Introduction

By Mark Schmitt and Hollie Russon Gilman

“Our Constitution opens with the words, ‘We the People.’ It’s time we remembered that ‘We the People’ are the government,” President Joe Biden said on March 28, 2021. This principle stands in contrast to an increasingly prevailing attitude that treats government as a separate and oppressive force, but the phrase on its own is little more than an aspiration. To realize this principle, to reconnect people and government, is the work of democracy. In this moment, there is an opportunity to build a truly multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracy, one which we have never seen before in the United States.

Elections are the primary nexus where people can exercise power over government officials and agencies. But the binary choices presented in a two-party, winner-take-all system give the public very tenuous access to or input into government decisions. Such access is also deeply unequal, as a privileged few have the time, money, education, and legal and social status to have their voice prioritized. These obstacles are structural, and are largely fundamental to the American political system and its brittle governing institutions.

A familiar form of civic engagement, then, has been adversarial: acting as individuals or organized together, citizens press and challenge government, at times by using the courts, at times by making demands at public meetings or by petition, and at times by competing in elections. In all these forms of participation, the government is seen as a target, not an ally. It’s “them,” not “us.”

In recent years, though, a more collaborative form of engagement has emerged, primarily at the local and state level, as well as internationally. This new form of engagement seeks to break down the boundaries between advocates and officials and is not only more democratic, but also more inclusive and open to those served by the government.

Collaborative governance, or co-governance, refers to a broad range of models of civic engagement that allow people outside and inside government to work together in designing policy. Beyond demands, co-governance represents a willing shift of power and trust among two typically adversarial parties. Instead of representatives and those represented on either side of a line, both see themselves as colleagues with unique and valuable capacities and perspectives that support the other’s interests and positions.

So how are such relationships best developed, sustained, and supported? The clearest way to answer this question is not in theory, but from the learned experiences of co-governance, at the neighborhood, city, and state level. Fortunately, we now have a growing resource in dozens of cases in communities across the country where progress has been made to improve the quality of life and strengthen the bonds of community for all through the collaborative work of democracy.

Some of the cases in our series highlight the use of innovative tools and processes to encourage public participation in policy decisions. One is Community-Driven Zoning and Development in Chicago, which ensured inclusive, transparent, and democratic decision-making around land use and development. Another is a proposed moratorium on development in Gainesville to protect historically Black neighborhoods and give the municipal government time to conduct a thorough community engagement process.

Other cases focus on the importance of centering impacted communities and people with lived experiences when advocating for policy change. In Milwaukee, youth organizers engaged in multi-year, multi-faceted organizing to promote an alternative vision of public school safety and demonstrated that persistence, education, and steady relationship-building are key to securing policy victories.

Finally, a number of cases demonstrate the value of building relationships across different sectors and between government officials and community members. The Bushwick Community Plan for zoning and development was unique in that the process was collaborative from the start, stemming from a partnership between city agencies, community organizations, and residents. They came up with a steering committee governing system but ensured open and inclusive participation, striking the right balance between a formalized structure and integrating community values and priorities. And in Colorado, a coalition formed around paid family and medical leave, in which advocates built mutually beneficial relationships with elected officials. The coalition employed novel methods to campaign and secure signatures during the COVID-19 pandemic. Coalition members ultimately saw success thanks to the cultivation of a broad movement comprised of a variety of expertise—including from elected officials, policy advisors, lawyers, media experts, advocates, and organizers—as well as their ability to innovate in political strategy and tactics.

Some of the cases we’ll explore have been great successes, while others have had mixed or incomplete outcomes. However, even in cases where policy wins aren’t immediate, the relationships built in collaborative governance can be impactful in the long run. The Colorado case study highlights this value of “losing forward”—that is, even though legislative efforts on paid leave repeatedly stalled, the coalition grew, garnering more media attention and further fine-tuning details of the policy for their next advocacy effort. This process resulted in a better policy overall, where setting the stage to build a movement would outlast a potential one-time policy win.

Building and sustaining the relationships of trust on which co-governance depends is challenging, in part because elected and appointed officials and community members are not used to thinking of themselves as allies and co-conspirators in building power together. This unfamiliarity is in part due to the inequities and barriers that are so fundamental to current American democracy, and in part because the trade-offs inherent to policymaking, politics, and bureaucracy create constant stress tests. Further, interpersonal trust alone cannot always transcend the boundaries that separate activists, citizens, and elected officials, who are defined by the roles of being in-power or out of power.

Stronger relationships are often built on honest communication from all participants. These relationships rest on actors’ careful understanding of the tools and strategies at their disposal, and a finely developed sense of when to deploy which strategies. Bringing a longer-term vision to relationship-building may also be helpful, including the ability to see political losses as an avenue towards advancing advocacy goals in policy. These connections are not static or built on a dichotomy, but rather ongoing relationships that exist on a continuum. Most importantly, they must clearly value and incorporate viewpoints from both the people and their government in making decisions about policy. Generating these positive feedback loops requires ongoing work and two-way relationships that are reliant on sharing power. Each of the case studies in this series—which traverse geography, approaches, and issue areas—aims to provide helpful suggestions for these elements and more. These case studies demonstrate in different ways the need for persistence and flexibility, in working through moments of disagreement and tension between actors, and celebrating the process of coming to alignment on seemingly disparate issues. Collaborative governance is a dynamic process focused on the long run, where incremental victories can be celebrated, and losses can be turned into opportunities. The examples in this publication are tailored to the unique politics of the place in which they occurred, but together, they provide suggestions for anyone looking to build stronger relationships for democratic change.