List of participants in the Council Of Alliances

Meeting report of the 09/28/2015 on the role of the Council of Alliances

Draft submitted to suggestions and changes by Gilda Farrell

The "mixed" nature of the Executive Board, composed of researchers, state employees and activists of societal management based on collaborative-democratic forms lead the Exectutive Board to have three roles :

• To make explicit the sense of the research in democratic life of all the citizens in Europe ;
• To analyse the datas, answers and expressions of the citizens compared with their well-being ;
• To guide and precise policy proposals which include the citizen expression and open a debate and spaces within legal local, national and europeans framework on experimentation and on the exercice of the different forms of coresponsability.

In this framework, the Council of Alliances should be able to debate the important points of the transformation process, bringing innovative answers to questions such as :

1. How to take into account the short term in a long term transformation view ? It involves to clarify the long term goal in, at least, three levels : the Co-Act project, the SPIRAL methodology and the TOGETHER network.

These three levels offer different horizons and are linked together. SPIRAL is a methodological frame to build coresponsability for the well-being of all in a local level and from the opinions of citizens. CO-ACT is a short-term project that aims to collect the citizen voices to turn it into politic proposals and TOGETHER is a network embedded in duration which has to grow with SPIRAL and Co-Act results. To guarantee the long term, the Council of Alliances will have to assure that the short term won't stay as an isolated exercice, but that all teaching be sustainable.

1. How to go into the diversity of territories and into the different approches with regard to the democratic participation ? This implies for the C. of A. to clarify the specifities of the territorial approach (one participative proposed by SPIRAL, Co-Act, TOGETHER, and others as Agendas 21, Transition, Eco-village, LEADER method, ect.). In this frame, the notion of "coresponsability" which is sectional to these three levels, should be clarified in, at least, two points : the "political horizon" with its institutional involvements, interaction, proposal and decision spaces and the occasionnal "testing" which will lead to learn from its.

To clarify these two points is an important issue for the future of SPIRAL, Co-Act and TOGETHER in order to bring to the foreground the interest of the concept/approaches of coresponsability, the difference is about concepts/approaches which tend to abandon the notions of general interests and public solidarity in favor of social arrangements only centered on proximity in space (that is the case of Big Society or others which doesn't facilitate dialogue between citizens with different social statues) or which appeal to the management of exclusion during moments of crise. To clarify and propose policies in order to practice the coresponsability, are the same that making progress in interactive learning models on management of common good and goods with the capacity to defuse conflicts, and to make long-term proposals, debates and ideas about the sense of the collective sense. Also, the C of A should have to clarify the difference between co-acting, co-answering and co-deciding.

1. Howto learn from the experiences with the citizens on a small scale ? It involves for the C of A to clarify the method on two levels : a) to identify the learning which lead to transformation and b) to facilitate positive initiatives reproductibility. It's essentiel to work on this question to avoid that Co-Act become one more european project which will be completely forgotten since its financing over. It's according to this angle that the evaluation of Co Acte should be made.
2. How can we work on the meaning of citizens participation when the latter try to find solutions to local problems with structural origins__? The question of power (empowerment) and impotence (dis-empowerment) arises. Participating may not be enough to win power. In this sense, the Board should clarify the question of "alliances" to make local participation more meaningful. Local participation is not always required to find solutions to all problems, but it is expected to build alliances to place problems ‘solutions at a relevant level.
3. 5 How can we give more sense not only to citizens ‘words but also to their contribution? For the CA, this implies to guide the semantic analysis of citizens expressions while trying to find the sense citizens give to their contribution to society and the common good. This is not only about enabling citizens to express themselves and hearing their voices, but about “revealing” it and giving a political sense to their participation, even if this latter sounds seems small.
4. How academic research results can be understood as a source of knowledge, common sense and inspiration for citizens?
5. How can we build policy proposals for well-being or common interest when the differential in terms of access to rights and services does not cease to increase ?

Comments / supplements

Other contributions

Back to CO-ACT project main page