The curiosity of Europeans about the ability to realize the dream of David Cameron's Big Society is very large. In recent months, British Prime Minister has proclaimed a goal ambitious: to transform Britain into a structured, never seen, the original Big Society, under "the greatest redistribution of power from Whitehall to the elite men and women of the street." In essence, while the state stands aside, will the local communities, with funds made available by the Society Big Bank and the participation of ordinary citizens more enterprising, to manage, to give some examples, public transport, collection waste, the preservation of parks and so forth, becoming the de facto system of government of the United Kingdom. Big
Society, subsidiarity is true? Cameron said, inter alia: "This land is full of untapped talent, men and women capable of leading their lives. Fostering volunteerism, philanthropy and social action. There are things that a prime minister is because duty calls, reduce debt is one of them. Others, like the Big Society, because they are the heart and passion to push it. "
Immediately, the Economist has willingly offered his endorsement. Which is not surprising when you consider that the authoritative British daily the last Labour government was responsible for over-spending policies. And the action of the outgoing Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been criticized for being that of an old-fashioned socialist. Conversely, in Cameron's vision, the local community and civil society represent the most appropriate size to support the individual, the best tool to allow people to take action in a lean, not bureaucracies, to better address the different needs of each.
The "power to the people," one of the most appealing slogan of Cameron, means just that people and groups of citizens can only manage a variety of functions traditionally had a monopoly of the state. And this seems to have the strength to break the traditional ideological barriers and the old distinctions between left and right. Also because of the evident traces of autonomy with respect to social policy are present in all political cultures, be they liberal or conservative imprint. Obviously, however, things are more complex than they appear.
cuts in public spending
First, the impetus for the Big Society must be contextualized in a situation characterized by a very painful choice to reduce the government's' huge debt and massive doses at once. The Cabinet of Cameron is planning cuts in public spending up to 40% in many areas, cuts that will force people to pay more for public services, to extend working lives, to have lower pensions in the future. At this point the criticism of the Labour party at home, but of all the left in Europe and in Italy are very violent. Criticisms that have also affected the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, accused of populism for asking all citizens to make their proposals on how to cut public spending by using a dedicated website. Just the Labour opposition has criticized this move, "designed to deceive people and make people believe that there is popular support for spending cuts planned by the government." But the British liked the idea: the Spending Challenge started June 24 and since then has received 45 thousand including 100 thousand suggestions and concrete proposals on how to save by eliminating those administrative tasks that are unnecessary, redundant and costly. The advice has been passed to respective ministries to be evaluated.
The welfare that we should expect
Secondly, it begins to get the idea that the sixty-year cycle of growth in Western democracies has been interrupted and that our assumptions of wealth, affluence and social services should be reconsidered. 'S current financial crisis has little to do. Unlikely that we will enjoy more wealth and strength that allowed us to build generous welfare systems, by simply increasing taxes and government spending. Member of the developed world will not have the funds necessary to keep them standing. All governments, of whatever political hue, will require greater sharing of citizens, an increase of the social responsibilities of individuals and businesses, and greater ability to produce services, greater independence from government, a collective effort to build new social bonds. Most likely, the Big Society is also based on this calculation.
In fact, it is very difficult to understand what Cameron is today if only a slogan to digest significant cuts in public employment and public assistance. Just as it is difficult to say if there were any serious intentions vice versa, if this challenge is won. It is certain, however, that the British political culture there seems historically more than equipped to deal with the Italian issue of transfer of powers and responsibilities from the state to citizens.
conditions to meet the challenge successfully
There are at least three conditions for a target of this magnitude can be approached and achieved.
The first condition is the existence of a widespread civic dimension in the country. There is no mention here of civic or civic virtues for which it is always very hard to make objective assessments. In this case, means that environment favorable civic dimension (attitudes, behaviors, views of reality, technologies, practices, organizational models, professional patterns, climate of acceptance and trust, norms and rules) to the presence and action of citizens in public life. In this sense, in Italy there is a deep dichotomy, for example, between the high level of confidence that the people expressed towards civic organizations and cultural mistrust, the barriers to corporate practices and injunctions that the national ruling classes (in the professions , media, universities, government and politics) have towards civic activism.
The second condition is the existence of civic organizations capable of assuming power and responsibility in the public sphere, participating in the development, implementation and evaluation of policies. From this point of view, the news is certainly encouraging. As demonstrated by significant studies, the phenomenon of active citizenship in Italy has grown a lot in recent years, both quantitatively and qualitatively, especially in the South Italy can rely on social promotion, the reality of the voluntary organizations to protect the rights, environmental movement, able to exert a strong impact in many key areas of daily life: social tracking helper, environmental protection, quality of services and so forth. In view of the Big Society remains, however, an important element of weakness highlighted in 2008 the first edition of the Civil Society Index, which is the lack of resources (Structural, economic, financial, technical, etc.).. Resources without which it is very difficult for the "society" can really become "big."
The third prerequisite is the existence of political-administrative institutions efficient and effective. Because in reality the state is able to meet the challenge of Big Society must be raised by the weight of its own bureaucracies and that they increase their productivity, without waste and in a context of transparency. Arguments apparently discounted, but we know how many elements are opposed. But there's more and it is a question nullifying: the political-administrative authorities should be mainly "catalysts" and "capacitated". In other words, their primary mission should be the empowerment of its citizens. Nothing strange in theory, if you think that this mission is very clearly written in Article .118 last paragraph of the Constitution. Very complicated, in fact, because it means asking the state - and the lower classes that benefit - a reduction of powers and increased responsibilities that no ruling class - right or left - can accept.
The debate in Italy
Instead of dealing with these issues, the debate on the Big Society has now reduced to little stuff. The majority of observers watching from a distance, like a dim reflection of cultures and distant lands. A large gray zone of potential players they are apathetic, including those segments of the political progress that should have more courage in meeting the new challenges inherent in such. And so, eventually, create the two extreme parties.
On the one hand, critics (a priori) that you read in the usual attempt to dismantle the state and cut public places. Among them, unfortunately, many people left that is even expected to boast a long tradition of independent initiative with respect to social policy and should appreciate that, contrary to market logic, the idea Self-government organization from the bottom of the commons. It appears that rather frightened by the progressive end of the command and administrative centralism: the Big Society is a trick used to cover severe cuts with the rhetoric of the new citizenship.
other hand, are the fans who sing the magnificent and progressive of the proposal, often in order to justify an approach to subsidiarity, which remains highly questionable. Indeed, in theory - but one might say, with just a hint of controversy in the "practical" - this position, the civil society has a way of corporate management and the provision of public goods: they move in almost-profit entities who presume to guarantee freedom of choice for users, but actually led to new forms of de facto discrimination. In addition, the State, which also apparently withdraws by the direct supply of such goods, posing as a negotiator and contractor, often through contiguity less than transparent, thereby maintaining a pervasive role of dominus, although all 'internal logic partisan. As part of the political-administrative institutions - both regionally and at the level of national government - there are exponents of this approach.
The Big Society of unresolved
Worse still, the fans of the uncritical Big Society forget to evaluate, with the necessary seriousness and realism, the numerous unresolved nodes from that perspective, especially in terms of ongoing responsibility of the institutions, access to universal rights of citizens to make effective tools for empowerment civic organizations.
In particular, the first consideration is the state's role in strengthening the capacity of citizens to participate in the governance of public policies. In reality, if indeed the State, as required by the principle of subsidiarity, it would encourage and support civic organizations, to fill their structural weaknesses, technical and financial resources, increase their ability to influence the life of the country in different policy areas, with an investment territorial capillary, the effort required, in cultural, administrative and business is certainly not modest. In short, "capacitive" citizens is a responsibility of institutions is costly and represents a real public policy.
resources available to the Big Bank Society in the UK or the Foundation for the South in Italy are nothing compared to the goals they should achieve.
Secondly, to give space to civil society, can not mean losing sight of the goal to achieve and maintain throughout the national territory a high quality of answers and a minimum of spatial homogeneity is needed to grow the country and lessen the inequalities between the region and the region. It is true that today the issue of access, universality and equal protection of the rights now seems almost exclusively deal of civic organizations. But it is also true that public institutions - for reasons of capacity and actual resources available - they could not refrain from intervention and massive investments in various sectors (education, research, infrastructure, health and social services, utilities, etc.). with the dual purpose of accompanying civic initiatives and to enable the country to move together towards a shared objective.
0 comments:
Post a Comment