Projects and Research

New approaches to democracy where Evoke fellows have played either a lead or supporting role.

Community Governance: A Place-Based Approach
The team at Evoke BC is currently researching and highlighting neighbourhood, or community-based, approaches to governance. Specifically, structures and decision-making practices that are grounded in place. This is a new approach with a long history: Imagine making decisions about your neighbourhood in a local assembly comprised of your neighbours, local businesses, and community organizations.

This approach is showing up in different jurisdictions, such as:

Empowerment Congress - Neighbourhood Councils - in Los Angeles
The Front Porch project in Seattle
Office of Community and Civic Life in Portland (formerly Office of Neighbourhood Involvement)
Neighbourhood Plus program and City Plan in the City of Dallas
Neighbourhood Enhancement Teams in Tacoma

There's also a group of people in Vancouver who are looking to launch a pilot of this model in Vancouver's Inner City, known as Our Place.

Our Place is a place-based collective impact collaboration of residents, community-based organizations, and service providers anchored through the Ray-Cam Community Association. Principles and strategies of this approach include people-centred, participatory service delivery that engages the community, and builds the capacity within communities to collectively identify, analyze, and implement community programs and services. To learn more:

Previous Research:

This paper focuses on a key dimension related to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs); although they are derived from value created within a neighbourhood or community, there is a disconnect from that value generated, the benefits that a community will receive, and how that is decided. Evoke BC believes that a more participatory budgeting process, as a form of participatory democracy, is vital towards making a more equitable democracy, and could be applied in the case of CACs.

Comments

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance. Robert Dahl emphasized the importance of enlight

Freedom to do stuff vs. freedom from stuff

As our children grow up we typically give them more freedom and discretion over the activities they will pursue, and increasing freedom of choice when it comes to who they will associate with and the type of education they want. It's commonly accepted that freedom from tyranny, oppression, and control is a hallmark of a democratic society; we should be free to lead and build a life of our choosing. Leading and guiding one another to a life of freedom is a great privilege that many communities are still fighting and striving towards. However, when our children are young, we're a bit more directive. When I wake up my daughters in the morning, whether they get dressed, eat breakfast, and get ready for school is not up for discussion or deliberation. At first, commanding them when to put on their shoes might seem to contravene their freedom of choice. Am I restraining their liberty? Obstructing their progress as free individuals? In directing them through these activities,

State government: not necessary for democracy

Got your attention? This statement may seem counter-intuitive, but it may very well be true. Democracy can mean a whole lot of things, but it does not necessarily require or imply state government. A state can be thought of as a political entity, typically with perceived sovereignty over some geographic territory, a single unified government, and a monopoly on the legal deployment of an army or other enforcement agency. If we understand democracy as structures and processes for people to make decisions about their communities, then are any of the above items necessary? You might think the answer is yes - that at the least we need some kind of unified government. But what if we define government more holistically as systems and structures that govern some kind of organized community? Is this possible without the additional features of a state : geographic sovereignty, a single unitary government, and a monopoly on organized force? I would suggest that yes, it might be possible

Evoke Democracy

Search This Blog