3. THE CONDITIONS OF PARTICIPATORY GOVERNANCE IN GLOBALIZATION
Urban Governance, based upon local partnership and citizen participation, is the exercise of the political, economic, social and administrative authority in the management of city’s affairs. It includes mechanisms, traditions, processes and institutions (formal or informal) by which the citizens and the groups articulate their interests, exercise their rights, respect their obligations and arbitrate their differences. It is thus a concept wider than that of "government”, which only refers to formally and legally established institutions of a political structure.
               By privileging actions centered on globalization in the city, the question is to see how urban governance can be improved a) by embedding urban renovation projects into a wider urban policy that is based on a three-tier relationship: city-view, city debate and city project; b) by a better integration of the different government levels (horizontal) and between different partners involved in the projects (vertical); c) by using participatory practices in the development, implementation and follow up of the projects
               The question is then to know how institutions and structures can develop shared strategic objectives and answer to the new demands of collective action. It requires to follow an outline of the conditions for establishing a link between citizen participation, local governing and participatory democracy. These conditions can be summarised in six points, each defining one cultural dimension for participation. It is the combination of these six dimensions that guarantees that parti­cipatory governance is brought into effect.

1. Locally integrate a new means of policy-making
            First, a political will is required that is based on corporate decision-making. There may be differences in terms of style: for some people, strong leadership and a likeable personality are desirable for identi­fying power whilst for others it is the work as a team carried out by a management crossing different sectors of the municipality that is more influential. Governance involves both admitting that “power is with he/she who decides because he/she has been elected» but it is also the need to establish a ‘new means of local policy-making’. The elected or administrative representatives must become the ‘orchestrators’ or ‘de­signers’. They must constantly seek co-financing at a local, regional, national or federal and European level and permanently be involved with aid for the project. There has been a reasonable amount of resistance to this new means of policy-making however. For example, there is nothing more pro­blematic than a policy maker who considers him/herself as a ‘head of department’ because he/she prevents the transversality of action at the grass roots. It can clearly be seen how it is difficult to distance this new means of policy-making from common practices in sectoral management. The other major obstacle is that of an administration lacking coordination. Thus, governance involves fixing objectives and priorities, following a work plan, foreseeing how to continue projects after their term has expired. In all areas, we have seen the tension between the will to make structures last and the necessary step to­wards the autonomisation of urban projects. Furthermore, some elec­ted representatives do not have faith in the fact that the population and inhabitants or even associations can take charge of projects. This lack of trust is counter-productive.

2. Introduction to the culture of transparency
            An essential criterion for the new means of policy-making is trans­parency in the processes of drafting projects and making decisions. Transversality establishes itself as a principle of action in order to map out the communication and exchange channels between administra­tion services and population; this is what ensures coherence between the different actions regarding a global plan defined in time as well as the principle of profitability of all investments approved by the city. This requires a multi-annual investment plan over the long-term (5 years) so that civil servants and policies work in synchronisation. Transparency also involves citizens’ vigilance over the use of funds and the participatory budget is only just the beginning of a practice that instils confidence. In addition, transparency also concerns the definition of principles of partnership between elected representati­ves, administrations, associations and inhabitants, and even citizens. We have been able to see that the number of cultural platforms or neighbourhood action depends upon the partnerships that are clearly established. The lack of transparency is easily identifiable according to the fol­lowing indications: absence of integrated steps, non-visibility of the project in its entirety, absence of a guidance outline, absence of an information and communication policy, instrumentalisation of asso­ciations, lack of thought regarding the problem of transferring expe­rience. The absence of all of these elements means that there is a lack of respect for citizens, as well as a lack of respect between those in­volved in administration and policitians, who do not understand one another and do not agree, preventing them from working together.

3. Information and communication
            This new culture also places great importance on information and communication. Participation requires that there be documents that clearly present the projects, that scheduled general assemblies be set up, and that there be a communal website outlining the project well as a follow-up of these. Communication also involves carrying out analyses of the actual situation with the associations and respon­ding to any requirements: applying the ‘question/response’ equation within a brief time frame. We were also able to see that since informa­tion for citizens is vital, adapting elected representatives to a sustai­nable development programme or to new principles of participatory governance is essential for ensuring that there is a trust relationship and a two-way understanding. Furthermore, there are certain general requirements to be met such as favouring access to IT material for ci­tizens, the existence of a permanent forum for local development, the establishment of a local platform linking the different representatives involved in the action. This is also where new roles emerge: thus the creation of mediators for close interaction and to act as an interface, and people from the population who guarantee inter-network com­munication. This is absolutely vital for ensuring the transparency of partnerships. The lack of any information or communication policy means that po­liticians can use time to their advantage by not clearly announcing their objectives within a clear time-frame. However, it is not only po­licies that are lacking. The associations and committees of all types can also be characterised by their lack of insistence that decisions be explained as well as a lack of a training project for inhabitants. In all areas, there is also a real infrastructure problem of introducing a culture of evaluating projects: how can the principles of a democratic evaluation be clearly presented? The answer to this question is not really known.

4. Favour the criteria of sustainability of practices
            The representatives of several cities have really stressed the impor­tance of placing projects within a framework favouring the criteria of sustainability. Sustainable development is a governing regime in which projects are linked within one integrated action (economic, so­cial, cultural, environmental) and where interactivity is perceived an ongoing process. A huge effort is yet to be made in order to build the links between these different spheres, both for the infrastructure works and for the way in which public spaces are designed or the community centres are internally organised. Agenda 21 should be used to a much greater extent in the municipalities as an operational work basis.

5. Forge a culture of day to day participation, at the grass routes
            The culture of participation is not something that has been imposed. It is forged day after day by the inhabitants of the area by actually par­ticipating which favours direct intervention of the inhabitants through such means as complaint books. Participation requires new criteria for defining public power, such as defining the criteria of eligibility and terms of office (limited in time), creating a federation of associations (reflection of the territory) in order to coordinate projects and their effects, re-establishing trust and dialogue between citizens and politi­cal and social actors. There are still many obstacles facing citizens’ participation in the de­velopment of the city. Participation is not well received by many of the policy-makers: it is considered a process which is too lengthy, time-consuming and it involves confronting citizens who “participate less the more power they are given”. Furthermore, many of the elec­ted representatives refuse outright to allow a participatory democracy replace a representative democracy. There may be resistance from certain social and associative workers who are afraid of sharing space with inhabitants who are investing their energy into fulfilling their role as an actor; it may interfere with the balance between inhabitants and professionals and between pro­fessionals themselves. Participation is not enforced. The worst case scenario would be to participate because ‘one has to participate’ and to select participants in urban projects according to their cultural capital in order to reduce the risks. It is a means of introducing something that does not work alongside the general interest. It quickly generates other major problems such as, for example, the credibility of elected persons in the neighbourhood committees or preventing certain, less fortunate groups of the population from being able to access activities.

6. Create collective spaces with learning supports for speaking up

All of the experiences are a reflection of the importance of the connection between the place where the action takes place and the social links qualifying this place. For example, a community centre is a place where people can establish contact with others, find services but also learn how to improve self-management. If making reference to a place is one of the conditions for participation, the participatory management of these places is not, however, without its problems: on the one hand there is a great deal of resistance with regard to implementing self-management regimes; on the other hand the confiscation of the place by certain people must be avoided

back