You’ll see it again and again. In encounters with citizens over planning and zoning matters, politicians and planning authorities want the term “coparticipation” to mean something else than it does in any other context. They argue that “coparticipation and codetermination are not the same: being heard and being granted your view are two different things.”
By repeating “coparticipation is not codetermination,” they aim to educate their subjects that coparticipation only means listening—perhaps like a friendly social worker—while hearing the grievances of the uneducated and lost. They explain that the legal right to coparticipation simply means “to be listened to.” Nothing more will be considered. The message is clear: they claim supremacy over the Planning Law Commission, the legislative body (Storting), and a population that ranks among the most educated and freethinking in the world. Read more: How Oslo municipality withheld citizen coparticipation at Skøyen It is the rulers’ own ideas, competence, and experience that matter. Unfortunately, they hold almost all the power and are difficult to challenge. Few people have the time or resources to take the lack of coparticipation to court—and outcomes there are hard to predict. Public institutions tend to agree with other public institutions—the legal system is difficult to navigate in a democracy The only silver lining is this: all the urban planning misery we see today is not created by the citizens—but by a system of organizationally representative governance and bureaucracy. When blame is to be assigned, the responsibility lies squarely with the politics industry.
But in healthcare, education, working life—and all other sectors—coparticipation means… coparticipation! Even in the preparatory documents to the Planning and Building Act regarding coparticipation, it is crystal clear what lawmakers intended. The same applies to the government’s legal guide for coparticipation. Those who prefer facts over abuse of power and propaganda will also appreciate a linguistic explanation. The dictionary definition is “with the coparticipation of, in cooperation with.” When one party—especially rulers holding all the cards—makes the decisions, what we have is autocracy, not cooperation. A process in which two parties cooperate is coparticipation.
Another variant used by the rulers in planning processes is to transform the codetermination term “being heard” into the more passive “being listened to.” Once again, that smug benevolence where those in power graciously spend a little time hearing the “citizen chatter” before retreating to their insulated chambers. But don’t assume they actually listen—or even bother taking notes:
Oslo Municipality, Auditor General’s Report no. 16-2019 (p. 22): “Coparticipation in Zoning Plans”
In the context of planning, the right to coparticipation—and thus codetermination—is embedded in the purpose clause §1-1 of the Planning and Building Act. Furthermore, section §5-1 on coparticipation states that anyone proposing a plan must facilitate coparticipation. This means that citizens should—wholly or partially—be able to codetermine; in other words, to gain acknowledgment for their input in planning cases. Some are simply too small to accept the letter of the law or admit that other people’s ideas might be better than their own. They would rather cast democracy and facts aside and turn coparticipation into non-binding façades. Read more: Lack of coparticipation in planning cases is arguably the greatest betrayal of democracy in Norway
In all creative processes, including planning, there are many possible good outcomes. But we’ve all met people who adore their own ideas. They don’t want other good ideas to be considered—and they certainly want to make the decisions themselves. Like toddlers in the middle of a tantrum—only not as cute, and much harder to deal with. Also read: Rælingen promised coparticipation for Løvenstad, but shaped the ideas themselves Democratic coparticipation processes can also be challenging to carry out—especially because personal opinions and the desire to decide are often challenged. Some argue that coparticipation slows progress, but Oagal and the Planning Law Commission see it differently:
Planning Law Commission’s Second Report with Draft Legislation (NOU 2003: 14, p. 236): Better Municipal and Regional Planning under the Planning and Building Act II
In planning, lack of coparticipation can lead to serious missteps. Plans can simply end up full of bad ideas. They may be developed so inwardly that they don’t align with the people’s (i.e. democracy’s) understanding. That leads to bad plans—and bad solutions. Planning professionals and politicians—the people’s elected representatives—struggle to distinguish between idea, citizen knowledge, and professional planning expertise. Anyone familiar with professional creative processes knows how important it is to invest time and resources in the idea phase. Also read: Egil Bakke on how the electoral system must allow voters to get rid of politicians When it comes to ideology, ideas, broad formal expertise, and experience-based knowledge, citizens as a group are much stronger than the opposing side in the politics industry. Citizens also trust that professionals will use their expertise appropriately—including being able to separate legal preparatory work from their own technical insight. Professionals who want to make decisions without proper basis, on the other hand, wrongly redefine ideas as expertise. They believe their competence is absolute, while in reality they should be using it to assess what best aligns with the range of possibilities, coparticipation input, and consultations—then decide what should be included in planning documents for political processing. In such a reality, making decisions becomes much easier for our elected officials in city and municipal councils. They’ll have a better foundation when real, active coparticipation has taken place. They’ll be able to trust the dedication of public servants to civic democracy and make decisions that align far more closely with the public will than what we see today.
De fleste av artiklene på Oagal er utarbeidet av redaksjonen. Innholdet fra redaksjonen er det fortløpende redaksjonelle arbeidet i Oagal. Redaksjonen driver undersøkende journalistikk, utvikler ideer til saker og utarbeider artikler ved hjelp av ulike tilgjengelige kilder og verktøy. Meningsbærende innhold og også reportasjer bærer skribentens navn.
0 Comments