Advertisement

Creating Participatory Democratic Decision-Making in Local Organizations

  • Joyce RothschildEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

Organizations at the local level that seek to resist hierarchy and conduct themselves along participatory democratic lines appeared so radical in the 1970s that they were called “alternative institutions”. They were born in social movements that wanted to create a more egalitarian, just and democratic society. In the last couple of decades, their model of inclusive decision-making has spread by the thousands into the non-profit sector, the public sector and even the for-profit sector. Indeed, it has become almost ubiquitous and a whole industry of consultants has developed to facilitate organizations’ efforts to develop more inclusive, participatory and empowering decisional processes. This paper seeks to explain how participatory democratic decision-making norms and practices have evolved over these decades, and in so doing, it identifies nine foundational elements of participatory democratic decisional processes and contrasts these characteristics with the processes used in representative democratic systems of decision-making, along these nine dimensions. Next, this paper examines four examples of participatory democratic organizations in action, each drawn from the recent research literature—a food cooperative, certain self-help groups, a Quaker meeting and some public organizations led by professional consultants seeking to advance voice and democratic participation in decision-making. From this investigation, it is evident that participatory and deliberative practices of decision-making can vary enormously between groups that share these goals. Nevertheless, these examples show that these efforts to guarantee voice to all members of the group can succeed in reconciling individual differences of views that may have existed, are generally very satisfying to the people involved, and, most importantly, may be essential for personal transformation to take place. Further, the author shows that these emergent “Democracy 2.0 standards” for decision-making, as she calls them, are not just about the right of members to share thoughts and experiences on an equal footing; they also pre-suppose an obligation on the part of the group to consider, deliberate and seek consensus. Thereby, these newer participatory decisional processes are catalyzing in participants not only greater capacity to speak, but also greater capacity to listen. When we turn our attention to group process characteristics that can give rise to personal growth, a feeling of connection with others and a sense of belonging to an enduring community, then we come to understand why so many people in recent decades have chosen to build or get involved in local organizations that offer equal and ample voice to all who would be affected by the decision at hand and where listening, consideration and consensus-seeking are the organizational practice.

Keywords

Participatory democracy Decision making Collectivist-democratic organizations 

References

  1. Berkin, C. (2003). A brilliant solution: Inventing the American constitution.Google Scholar
  2. Berkin, C. (2015). The bill of rights: The fight to secure America’s liberties. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Bordt, R. (1997). The structure of women’s nonprofit organizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Borkman, T. (1999). Understanding self-help/mutual aid: Experiential learning in the commons. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Borkman, T. (2006). “Sharing experience, conveying hope: Egalitarian relations as the essential method of alcoholics anonymous. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 17(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borkman, T. (2016). Conflict in self-help/mutual aid groups. Personal correspondence, July 4, 2016.Google Scholar
  7. Briggs, X. (2008). Democracy as problem solving: Civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christiano, T. (2008). The constitution of equality: Democratic authority and its limits. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahl, R. (2001). How democratic is the American constitution?. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Dryzek, J. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals. Critics and Contestations: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foner, E. (2014). Reconstruction: America’s unfinished revolution, 1863–1877. New York: Harper Modern Classic.Google Scholar
  12. Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Ganuza, E., & Baiocchi, G. (2012). The power of ambiguity: How participatory budgeting travels the globe. Journal of Public Deliberation, 8(Article 8).Google Scholar
  14. Gould, C. (1988). Rethinking democracy: Freedom and social cooperation in politics. Cambridge University Press: Economy and Society.Google Scholar
  15. Gould, C. (2014). Interactive democracy: The social roots of social justice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Haedicke, M. (2016). Organizing organic. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holton, W. (2008). Unruly americans and the origins of the constitution. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Iannello, K. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interventions in organizational theory and practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kramer, L. (2004). The people themselves: Popular constitutionalism and judicial review. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leach, D. (1998). Why just go for 51%? Organizational structure in the religious society of friends. Working Paper, Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  21. Leach, D. (2016). When freedom is not an endless meeting: A new look at efficiency in consensus-based decision making. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(1, (Winter), 36–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, C. (2015). Do-it-yourself democracy: The rise of the public engagement industry. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Levinson, S. (2015). An argument open to all: Reading the federalist in the 21st century. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Maier, P. (2011). Ratification: The people debate the constitution, 1787–1788.Google Scholar
  25. Mansbridge, J. (1980). Beyond adversary democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  26. Meissen, G. J., & Volk, F. (1994). Predictors of burnout among self-help group leaders. In F. Lavoie, T. Borkman, & B. Gidron (Eds.), Self-help and mutual aid groups (pp. 241–262). New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
  27. Milofsky, C. (1988). Community organizations: Studies in resource mobilization and exchange. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. New York Times. (2015). At the Supreme Court, A Win for Direct Democracy. June 29, 2015.Google Scholar
  29. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rothschild, J. (2016). The logic of a cooperative economy and democracy 2.0: Recovering the possibilities for autonomy, creativity, solidarity and common purpose. The Sociological Quarterly, 57(1, Winter), 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothschild, J., & Whitt, J. A. (1986). The cooperative workplace: Potentials and dilemmas of organizational democracy and participation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Rousseau, J. J. (1762). The social contract.Google Scholar
  34. Sirianni, C. (2009). Investing in democracy: Engaging citizens in collaborative governance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  35. Staggenborg, S. (1989). Stability and innovation in the women’s movement: A comparison of two movement organizations. Social Problems, 36(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taylor, V. (1989). Social movement continuity: The women’s movement in abeyance. American Sociological Review, 54, 761–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2009). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
  39. Wood, G. (1991). The radicalism of the American revolution. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public & International AffairsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations