Strengthening global democracies on a local level
On Thursday, 3rd of July from 2-8 PM a network meeting on new municipalism and other approaches to grassroots democracy took place.
At the network meeting, the sister cities in action project provided a forum for discussion on the following question: How can Berlin’s international connections and (city) partnerships be used as a platform for the democratic participation (e.g. new municipalism) of diasporic perspectives and voices from the Global South?
As the group comprised participants involved in different areas, it was important to first clarify the core concepts of new municipalism, diaspora and city partnerships within the question. This exchange was made all the more exciting by the group’s diversity. The participants’ varied knowledge and experiences revealed connections and intersections between all the concepts, and above all emphasised the importance of diasporic community participation.
What is the goal?
New municipalism & other forms of grassroots democratic participation
Our group understood new municipalism to be a form of democracy that enables and ensures the participation of all members of society, i.e. a democracy that is determined and lived from the bottom up. Based on this understanding, we established and discussed connections to other concepts.
For instance, one participant highlighted parallels between new municipalism and cooperativism in their contribution to the workshop. Both are organisational structures that facilitate new avenues for democratic decision-making and collective action. The latter is particularly relevant in the context of trade relations. In cooperativism, every cooperative has one vote and is equally involved in decisions, regardless of its size. This was also discussed in the context of international cooperation, where cooperatives trade not only locally, but also between the Global North and Global South.
How can this goal be achieved?
(City)Partnerships – a platform for democratic participation
Civil society (city) partnerships are an instrument of democratic participation because they are usually closer to municipal structures than other civil society actors. This makes them a more accessible point of contact than traditional forms of participation at the municipal level.
At the same time, city partnerships can open up a different scope for action at the international level than would be possible through international cooperation at the national level, especially with regard to foreign policy issues. In one example a participant talked about a city partnership, where important projects supporting local self-organisation are being implemented that would not have been possible at the national level between the two nations states involved.
Ultimately, city partnerships, as well as other forms of civil society partnerships, facilitate meeting places centred around specific issues, bringing together people, initiatives, and organisations from different locations who are working on the same or similar global challenges. Where encounters take place, exchange takes place; where exchange takes place, people can learn from each other, and new solutions can be developed.
With whom can this be achieved?
Diasporic communities & voices from the Global South
It was clear from the contributions of Dêrik and Bahia, and the subsequent discussion, that the active participation of civil society and diasporic communities in democratic decision-making lends legitimacy and a long-term perspective to these processes.
In our discussion forum, we emphasised the importance of diasporic community participation in making the perspectives of the Global South more visible. Participation brings individuals to the forefront, showcasing their unique stories, interests, needs, ideas, and abilities.
If we understand city partnerships as a platform for democratic participation, the active involvement of respective diaspora communities in these partnerships at a civil society level offers an opportunity to shed new light on partnerships and, above all, on the people in partner cities. This helps to avoid purely deficit-oriented perspectives. This is because state perspectives tend to be very one-sided, focusing on the interests and needs of the state rather than the partner cities. Diaspora communities can actively contribute to highlighting imbalances, thus making partnerships more equitable and solidarity-based. This is because they often (though not always) facilitate understanding between the two cities on linguistic, cultural and political levels.
To enable diasporic communities to participate in local democratic decision-making processes, such as civil society-based city partnerships, it is important to create safe, linguistically accessible spaces where everyone feels welcome. If we take this serious, this could lead to new perspectives and strategies in various socially relevant areas, such as development policy, migration, the economy and trade, education, and culture. It could also lead to alternative forms of cooperation, such as cooperativism.
Conclusion
“City partnerships based in civil society that enable the active participation of diasporic communities can provide a platform for democratic participation by diverse social groups. At the same time, they can serve as a space for global solidarity where mutual learning is possible. And that is crucial for democratic processes in a society.”