Institutional reform

The Gaventa and Fung pieces discuss the implications of participatory empowerment in combatting chronic quiescence and political inequality. In terms of international relations, power is defined primarily by its first dimension, or the by the ability of A to get B to do something. Dahl and Polsby extend relative gains or losses in power to the political arena. Those who are kept from the game are homo civicus, while those who participate in the decision-making process are homo politicus.
The question that Gaventa seeks to answer is why do those who are effectively barred from participation, or politically silenced, refrain from standing up for their political rights?

In short, he argues that “internalization of roles or false consensus lead to the acceptance of the status quo”. The exertion of power goes even further to include a dictation of “necessities, possibilities, and strategies of challenge”.
I think Gaventa is arguing that power is institutionalized just like anything else. Once indoctrinated it is very difficult to change political thoughts and attitudes. It is the same theory for why a battered wife will rarely leave her abuser. Her needs, preferences and positive outlets have been manipulated to the point where the status quo is an accepted part of life.

The Fung piece highlights empowered participation in the case of a Chicago school that was driven by a common educational vision, and strategy implementation for reform. But this form of democratic participation is subject to the “institutional terrain”. While I personally believe marketization and new public management solutions were dismissed too quickly, Fung defines an ‘accountable autonomy’ that is observable in both his case studies. I really enjoyed Fung’s argument and support for accountable autonomy but I was trying to see how it would tie in to our class model of the citizen in terms of competency.

He frames his defense of competency (with increased participation) in terms of his Chicago case study so I first questioned the transferability of his findings, amidst a vast collection of “institutional terrains”. The skills required are “spatial, functional…and skill-specific”. The confidence is placed wholly in the aggregate and fails to recognize much competency at the individual level. To me it sounds like we could use a distinction between democratic, political, and reform participation because it would affect the robustness and subsequently, competence.