Tom Dale and Anne-Marie O’Reilly, members of the Oxford University People & Planet group until 2006, write:
Anne-Marie O’Reilly
We believe that democracy is People and Planet’s core value. We want to build a more democratic world, and want to do so while practising, and involving ourselves in, a participatory democracy. There is still a vast amount of scope for increasing democracy in the network; currently, the organisation is falling significantly short of being truly student-led. In this article we present some preliminary suggestions as to how P&P can work to be more democratic. We hope that other network members will have their own thoughts, and that over the next few years we can work together towards a more vibrant, effective and democratic network.
But first we feel it is important to restate some key benefits of a democratic network. Students become more empowered, and our knowledge and insights will shape the campaigns we run. The more we engage in discussions about fundamental organisational and political questions, the more a culture of radical analysis will emerge to inform our action. As we argue in a companion article in this issue, this is essential if we are to realistically tackle problems we care about.
The Management Committee
The sovereign body of People & Planet is the management committee (MC). Its decisions have significant implications for the nature of the network since it oversees resource allocation for all areas of the support office’s work and approves the overall organisational strategy. The committee is composed of six representatives from NGOs and six students who are elected by the network at the forum, as well as the director of People and Planet. This is intended to ensure that students have key input into important decisions. There are, however, several ways in which the decisions it makes could be made more democratic:
If People and Planet is to be student-led, in theory students should be in a majority on the MC. At the moment only about three or four students usually attend, which means that student input into organisational decisions can be minimal. This should be tackled by electing a higher number of students to the committee; if current attendance rates are an indicator, ten elected representatives would be required to ensure a majority.
The representative role of student members should be clarified: they should actively seek the opinions of the network and it should be possible for the network to recall any member of the MC through appropriate structures.
The minutes of the meetings should be published on the website in an accessible format, so that the network is aware of what is being discussed, and people can contact their elected representatives to make sure their views are heard.
Students should be empowered to bring proposals to MC and contribute to discussions with confidence. This will require greater contact between the office and MC members (such as was proposed by last year’s working group on democracy). More than the current four meetings a year might be required to ensure that every important organisational decision can be properly addressed.
The Forum and beyond
Currently the scope of democracy at the forum is very limited: it is used for consultations on existing and prospective campaigns, according to terms and a timetable set by the management team (which is composed of senior office staff). Fundamental issues about the direction of P&P — such as those contained in this article — are not raised as a matter of course at Forums. The recently implemented system, whereby the network can make campaign proposals to be considered at The Forum and a working group including students short-lists them, is a step in the right direction. However, since this is the key democratic event for the network, much deeper reforms are desirable. For instance:
The agenda should be set by students. Groups should be able to bring motions/topics to The Forum and those that could not be discussed at the forum could be forwarded to the Management Committee.
A student working group, in consultation with the office, should set the final timetable.
Opportunities for dialogue should be extended beyond The Forum. Working groups, including students, which are accountable to the network should be involved in the more detailed working out of decisions reached at the forum.
The Office
The democracy working group that reported last year did not address internal office democracy. However, if as a network we really care about empowerment and democracy, shouldn’t this be reflected in our internal structures as well?
Currently, no interns or permanent staff (other than the director) from the central office sit on management committee. Staff, who are most aware of organisational issues, only have input into major decisions through the office management consultation structures. The risk of this approach is that what goes forward from those discussions is filtered through the perspectives of the management team (who run P&P day-to-day), so that perspectives of fundamental importance to the direction People and Planet takes could be lost.
Serious thought should be given to what structures should be adopted in the office: one possibility would be that P&P became a legally constituted as a democratic workers’ co-op — a body which is managed (and often owned) by its workers, meaning that they would discuss and vote on issues, and perhaps have a say over appointments. There should be a minimum of two staff members on the management committee, at least one of whom is an intern.
Money and Democracy
People & Planet needs money to operate, to sustain the events where members take decisions and to support campaigning. But we have to be aware that the way in which P&P fundraises is fundamental. There are certain fundraising trends that could seriously change the nature of the network. It is important that these are discussed clearly and that we democratically decide on the direction the organisation pursues rather than realising in ten years time that People and Planet has lost its unique identity and it not the organisation we would have wanted it to be.
Corporate funding
The plans to seek funding from ‘corporates’ may lead in a direction which compromises the network. While currently such fundraising is within fairly strict guidelines, dependence on corporate funding could gradually lead to seeking funds from companies that do not fit the restricted ‘ethical’ categories. This could mean we face a difficult debate in future: keep our principles or cut activity. More worryingly, if the changes are gradual, these issues might not come up for debate and the network could be radically altered without explicit consideration. For this reason, it is important that we take heed of possible trends now, and make sure that we make our decisions accordingly.
6th Form Funding Constraints
It is much easier to get money to work with 6th Form than University students (which can be pitched as related to the government’s ‘citizenship’ agenda). This means that considerations about what constitutes a viable project are constrained by assumptions about what is ‘suitable’ for 6th Form groups. Significant P&P resources are being put towards looking at how are work can fit curriculum requirements. It is important to ask ourselves: are we happy to have more of a focus on active citizenship than radical campaigning? To do the former probably isn’t a bad thing, but there are plenty of other organisations that do it — should P&P lose its uniqueness and become another?
It is important that the network is aware of and able to respond to these issues. The situation is unlikely ever to be ideal, but there are several ways in which we could address fundraising constraints on democracy:
There are many skilled graduates and undergraduates in the network who are capable of undertaking research into new campaigns. Many groups have run independent campaigns, acquiring skills and knowledge that could be shared with the network. Developing ways in which the office can facilitate network communication and support these campaigns is essential if the network is to ensuring campaigns are student-led, and we are campaigning as effectively as possible.
Currently, if P&P groups fundraise, the majority of the money is given to other charities. However, if we believe that campaigning for structural change with P&P is the most effective way of working for a better world, isn’t resourcing P&P also important? It is unlikely that P&P could ever be entirely self-sufficient, drawing its funds solely from the network without severely jeopardising the amount of work that students can put into campaigns. However, significant steps in this direction are really important if we want our network to be democratic.
It may be that if external fundraising trends lead in a direction that is not consistent with our vision of the organisation, we could make the decision to accept less resources in exchange for greater focus and integrity. Several other NGOs are currently developing university and sixth form projects; if we lost our distinctiveness as a student-led, radical, democratic network then it’s not clear that it would be necessary for P&P to continue as an organisation.
Clarifying democratic processes
The division of power between the Management Committee, the office Management Team, the Forum, working groups, office staff and the People and Planet Trust needs to be clarified and the extent to which it is democratic must be assessed. Several examples illustrate the importance of this:
Several Scottish groups are keen to establish a Scottish support office in order to respond to Scotland’s unique campaigning, fundraising and educational opportunities. Even if they were able to fundraise to establish this post themselves, it is not clear what process would be required in order for this to be approved by the support office. There is a tension between group autonomy and demands on office resources that result when groups pursue their own projects.
The Management Team decided certain things were beyond the remit current organisational strategy. For example, that ‘campaigning will continue to address global issues, not student-specific or local issues’.
Apart from the fact that the distinction between global and local issues is far from clear given the local impacts of the global economic system, this limits the scope of democratic decisions at forums in the future.
A clarification of existing processes and a commitment to developing a more student-led, democratic structure is essential.
Conclusion
This probably seems like a pretty dry document, given that it’s intended to pursue a vision of a radical, empowering and democratic student movement. However, if we are committed to changing the world in participatory and empowering ways, then the structures People and Planet adopts are key and it is important, that we, as network members, are aware of and responsible for them.
There are lots of things we as a network can do now:
We should share our thoughts as a network! Join the online forum and start some discussions. Organise regional days of workshops which bring together different political and strategic perspectives and allow time for discussion. Contribute to this journal.
Share our resources and skills on our independent campaigns with other groups - the key organiser’s mailing-list, the forum, and hopefully by the start of the next academic year, the P&P website are key ways of doing this!
Speak to your regional reps, interns and office staff about your thoughts on democracy in the network, and come to next year’s Shared Planet conference and Forum armed with lots of ideas about how you think democracy in the network should work.
Respond to this article on the network-run web forum.