the dictator Ben Ali in the background (2009). In Arabic, it reads ‘In deed, all my ambition is for Tunisia’. Majdi Faleh

During the time of dictatorship, architects did not play an active role in shaping social, cultural and political encounters in public spaces. Contemporary public spaces in Tunisia were designed timidly or marginally, creating conflicts between architecture, the local people and the oppressive state. Even green spaces were planned but never designed, as per the planning policies. Many were replaced by commercial centres.

Metal fences are noticeable landscaping features around the Ibn Khaldun Statue, small gardens and public parks. The fences turned these spaces into enclosed and sometimes marginal parks. Large propaganda banners of the former dictator added an element of fear to these public spaces and helped deter protesters. The government gated property creates a sense of intimidation and constraint.

Designing for protests: an architect’s perspective

In designing public squares and avenues, architects should learn from these past dilemmas. The public square should not be represented as the city’s gated property or as a walled garden. It should be a space that provides citizens with opportunities to engage in political and social debates.

In the wake of the Arab Spring, rethinking spatial qualities of public spaces is crucial to provide “liberated” citizens with adequate places to communicate their political views and free cultural expression. In Tunisia’s post-revolutionary era, public spaces have increasingly become places for expression and social engagement.


Read more: Why Tunisia's latest protests are about more than a hike in taxes


Governments, not only in Tunisia but across all countries, should plan the streets for artists and protesters to create stages for their events and to communicate their ideas. Tunisia still has a long way to go.The Conversation

Majdi Faleh, Teaching Assistant, University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Tuesday, 31 July 2018

New Zealand Government Begins Compiling List of New Wellbeing Indicators

Statistics Minister James Shaw (Image: NZME)
The Government has begun compiling a list of 100 environmental, social and economic indicators to measure wellbeing.
"This Government is expanding beyond traditional narrow measures of economic success to reflect the wellbeing of New Zealanders, including the environmental wellbeing that sustains us," Statistics Minister and Green Party co-leader James Shaw said.
"As part of the Green Party's confidence and supply agreement with Labour, we are beginning the process of compiling a list of around 100 indicators which will make up a set of measures known as Indicators Aotearoa New Zealand or Ngā Tūtohu Aotearoa.
"Treasury is also working on a living standards framework for policy and both sets of data would be utilised in next year's Budget.
"The indicators of wellbeing will form a set of measures which the government of the day can choose to use to track the country's success. The indicators will also be available for the public and organisations to use for their research and decision-making."
Public feedback on what should be tracked is being sought. People can make a submission by visiting the Stats NZ website or emailing indicators@stats.govt.nz.

Monday, 23 July 2018

Introducing CitizENGAGE: How Citizens Get Things Done

by Open Government Partnership: https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/introducing-citizengage-how-citizens-get-things-done

MAYOR CARLOS GIMÉNEZ LEADS THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

In a world full of autocracy, bureaucracy, and opacity, it can be easy to feel like you’re fighting an uphill battle against these trends.
Trust in government is at historic lows. Autocratic leaders have taken the reins in countries once thought bastions of democracy. Voter engagement has been declining around the globe for years.
Despite this reality, there is another, powerful truth: citizens are using open government to engage in their communities in innovative, exciting ways, bringing government closer and creating a more inclusive system.
These citizens are everywhere.
In Costa Rica, they are lobbying the government for better and fairer housing for indigenous communities.
In Liberia, they are bringing rights to land back to the communities who are threatened by companies on their traditional lands.  
In Madrid, they are using technology to make sure you can participate in government - not just every four years, but every day.
In Mongolia, they are changing the face of education and healthcare services by empowering citizens to share their needs with government.
In Paraguay, hundreds of municipal councils are hearing directly from citizens and using their input to shape how needed public services are delivered.
These powerful examples are the inspiration for the Open Government Partnership’s (OGP) new global campaign to CItizENGAGE.  The campaign will share the stories of citizens engaging in government and changing lives for the better.
CitizENGAGE includes videos, photo essays, and impact stories about citizens changing the way government is involved in their lives. These stories talk about the very real impact open government can have on the lives of everyday citizens, and how it can change things as fundamental as schools, roads, and houses.
We invite you to visit CitizENGAGE and find out more about these reforms, and get inspired. Whether or not your government participates in OGP, you can take the lessons from these powerful stories of transformation and use them to make an impact in your own community.
It’s time to open up. It’s time to change. It’s time to engage.

Wednesday, 15 July 2015

Seoul Searching for Democracy: Creating a Culture Where Voices are Listened To


As part of our ‘A New Collaboration: Putting Democracy Back into Urbanism’ week - the first clause of the declaration - Julian Buckle has written an article about the rather unusual approach that Seoul has taken to urban development and citizen engagement. 

Yobosayo? Yobosayo? … 여보세요? 여보세요?. ‘Hello? Hello?’, is what you would be saying if you ever found yourself answering a phone call in South Korea. 
 
It also happens to be the name of a giant ear sculpture sitting outside of Seoul’s city hall. So important is dialogue in Seoul’s approach to urban development that they decided to place a physical symbol in front of their office saying ‘we’re listening’. Although this was not always the case. 
 
Only since the election of Park Won-soon as mayor in 2011 has the city taken a very different approach to governance: enacting policies which focus on social innovation and citizen engagement as part of a wider goal to shift the culture of urban development.

On a practical level the ear sculpture allows sound to be projected from the street into the city hall, whilst also acting as a speaker playing sound from the city hall back into the street. Although more symbolic than functional it highlights the constant two-way flow of communication underpinning how the city manages urban change.

For Koreans, participating in the development of their city takes place through a myriad of digital and offline mediums; the giant ear sits somewhere in-between the two.

So why don’t other cities build their own ear? They could, but beyond the ear we need to understand the deeper cultural shift that has taken place in Seoul, and see how it can be applied elsewhere. The city doesn’t just listen, it actively absorbs feedback in a constant loop, listening and acting through multiple channels at the same time.

Between November 2012 and March 2013 the government processed 18,807 suggestions through its Social Media Centre (SMC). The SMC collates suggestions from over 45 different sources including Twitter, Facebook, government blogs and government websites. Suggestions range from more trivial matters to long-standing issues which require a more strategic response. With all the information centralised departments are given the relevant pieces and can respond quickly, in some cases in real-time.

The two main city government bodies known as the Social innovation Bureau (SIB) and the Public Communication Bureau (PCB) both play a key role in social innovation within the city. The SIB is a strategic body which plans and supports social innovation, whereas the PCB is concerned with how citizens can better engage within the decision-making process.

The range of initiatives under both bodies are vast. The online platforms fulfill multiple roles; processing citizen feedback in real-time, disseminating information, showing live video feeds of meetings and other functions, all in addition to the conventional social media channels.

However, online systems alone will not generate meaningful participation; there is a need for something more. Governments must seek to have a deep and nuanced understanding of the places they are dealing with, and engage with people on their terms.

So what better way than to move your office to the area?

Seoul Metropolitan Government has set up a combination of initiatives to get a more detailed understanding of the local area. Mobile Mayor Offices (MMO) requires officials to physically move their office into the area under discussion, and Cheong-Chek Forums (CCF) is a town-hall style meeting which typically lasts two or three days requiring officials to work long days reviewing and incorporating citizen feedback into the plans.

EunPyeong Newtown - an area of Seoul - used both of the initiatives to resolve an issue surrounding a large residential block. Erected with little to no local consultation it remained unoccupied for 3 years and with limited surrounding infrastructure or amenities it’s not hard to see why. However through both the MMO and CCF initiatives they were able to reconcile the local communities’ concerns.

By processing 146 suggestions made in meetings from residents and other local parties, in conjunction with those made on social media, they were able to create a roadmap for solving the problem. Within 70 days all of the 618 apartments were sold and the problem of no occupiers was solved.

Both the MMO and CCF initiatives foster real partnership and a culture of co-creation, and the entire evolutionary process is communicated across multiple social media channels. Such transparency builds trust, and with that a more meaningful relationship can be formed between city authorities and people.

Too often we see hostility as the dominant emotion in this relationship - the issues facing a favela in Rio or a suburb in Los Angeles are no doubt different, but the power struggles are in many ways the same. The top-down government approach robs citizens of their agency and the belief that their voice will be heard. Therefore the relationship becomes far more subversive because there is no trust left in the system.

Seoul has come a long way in a relatively short time but its systems are by no means perfect. Questions have been asked of how inclusive the online systems are, especially in reference to the older generations.

In addition more complex issues that require face-to-face meetings bring with them well documented issues. Mobile offices are expensive and in other settings under greater financial constraints might not be possible.

The rapid socioeconomic change undertaken since the 1990’s has raised issues beyond Seoul’s urban development about the well-being of its citizens. South Korea has the highest suicide rate in the OECD and Seoul could be doing more to tackle the issue, especially as societal pressures seem more pronounced in the city.

Nonetheless, Seoul is a great example of a city changing the dynamic of the relationship between its people and their government. The systems and structures of course need further development; but with the help of its citizens they have succeeded in creating a culture where engagement is valued. There is a great opportunity for others to learn from their journey.

Massive Small sees an equitable relationship between government and citizens as fundamental in addressing the challenges facing our urban environments. Technology has great potential in supporting this relationship but can never replace it.  Participation and engagement is fundamental to the vitality of democracy and as the world continues to migrate to cities new questions will be raised of their democratic accountability.

Every city needs to fine tune its own ear, listen to it’s people, and build the structures and systems suitable to it’s cultural and technological setting. If we don’t find our own ‘yobosayo’, cities will suffer from a democratic deficiency, and our deafness will be our downfall.

Thursday, 18 September 2014

A Public Bank Option for Scotland

Scottish independence globalresearch.ca
 
Scottish voters will go to the polls on September 18th to decide whether Scotland should become an independent country. As video blogger Ian R. Crane colorfully puts the issues and possibilities:
 
[T]he People of Scotland have an opportunity to extricate themselves from the socio-psychopathic global corporatists and the temple of outrageous and excessive abject materialism. 
 
However, it is not going to be an easy ride . . . 
 
If Alex Salmond and the SNP [Scottish National Party] are serious about keeping the Pound Stirling as the Currency of Scotland, there will be no independence. 
 
Likewise if Scotland embraces the Euro, Scotland will rapidly become a vassel state of the Euro-Federalists, who will asset strip the nation in the same way that, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain have been stripped of their entire national wealth and much of their national identity.
To achieve true independence, Crane suggests the following, among other mandates:
  • Establish an independent Central Bank of Scotland.
  • Issue a new Scottish (Debt Free) Currency.
  • Settle any outstanding debt with new Scottish Currency.
  • Take Scotland out of the EU.
  • Take Scotland out of NATO.
  • Establish strict currency controls for the first 3 years of independence.
  • Nationalize the Scottish oil & gas industry.
  • Re-take control of the National Health Service.
  • Establish a State Employment Agency to provide work/training for all able-bodied residents.
Arguments against independence include that Scotland’s levels of public spending, which are higher than in the rest of the UK, would be difficult to sustain without raising taxes. But that assumes the existing UK/EU investment regime.

If Scotland were to say, “We’re starting a new round based on our own assets, via our own new bank,” exciting things might be achieved. A publicly-owned bank with a mandate to serve the interests of the Scottish people could help give the newly independent country true economic sovereignty.

I wrote on that possibility in December 2012, after doing a PowerPoint on it at the Royal Society of Arts in Edinburgh. That presentation was followed by one by public sector consultant Ralph Leishman, who made the proposal concrete with facts and figures.

He suggested that the Scottish Investment Bank (SIB) be licensed as a depository bank on the model of the state-owned Bank of North Dakota. I’m reposting the bulk of that article here, in hopes of adding to the current debate.

From Revolving Fund to Credit Machine: What Scotland Could Do with Its Own Bank

The SIB is a division of Scottish Enterprise (SE), a government body that encourages economic development, enterprise, innovation and investment in business.  The SIB provides public sector funding through the Scottish Loan Fund. As noted in a September 2011 government report titled “Government Economic Strategy”:
[S]ecuring affordable finance remains a considerable challenge and further action is needed to ensure that viable businesses have access to the funding they require to grow and support jobs. The recovery is being held back by limited private sector investment - indeed, overall investment in the UK remains some 15% below pre-recession levels. Evidence shows that while many large companies have significant cash holdings or can access capital markets directly, for most Small and Medium-sized companies bank lending remains the key source of finance. Unblocking this is key to helping the recovery gain traction.
The limitation of a public loan fund is that the money can be lent only to one borrower at a time.  Invested as capital in a bank, on the other hand, public funds can be leveraged into nearly ten times that sum in loans. Liquidity to cover the loans comes from deposits, which remain in the bank, available for the use of the depositors.

As observed by Kurt Von Mettenheim, et al., in a 2008 report titled Government Banking: New Perspectives on Sustainable Development and Social Inclusion from Europe and South America (Konrad Adenauer Foundation), at page 196:
[I]n terms of public policy, government banks can do more for less: Almost ten times more if one compares cash used as capital reserves by banks to other policies that require budgetary outflows.
In 2012, according to Leishman, the SIB had investment funds of £23.2 million from the Scottish government. Rounding this to £25 million, a public depository bank could have sufficient capital to back £250 million in loans.

For deposits to cover the loans, the Scottish Government then had £125 million on deposit with private banks, earning very little or no interest. Adding the revenues of just 14% of Scotland’s local governments would provide another £125 million, reaching the needed deposit total of £250 million.

The Model of the Bank of North Dakota

What the government could do with its own bank, following the model of the Bank of North Dakota (BND), was summarized by Alf Young in a followup article in the Scotsman. He noted that North Dakota is currently the only U.S. state to own its own depository bank.

The BND was founded in 1919 by Norwegian and other immigrants, who were determined, through their Non-Partisan League, to stop rapacious Wall Street money men foreclosing on their farms.

Young observed that all state revenues must be deposited with the BND by law. The bank pays no bonuses, fees or commissions; does no advertising; and maintains no branches beyond the main office in Bismarck.

The bank offers cheap credit lines to state and local government agencies. There are low-interest loans for designated project finance. The BND underwrites municipal bonds, funds disaster relief and supports student loans. It partners with local commercial banks to increase lending across the state and pays competitive interest rates on state deposits.

For the past ten years, it has been paying a dividend to the state, with a quite small population of about 680,000, of some $30 million (£18.7 million) a year.

Young wrote:
Intriguingly, North Dakota has not suffered the way much of the rest of the US - indeed much of the western industrialised world - has, from the banking crash and credit crunch of 2008; the subsequent economic slump; and the sovereign debt crisis that has afflicted so many. With an economy based on farming and oil, it has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the US, a rising population and a state budget surplus that is expected to hit $1.6bn by next July. By then North Dakota’s legacy fund is forecast to have swollen to around $1.2bn.
With that kind of resilience, it’s little wonder that twenty American states, some of them close to bankruptcy, are at various stages of legislating to form their own state-owned banks on the North Dakota model. There’s a long-standing tradition of such institutions elsewhere too. Australia had a publicly-owned bank offering credit for infrastructure as early as 1912. New Zealand had one operating in the housing field in the 1930s. Up until 1974, the federal government in Canada borrowed from the Bank of Canada, effectively interest-free.
. . . From our western perspective, we tend to forget that, globally, around 40 per cent of banks are already publicly owned, many of them concentrated in the BRIC economies, Brazil, Russia, India and China.
Banking is not just a market good or service. It is a vital part of societal infrastructure, which properly belongs in the public sector.

By taking banking back, local governments could regain control of that very large slice (up to 40 per cent) of every public budget that currently goes to interest charged to finance investment programs through the private sector.

Recent academic studies by von Mettenheim et al. and Andrianova et al. show that countries with high degrees of government ownership of banking have grown much faster in the last decade than countries where banking is historically concentrated in the private sector. Government banks are also LESS corrupt and, surprisingly, have been MORE profitable in recent years than private banks.

Young wrote:
Given the massive price we have all paid for our debt-fuelled crash, surely there is scope for a more fundamental re-think about what we really want from our banks and what structures of ownership are best suited to deliver on those aspirations? . . .
As we left Thursday’s seminar, I asked another member of the audience, someone with more than thirty years’ experience as a corporate financier, whether the concept of a publicly-owned bank has any chance of getting off the ground here. “I’ve no doubt it will happen,” came the surprise response. “When I look at the way our collective addiction to debt has ballooned in my lifetime, I’d even say it’s inevitable”.
The Scots are full of surprises, and independence is in their blood. Recall the heroic battles of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce memorialized by Hollywood in the Academy Award winning movie Braveheart.

Perhaps the Scots will blaze a trail for economic sovereignty in Europe, just as North Dakotans did in the U.S. A publicly-owned bank could help Scotland take control of its own economic destiny, by avoiding unnecessary debt to a private banking system that has become a burden to the economy rather than a pillar in its support.

Ellen Brown is an attorney, founder of the Public Banking Institute, and author of twelve books, including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her 200+ blog articles are at EllenBrown.com.

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

From Spain’s 15-M Movement: The Charter for Democracy


Stacco Troncoso and his colleagues at Guerrilla Translation in Madrid have completed an English translation of an important statement from Spain, “The Charter for Democracy,” which should be of great interest to small-d democrats throughout the world.

He explains that “the group behind the piece, “Movimiento por la Democracia” (Movement for Democracy), is undoubtedly one of the most important evolutions of Spain’s 15-M movement.

It clearly targets the political arena without desiring to become a political party itself.

Their ‘Charter for Democracy’ is an inspiring, thorough text on what politics should be.

It proposes a politics for the people: squarely grounded in environmental realities and social justice, based on the Commons, defended from corporate interests and neoliberal dictates.”

The Movement for Democracy introduces itself this way:
We emerged during the destruction of an economic and political model that, by its decadence, makes us poorer, excludes us, and exiles us from our own cities and towns ... we are here to take democracy into our own hands, to defend against the constant threat of its systematic robbery ... we are the Movement for Democracy and we came into being to say, “Yes we can!” a thousand times and more. And as we hold this to be true, that we actually can, we will challenge whoever tells us it’s impossible.
The Charter for Democracy is “a thoroughly detailed plan for the transformation of public policy and democratic representation, open for public challenge and participation,” said Troncoso, whose network of translators acted as “compilers and editors of a volunteer group-produced work” in making the English translation.

A hearty thanks to translators Jaron Rowan, Jaime Palomera, Lucía Lara, Lotta, Diego, and Stacco Troncoso, with editing by Jane Loes Lipton. I love that the Charter is illustrated with some beautiful original illustrations by Clismón, one of which I include here.


Here are the opening paragraphs of this inspiring document:
This Charter was born of a deep malaise: lack of prospects, mass unemployment, cuts in social rights and benefits, evictions, political and financial corruption, dismantling of public services. It was drafted in reaction to the social majority’s growing lack of confidence in the promises of a political system devoid of legitimacy and the ability to listen.

The two-party system, widespread corruption, the financial dictatorship imposed by austerity policies, and the destruction of public goods have dealt the final blow to a democracy long suffering from its own limits. These limits were already present in the 1978 Constitution. They can be summarized as a political framework that neither protects society from the concentration of power in the hands of the financial groups, nor from the consolidation of a non-representative political class. This political framework has established a system which is hardly open to citizen participation, and unable to construct a new system of collective rights for our protection and common development. This is evident in the fact that, despite some very significant public demonstrations, the demands of the vast majority of the population have repeatedly been ignored.
Faced with this institutional stonewalling and the growing separation between the rulers and the ruled, it seems there’s only one way out: a deep expansion of democracy based on citizen control over political and economic power. Surely, since what’s left of democracy is constantly shrinking and attempts at internal reform would only mean repeating the same mistakes, we must take a chance on changing the rules of the game - a democratic change, geared toward returning to society the effective decision-making ability over all which concerns it.

Chaos and dictatorship are not the only alternatives to the current democracy. A democracy created among all people is possible - a democracy not reduced to merely voting, but founded on participation, citizen control, and equal rights.

This Charter emerged from the desire to contribute to this process of democratization. In this sense, it contributes from a place of joy, from the energy of citizen mobilizations, from politics happening outside political parties, speaking in first person plural and trying to build a life worth living for everyone. No doubt the impetus is democracy itself. People have the ability to invent other forms of governing themselves and living together. This text was created with the assurance that today’s struggles are the basis of the coming democracy.

In essence, this Charter calls for opening a new process of debate, leading to a political and economic restructuring to guarantee life, dignity, and democracy. It’s presented here as a contribution towards establishing a new social contract, a process of democratic reform in which the people - the “anyones” - are the true protagonists.

It’s time for the citizens to appropriate public institutions and resources, in order to ensure their defense, control, and fair distribution. In the public squares and networks, we’ve learned something simple and conclusive which will forever change our way of being in the world. We’ve learned that yes, we can.
You can read the whole Charter here. May it help bring into great focus and collaboration the many forces struggling to bring about democratic renewal.