Innlegg i Dagsavisen/MOM 17/10 – 03

"Folkestyret må få nye former"

I den seinere tid har mange pekt på mulige årsaker til at vanlige valg og partipolitikk engasjerer folk flest i så liten grad. Den praktiske utfordring er likevel "å gjøre det mulig for folk flest å engasjere seg i løsningen av mange av de oppgavene som er viktig for dem". Det sier Per Kleppe i sin invitasjon til dialog om saken (Dagsavisen 24/9). Han foreslår der å lage et nytt styringsapparat på nærmiljønivå i hver kommune.

Ja, dialogen kan lettere bli praktisk nyttig ved å gå ut fra et slikt alternativ til løsning. Det gjelder å forbedre kvaliteten av den i dag stort sett uformelle "samtalen" mellom de som styrer kommunen og nærmiljøene (grendelagene). For oss alle er denne kommunikasjonen minst like viktig som den mellom stat og kommune.

I stedet for et nytt styringsnivå kunne imidlertid kommunene sjøl legge til rette for mer direkte demokrati i nærmiljøene uten at det bestemmes fra nasjonalt hold. Viktige virkemidler innen kommunene kan være reell delegering av ansvar, tilretteleggere av prosesser og eksemplets makt (f.eks. dynamiske voteringsregler). Kommunen og nærmiljøene kan mer systematisk opptre som lærende organisasjoner og lære av hverandre. Elementer i en slik utvikling synes naturlige når de først prøves. Et eksempel er e-dialogen mellom politikere og innbyggere i Hole kommune (et KS-opplegg). Et annet er integreringen av akutt- og forebyggende tiltak i den enkelte skole (sentral i nærmiljøet) med hjelp av barnas egne verktøy mot mobbing (No1Out, Redd Barna).

Både internasjonalt og i Norge foregår det i dag mye lovende utviklingsarbeid som peker mot en mer helhetlig syntese av gamle og nye former for deltakende og fleksibel kommunikasjon. Her kan staten spille en rolle i å gi tilsvarende føringer for forskning og undervisning på tvers av alle sektorer og nivå.

Truls W. Gedde-Dahl

Fondet for Lokale helseforsøk

This is a response to a contribution from a well-known earlier Norwegian minister of finance - Per Kleppe. He courageously suggested that Norway may introduce neighbourhoods within the municipalities as a new level of formal governance. He thus hopefully made parliament politicans and researchers more consciuos about the great importance of this "lowest" level.

"Our democracy must get new forms"

Lately many have pointed out possible causes for ordinary people loosing engagements in routine elections and party politics. The practical challenge is, however, "to make it possible for most citizens to engage in solving many of the challenges which are of importance to them". Thus Per Kleppe invited to a dialogue on the topic (Dagsavisen 24/9). He proposed to introduce a new level of governance based on the neighborhoods within the municipalities.

Yes, dialogue can more easily be solution-focused by starting from such an alternative for a solution. The issue is to improve the quality of the present mostly informal "conversation" between those who govern the municipality and the people in the natural smaller neighborhoods. To us all this communication as least as important as that between our state and our municipality.

An alternative to a new formal level of governance could be that the municipalities themselves promoted more direct democracy in their constituencies without orders from the national level. Important tools within the municipalities may be true delegation of responisbilities, assist them with trained process facilitators and with the power of their own conduct (i.a. dynamic voting rules). The municipality and the neighborhoods can more consciously behave as learning organisations and learn from each other. – They seem so natural when they first are tried – the elements in such a development. One example is the e-dialogue between the politicans and the citizens in Hole municipality (facilitated by a technichal setup promoted by the association of municipalities). Another is the integration of acute and preventive actions in some individual schools (so central in each neighborhood) with the help of antimobing tools which the youngsters themselves have developed (No1Out, Save the Children Norway).

Both internationally and in Norway one may today see much promising work on development processes which points to a more holistic synthesis of participatory and flexible communication. Here the state can play a rôle in giving corresponding support for research and education across the exsisting sectors and levels in our society.

Truls W. Gedde-Dahl , Foundation for Local Health Trials

Both universities and municipalities may discover that it is preferable to develop as "learning organisations" .

Our tentative suggestion of naming different formative evaluations is hinted as follows:

There PLA =Participatory Learning and Action was used as an reference methodology (PLA is to be formative as the terms "learning + action" indicate.) PLA used only as an end evaluation is not a traditional summative evaluation because it in fact will be a start stage evaluation for continued actions.

Short headings helps little, it is how well under a special context the ideals of participatory experience-based reformation of aims and processes is carried out that counts.