. . . or more power to the people of Toronto?
Toronto is currently examining how it will govern in future under a proposed new City of Toronto Act. Some would like to see more power in the hands of fewer elected officials. The alternative is a model of governing that is more inclusive, democratic and accountable to Toronto’s residents — the women and men who pay our city’s bills. When it comes to democracy, cities in Brazil, Peru, Britain, Vietnam and the Philippines are further ahead of Toronto in engaging their citizens in decision- making. These municipalities are legally required to involve citizens in city functions, from feasibility studies and strategic planning to budgetary allocations, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.
For example, cities in Brazil have established “Citizens Councils for Public Participation,” which participate in decision- making processes for issues that include transportation, housing, health, tourism, economic development, environment, and social assistance. What’s remarkable about these volunteer councils is that they match a diverse population of residents with city staff who have decisionmaking authority. The councils are equal partners in defining priorities and allocating funds for service delivery and their operating costs are borne by the municipality. These city models show us that true civic engagement does not end at the ballot box. They ensure greater participation, transparency and accountability in a city’s decision- making processes. They help prevent corruption and cronyism. U. N. Habitat, which promotes more inclusive local governance processes worldwide, has evidence that where citizenship is stunted, government does not work. Urban crime, slums and gender inequity are major consequences of the non- involvement of civil society. For any city, these factors are disincentives to investment and competitiveness. They are far more costly than building inclusive political processes.
At public consultation forums held recently by the Toronto Act Now Coalition, residents provided their ideas for better local governance. They want more information and greater accessibility to the city’s decision making processes particularly for minority, immigrant and linguistic communities, low- income residents, women, tenants, the disabled and youth. Many are frustrated with lack of access to councillors, or having their votes ignored, a situation that has worsened since amalgamation.
Their solution is to have smaller wards or decentralized decision- making in groups of wards, or more councillors. They want an increased role for community groups to bring issues to the attention of councillors.
Citizens’ Advisory Councils could help the city find solutions to problems. As one resident said, “ Scarborough has higher crime rates. Who better than the residents of this community to help find solutions? ”
Delegates would be selected by community organizations in geographic areas and elected to councils by the organizations and interested residents. The city would need to provide operating funds for these volunteer councils to do the job we ask of them. The idea of a “ strong mayor” and an executive committee that has been proposed to streamline council would undermine democracy.
Critics believe the mayor would be beholden to special interests — from big election funders to wards with higher percentages of voters. As a first step, the city needs to define and promote the role of councillors, the mayor and committees to diverse communities, so that decisionmaking processes open up beyond those with vested interests. Those charged with establishing new governance processes must also realize that unless civic engagement is legislated, Toronto will not truly benefit from the knowledge, experience and potential solutions to issues that its residents can bring to the table. Ikram Freed is vice president of The Etobicoke North Multicultural Association, Prabha Khosla is a member of Toronto Women’s Call to Action and Sharol Jason is a member of ACORN. They are members of the Toronto Act Now Coalition.