1

Critical Goverance Conference

Warwick University

UK, DEC 13/14 2010

Dr. Anne Luomala

University of Jyväskylä

Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy/Political Science

P.O Box 35 (MAB)

FI-40014 University of Jyväskylä

FINLAND

E-mail:

GSM +358 40760 9401

Governmentalisation of Politics as a Challenge for Representative Democracy

  1. Introduction

The paper is based on the published study on the possibility of politics in the official and public arenas of local representative democracy in Finnish cities and municipalities (Luomala 2010). The study focuses on municipal decision-making, budgeting and local democracy from the viewpoint of annual budget meetings of local councils. More particularly, the study examines the question of possibility of politics by analyzing annual budget meetings of selected local councils.

The study aims at answering the posed research question by analyzing budget meeting discourses, recorded in 11 different municipalities and cities of different sizes during 1998 – 2005. The data are analyzed by means of politico-rhetorical textual analysis, and the examined data are understood as narrative texts on policies at a particular time. The source location of the collected data and the political affiliations of the speakers are not considered significant from the point of view of the outcome. By analyzing speech acts(Austin 1975) in the budget meeting texts the present study examines what kinds of knowledge, time, language and acts operate in the meeting. More precisely, the data are examined by questioning by which kind of knowledge, arguments and vocabularies decisions are made as well as by analysing what kinds of time spans of future expectations decision-makers have concerning the future of their own community.

  1. Annual budget meeting as a specific moment of political action

Annual budgeting is often separated into the different phases of planning and preparation, official approving, implementation, evaluation and auditing. Conventionally, the council’s budget meeting as the moment of the official approval of the budget is often defined as one of the obligatory phases of continuing and normative budgeting process. Public evaluation of budgeting with the decisive arguments made by the elected council is, however, the most important moment of political action in the context of representative decision-making.

Figure 1. Normative phases of budgeting process.

In this study, politics itself is understood as a human activity and conflict-based action (Palonen 2007; Arendt 1958), entailing expectations of various solutions to problems and increased possibilities for alternative action even in challenging situations. Considering the political aspects of budgeting, it is not merely a normative process of calculation but a struggle for political goals. The budget may be defined as a record of the outcomes of political struggles, as Wildavsky (1975, 3-4) put it: “.. all victories and defeats, bargains, and over past are recorded to the budget proposal and by this way, the budget proposal is an attempt to link proposed expenditures with desirable future events”. Politics may be regarded as a conflict over whose preferences are to prevail in the determination of policy because if one asks “who gets what”, the council has to give the answers at a specific moment in time, recorded in the budget. (Wildavsky 1975, 5.)

By putting the council’s public budget meeting in the core of possibilities for change, this study examines public budgeting by questioning whether there is any room for politics. More particularly, it analyses public conversations of budget meetings of local councils as texts by asking how the council elaborates the change(s) and how it acts in the change(s), by which kind of knowledge and time it operates at a particular moment, what kind of action occurs and to whom it is directed to, what are the terms for action and who is acting and how. As a result, the study offers some notions on citizens, municipalities and decision-makers from the point of view of decision makers themselves. More particularly, it offers some answers to the question of the possibility of politics in the context of public and official decision-making arena of representative democracy.

In the context of the study, from the point of view of political analysis, the annual budget meeting is defined as a specific moment of political decision-making and action because it offers possibilities to create something new. For the elected councillors the annual budget meeting may be a real opportunity to influence the contents of politics and to change the lines of local policies. The annual budget meeting offers special times both for operations of politicking and politicizing in the context of different kind of policies in the certain polity (Palonen 1993). As a specific moment of political decision making the annual public meeting may, thus, open room for different kinds of political activities. Therefore, it also matters what kinds of knowledge, time, and language are used in budget decisions and by whom.

3. Governing discourses of order, progress and innovation

Contents of budget speech acts concern, in addition to economy, various welfare policies from the mid 1990s till the end of 2000s. The analysis of the meeting discourses shows that the budget meeting is, however, about the aspirations for steering and controlling present and future activities in municipalities and cities. These aspirations manifest themselves as three different, partly overlapping discourses, which can be labelled as the governingdiscourses on order, progress and innovation.

When politicians seek new alternative administrative or economic solutions, they are expected to increase decision-making possibilities also in the challenging decision-making situations in the future. The discourse on order, however, aims at maintaining the existing and secure, and the discourse on progress aims at maintaining the continuous progress. There is more room for diverse political action in the innovation discourse, which entails discussion on the contingent future expectations, long-term thinking, as well as on attempts at opening up new possibilities for action. Considering time and knowledge, these discourses contain goals with different orientations, expressed in vocabularies that are characteristic to each particular discourse (figure 2).

The discourse of order consists of arguments on economic calculations, statistic information and legislative demands given by the state. In the context of the discourse of progress budget conversations focus on welfare services and general opportunities to maintain the prevailed service level of the city or the municipality. In addition, the former discourse focus on formal structures of budgeting while the latter one consists more of formulations of citizens as customers. Both in the context of discourse of order and progress are expressed aspirations for steering and controlling forthcoming events as well as interpretations concerning happenings in the past and present. They fulfil fashionable vocabularies which are used as general arguments. Unlike the two other discourses, the discourse of innovation includes arguments of new openings with analysis on their possibilities and risks.

In addition to governing discourses the study examines municipal structures and models of budgeting in the context of the local councils’ budget meetings. Meeting practices (allocation of time, order of performance) aimed at enhancing the decision-making, as well as established routines (mutual coalitions, consensus budget, group discipline) support rather than challenge the administrative power of planning and preparation. Considering that municipalities also execute numerous administrative reforms, which often include built-in (sometimes also explicit) attempts at isolating politics and limiting it to specifically determined fields of action on the basis of economic demands and demands of effectiveness, this tendency can well be described as the governmentalisation of politics.

Figure 2. Governing discourses of order, progress and innovation in and with time.

Some other outcomes of the analysis support this finding. First, the shortening of the time span of future expectations as well as the decline in the number of suggestions for reforms, together with the strengthening of the administrative power of planning, all clearly noticeable in economically difficult situations, are symptomatic from the point of view of functional local democracy – and not least so, because the data was collected during a period which in hindsight can be outlined as a time of relatively strong economic growth in municipalities, between two deep economic depressions.

Secondly, the analysis shows that there are a lot of speeches on citizens and their living conditions but most decisions are based on professional knowledge produced by professionals of administration. There is only little critique concerning contents of the budget proposal, provisional administrative reforms and fashionable concepts or vocabularies like demands on effectiveness, economic efficiency or demands on being co-operative and innovative or on competition, partnerships or administrative governance models themselves. On the contrary, concepts are used kind of slogans of governing, steering and controlling by councillors’ statements when either convincing or resisting contents of budget proposal.

Thirdly, arguments are expressed by specific governing vocabularies whose purpose is to support provisional decisions made by the budget elite. Both among local officials and councillors well-known information is preferred (statistics, reports, statements of experts). There is only little room for seeking new alternatives. On the contrary, there is a tendency to steer and control unexpected proposals by fashionable governing vocabularies in advance. The local councillors are by themselves the main architects of this kind of governmentalisation of politics.

  1. Whose community is constructed?

Analysis shows there is only little room for alternatives during the annual budget meeting of the council. Depending on the specific discourse, the political goals as well as the subjects and objects of politics vary (table 1).

Table 1. Conclusions on empirical analysis.

discourse of order / discourse of progress / discourse of innovation
time / past / present / future
criteria of action / economic / effectively
efficiency / innovative
target of action / economy / services
administrative models / investments
programs, projects
direction of observation / inside / inside / outside
expectation / stability / stability
progress / activity
knowledge / well-known
statistics, studies / known information,
reports, plans, studies
citizens / unknown
anticipations
strategies
visions
future & expectations
actors / municipality
local authorities
state / municipality
local authorities
councillors and other laymen
NGOs / governance networks
research centres
enterprises, companies
local citizen / good taxpayer
economic user of welfare services / consumer, client
evaluator, legitimate / consumer, client,
support for official aspirations
council / evaluator / approve, accept / to make new possibilities
administrative
organiser / maker of proposals
negotiator
expert / to began, start
to plan
to implement
expert, professional / negotiator
planner
initiator
strategy
decision-maker / expert / operator / enables
municipality / provider / producer
organiser / co-ordinate
state / prohibit / force / enable
companies / tax-payers / partners / innovators
modes of co-operation / stabile coalitions
institutional / new models or co-operations
partnerships / networks
identifictions / other municipalities / own municipalities/ the joint municipal authorities / research centres
companies
terminology / vocabulary of economy
rhetoric of necessities
non-alternative rhetoric / developing
improving
organising
ideology of three ‘e’s’
economic, effective, efficiency / innovations
visions
missions
reforms
renewals
disputes / consensus/knowledge
vocabulary of governing / consensus,
politicking and/or deliberation
vocabulary of governing / dissensus/time
politicisation
alternative / economic savings
finishing of municipality / effective operations / possibility/risk
legitimacy
for action / state / citizens / administration
citizens
target of steering and governing / politicians / local citizens / actors in the future
democracy / representative / mediated democracy / in the frames for network governance
possibility of politics / evaluate, steer, control / legitimate / to be initiative

The contents of the budget proposal are prepared by local officials and are affected by legislative demands. The elected council has the final and decisive power to change the proposed contents of the budget. There is, however, powerful aspiration for steering and controlling instead creating something new. Economic arguments as well as desires to maintain administrative order over political passions are powerful. There are only few arguments concerning competitive alternatives or new ideas.

In other words, there is a kind of total belief that only the knowledge and plans made by local officials and other experts are acceptable enough as the basic argument concerning official budget decisions in cities and municipalities. There is little or no analysis or critique of the contents of the concepts used. Power of budgeting plans made by local officials with the politics of governmentalisation is symptomatic from the point of view of the legitimacy of representative democracy. Public budget statements are full of economic arguments without any suspicious on them. There is no room for public critique or analysis of the concepts used. Budget conversations in official arenas of elected councils are becoming mere performances with the aspirations for the governmentalisation of politics instead of any challenging or aspirations to create something new.

Figure 3. Changes in governing and interaction relationship between local politicians, citizens and local administration.

From the viewpoint of political action, this notion is important. When innovative or questionable thinking is needed, politicians seem to give up their power to administrative planning organisations. According to the study, in fact, the positions between the elected politicians and professional officials have turned upside down (figure 3). Traditionally, the elected council should be in the core of political decision-making, and the officials should only have a supportive role. In these new conditions the positions are the other way round. Administration is in the core of politics because they are experts enough, they can use the governing arguments in a convincing way and most importantly, they have enough time to work on behalf of their organisation and community unlike the elected councillors who are only part-time politicians (cf. Weber 1994)

The analysis shows the budget struggles focus on either the quality of knowledge or political goals (cf. Douglas & Wildavsky 1983). If the dispute concerns on quality of knowledge only, it can be solved by increasing investigations and quantity of information. If the struggle concerns political goals it is needed more negotiations or by voting. If the conflict concerns both knowledge and political goals there is none obvious solutions. The problem can be solved only by acting politically.

Demands to be economic and effective, however, fulfil the contents of budget conversations. For decision-makers a citizen, for example, seems to be more client than political actor. The citizen is somebody who claims new welfare services instead of new political ideas. Also the city or municipality has been seen more as an administrative organisation than a political community and the auditing principles as more powerful than the principle of political responses. In particularly, good economy seems to be the main precondition for the survival of cities and municipalities. From the point of view of political action, this observation is alarming. At a time when creative, alternative-seeking and questioning discourse is needed the most, politicians seem to relinquish their power to administration. These notions are symptomatic also from the viewpoint of the legitimacy of representative democracy, not the least if there is no room for real political affairs or any critical debate on base arguments.

  1. Conclusion

In this research the council budget meeting turned out, however, to be a diverse and multidimensional forum for politics, where struggles based on information of diverse quality as well as on future expectations with different time spans took place, and the underlying issues were about what kind of local community and whose municipality or city community was being developed and created at any given time. This study shows that there is a room for political action in the context of official, representative and public decision-making arenas in cities and municipalities. However, the political decision-makers – such as councillors – are responsible for seeking new alternatives and perspectives for problems by themselves. They have also power to change both forms and conventions in political decision-making in cities and municipalities.

Thus, the most significant outcome of this study is the conclusion that in spite of the often deliberate attempts at the governmentalisation of politics, the elected council still has power and the official, representative and public decision-making arenas in cities and municipalities still have room for political action. Even budget meeting practices turned out to be flexible and open to change, and if desirable, it is possible to make more room for political action there by questioning, developing and changing the existing practices. If the council wishes to use its formal power, it can ask for competitive offers, but the political decision-makers are responsible for finding alternatives and creating new practices. The challenge of local democracy does not lie in the citizens’ lack of participation, but in the interaction between the citizens and their representatives, and the inadequate flow of information between them.

Literature

Austin, J.L. 1975. How to do things with words. The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Eds. J.O.Urmson & Marina Sbisá. Oxford University Press. Oxford, NewYork, 2nd ed.

Arendt, Hannah 1958. Human Condition. University of Chicago. University of Chicago Press, London.

Douglas, Mary & Wildavsky, Aaron 1983. Risk and Culture. An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley (1982).

Luomala, Anne 2010. Politiikan mahdollisuudesta valtuuston talousarviokokouksessa. [On the possibility of Politics in the Local Council Budget Meeting]Akateeminen väitöskirja, Jyväskylän yliopisto. Sosiaalikehitys Oy, Hämeenlinna.

Palonen, Kari 1993. Introduction: from Policy and Polity to Politicking andPoliticization.In Parvikko, Tuija & Palonen,Kari (eds.): Reading the Political. Exploring the Margins of Politics. The Finnish Political Science Association, Helsinki, p. 6-16.

Palonen, Kari 2007. Four Times of Politics: Policy, Polity, Politicking and Politicization. In Kari Palonen: Re-Thinking Politics. Essays from a quarter-century. In Kia Lindroos (ed.): The Finnish Political Science Association, p. 55-70. The article published in 2003: Alternatives: Global, Local, Political vol. 28, no 2, pp. 171-186.