What's democracy and participation got to do with it anyway?

There is a reasonably decent article in today's Post, "Other black mayors grapple with forces that led to Fenty's downfall," about how other black mayors are having problems with re-election. A major point made in the article is that the current generation of mayors is more technocratic and less concerned about righting social justice wrongs.

Many years ago I was talking with a public administration professor about Mayor Williams, and my concern that the government's concept was that people weren't so much citizens--drivers and owners of the public process and democracy--but customers of the city government.

She pointed out that most of Mayor Williams' experience in government came as an employee of government, and most of his experiences were shaped by the requirements of those roles as someone who in fact did "customer service."

Believing that you only have to go back to the people every four years in an election, that the people don't have to be consulted or brought along with you is a fundamental mistake in terms of civic engagement and democracy, not to mention in bringing about effective change, or when dealing with difficult, seemingly intractable problems.

Franklin Roosevelt did his "fireside chats" for a reason. He needed to rally the people in tough times AND AS IMPORTANTLY he needed to maintain their support of his efforts and policies in the face of often vicious opposition (read the book When Washington Went to War by David Brinkley and you get a sense of the opposition, which isn't all that different from what President Obama is dealing with now). Without the support and involvement of "the people" it's very difficult to shift policy and practice.

When you have to make tough choices, being imperious rather than inclusive costs you in the long run.

Today's press reports of the meeting Chancellor Rhee had with Vincent Gray yesterday--the first blog entry commented that Rhee appeared close to tears, but this didn't make it into the print edition of the Post ("Gray, Rhee talk - about schools, not her future" in print versus the original blog entry which was later edited to take out the reference to the tears "Post Now: Rhee grim-faced after Gray meeting")--reminded me of Paris Hilton and her being banned from Japan because of her recent conviction in Las Vegas for the possession of cocaine. In the U.S., she felt this was of no consequence. But in many countries in Asia, it means no entry. Her choices had consequences over the long term. And she had to cancel her "tour" of Asia.

Same with the what we might call the "total war" or "blitzkreig" approach to education "reform" embarked upon by Chancellor Rhee. A focus on new audiences (see "Recruiting Diversity: Michelle Rhee's campaign to diversify DCPS means wooing white parents" from the City Paper) and relative indifference to "old" audiences.

In a democracy, where you face recurring elections, unless those "old" audiences have been completely marginalized, eventually you lose when you didn't have to if you would have been inclusive from the beginning.

It's not any different with development projects that are contentious. The more time the developer spends up front, building support, meeting with the community, even if it "takes longer" comes back in return on investment in terms of overall faster zoning approvals and quicker receipt of building permits.

But when you see citizens as customers and hindrances, not as the foundation of the change process, this never occurs to you and sometimes the emperor really does have no clothes.

I'd be really surprised if Michelle Rhee read much on organizational development, planned change, successful social movements, and community organizing.

The same is likely true of the other technocratic mayors and other officials in the current generation of leadership.