By Christopher T. Gates

This article was published in Museum News, May/June 2001.

When the founders of the National Civic League¹ (NCL) first convened in Philadelphia on Jan. 25, 1894, the condition of America’s local government weighed heavily on their minds. America’s democracy at the local level was broken. Local government was corrupt. Nepotism, favoritism, and payoffs were rampant in cities all across the country. As a result, local governments were unable to address the challenges they faced. Distrust was created between citizens and the government that was meant to serve them.

NCL’s founders saw the organization as a way to bridge the “disconnect” between local government and its constituents, which was critical to rebuilding America’s democracy. They focused on two critical topics: finding ways to professionalize local government and advocating what Teddy Roosevelt called “self government,” where citizens play a key part in making communities work.

Today, America’s democracy is once again in need of repair. It is difficult for communities to meet the challenges they face. Such complicated issues as poverty, race, jobs, the environment, crime, and education now dominate the local problem-solving agenda.

Exacerbating this situation are a host of underlying conditions that further hamper problem-solving efforts.

Frustrated and Angry Citizens. Community leaders cite low voter turnout and limited attendance at public hearings as evidence of apathy. But citizens aren’t apathetic; they are frustrated and angry. They care a great deal about democracy, but feel that their participation simply doesn’t matter. Citizens are angry and fed up with politics and politicians; trust has been eroded instead of infused. As a result, they have made conscious decisions to devote their time to areas they feel they can have an impact on, such as family, churches, schools, and youth sports.

“Presumption of Bad Intent.” Thirty years ago citizens trusted their leaders to represent their interests. They understood that governmental service was often undertaken at a personal sacrifice; when politicians made policy recommendations, it was understood they did so with the community’s interest in mind. Today, no matter how worthy or well-intentioned an idea, a “presumption of bad intent” is often directed at the government official(s) offering the solution. People assume politicians must have some ulterior motive or hidden agenda. No matter who is responsible for the suspicions—the media, other elected officials, or citizens—it results in a community that functions on negative assumptions and a fear that severely limits its ability to address the challenges it faces.

Negative Media. Communities across the country see the media as a barrier to getting things done. The media has become fixated on the sensational—highlighting disagreements, ignoring those who work together to find common ground, looking for ways to discredit ideas and people. Efforts to produce social change are often de-emphasized or overlooked. The media plays a powerful role in creating the state of the community psyche. This inclination toward the negative perpetuates the public’s cynicism, suspicion, and anger; people begin to lose faith in the possibility of positive change.

Dysfunctional Politics. People used to believe social change could occur through political activity. Today, for many community members, politics has become a target of jokes, sarcasm, and cynicism. Media and community members mock politicians and the political process. Many people seem to be more interested in the entertainment value of politics—focusing on sensational events and "celebrity gossip"—rather than on the substantive issues that will make a difference in their lives. Like the other dynamics, dysfunctional politics provide the public with a number of reasons for not becoming more involved in their communities.

When all these conditions are present, the result is a non-functioning, unhealthy community. Nothing gets done. A negative media reports on the ineffectiveness of political leaders. The media spotlight raises suspicion and cynicism within the community and helps perpetuate a presumption of bad intent. The presumption of bad intent fuels the frustration and anger of citizens who choose not to get involved and instead focus on other things they perceive they can control. Dysfunctional politics has seen its most effective response in a different model of community democracy. The current political environment has devolved to the point where solving community issues ends up as a zero-sum fight with different interests choosing sides.

Energy is spent on winning the fight rather than developing a solution that all interests are willing to support and help implement.

In response to the growing litany of local changes, several new community problem-solving approaches emerged during the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s. Each of these approaches, if combined with the others, can provide a valuable building block for constructing a new model of community democracy.

Public-Private Partnerships. In the 1970s, building partnerships across the sectors of government and business was a popular way of addressing community problems. Many community leaders established public-private investment partnerships to meet economic community challenges, which helped to revitalize neighborhoods in some towns and cities. With that success, the public-private sector economic development model was adapted to address challenges such as education, crime, and health care.

The Emergence of Nonprofits. At the same time, nonprofits began to emerge as the keepers of the grass-roots community interest. Increased social needs combined with limited government resources called for a greater contribution of time, money, and services from community institutions. The fact that nonprofits were community-based made the needs of the community the driving force of their work. In the 1980s, communities began to treat the nonprofit sector as a full partner in the process of community problem-solving.

The Rise of Citizen Activism. By the 1990s, citizens were speaking out for more involvement in the decisions and projects that affected their lives. An increasingly diverse group of people not only demanded that they be included at the “decision-making table,” but insisted on having real decision-making authority. Citizens soon found, however, that the power they were able to wield was largely negative, often no more than the ability to say “no” and obstruct community actions that had been initiated without citizen participation.

It has become apparent that the problem-solving approaches that gained prominence in the 1970s and ’80s are insufficient for meeting the increasingly complex problems our communities face today. The private-public sector model often led to partnerships dominated by the power players who traditionally held influence within the community. Though nonprofit agencies were the instigators of change at the community level, they were never viewed by the public-private sector as true partners in the decision-making process. Finally, although citizen activists were demanding to have greater say in community decision-making, they lacked the power to facilitate positive problem-solving.

If communities are to counteract the environment of dysfunctional politics and effectively address local problems, all sectors of a community, including the cultural sector, must work in concert toward a common end. The issues facing America’s communities are too complex for government to resolve on its own. Public-private partnerships alone cannot be expected to resolve local problems. Business is becoming more national, and international, in scope and is less connected to local concerns. Nonprofit organizations are often issue-based—formed to address the specific needs of each different population or neighborhood that exists within a community. The successful communities of the 21st century will be those that encourage business, government, and nonprofit groups to work with citizens to help a community reach its collective goals and meet its common challenges.

For business, government, nonprofits, and citizens to work together effectively, “civic” or “safe” spaces must be created. These are places where individuals with diverse perspectives are brought together by leaders to resolve differences and develop strategies to address complex issues. There are already plenty of spaces to fight, blame, and take sides in our communities; safe spaces allow people to focus on public deliberation and consensus-building.

Any individual, organization, or institution can create a safe space. Former NCL chairman John W. Gardner referred to these conveners as “community guardians.” Community guardians are those individuals who rise above the fray and convene different groups to focus on the greater good of the community. They are willing to frame the tough issues and ask the right questions rather than provide all the answers.

For community guardians to be credible, they must include key players from all sides; ask the tough questions and allow the group to determine the answers; and focus on building agreements while acknowledging differences. The participants in civic/safe spaces must be willing to ask challenging questions, provide honest answers, find agreements, and undergo tough self-analysis.

This new model of citizen democracy can sometimes be messy and time consuming. Building agreement among individuals with different points of view requires patience and strong listening abilities. Finding those issues that diverse perspectives agree on takes time, as does addressing them in a supportive manner.

Communities using this new model, however, have found they actually save time on the “back end” of the problem-solving process. Because different points of view are heard and agreements established in an inclusive manner “up front,” the implementation has greater buy-in and goes more smoothly and quickly. This “go-slow-to-go-fast” model also facilitates future problem-solving efforts because it helps build and enhance the community’s civic infrastructure, and new relationships, skills, and networks are created in the process of working together.

Any community seeking to move toward this new form of democracy can expect struggle and frustration. But there are many examples of communities that have adopted this new model of citizen democracy and, in the process, achieved seemingly unreachable goals. These communities reaffirm our belief that every community has the ability and wisdom to address any issue it faces.

If our society and our communities are seeking ways to bring people together, help them develop trust and reciprocity, and determine the future of our democracy, museums must be part of this effort. Museums are boundby a common goal to create institutions that are successful, relevant, and supportive of their communities. But the conversations they are having now about their relationship to the community are part of a broader question: What role will museums play in the reinvention of our democracy?

Successful communities understand that addressing challenges requires skills different from those employed by previous generations. For communities to reinvent themselves and move toward fundamental change they must be willing to redefine what they mean by democracy, community, citizenship, and leadership. Issues don’t stop communities, communities stop themselves. No challenge is too big or difficult when government, business, nonprofits and citizens come together to identify shared values and work toward common goals.

References

1.    NCL was first founded as the National Municipal League. In 1987, it was renamed the National Civic League.

Christopher T. Gates is president of the National Civic League, Denver and Washington, D.C., (www.ncl.org), anonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to strengthening citizen democracy by transforming democratic institutions through technical assistance, training, publishing, research, and the All-America City Award.