LC 00351

The democratic and strategic processes steer, control, and implement the assessment process with the use of the assessment framework. Whereas all stakeholders can and should be involved in and hold a responsibility for the implementation and reflection process, the same does not hold for the democratic and strategic processes. Not every stakeholder is in the position to directly influence or change the assessment process. There are different actors at stake. As ST follows the basic democratic principles these are for example the local council (democratic process) and the college of mayor and aldermen (strategic process) at the level of the municipality. At the level of the province: the provincial states and the provincial executives. On national level: the house of representatives and the Senate. All these members are mandated to represent and act in the interest of their inhabitants/voters. Political parties are represented in for example college, they determine the color (direction) of where we are heading. Often this chosen direction is the result of a compromise through exchange of views and distribution of means. Most western democracies are representative (indirect) democracies based on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people.

When looking at organizations this does not differ greatly. A small group is designated to serve the interest of different stakeholders (both internally, their employers, as well as externally, the population they serve). They determine the direction they are moving and translate this into rules and regulations.

(Lack of) validation of shared meaning

Let us take the municipality as an example. The local council is responsible of representing people, establishing a framework to govern, and controlling that the municipal administration implement policies within the demarcations set out in the framework. The different types of roles and tasks government holds put the local council in a unique position which brings along both privileges as well as great responsibilities. The (local) government often has to deal with conflicting interests and unclear responsibilities. It is a linking pin between different stakeholders. Sometimes having a clear responsibility but often not even in the position to be the decisive party. It has to find a balance between its representative and facilitating side and its controlling/repressive side.

As it has to represent all groups within its community it will have to listen to all of these parties. Both the implementation process as well as the reflection process give important input for the democratic and strategic process. As discussed before, the outcome of these processes could not easily be put aside by governance authorities. As they represent all inhabitants of a community, a widely accepted advice coming from this community itself, could hardly be ignored. It is up to government to translate this advice into a concrete framework, which in the end, will be set out into, for example, new policies.

These tasks and responsibilities are not new nor are they currently subject to change. Social Theory tries to facilitate, and if needed change, the execution of them.  ST is about taking responsibility, about truly trying to involve all stakeholders, about trying to find shared meaning.  (Local) government holds a responsibility in trying to explicate cultural identity and shared meaning and using this as the basis for decision making. The democratic and strategic process are the place to do so. In practice however, the hustle of everyday life and need for quick solutions for problematic situations overpowers the necessity to take a closer look at our cultural identity and making long term decisions. Validation of shared meaning (truly questioning whether the way we are heading is what all stakeholders believe is the right way to go) is often not the main focus.

Whereas local government is the owner of the democratic and strategic process, it, preferably, is not the owner of the reflection process. This might diminish the authority of the assessment framework. However, it can stimulate or facilitate this process or, even when not involved before, use the outcomes within the democratic and strategic process. However, only when one understands the importance of such processes and the role and responsibility one holds, a closer look at shared meaning will be taken.

Moving towards a deliberative democracy

ST believes that the democratic and strategic processes should best be formed with the basics a deliberative type of democracy in mind. Within these processes a broad dialog should be possible and moving between verification and validation should be common. A deliberative democracy focusses on cultural identity and long term decision making. When confronted with large scale challenges, such as climate change, such long term decisions are necessary. As these challenges cannot be addressed over short periods of times and constant change of direction is not desirable and will be counterproductive or even harmful.

Iterative process

As discussed within the paragraph on the implementation process their might be situations in which the assessment framework turns out to be the barrier for sustainable change. It no longer matches current believes on what is the right way to go and needs adjustment in order to make change possible. Once the democratic and strategic process have been finished and a shared meaning has been translated into an adjusted assessment framework, new room for change can be found within the implementation process. Over time, as shared meaning is not static and will change, the need to reassess our cultural identity might come to the surface and the SI process will have to start over. In fact, a SI process is a never ending process because a society has to adapt to changing circumstances continuously.

• Lees hiervoor:
  Reflection Process
• Lees hierna:
  Iterative process - from verification to validation