The democratic process – a reflection

As we digest promotional material provided by candidates for the City or Melbourne (CoM) election, a deeper look – an historical look – might be appropriate. Democracy is fragile.

I concede it’s logical, given the relative numbers of voters, to give more prominence to federal elections and progressively less to state and local elections. Media hype, money machinations, and even casual conversation tend to follow that pattern; but ... could it be different? 

Most of us might agree that our democratic systems need renewal; polarisation and progressive devolution of power from the people to the “elites” have become a feature of our democracies at all levels, worldwide. 

How would it be if decisions are delegated upwards to government from local assemblies, rather than downwards (from government to the minions)? Local elections could be seriously consequential, they might be organisationally more expensive but potentially empowering and more genuinely democratic.

Believe it or not the City or Melbourne has been very progressive in its efforts to shift the dial towards empowering locals. Following on from the first 10-year “Future Melbourne” plan in 2008, which aimed to outline Melbourne’s values and goals for the long-term, in 2014 the CoM formed a “citizens jury” – it was called the “Melbourne People’s Panel”, comprised of 43 Melburnians. The panel was given access to relevant information and expertise and charged with giving recommendations to the CoM on a 10-year, $5-billion financial plan. While this panel could not be said to be “representative” of the diverse Melbourne population, it was a radical move towards participation (it gave rise to Participate Melbourne) and devolution of decision making to the community. Importantly, nearly all the recommendations from the People’s Panel were accepted by CoM. 

That was 10 years ago; what has happened since then? Well, of course, the pandemic, when stresses and strains were experienced across all levels of government – from federal to local. But even before that, the 10-year financial plan, so successfully shaped by the People’s Panel, was stymied by rate caps and revenue shortfalls, and abandoned after two or three years. 

In 2015 it was decided to refresh the Future Melbourne plan, considering the changes and development that have happened since 2008, and setting in train a 2016-2026 Future Melbourne plan (which will again be adjusted next year for a 2025-2035 plan). It will be interesting to see if planning will involve a “citizens jury” which was so widely lauded as being successful 10 years ago. 

The old saying, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men" is so apt here. No matter how consultative, no matter how progressive, if the revenue stream is cut off, the best laid plans are, at best, postponed. Interestingly, following the 2014-15 People’s Panel’s recommendations the CoM shifted revenue raising away from rate rises, by lifting developer contributions. Since then, following COVID and the “Big Build bulldozer”, developers now have more or less free rein, and the state government has muscled in to run over local empowerment.

As I read through candidate info for this election there’s a lot of “reading between the lines”. Among other things I’m asking … who is most likely to “listen to locals” and help shift the dial back to empowering the people? Renewal of our democratic processes and principles can, and maybe should start locally, as hard as that might be. •