Sharing Levers of Power in Municipal Government

Once a collaborative government or civic engagement-informed infrastructure is in place, the work of redesigning and sharing levers of power must be based on two-way relationships: Government officials and staff executing these policies must understand the obstacles to participation; trust residents and recognize their expertise in meaningful ways; and make sure engagement is inclusive. In turn, residents have to trust their local government and acknowledge the limitations of local government.

First, in collaborating with residents, cities must keep in mind the challenges of participating for their constituents. According to Brazilian politician and philosopher Roberto Unger, new structures of government must also strike the correct balance between political empowerment and structural pressure. In his words, "If the regime imposes too high a tax upon individual energy and attention … the lack of psychological realism will result in a political perversion. The majority of the people will be alternatively bored and repelled by the meeting mania and by the self promoting activists who thrive on it. [As a result], they will withdraw all the more into their own lives [and] their withdrawal will enable those who govern to act with fewer constraints.” ¹

Additionally, engagement must be based on meaningful and substantive opportunities to apply civic power. Therefore, city leadership cannot be superficial but should also ensure that people’s engagement will lead to tangible outcomes. As sociologist Xavier de Suouza Briggs notes, “Citizens are motivated to participate in public affairs not out of an abstract desire to strengthen democracy but out of the rational belief that their investment in time, reputation, commitment, and other precious resources should measurably change social conditions.”² Of course, this does not always mean that every person’s desires or interests will directly lead to policy.

Third, sharing the levers of power also requires expanding access not just outside the walls of City Hall, but doing so thoughtfully and equitably for all local residents. Improving civic engagement cannot just mean that those who already are engaged participate more. Rather, it requires that cities also empower communities of color and traditionally marginalized and under-resourced groups.

For residents, people who do not spend their lives working inside local bureaucracy, it’s important to understand the constraints of the public sector. Although the government-as-business model is appealing to many voters and politicians alike,³ it misunderstands governing as a bureaucracy-free source of power and leadership. Budgets, term limits, and the interaction of different city departments are tangible constraints that governments face and which reinforce the adage that “the wheels of government turn slowly.” Resident input can translate to policy change over time, but it is unrealistic to expect that translation to be direct, or to happen overnight.

When cities and residents can effectively share these levers of power, however, everyone benefits. Incorporating hyper-local knowledge and expertise can make policies more effective, efficient, inclusive, and useful, and even avoid public problems before they develop. After all, “there is a sacred truth in organizing: no one knows a community better than the community itself.”