Thanks to Frank for agreeing to summarize our notes on this page and lead a discussion about next steps at our next meeting on October 1 at 7:00 p..m. Central Time in the TF OPAL Room.

Click here for summary and suggested agenda for the October 1, 2007 7pm CDT discussion.

_____________________

Civic Entrepreneurship

This is an idea originally posted on theKnight Foundation Ideas page:
I would like to organize a team of citizen scholars to study civic entrepreneurship with me. This may beseparate from the continuation of the Extreme Democracy series, but I offer it here as a possibility. (blog postings, full text of the fellowship)

These are a combination of ideas specific to civic entrepreneurship with some other interest areas that are only peripherally related! (It's the laundry list I gave the producer who invited me to be interviewed for a podcast.)

• Social Entrepreneurship
• Public Institutions and Accountability
• Public Engagement
• Citizen engagement
• Citizen journalism
• The role (potential) of social media / technology in democracy (“Extreme Democracy)
• Libraries, museums, community foundations, public media and democracy
• Art, documentaries and the community engagement components that “get us off the couch”
• Technology in Democracy and public engagement (democracy online, e-democracy, etc.)
• The gift economy and democracy
• Distinguishing civic vs. social capital
• What emerging democracies are doing that are instructive to us - invite my Russian colleagues to speak?
• Literacy and civic capital (article in Library Journal forthcoming)
• Telling the hidden American Story (Bradley’s “new” - I distinguish a bit differently)
• Free Media – broad band saturation and my Fiber to the Library project in CA, also net neutrality from my work with Bill Moyers
• Deliberative democracy
  

_________________________

Extreme Democracy Projects

Name change: I understand the reason for the name, but I don’t think it communicates well to the general public, and I think that it may frighten some.

Response: It wasn't the NAME that frightened me off, but the discovery that Extreme Democracy wasn't real
Democracy (i.e. where the people play the legislative role themselves). Fix that, and I think you'd attract a lot
more attention.

Conference: This project has never had a physical conference that I’m aware of. I think it’s time for one. I would propose that we host it here in Austin as we seem to have some energy around the subject. What type of conference? At this point, I’m torn between two extremes. One is a conference of those working in the various areas to exchange information, build collaborations and advance the state of the art. The other is one whose purpose is to teach others about the tools and how to use them.

Training/Seminars: This would be a vehicle to teach the tools, techniques and applications. It could be physical on web based. If we charged for these, it could provide some income for the effort. Maybe…if there is any real interest now. That’s something I don’t have a real sense of – just how much demand is there?

Book: We could organize and write a new book.

Book discussion series: Continue the format only with other books and articles. This would have to be a team effort if we wanted this to be a weekly series via the web. Probably about 5 or 6 people so that any one person would only handle one a month.

Discussion series: Same as above except it would be like a salon – open to any topic that someone wanted to bring up. Again, it would still need 5 or 6 people to moderate.

Interview series: Interviews via the web of people working on projects in the field. Again a team of people.

Collaboration: Collaborative development of the structure and processes to operationalize extreme democracy. Development of diffusion program.

Research: Research into the current and future utilization of the tools and techniques.

Organization: If we wanted to get more formal about this and be able to receive funding, we’ll probably need to form a nonprofit organization, association or a consortium. Or, make this a formal program of an existing one.

Multimedia Presentation: really slick mulitimedia presentation that effectively communicates the power of the technology.

Infrastructure: The social technologies don't really have an agenda although many people would ascribe an agenda to the technologies. But...as a Marshall McLuhan advocate, they do alter the way that we perceive, think and act. As McLuhan said, "The medium is message." And, indeed it is. Perhaps our role could be to provide the infrastructure for the technologies to be used for change. One way that could be done is to build the baddest web site around on the social technologies and their applications. This could be a resource for those with agendas or candidates or issues to use effectively in their pursuits. We would be contributing to the development of that altered perception...

Book Chapter: Write a chapter for the upcoming book - Handbook of Research on Electronic Collaboration and Organizational Synergy, Editors: Janet Salmons, Ph.D. and Lynn Wilson, Ph.D. They do not have a chapter on the use of technology in democratic processes, but would like one. It's a very short deadline, but I think we could get an extension (10/15). To find out more read the Guidlines.

Paul

___________________________

Structure for Extreme Democracy?

It seems to be that the structure for extreme democracy is composed of principles, goals, systems & tools, and applications.

We have in our definition of our American democracy – of, by and for the people. While I’ve said this many times, I’m still not quite sure what it means. But, it seems to be related to the goals. And, the three goals I see for extreme democracy are:

1. Democracy: Participative, deliberative, grass roots, collaborative, one to one, open democracy, or many other descriptive terms for a broader involvement (of the people).

2. Partisan: Political campaigns for people to represent us (by the people)

3. Advocacy: Activism, issues related goals (for the people)

These three sets of goals are vastly different.

Extreme democracy then has to have systems and tools to satisfy those goals.

The tools are all the social software programs in use and being developed to foster the applications - communications, collaboration, conversation, deliberation, attraction, affinity, documentation, research, etc.

For me, if I can gain understanding of this three dimensional matrix, then I can begin to develop strategies and plans for the dissemination of the parts. And, of course, it needs a set of principles to guide everything.

I’d really like to hear for you. What do you think of the structure? What are some more of the elements? How can we begin to complete the matrix?

Paul
________________________

Systems

These are some systems to think about: There appears to be a matrix of possible social change. The approach can be tops down or bottoms up. Tops down is represented by the social entrepreneurship models. Bottoms up is represented by the extreme democracy models. But, you can also instigate social change by working to change people {inside to outside) or by working on systems (for example) (outside to inside). And, technology can be applied to all four of the resulting approach methods. This reminded me a change model that is interpreted through personality temperaments: SJ (sensor judge in MBTI) – guardians, NF (intuitive feelers) – idealists, SP (sensor perceptive) – artisans, and NT (intuitive thinkers) – rationalists. The change model says that there are four stages of change for groups of people – denial, resistance, exploration and commitment. The process starts with the denial; this is represented by the guardians of the past who fear the new. It then moves to resistance personified by the idealists who fear the disruption of established relationships. This is followed by exploration that is typified by the artisans who use their creativity to try many different options. The process ends with commitment personified by the rationalists who design the future. However, because of Gödel’s law, every system that has been rationalized and closed leaves residual errors, the process starts all over again. Somehow, these two systems are related but I can’t see it yet. The last system to consider is the seven capacities of the U movement from Presence. It follows the change process model somewhat. It doesn’t appear to have the guardian’s part. Suspending and redirecting are functions of idealists (poets). Letting go and letting come are functions of the artisans. Crystallizing, prototyping and institutionalizing are roles of the rationalist.

The U movement definitely is committed to an inside outside methodology. Some things to think about and talk about…

Paul
________________________________

A Summary of the Movement Action Plan (MAP) Model for Organizing Social Movements

From pages 17-25 of Grassroots and Nonprofit Leadership: A Guide for Organizations in Changing Times, by Berit Lakey, George Lakey, Rod Napier and Janice Robinson, as posted on the TRAINING FOR CHANGE website:

http://trainingforchange.org/content/view/133/39/. T

he MAP model is set forth in the book Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements by Bill Moyer with JoAnn McAllister, Mary Lou Finley and Steven Soifer (New Society Publishers, 2001: website: www.doingdemocracy.com/). Please note that the two graphics are scanned from this book.


The rich history of social movements means that we do not entirely have to make it up as we go along. We can learn from what worked and what didn’t, and the lessons from movements then inform the choices we make as we steer our organizations. The authors have learned a lot about the life cycle of movements from longtime organizer Bill Moyer, who worked with Dr. King on the staff of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, was a major strategist for the anti-nuclear power movement, and assisted a variety of other movements and organizations. From his study and experience Bill has created a model of how successful movements achieve their goals, the Movement Action Plan (MAP). MAP is a development model; that is, it shows how movements evolve, step by step. Just as we think about human beings with a development model (infancy, adolescence, middle age), so also it helps us think about our social change work to have a framework of stages. Of course MAP is only one way of looking at social movements. We have found it useful, especially in understanding how to steer an organization through the ups and downs of a cause. Bill has kindly allowed us to summarize his model for this book, and we recommend that you read it with the history of your issue in mind. First, a word about models. A model airplane is a simplified version of the real thing. You wouldn’t want to fly in it, but it gives you an idea of what it’s like and can even by useful for certain tests. An architect often builds a model of a building before the real thing goes up with all its complications. Like all models, MAP is a simplification of a very complex reality, and helps us to face reality with more clarity and perspective. Bill’s model shows us how the development stages of a successful movement relate to public opinion, so before we get into the internal life of the movement, we’ll take a quick overview of the public. Before there is a social movement around a certain injustice, the body politic seems to be asleep. The toxic waste is being routinely dumped, for example, with office holders looking the other way and public opinion preoccupied with other things. This is stage one.

Then stress builds and the body politic wakes up. In stages two, three, and four, more and more of the public notices what’s going on, and the offices holders get busy reassuring the public that they are taking care of the problem and it’s OK to go back to sleep. In each of stages two, three, and four, the movement’s growth is in a different place. By stages five and six the majority of the public agrees with the movement that change is needed (the war should be stopped, or nuclear power is too dangerous, for example). There’s a debate though, about possible alternatives. Stage five is a letdown time for activists, and can be tricky; some movements just die in this stage instead of moving ahead to success. At last comes success, in stages seven and eight. Many office holders are proclaiming that they really wanted these changes all along, while some of the holdouts are being voted out of office. New groups are spinning off the main reform movement to start the process all over again. Most of the public is glad to stop talking about civil rights, or Vietnam, or nuclear power, and go back to their individual concerns (which, from an activist’s point of view, looks like going back to sleep!). Stage One: Business as Usual Only a relatively few people care about the issue at this point, and they form small groups to support each other. Their objective: to get people thinking. They do their best to spread the word and often try small action projects.

Stage Two: Failure of Established Channels A major reason why most of the public does not inform itself and act on an injustice is that people think (or hope) that established structures are taking care of it. "Surely the government is watching out for the safety of our ground water supply." "The government is researching AIDS." "Corporation scientists know which chemicals are dangerous in our workplace and which are not." In this stage the small groups challenge the established channels. They often do research, or get victims of injustice to file formal complaints. They may sue governmental agencies, or use any opportunities to appeal that exist in the regulations. Usually the activists lose, at this stage, but it is very important that they take these steps. Stage two is essential for change, since large-scale participation will not happen as long as people believe in the established channels. In fact, you’ll find that, by stage two, polls show fifteen to twenty percent of public opinion is leaning toward a change.

Stage Three: Ripening Conditions/Education and Organizing Now the pace picks up considerably, because many people who earlier did not want to listen become interested. The movement creates many new groups who work on this issue, largely through education. The groups send speakers to religious groups and union halls; they do marches through their communities; they hold house meetings and news conferences. Much of the content of what they say is refuting powerholders’ claims: "People start pollution; people can stop it," "Radiation is not really all that bad for you," "Plenty is already being done to prevent AIDS." This stage can take a very long time or a short time, depending on many things, but constant outreach, through education and forming new groups is essential for the movement to take off. By now, polls show twenty to thirty percent agree that there is a problem or an injustice.

Stage Four: Takeoff This stage is usually initiated by a trigger event, a dramatic happening that puts a spotlight on the problem, sparking wide public attention and concern. Sometimes the trigger event is created by the movement. In 1963 the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, headed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., focused on Birmingham, Alabama, in a direct action campaign which filled the jails and highlighted the evils of segregation with vivid pictures of police dogs and fire hoses. The Birmingham campaign triggered a national and international response, which resulted in the passage of major civil rights legislation. Sometimes the trigger event just happens, like the near meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in 1979. Three Mile Island (TMI) precipitated massive nonviolent protest and propelled many new people into activity. Previous movement growth had been substantial, but TMI triggered a crisis atmosphere that brought depth and breadth to the movement. MAP shows that the takeoff stage needs the preparation of stages two and three. Nuclear power provides an example we can explore. Many years before TMI, the Fermi nuclear plant in the city of Detroit nearly melted down. A disaster similar or worse than TMI threatened then, yet there was no social crisis and spurt of antinuclear organizing. Why? Because there was no previous social movement challenging the normal channels (stage two) and no education and organizing (stage three). An event becomes a trigger event when a movement has first done its homework. Because of the high media profile in this stage, many people associate social change with stage four. Often one or more large coalitions form at this time. Celebrities join the movement, the powerholders are shocked by the new opposition and publicity and try to discredit the movement, and polls show forty to sixty percent of the public say they oppose the injustice or current policies. Activists often unrealistically expect a quick victory at this point and work around the clock. Long rambling meetings occur in which new people come and try to make decisions without the necessary procedures in place. The issue is seen in isolation from other issues. The objectives of stage four are to build and coordinate a new grassroots movement and to win over public opinion. Part of winning the public is connecting the demands of the movement with widely held values (like freedom, fairness, or democracy).

Stage Five: Perception of Failure There’s an old phrase: "Two steps forward, one step back." Stage five is the step back, in the perception of many activists. Numbers are down at demonstrations, the media pay less attention, and the policy changes have not yet been won. The powerholders’ official line is, "The movement failed." The media focuses on splits in the movement and especially on activities which offend public sensibilities. It is the excitement and lack of planning on stage four that create the sense of failure in stage five. By believing that success is at hand, activists can become disillusioned and despairing when they realize they aren’t there yet. Hoping the recapture the excitement and confidence of stage four, some groups create Rambo-style actions of anger and violence or become a permanent counterculture sect that is isolated and ineffective. Fortunately, a great many activists do not become discouraged, or if they do, accept it as part of the process. They treat it like rafters on a river who most of all love excitement of the white water, but also accept the slow times in between. Smart strategists lay out strategic, achievable and measurable objectives, and smart movements celebrate them as they achieve them along the way. The powerholders may try to crush the movement through repression at this point, even if they have felt constrained before by a civil liberties tradition. Even repression, however, can sometimes be responded to in the spirit of celebration, as a symptom of achievement.

Stage Six: Winning Over the Majority In this stage the movement transforms. Protest in crisis gives way to long-term struggle with powerholders. The goal is to win majority opinion. Many new groups, which include people who previously were not active, are formed. The new groups do grassroots education and action. The issue shows up in electoral campaigns, and some candidates get elected on this platform. Broader coalitions become possible, and mainstream institutions expand their own programs to include the issue. Until stage six, much of the movement’s energy was focused on opposition (to toxic waste, to war, to homelessness, etc.). In stage six, sixty to seventy-five percent of the public agrees on a need for change. There is no a vast audience ready to think about alternatives to existing policies, and the smart movement offers some. Mainstream institutions can be helpful at this point. One example comes from the anti-Vietnam War movement: universities responded to stage four with peace studies courses and departments, and during stage six many of the scholars involved began thinking about alternatives to the war system. The powerholders are not passive. They try to discredit and disrupt the movement, insist there is no positive alternative, promote bogus reforms, and sometimes create crisis events to scare the public. The powerholders themselves also become more split in this period. The dangers of this stage are: national organizations and staff may dominate the movement and reduce grassroots energy; reformers may compromise too much or try to deliver the movement into the hands of politicians; a belief may spread that the movement is failing because it has not yet succeeded.

Stage Seven: Achieving Alternatives Stages seven and eight could be called managing success. They are tricky, however, because the game isn’t over until it’s over. In stage seven, the goals are to recognize the movement’s success (not as easy as it sounds!)., the empower activists and their organizations to act effectively, to achieve a major objective or demand, and to achieve that demand within the framework of a paradigm shift — a new model or way of thinking about the issue. Goals or demands need to be consistent with a different way of looking at things: a new framework or paradigm. If a civil rights movement simply demands some changes of personnel in government, industry, or schools, it will get more women, people of color or lesbians and gays occupying functions that continue business as usual, including policies which oppress women, people of color, and gays. Social movements are usually much more creative than that, and project new visions of how things can be. A successful social movement, therefore, can gain objectives that, although grudgingly yielded by the powerholders, introduce a new way of operating and of being. Stage seven is a long process, not an event. The struggle shifts in this stage from opposing present policies to creating dialogue about which alternatives to adopt. The movement will have differences within itself about alternatives, and different groups will market different alternatives to the public. The central powerholders will try their last gambits, including study commissions and bogus alternatives, and then be forced to change their policies, have their policies defeated, or lose office. It’s not unusual for another trigger event to come along (the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown) or be created (the 1965 Selma freedom march in the civil rights movement), which gives increased energy to the cause and wins over still more allies. Each movement needs to develop an endgame which makes sense in terms of its own goals and situation. The fight against nuclear power is an example of change in which there was never a showdown in the United States Congress. Instead, the movement created enough obstacles in the U.S. market to result in a de facto moratorium on new plants, partly by showing them to be unacceptably costly.

Stage Eight: Consolidation and Moving On The movement leaders need to protect and extend the successes achieved. The movement also becomes midwife to other social movements. We saw growing out of the 1960s civil rights movement, the student movement, the anti-Vietnam war movement, the farm workers union, the women’s movement, the American Indian movement, and others. The long-term focus of stage eight is to achieve a paradigm shift, to change the cultural framework. The paradigm shift the civil rights movement initiated is still a major part of the U.S. agenda thirty-five years later: diversity as a positive value. In the 1950s, difference was shunned and feared. The rule was to conform. Even rock and roll was attacked as "a communist plot," because it was different from prevailing pop music. Ethnic minorities were taught to be as white and middle class as possible to fit in — that was their only hope (and not a large one) for acceptance. The momentum of the civil rights movement and the movements it midwived continues today as an often intense struggle to see difference differently and to create the structures and processes that make diversity a strength in building community. While the movement is consolidating its gains and dealing with backlash from those who never were persuaded, the poweholders are adapting to new policies and conditions and often claiming the movement’s success as their own. At the same time, they may fail to carry out agreements, fail to pass sufficient new legislation, or weaken the impact of new structures by appointing people who are resistant to the change. A major pitfall awaiting activists in stage eight, therefore, is neglecting to make sure of institutional follow-through. In this stage, the movement not only can celebrate the specific changes it has gained, but also can notice and celebrate the larger ripple effect it has in other aspects of society and even in other societies. The U.S. movement against nuclear movement was inspired by the mass occupations of construction sites by German environmentalists. On this shrinking planet, we get to learn from and inspire each other internationally.

If You Think You’re Lost, Check the Map The course of the river is winding, and sometimes it divides and goes in unexpected directions. Maybe you feel lost; maybe someone wants you to feel lost. Notice that powerholders generally continue the policy you are campaigning against, even while they secretly are laying plans to announce new policies and to prepare the public to accept them. They deliberately hide their defeat from the public, understandably. When you give in to discouragement, you are accepting their definition of the situation. You don’t need to — a strategic framework enables you to define the situation. The last four years of the anti-Vietnam War movement provide our example. The U.S. government stepped up its bombing of Vietnam, exceeding all the bombing of Europe in World War II, and publicly stated its commitment to continuing the war indefinitely. This visible, aggressive policy depressed most antiwar activists, who thought that their ten years of effort had been wasted. Activists did not know that the U.S. government was at the same time quietly beginning to give up the war. The United States began peace talks in Paris with the North Vietnamese. It then gave in to two key movement demands: withdrawing U.S. troops from Vietnam and ending the military draft. Movement activists saw these moves as irrelevant plots that undercut the movement’s opposition. In the last years, the anti-Vietnam War movement became totally depressed. Then, suddenly, the war ended. Former government officials have acknowledged that the movement was extremely effective in ending the war. To activists at the time, however, it felt just the opposite! You’re likely to find yourself beached on that same shore with those activists unless you have a stable strategic framework to use when your work seems discouraging. Check out the MAP — it may keep you going long enough to win!

From: Oliver Markley, Inward Bound

Paul
____________________________________

Training for Change

Since 1992 Training for Change has been committed to increasing capacity around the world for activist training. When we say activist training, we mean training that helps groups stand up more effectively for justice, peace and the environment. We deliver skills directly that people working for social change can use in their daily work.


http://trainingforchange.org/

Paul

______________________________________

Diffusion of Innovation

1. innovators
2. early adopters;
3. early majority;
4. late majority, and
5. laggards

The result is an s-curve:



Paul

_______________________________________


_______________________________________

Web 2.0

Web 2.0: "A set of technologies and applications that enable efficient interaction among people, content, and data in support of collectively fostering new businesses, technology offerings, and social structures."

According to Forrester, it is composed of enabling technolgies, core applications and features, and behavioral shifts.

"Core applications and features are fostering new social behavior, business models and cultures."

Topic Overview: Web 2.0, G. Oliver Young, Forrester, 2007

Paul

__________________________________________

Collaboration Platforms

Topic Overview: Collaboration Platforms, Erica Driver, Forrester, 2007


Paul

__________________________________________

Grassroots and Nonprofit Leadership: A Guide for Organizations in Changing Times

“Recognize that what you are doing is difficult, not just that you aren’t working hard enough or you are not smart enough. It is difficult.”

Develop an analysis of power: “Starhawk distinguishes among three kinds of power: power-over, power-from-within, and power-with.”

“Where there is fear, there is power.”

Focus your organizing on resources, not scarcity: “The suppressed anger, fear, and disappointment which most activist carry around can block us from perceiving resources that are right in front of face.”

Don’t forget that problems are the raw material of empowerment: “Social change leadership is a process of problem solving through which we gain the chance to tackle bigger problems (and also gain greater satisfaction through larger impact).”

“Problem solving, in short, is empowerment in action. Complaining about problems, on the other hand, dramatizes powerlessness.”

Provide services in a movement building context: “First, be clear whether your group wants to provide services to people or to organize them.”

“Second, make your choice about the mission in the context of the larger process of social movements. There is a history of grassroots groups agitating to change bad conditions, then getting grants to provide services to those hurt by the bad conditions. In the process, the group often loses its ability to fight for change in the structures that create the mistreatment in the first place.”

Ask the question: Who will pay?

When frustration mounts and you seem to be losing, go deeper: “…regard your frustration as a valuable symptom and pay attention to it. Frequently it’s a message…”

“As an individual activist, ‘go deeper’ means to connect vividly with your heritage.”

“On an organization level, ‘go deeper’ means to encourage community to emerge in the organization.”

“…the path to community is generally through a land called ‘chaos’. Therapist M. Scott Peck describes the process well in his book The Different Drum.”

“The chaos stage ends with a breakthrough into community – a stage of group development in which there is high productivity, high morale, and acceptance of cultural and personal differences.”

“Many activists don’t understand that individuals are rarely attracted to a cause as individuals – they are attracted as members of social circles.”

From: Grassroots and Nonprofit Leadership: A Guide for Organizations in Changing Times, Berit Lakey, George Lakey, Rod Napier and Janice Robinson, New Society Publishers, 1995

Paul


___________________________________


Well, I'm not as thorough as Paul, but I did set up a blog called Citizen Campaign Watch (http://www.citizencampaignwatch.wordpress.com) that several people can use to comment on the election over the next several months.

We could also hold a citizens national caucus. (I think I may have already suggested that.)

____________________________________
The Federal Idea

Different cultures give a different prominence to the idea of the individual, but one can sense a growing feeling of impotence, everywhere, in the face of institutions and government, local and global. Democracy used to mean that the people had the power, but now that translates into the people have the vote, which is not the same thing. The vote is an expression of last resort, a useful reminder to our rulers of the source of their bread and butter, but hardly a way for individuals to influence what is going on around them. Moreover, in the institutions of everyday life, particularly those of business, the only people with the vote are those outside, the financiers or the governors. Those who work in them are effectively disenfranchised. Democracy has its limits.

If we want to reconcile our humanity with our economics, we have to find a way to give more influence to what is personal and local, so that we can each feel that we have a chance to make a difference, that we matter. We have no hope of charting a way through those paradoxes unless we feel able to take some personal responsibility for events. A formal democracy will not be enough. We have to find another way, by changing the structure of our institutions to give more power to the small and to the local. We have to do that, with all the untidiness which it entails, while looking for efficiency, and the benefits of coordination and control. But more is needed than good intentions to empower the individual to do what we want him or her to do.

The structures and the systems have to change to reflect a new balance of power. That means federalism. Federalism is an old idea, but its time may have come again because it matches paradox with paradox. Federalism seeks to be both big in some things and small in others, to be centralized in some respects and decentralized in others. It aims to be local in its appeal and in many of its decisions, but national or even global in its scope. It endeavors to maximize independence, provided that there is a necessary interdependence; to encourage difference, but within limits; it needs to maintain a strong center, but one devoted to the service of the parts; it can, and should, be led from that center but has to be managed by the parts. There is room in federalism for the small to influence the mighty, and for individuals to flex their muscles.

We think of federalism as applying to countries-the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Canada. Her politicians might not admit it, but the United Kingdom is really a federation of its separate regions, as is Spain, and, increasingly, even France, as its regions gain more autonomy.

The concept, however, goes beyond countries. Every organization of any size can be thought of in federal terms. Hospitals, schools, local government, and most charities are, if we look at them with federal spectacles, made for federalism, local and separate activities bonded in one whole, served by a common center. All businesses of any size have federal propensities, and a need to be all the things which federalism offers. Why has such a good idea not been so obviously popular? Few businesses are consciously federal, nor does history provide many, if any, examples of a monarch or a central power voluntarily moving to a federalist structure. The hard truth is that we are always reluctant to give up power unless we have to, and federalism is an exercise in the balancing of power.

The federal idea is an example of the second curve, but one which too few institutions or societies develop until they are forced to. It is a very different, and very uncomfortable, way of thinking about organizations. It is messy, untidy, and always a little out of control. Its only justification is that there is no real alternative in a complicated world. No one person, or group, or executive, is so all-wise and so all-sensitive to be able to balance the paradoxes on their own, or run the place from the center, even if people were prepared to allow them to. We have to allow space for the small and the local. Federalism relies on a set of Chinese contracts between its various parts and operates through doughnuts of varying size and shape, which leave, of necessity and of right, considerable space for local decisions. The goals of the parts have to adjust to the requirements of the whole, and vice versa. No one in a federal organization can have everything exactly as they want it. Therefore, it is an excellent example of putting the preaching of this book into practice, with all its difficulties as well as opportunities. Let us be clear, federalism is not the easiest of concepts to make work, or to understand. Yugoslavia is hardly an advertisement for the concept, nor is Canada. California is creaking under an excess of federalism from within and without. IBM proclaims its conversion to the idea, but may not be its most successful exponent in the years ahead. A federal Europe frightens many, and not just in Britain.

Nevertheless, we have to persevere because it is the best way to return some sense of meaning to our larger institutions, a way of connecting their purposes with their people. Much of the confusion and difficulty arises from a misunderstanding of what federalism is. A confederation, for example, is not the same thing as a federation. A confederation is an alliance of interested parties who agree to do some things together. It is a mechanism for mutual advantage. There is no reason for sacrifice or trade-offs or compromise unless it is very obviously in one's own interest. A confederation is not an organization that is going anywhere, because there is no mechanism or will to decide what that anywhere might be. The Confederation of Independent States, which replaced the Soviet Union, will never be an effective body. The British Commonwealth, another confederation, is a thing of sentiment and language, not a real organization. These are not the stuff of federalism . Confederations adapt when they have to, usually too late. They do not lead, nor do they build. They are organizations of expediency, not of common purpose. The British would like Europe to remain an economic confederation, a common market. Many in the rest of Europe want a more federal state, one with a greater common purpose, within which sacrifices and compromises are acceptable, one in which the rich are readier to help the poorer, one with common standards and common aspirations. What is true of Europe is also true of organizations. Alliances, joint ventures, and networks are the tools of confederations, arrangements of mutual convenience, inevitably fragile as the conveniences change. Organizations with a clear purpose will want to be federal, not confederal.

The distinction is important. The key concepts in federalism are twin citizenship and subsidiarity. They are old ideas, re-invented for today's world.

From: The Age of Paradox, Charles Handy, 1995

Paul