Urban
Self-rule (cont.)
How does all that relate to
the privatization of, for instance, public utilities that the
EC (and not only the EC) seems to encourage, and that some municipalities
like Berlin were eager to carry out already?
It relates to it because
the acquisitions of such utilities by private investors are really conceived
as large speculative ventures. Giorgio Bocca, who writes for
L’Espresso,
noted that the same privatizations were carried out in Italy. They concerned
profitable, well-run enterprises, he says. And nowhere did monopolies disappear
for good. Instead, new monopolies were created. Bocca says, “I don’t
see what advantage was entailed in privatizing the two [big] Italian electricity
utilities. [...] It didn’t make sense, economically. Except simply in so
far as the stratum of ‘owners’ wants to rule unconditionally
[...]”
He maintains, “[...] these
privatizations achieve nothing, in economic terms, while they entail a
lot in speculative terms. It’s always the same people who snap up the objects
of privatization. If you privatize television, it doesn’t end up in the
hands of the citizens but in those of powerful groups who can afford to
buy it.”
As far as we can see, the privatization
of British Rail did not encourage the necessary investment that the Thatcher
government had been neglecting for years in the most irresponsible manner
in order to ‘balance the budget.’ It did not improve safety. Private investors
want to make money, and rail/road/air competition do not allow for an ‘unlimited’
increase in fares. Thus, cost-cutting is the rule, at the expense of safety.
Modernization is insufficient, resembling more of a face-lift. The government’s
reasoning is that they wanted to get rid of a rail network they did no
longer want to ‘subsidize.’ Now, they really have to pay for big subsidies
demanded by private rail companies, financing rail safety plus private
profits. A one-time flow of money into public coffers at the moment of
privatization will cost the tax-payer a lot, in the long run.
The public support for privatization
found in some corners is of course not entirely based on ignorance. Neglected
public companies like British Rail were in bad shape, due to permanent
underfunding. (SNCF is in much better shape, by comparison.) The main reason
however is that for the public, at a first glance, the difference between
a public company and a private company is not tangible. Both operate according
to the logic of profit. The municipalities see in electricity, gas, and
water companies mere tools that flush funds into their depleted coffers.
The idea of a non-profit public utility, a company founded to render
a service to the community at the lowest possible charge, has long vanished
from the minds of professional politicians.
|
Many consumers, on the other hand,
seem to be ignorant if not unconcerned. As if they were saying, “If we
are going to be scalped, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a public or a private
company that does it. The private company, being exposed to competition,
may even be cheaper.”
They forget two things: In private
business, mergers and acquisitions will bring about new oligopolies (or
in fact, local and regional monopolies) sooner or later. After a period
where corporations are battling for market share, prices will go up again.
Secondly, The higher prices paid to your community were not entirely
lost money; they were money used, for instance, in part to finance your
school system. Because of the higher price for gas, water, or electricity,
you paid lower local taxes than you would otherwise pay, or you got better
service.
In other words, even in economic
terms, a point can be made for municipally, regionally, or state-owned
public utilities. From the point of view of local democracy, the
economic considerations are not the only ones that are of importance. A
democratic say in local affairs presupposes enlarged control of a community’s
citizens over their living and working conditions. Of course, as it
is, the local company is not independent of the world market price of gas
or oil. But it is free to say no to nuclear energy if it wants to. It is
free to push for energy saving construction of houses, because in operating
the utility, there is no profit motive at the root of all of their considerations.
They do not need to increase output; they might be very happy to decrease
it by encouraging and subsidizing household appliances that are energy-saving,
as well. They may diversify energy production, encouraging the use of wind
and solar energy. They benefit from little loss of power when power is
generated locally and no long-distance overland lines are bringing in the
bulk of the energy used. Rational production is local production for local
needs, to the extent that this is possible. Of course, production is social
production, of course it undeniably entails exchange relations,
between industries, between regions, as well as nationally and internationally.
But where production is serving mainly the needs of profit accumulation
instead of the needs of people, a lot of irrational, avoidable, unnecessary
trading develops. It swells the bank accounts, it creates movements from
account to account, from port to port, warehouse to warehouse – but it
doesn’t generate additional wealth, in the real terms of products,
tools, cultural goods for the people. It enriches trading corporations,
financial institutions, it makes international corporations grow to vast
proportions – but the people are not better off. The environment suffers.
Waste is entailed. |
|
We need a lot more municip-
ally owned and controlled
companies ... where the
people of the community ....
have a say... |
We need a lot more municipally
and regionally owned and controlled companies (perhaps, at the moment,
in the form of a “mixed economy”?) where the people of the community,
via their direct votes and their local and regional democratic bodies,
have a say, and where the employees have a greater say (in terms of co-partizipation,
co-determination of what
is produced, when, why, and under what sort of circumstances).
And this not only in the transport and energy sector but in all sectors.
The contrary movement, to privatize
municipal utilities in the water, gas, electricity, and transport sector,
is a development pushed in the interest of the few investors who have no
stake in the community except an interest to make as much money as possible
in the shortest possible time. In the same instance, it robs local citizens
of a chance to steer and control their future.
(Steer and control: not under entirely free conditions, but under
conditions that give them more of a say than the prevalence of private
utilities does.) In other words, if a public
sector is maintained, communities are offered a chance to supply citizens
under conditions laid down by these citizens in a more autonomous way than
would otherwise be the case. If public utilities
in many towns appear as ‘alien’ and even ‘hostile’ suppliers to many customers
today, public ownership at least gives citizens the legal lee-way to change
this and push for the right to plan independently, rationally, and according
to humane principles. A public utility is
not necessarily a profit-oriented business; still, municipal bureaucracies
can also be a source of alienation and disempowerment. Local grass roots
activism for increased urban democracy therefore requires an effort for
increased empowerment of citizens across the board. It means that the ordinary
silent majority can discover its ability to speak up. That the underprivileged
can be encouraged. And thus it implies that they (by themselves,
relying on their own judgment and strength) can find the courage to challenge
undue privilege and demand compensatory justice.
This is necessary if we want a rational, humane modernization
of our society.
We have finally to begin restructuring our
A
democratic institutions, especially by making it possible
suggestion
that ordinary people can join into the political
for change
decision-making process, with sufficient hope
of making a difference. We have to increase elements of direct democracy
on all levels, starting with the local / regional level and starting (especially)
with the sphere of economic activities, for instance the employment sector.
The
new German Act Concerning the Constitution of Companies (referred
to as BVG or Betriebsverfassunggesetz) that foresees workers’ delegates
in even the smaller companies is a good, but a rather modest, first step
in this direction. Winning the struggle against
those determined to abolish the public sector and introducing a new, invigorated
sector of mixed ownership is a second step which implies and necessities
further democratization.
|
In a ‘mixed economy,’ the public
sector should play an increasing role next to the present private sector;
it should be a vanguard of democratization and democratic, rational (instead
of bureaucratic) planning. And its democratization might well rest on mixed
ownership, with unsellable shares held by employees, by municipalities,
and by regions. (The latter should be run democratically and they
should be able, and in fact should be expected, to delegate trade
union people, delegates of grass roots organizations, and pro-grass-roots
experts to the ‘board of directors’ of public sector firms, alongside directly
elected plant & shop floor representatives. Delegates of the
employees, of municipalities, and of regions would also be sent into local
and regional planning committees which should be linked nationally, and
internationally, and which should, on the other hand, be required to have
their suggestions, in so far as they pertain to a concrete plant,
workshop or factory, discussed and amended by the assembly [or ‘plenum’]
of plant employees.)
Is there a lobby
of the ordinary
citizen?
(Send us your opinion
on this:)
.........................................................................
.........................................................................
........................................................................
Municipal self-rule is not a value
in itself.
Let’s look at its history, taking the German
case as an example.
When it took on its modern, institutional form
in Germany during the 19th century, it provided an instrument for the so-called
propertied classes to formulate their interests, often by reaching compromises
between various factions such as the bloc of industrialists, the commercial
bourgeoisie, homeowners, and so on.
Today, even the Frankfurt (Main) Christian
Democrats defend municipal self-rule.
But which interest groups, in a city like
Frankfurt, are best positioned to make use of it?
Local politicians complain that self-rule
is too limited, that it becomes well nigh meaningless if it is emasculated
by shrinking budgets, or if state, federal, and European interference lead
to reduced legal competence.
Their point is a valid point.
But do they not forget another point -
a fact
that in itself limits and stifles local
democracy?
In whose service is self-rule, in Frankfurt
today, if not in that of the banks, the property developers (often, merely
a subdivision of banking and insurance corporations or pension funds),
the Airport Corporation (FAG), the Chamber of Commerce and similar organizations
acting as pressure groups for trading companies, holding companies owning
department stores, corporations with important offices or company headquarters
in Frankfurt, and so on)... |
If yes - : Are
ordinary citizens
represented more
than marginally?
Or is their influence
(except on
election day)
minimal?
A
question remains: Who
is the ordinary citizen?
Check also the next
article.
|
Your contribution to the debate /
Your ideas and suggestions:
.......................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................
mail us!
e-mail: urbandemocracy@netscape.net.
|