Sopot, Poland
On the 6th of May the city council of Sopot in Poland has passed a landmark resolution that starts the process of participatory budgeting in our city. It means that the citizens of Sopot will have a direct say in what the public funds are spent on. We’re beginning with a modest amount of 1.1 million USD – I say “modest”, because it’s less than 1% of the total budget expenditure. Nevertheless, in the city of 37,000 residents many small projects can be funded with this amount.
It took us more than two years to get here and it was all possible thanks to the support of the new city council. That’s exactly why taking part in the elections is so crucial. The situation is a bit complicated though, because the mayor of Sopot, who also won the elections, is against participatory budgeting and he has announced his own counter-project of consultations for the whole city’s budget. It may seem nice of him at first glance, but there is a catch — his consultations are non-binding, and the whole point of participatory budgeting is that the decisions made by citizens are final. Luckily for us, it is the city council that approves the budget, not the mayor, and the councilors will hopefully respect the results of the citizens voting.
We’re all very curious how participatory budgeting will go in Sopot — how many citizens will get involved and which projects will receive most votes. As far as I know we are the first city in Poland to introduce participatory budgeting. The challenge now is to design the whole process, so that it will be both meaningful and fun. What we are suggesting is to establish a Citizens’ Forum which is meant to be the place for regular meetings of citizens, where the projects will be prepared and discussed. To engage the citizens we are planning a city-wide campaign with invitations sent by mail to all households. There will be posters, a website, etc.
The ideas for the projects are to be developed throughout the summer, and later on the cost estimates will be made. We don’t know yet if pre-selection of projects will be necessary — it depends on the number of projects submitted.
What can the money be spent on? On everything that can be funded from the city’s budget. This can include: renovation of a park, bicycle lanes or retrofitting of a school, for example. Who can propose the projects? Each citizen of Sopot, NGOs, public institutions (such as schools) and the municipality as well. I’m a bit worried that we’ll get such a huge number of projects that citizens might have a problem with reviewing them all. There are many issues yet to be solved, but the news of the day is: we’re starting!
Further reading:
- Making Democracy Work
- Towards Local Democracy
- Rediscovering Democracy
- Participatory budgeting in Chicago
- 72 Frequently Asked Questions about Participatory Budgeting (PDF)
- Sarvodaya – the World’s largest participatory democracy movement (10-part article series)
Glad to hear that! I hope someday that form of participatory decision making may develop in Indonesia (very challenging though). Wish you all the wisdom so that the new opportunity benefits people. Please let us know the updates :)
“The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy. This is like saying that the cure for crime is more crime.” H.L. Mencken
Yes, JBob – getting people more involved in shaping their own future is a bad thing….
JBob, many problems around the world – from hunger to climate change – are actually caused by a lack of democracy, rather than by too much of it ;)
– From open (city) government data to participatory city budgetting: https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/from-open-city-government-data-to-participatory-city-budgetting/2011/05/13
– Introducing the Democracy Manifesto and a global conversation: https://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-05-13/introducing-democracy-manifesto-and-global-conversation
– Blaming Locke and his Failed Metaphysics of Private Property:
https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/blaming-locke-and-his-failed-metaphysics-of-private-property/2011/05/15
– The Failed Metaphysics Behind Private Property: Sharing our Commonhood: https://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo2/library/kosmos-articles/failed-metaphysics.shtml & https://www.kosmosjournal.org/kjo2/bm~doc/failed-metaphysics.pdf
“This article focuses on the sacred cow of private property in liberal philosophy and politics and its catastrophic impact on the commons. Numerous liberal thinkers (mostly male) have attempted to base social systems, moral obligations and property rights in human nature using the laws of the natural universe. They share the blame for the devastation of the commons. No one has influenced the rules, institutions and concepts of modern individualism more than John Locke. It was Locke, the 17th century philosopher and political scientist, who formulated the central tenet of liberalism: that property should be organized through individual ownership by excluding others. Locke’s source code, both at the meta-level and physical level, is still driving our operating system. It repeats endlessly the ‘empirical’ story that nature intended the commons to be possessed through proprietary ownership. From the long view of social history and political philosophy, however, it’s Locke’s sacred cow of proprietary rights that has been devouring the commons, not Hardin’s hungry cattle or their poor herders.”