9. People Swarms

People swarms is a phrase used by Alan Finlayson and James Martin in their contribution to the Localopolis pamphlet. They describe:

...a 21st Century participatory politics taking place in unpredictable forms as people "swarm" together to deal with a cause or problem and then dissipate or move on to the next one.

The idea seems both simple and strange. To really understand it you have to get to grips with the working assumptions that sit beneath it. These assumptions (which come from the poststructural end of social theory) include the following ideas: 

• The world of local governance is a very complex and shifting place
• 'Power' is not something that can be found in any particular place, instead it exists in the relationships between people and organisations (an idea very much associated with the work of Foucault)
• Sovereignty does not reside in any one place, and is not the property of any specific locality or identity

All of this means that we are working in a very weird environment. According to Finlayson and Martin: 

In reality local government is just one nodal point in a complex network of interrelating elements each of different intensities and moving at different speeds. Governance is not structured, it is not static and it has no fixed or orderly lines through which power is transmitted.

Also, governance is both 'local' and 'international' and people are interested in both. Modern communications make it possible for people to belong to communities at all levels. Add to this the idea that power can be found in many different places, and we have a very difficult challenge for 'local' government if it sees its role as one of control.

The natural conclusion from all of this is that local democracy needs to be as fluid as the world it exists in.

Finlayson and Martin also reflect on the role of the local authority worker in the world of people swarms:

As initiators or managers of unpredictable forms of political organisation and action we might call them "political entrepreneurs" or "community partners". Then again we could just call them "citizens".

I was reminded of this idea when reading this post from Carl Haggerty this week. He comes to a similar place although from an different angle.

 

Haggerty argues that technological change, financial pressures and a push for more citizen involvement will drive us in any case towards this fluid form of local governance. Local government itself will itself be more of a concept than a real institution. He says: 

So we could get to a situation ...where the only aspect of local government which is truly local is the actual service delivery and decision making. The organisation behind it all could well be a mix of local, regional, national and cloud based services all supporting an individual worker (who may not actually be employed by the council) to deliver a service to someone in a community.

Like Finlayson and Martin, Haggerty's vision has only one constant - the people at the heart of local governance. People that will be able to swarm around the policy issues that interest and inspire them.  People served by a fluid mix of local, national and international support systems.

6. Full Local Taxation Powers

Under this idea local government would be able to raise all its own tax in the way that it sees fit.  Setting not only the level of tax but the system of tax collection. It could chose a property based tax, a form of local income tax, a local poll tax or any combination. 

People are sometimes surprised to learn only about 25% of UK council income comes from council tax and that the majority of funding comes from government grants of one form or another.  It is also true to say that, more or less, local government can only spend its money on something that central government has given permission for - usually through law.  There has been some talk in the UK of late on the idea of financial autonomy for local government and a power of general competence that will allow councils to spend more on their own priorities - full local taxation is one way that the idea of financial autonomy for local government might be taken to it's natural conclusion.

 There are a number of advantages to this idea:
 

• Control over tax gives local government status and legitimacy.  In the Localopolis pamphlet (pdf) I suggest that local taxation is closely linked to the sovereignty of local government.
• The system would be very simple for people to understand and therefore easier to make open and accountable to the public 
• Full local tax powers would generate greater interest in local elections and promote greater public involvement in local politics - the local economy would come into much sharper focus in local political debate 

Instead of the old slogan 'no taxation without representation' local councils might argue for 'no representation without taxation'. 
 
The costs of local tax systems would clearly be an issue but one to be resolved locally.
 
Finally, why limit local tax collection to council services?  Local tax is already collected for police and fire authorities and for community and town councils.  Why not for health and other services?

4. A Sovereign and Powerful Citizenry

In the localopolis pamphlet (pdf), Colin Copus argues that the authority of local government should come from the citizenry and not from central government.  As Colin points out, unlike many other countries where local government is established as a part of a national constitution, in the UK local government is a 'creature of statute' which has only as much responsibility as central government chooses to give it.  Instead, Colin argues, local government should draw its political authority upwards from the people.

This type of argument is not new of course.  Colin quotes Thomas Paine who said:

“A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution, is power without right”

Whilst Tom Paine was a 18th Century republican arguing against the divine right of monarchs rather than the authority of central government the comparison is still an interesting one.  Why can't we apply the principles of Tom Paine to UK local government?

In this version of local democracy local citizens have the ability to determine the size and shape of their local political institution and to set up new ones if they are unhappy with the existing arrangements. 

Crucially, local government is politically independent and this implies the need for a national constitution to protect this independence.

In practical terms this version of citizen controlled local government requires a mix of representative and direct democracy to make it work.  This starts with the referendum which establishes its constitution and it continues with further referenda as required.  In fact referenda would be needed for all important council decisions and could be instigated by the citizens. In his article Colin Copus also argues for recall elections, shorter terms in office and a limit on the number of consecutive terms in office to restrict the power of councillors.

Colin Copus sums up his argument as follows: 

"...a powerful alternative exists to current constitutional arrangements; an alternative resting on a sovereign and powerful citizenry, not sovereign political institutions. It is a model to which those calling themselves localists should give some thought as it provides a clear route by which localism can overturn the centralism inherent in a unitary state"