Politics, policies and financing

Commonality as a basis four our society

It is good to begin with the roots of the word ‘gemeente’. It stems from the word ‘meent’, the Dutch word for commons, which could be defined as common grounds or land in communal possession.
Gemeentes (from here: municipalities) originally emerged as administrative entities for communality in the society. The roots of a large part of our administrative body, thus, lie in communal or collective ownership. It is good to keep that in mind when we look at how our society functions and whose interests are being looked after. Are these still the interests of our community and the communal ownership or are these mainly economic interests?

Legal frames
In The Netherlands as well as other countries, a lot of what we could and are allowed to do is lawfully encased. There are rules for anything and everything. So many rules, that there are specialists, advisors, enforcement and police necessary to tell what is and is not allowed. Whether you buy a house, begin a shop, grow food or open a bar: everywhere are rules you must comply with. Of course, it is good that there are rules to provide safety for people and make sure companies are not dumping chemical waste inside the nearest river. Laws and rules are necessary, but if we go back to the meaning of ‘gemeente’ you would say that laws should predominantly serve communal possession, the community: the normal people. Laws and rules are supposed to be there to manage a society in a fair way, whether you are rich or poor.  

The meaning of this system is that everybody takes a place within the organisation structure and, in this way, contributes to the system as a whole.

Change of structure
Projects in collective ownership such as OT301, De Warren or Ecodorp Boekel are actually small societies. These are places where a distinct, democratic organisation structure is being set up to serve in the interests of both the collective and the involved individual. In associations, the structure is always horizontal, never hierarchic. That means that there is not one boss or authority. In such a structure, big decisions are taken in a ALV, the present members have a say in that decision. In the best scenario, the decisions are taken in consensus. In the worst case, the most votes count, with the unavoidable result that a part of the members will not be content with the decision.
Associations usually work with a board, sometimes a supervisory council and often commissions, work groups or circles in which members are breaking their heads on certain topics in smaller groups. In this way, you often find work groups for finances and maintenance, but also for PR & communication, nature, et cetera. The meaning of this system is that everybody takes a place within the organisation structure and, in this way, contributes to the system as a whole. Everyone plays an active role in the decision process.

We can not manage a city or country In the exact same way, but it would be a lot more democratic and it would serve the communal interest a lot better if the ‘common’ citizen would be more involved in the making of important decisions. The current democratic system in The Netherlands is not more than once in every four years voting for somebody whose promises come most close to your vision. If we carry that throught to our laws and rules, it would be logical that not our politicians make the laws, but that they do this with active votes of the populations. In the end, it is -or should be- about the communal interest.

Momentarily, we live in a society wherein often not the interests of the citizen and a healthy planet are served, but rather the economic interests and the growth of the GDP. It is time to look to the how and why of certain laws. We have to return to the original meaning of ‘gemeente’. These roots are, maybe now more than ever, of great importance when we look at the problems on our plate. These persistence of these problems show that economically minded governments lack the courage and vision to solve them.

Civic councils
One of the ways to involve citizens in the decision making is the establishment of civic councils. In some countries this is already happening. Also in The Netherlands, experiments in this direction have been done, though not often enough. It is, of course, essential for politicians that organising a civic council means working with its outcome, be it to your satisfaction or not. One benefit of a civic council is that the composition of a group can be a proper reflection of the society; better than the government. A second is that the people in the council have no political interests as politicians do. Politicians have a habit to be careful taking radical decision out of fear for losing votes at the next elections.

Obstinate politicians
Not every politicians rides the wave of the big money and its lobbyists. There are also people with a backbone and the willpower to do what has to be done. Despite this hopeful thought, the arena of politics will perhaps for ever resemble a chess game of powers and interests, while it could fight for what is really important. If we look at what is happening at the moment with regard to climate problems, how the politics are dealing with this on a global scale, it is terrible scenery. It is sadder than sad to see the interests of certain people and companies are being served at the cost of the people on the front line of the climate change, our children, grandchildren and other future generations.  We have known for decades that we are doing the wrong thing, and still pockets are unabashedly stuffed. Representatives of the citizens who are lacking the balls to go in against all this, have no right to be on the political stage. These are the moments that matter. This is why you -supposedly- became representative. Now is your moment!

Next to the climate, other challenges are on the table: housing, migration, healthcare, education, agriculture and energy. Each and every one a complex matter, because they are embedded in our economic system, which carries rich companies and families with interest that conflict with the right decisions. With all these problems, it is clear that the politics are uncapable of making the right decisions for the long run. There is no better moment for civic councils. I myself have little ambition to play a political role, but if I would start a political party, this one would go back to the original aim to serve the interests of the community, to protect communal ownership and extend it. A party fighting for a desirable future for both human and non-human life. I would wish for a party pulling out all the stops to extend the democracy by putting in the civic council, making sure that all decisions are directed towards the long term rather than the short term. That may not be popular, but it is what politics should evolve around. All the rest is of subordinate importance. Moreover, I am not speaking for a society based on collective ownership as we see in the examples in this web documentary. Politics should, in my opinion, not be there to enrich the state, but to create a strong society that deals with the planet on which we live in a responsible way. 

The only solution we hear from The Hague is building, building, building, but that alone is not the solution. It takes a vision, a well thought out plan for the long term.

Housing
Earlier, I mentioned the housing as a major challenge for our government and society. We are in a housing crisis and following the current policy, we will not get out ofit. The only solution we hear from The Hague is building, building, building, but that alone is not the solution. It takes a vision, a well thought out plan for the long term. As we have read earlier, it has been secured in the Wonwingwet (2015) that housing cooperatives can also join the game of housing. A pretty start, but by far not enough to make large steps. More is necessary in terms of law, support, guarantee, and ground politics to make the cooperative movement grow. In this chapter, you will find stories of the late Adri Duivesteijn (Rest In Peace dear Adri) – and Aart Cooiman of the Rabobank. The latter tells us why it is a such a slow and difficult start.

Free Space
In this chapter, there is attention for the Amsterdam municipal policy around free spaces. This policy has been set up in 2019 and has, until now, lead to a couple of temporary free spaces. I find it hopeful that this policy, Expeditie Vrije Ruime, is in place. Still, it is sad to see that so little is being realized. Apparantly, not that much political will power is in place to materialize these ambitions. Of course, there is not much space in Amsterdam and considerations have to be made, since there are other people that need space for other purposes, but that is not enough of an excuse. The fact that after the ban on squatting in 2010, there have not been enforcements on vacant building -as was promised- and there is still a rampant anti squatting business, makes enough for the will to realise free space and stop speculation. Anti squatting is the living proof of a system betting on the protection and stimulation of vacant buildings. People who speculate with real estate come before people in housing trouble. That is no policy to serve the community, but to serve the investors and major capital. It is a crying shame that this kind of policy exist; that there are politicians wasting costly time on introducing a ban on squatting, while there are so many other important things to do. That introduction is the proof that these politicians are not aware of the value of free space in a city, communality and the social-societal domain. Free space might stand closer to what the municipality used to be than what it is now. 

Rise
Let’s all rise and demand our rights: representatives that do what they should do. We want people who understand the difference between wealth and wellbeing. Let’s fight for a true democracy with civic councils and support for the cooperative movement. Only then do we stand a chance to break with the neoliberal bewitchment and realise the desirable future for everyone.