Urban Self-rule (cont.)

How does all that relate to the privatization of,  for instance,  public utilities that the EC (and not only the EC) seems to encourage, and that some municipalities like Berlin were eager to carry out already?
It relates to it because the acquisitions of such utilities by private investors are really conceived as  large speculative ventures.  Giorgio Bocca, who writes for L’Espresso, noted that the same privatizations were carried out in Italy. They concerned profitable, well-run enterprises, he says. And nowhere did monopolies disappear for good. Instead, new monopolies were created. Bocca says, “I don’t see what advantage was entailed in privatizing the two [big] Italian electricity utilities. [...] It didn’t make sense, economically. Except simply in so far  as the stratum of  ‘owners’  wants to rule unconditionally [...]”
He maintains, “[...] these privatizations achieve nothing, in economic terms, while they entail a lot in speculative terms. It’s always the same people who snap up the objects of privatization. If you privatize television, it doesn’t end up in the hands of the citizens but in those of powerful groups who can afford to buy it.” 
As far as we can see, the privatization of British Rail did not encourage the necessary investment that the Thatcher government had been neglecting for years in the most irresponsible manner in order to ‘balance the budget.’ It did not improve safety. Private investors want to make money, and rail/road/air competition do not allow for an ‘unlimited’ increase in fares. Thus, cost-cutting is the rule, at the expense of safety. Modernization is insufficient, resembling more of a face-lift. The government’s reasoning is that they wanted to get rid of a rail network they did no longer want to ‘subsidize.’ Now, they really have to pay for big subsidies demanded by private rail companies, financing rail safety plus private profits. A one-time flow of money into public coffers at the moment of privatization will cost the tax-payer a lot, in the long run.

The public support for privatization found in some corners is of course not entirely based on ignorance. Neglected public companies like British Rail were in bad shape, due to permanent underfunding. (SNCF is in much better shape, by comparison.) The main reason however is that for the public, at a first glance, the difference between a public company and a private company is not tangible. Both operate according to the logic of profit. The municipalities see in electricity, gas, and water companies mere tools that flush funds into their depleted coffers. The idea of a non-profit  public utility, a company founded to render a service to the community at the lowest possible charge, has long vanished from the minds of professional politicians.
 

Many consumers, on the other hand, seem to be ignorant if not unconcerned. As if they were saying, “If we are going to be scalped, it doesn’t matter whether it’s a public or a private company that does it. The private company, being exposed to competition, may even be cheaper.” 
They forget two things: In private business, mergers and acquisitions will bring about new oligopolies (or in fact, local and regional monopolies) sooner or later. After a period where corporations are battling for market share, prices will go up again. Secondly, The  higher prices paid to your community were not entirely lost money; they were money used, for instance, in part to finance your school system. Because of the higher price for gas, water, or electricity, you paid lower local taxes than you would otherwise pay, or you got better service.
In other words, even in economic terms, a  point can be made for municipally, regionally, or state-owned public utilities.  From the point of view of local democracy, the economic considerations are not the only ones that are of importance. A democratic say in local affairs presupposes enlarged control of a community’s citizens over their living and working conditions. Of course, as it is, the local company is not independent of the world market price of gas or oil. But it is free to say no to nuclear energy if it wants to. It is free to push for energy saving construction of houses, because in operating the utility, there is no profit motive at the root of all of their considerations. They do not need to increase output; they might be very happy to decrease it by encouraging and subsidizing household appliances that are energy-saving, as well. They may diversify energy production, encouraging the use of wind and solar energy. They benefit from little loss of power when power is generated locally and no long-distance overland lines are bringing in the bulk of the energy used. Rational production is local production for local needs, to the extent that this is possible. Of course, production is social production, of course it undeniably entails exchange relations, between industries, between regions, as well as nationally and internationally. But where production is serving mainly the needs of profit accumulation instead of the needs of people, a lot of irrational, avoidable, unnecessary trading develops. It swells the bank accounts, it creates movements from account to account, from port to port, warehouse to warehouse – but it doesn’t generate additional wealth, in the real terms of  products, tools, cultural goods for the people. It enriches trading corporations, financial institutions, it makes international corporations grow to vast proportions – but the people are not better off. The environment suffers. Waste is entailed.
We need a lot more municip- 
ally owned and controlled 
companies ... where the 
people of the community .... 
have a say...

 
 
 
We need a lot more municipally and regionally owned and controlled companies (perhaps, at the moment, in the form  of a “mixed economy”?) where the people of the community, via their direct votes and their local and regional democratic bodies, have a say, and where the employees have a greater say (in terms of co-partizipation, co-determination of what is produced, when, why, and under what sort of circumstances). And this not only in the transport and energy sector but in all sectors. 
The contrary movement, to privatize municipal utilities in the water, gas, electricity, and transport sector, is a development pushed in the interest of the few investors who have no stake in the community except an interest to make as much money as possible in the shortest possible time. In the same instance, it robs local citizens of a chance to steer and control their future. (Steer and control:  not under entirely free conditions, but under conditions that give them more of a say than the prevalence of private utilities does.) In other words, if a public sector is maintained, communities are offered a chance to supply citizens under conditions laid down by these citizens in a more autonomous way than would otherwise be the case. If public utilities in many towns appear as ‘alien’ and even ‘hostile’ suppliers to many customers today, public ownership at least gives citizens the legal lee-way to change this and push for the right to plan independently, rationally, and according to humane principles. A public utility is not necessarily a profit-oriented business; still, municipal bureaucracies can also be a source of alienation and disempowerment. Local grass roots activism for increased urban democracy therefore requires an effort for increased empowerment of citizens across the board. It means that the ordinary silent majority can discover its ability to speak up. That the underprivileged can be encouraged.  And thus it implies that they (by themselves, relying on their own judgment and strength) can find the courage to challenge undue privilege and demand compensatory justice.
This is necessary if we want a rational, humane modernization of our society
                        We have finally to begin restructuring our 
                     democratic institutions, especially by making it possible 
suggestion          that ordinary people can join into the political 
for change         decision-making process, with sufficient hope 
                        of  making a difference. We have to increase elements of direct democracy on all levels, starting with the local / regional level and starting (especially) with the sphere of economic activities, for instance the employment sector. The new German  Act Concerning the Constitution of Companies (referred to as BVG or Betriebsverfassunggesetz) that foresees workers’ delegates in even the smaller companies is a good, but a rather modest, first step in this direction. Winning the struggle against those determined to abolish the public sector and introducing a new, invigorated sector of mixed ownership is a second step  which implies and necessities further democratization. 
 

 


 
 
In a ‘mixed economy,’ the public sector should play an increasing role next to the present private sector; it should be a vanguard of democratization and democratic, rational (instead of bureaucratic) planning. And its democratization might well rest on mixed ownership, with unsellable shares held by employees, by municipalities, and by regions. (The latter should be run democratically and they should be able, and in fact should be expected,  to delegate trade union people, delegates of grass roots organizations, and pro-grass-roots experts to the ‘board of directors’ of public sector firms, alongside directly elected plant & shop floor representatives.  Delegates of the employees, of municipalities, and of regions would also be sent into local and regional planning committees which should be linked nationally, and internationally, and which should, on the other hand, be required to have their suggestions, in so far as  they pertain to a concrete plant, workshop or factory, discussed and amended by the assembly  [or ‘plenum’] of  plant employees.) 
 
 

Is there a lobby
of the  ordinary
citizen?
 
 

(Send us your opinion on this:)
.........................................................................
.........................................................................
........................................................................
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  

Municipal self-rule is not a value in itself. 
Let’s look at its history, taking the German case as an example.
When it took on its modern, institutional form in Germany during the 19th century, it provided an instrument for the so-called propertied classes to formulate their interests, often by reaching compromises between various factions such as the bloc of industrialists, the commercial bourgeoisie, homeowners, and so on.
Today, even the Frankfurt (Main) Christian Democrats defend municipal self-rule.
But which interest groups, in a city like Frankfurt, are best positioned to make use of it?
Local politicians complain that self-rule is too limited, that it becomes well nigh meaningless if it is emasculated by shrinking budgets, or if state, federal, and European interference lead to reduced legal competence.
Their point is a valid point.
But do they not forget another point - a fact
that in itself limits and stifles local democracy?
In whose service is self-rule, in Frankfurt today, if not in that of the banks, the property developers (often, merely a subdivision of banking and insurance corporations or pension funds), the Airport Corporation (FAG), the Chamber of Commerce and similar organizations acting as pressure groups for trading companies, holding companies owning department stores, corporations with important offices or company headquarters in Frankfurt, and so on)...
If yes  - : Are 
ordinary  citizens
represented more
than marginally?
Or is their influence
(except on 
election day)
minimal?

A question  remains:  Who is the ordinary citizen?

    Check also the next article.
 
 
 

 

     Your contribution to the debate /
     Your ideas and suggestions:
.......................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................................................

        mail us!    e-mail:  urbandemocracy@netscape.net.

 

       PDF copy of this article