Skip to main content

Spheres of Power and Authority

Imagine the wealthy owner of an airline who donates significant funds to her child's school, via the local Parent Advisory Committee (PAC). Out of respect, although she does not formally sit on the committee, the members seek her input and advice on the priorities for PAC expenditures for the coming year. This same wealthy individual is a major donor to several local city councillors, who oblige her requests for phone calls from time to time. Within the airline industry, due to her position and stature, she is often called upon as an advisor for policy review committees.

Does something feel wrong with this picture? Should this individual be able to enjoy positions of influence within multiple different sectors and industries? Michael Walzer would say no. His 1983 book "Spheres of Justice" describes a concept called 'complex equality'. The fundamental premise here is that someone who holds a position of privilege, power, or domination in one "sphere" should not be able to extend that power or influence into other spheres of society. In other words, just because someone has financial power through a position of influence in industry, that power should not be easily extended into the local political realm or the educational realm, as in the example above.

This is an important point in several respects. First, the concept acknowledges the reality that in many 'spheres' of life hierarchies do emerge; individuals take on leadership roles, and some accumulate power and influence. Second, that there are different ways to achieve power, influence, and leadership, and these will be different in different sectors. And third, that no one, and no single entity, should have access to power and domination across all spheres - what Walzer calls a 'monopoly on the means of domination'. Keeping these 'spheres' separate and distinct from one another ensures that there are multiple groups and interests across society that can exert influence, and that there are varied and different opportunities for each of us to participate in society and develop our potential as humans. Think of your own life; what are the different 'spheres' where you participate socially, and how is your influence or relationships different in each of these 'spheres'?

It's also one of the reason why money in politics is bad. From this standpoint, it is critical that financial wealth and power do not easily transfer into political wealth and power. Luckily, the example I described above is not a situation I have actually come across. For the more part, different groups have a good sense that power and influence in one area of life does not imply automatic inclusion in leadership decisions in another area. It's why we have concepts like independent committees, and why having a conflict of interest is frowned upon.

There are, however, individuals in murky territory here. Are there people whose power and influence in one 'sphere' has equipped them with power and influence in multiple 'spheres'? A diverse political society requires us to push back when we see this happening.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who gets to decide when it comes to Community Amenity Contributions?

This week we're approaching candidates in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election to get their feedback on the city's approach to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs). The Evoke team undertook a case study and research project in this area, and believes these could be better approached. Candidate responses will be posted on this site, meanwhile, here's some background on our perspective. 
The City of Vancouver has a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) policy, officially established in 2004 with their Financing Growth strategy, where all new development and rezoning applications contribute, financially or in-kind, to community amenities. The CACs are extracted from new development and spent upon Council approval in a number of valuable areas such as: affordable housing, child care, amenities, green spaces, community infrastructure and other public goods.
Our research focuses on a key dimension related to CACs; although they are derived from value created within a neighb…

Collaborative Governance in Action

Government: one participant amongst many

In a previous post we highlighted the need to go beyond voting for robust democratic participation. But if that's the case then the question becomes - how? Where do we create places for collaboration, discussion, and dialogue surrounding key issues facing our communities?

One possibility is to set up opportunities for collaborative governance. Now remember, governance is distinct from government; governance refers to decision-making practices and structures, and alsothe broader systems in which decisions about our communities are made. A government is a specific entity endowed with decision-making authority over something.

Collaborative governance simply refers to decision-making where multiple different organizations are involved. In these forums, governments are one of the participants amongst many, as opposed to being the sole arbiter over final decisions. Decision-making takes place between both state and non-state entities, and authori…

Does an efficient public service destroy community accountability?

New Public Management is an approach to running public service organizations (government services), and civil service generally, focused on service delivery that is efficient, business-like, and that incorporates market based principles. It includes management techniques and practices drawn from the private sector, allowing public servants to contract out services through competitive contracting, and focused on the professionalized delivery of public services.

The problem is...this approach may result in a loss to democratic accountability.

In a previous post we outlined two key dimensions to accountability; 1) understanding and monitoring decisions that are made, and 2) access to trustworthy information. Public administration, and the notion of public service, was traditionally focused on accountability to constituents via centralized control, and reporting to, defined government ministries and departments. This model is far from perfect; centralized bureaucracies are problematic in …