Democratic and Strategic Process
The democratic and strategic processes steer, control, and implement the assessment process with the use of the assessment framework. Whereas all stakeholders can and should be involved in and hold a responsibility for the implementation and reflection process, the same does not hold for the democratic and strategic processes. Not every stakeholder is in the position to directly influence or change the assessment process. There are different actors at stake. Because Social Theory follows the basic democratic principles, these are, for example, the local council (democratic process) and the municipal executive (strategic process) at a municipal level. At a provincial level: the provincial council and the provincial executives. On national level: the house of representatives and the senate. All these members are mandated to represent and act in the interest of their inhabitants/voters. Political parties are represented in, for example, a council. They determine the color (direction) of where we are heading. Often this chosen direction is the result of a compromise through exchange of views and distribution of means. Most western democracies are representative (indirect) democracies based on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people.
When looking at organizations, this does not differ greatly. A small group is designated to serve the interest of different stakeholders (both internally: their employers; as well as externally: the population they serve). They determine the direction they are moving and translate this into rules and regulations.
Let us take the municipality as an example. The local council is responsible for representing people, establishing a framework to govern, and supervising if the municipal administration implements policies within the demarcations set out in the framework. The different types of roles and tasks government has, put the local council in a unique position which brings about both privileges and great responsibilities. The (local) government often has to deal with conflicting interests and unclear responsibilities. It is a linking pin between different stakeholders. Sometimes it has a clear responsibility, but often it is not even in the position to be the decisive party. It has to find a balance between its representative and facilitating side and its controlling/repressive side.
As it has to represent all groups within its community, it will have to listen to all of these parties. Both the implementation process as well as the reflection process give important input for the democratic and strategic process. As discussed before, governmental authorities could not easily put aside the outcome of these processes. Since they represent all inhabitants of a community, a widely accepted advice coming from this community itself, could hardly be ignored. It is up to government to translate this advice into a concrete framework, which in the end, will be formed into, for example, new policies.
These tasks and responsibilities are not new, nor are they currently subject to change. ST tries to facilitate and, if needed, change their execution. ST is about taking responsibility, about truly trying to involve all stakeholders, about trying to find shared meaning. (Local) government holds a responsibility in trying to explicate cultural identity and shared meaning and using this as the basis for decision making. The democratic and strategic process are the place to do so. In practice however, the hustle of everyday life and need for quick solutions for problematic situations overpowers the necessity to take a closer look at our cultural identity and making long-term decisions. Validation of shared meaning (truly questioning whether the way we are headed is the right way to go according to all stakeholders) is often not the main focus.
Whereas local government is the owner of the democratic and strategic process, it, preferably, is not the owner of the reflection process. This might diminish the authority of the assessment framework. However, it can stimulate or facilitate this process or, even when not involved before, use the outcomes within the democratic and strategic process. However, only when one understands the importance of such processes and the role and responsibility one holds, a closer look at shared meaning will be taken.
Moving towards a deliberative democracy
ST believes that the democratic and strategic processes can best be formed with the basics of a deliberative type of democracy in mind. Within these processes, a broad dialog should be possible and moving between verification and validation should be common practice. A deliberative democracy focusses on cultural identity and long-term decision making. When confronted with large scale challenges, such as climate change, such long-term decisions are necessary. As these challenges cannot be addressed over short periods of time and constant change of direction is not desirable and will be counterproductive or even harmful.
Iterative process
As discussed within the paragraph on the implementation process there might be situations in which the assessment framework turns out to be the barrier for sustainable change. It no longer matches current beliefs on what is the right way to go and needs adjustment in order to make change possible. Once the democratic and strategic process have been completed and a shared meaning has been translated into an adjusted assessment framework, new room for change can be found within the implementation process. Over time, as shared meaning is not static and will change, the need to reassess our cultural identity might resurface and the Social Innovation process will have to start over. In fact, an SI process is a never-ending process because a society has to adapt to changing circumstances continuously.
- Lees hiervoor:
- Lees hierna: