the city and citizenship1. political structures and citizen participation how do residents of city...

The City and Citizenship 1

Political Structures and Citizen Participation

How do residents of city (citizens) participate in governance?

Depends on structures of governance (e.g. city councils, village boards)

Depends on structures of politics (e.g. parties) Depends on civil society – voluntary organizations

which might influence, make demands Depends on “power structure” – who really has

resources, etc.? Depends on policies specifically and general sense of

appropriate functions of city government Relates to basic questions of politics:

Who gets what, when and how? Who does what for whom and why? Who benefits?

April 20, 2023 The City and Citizenship 2

Urban Political Machines Basic characteristics

Ethnic Coalitions Political recruitment, voter mobilization Reward Friends, Punish Enemies Often dominated by Boss (or bosses)

A definition: machines feature “individual self-aggrandizement, coalition-building on a base of mobilized ethnic factions, and the use of government to reward friends and punish political foes”

Techniques of control Organization and mobilization Vetting jobs and candidates Connections to businesses (contractors, etc.)


Urban Machines & other political forms Similar to:

Patron-client relationships One-party states

Contrast Non-partisan “good government” Suburban governments (board, president,

city manager) Reform and “Independent” movements Neighborhood organizations focused on

development Community control (cf. Arnstein)


Advantages and Disadvantages of Machines

Advantages Provides services to neighborhoods, communities Mobilizes and integrates immigrants into politics Generally encourages participation (“democratic”)

Disadvantages Services may not be equitably distributed (punish

foes) Corruption Inefficiency: not a market model of public services Economic “development” dependent upon

economic power structures


The Chicago Democratic Machine Machine politics in 19th century – roughly balanced

between Democrats and Republicans Emergence of Democratic machine (c. 1931)

Cermak mobilized black voters – solidified Democratic dominance

Decentralized machine based on ward organization 50 wards headed by (party) committeemen Emphasis on delivering services to homeowners

Richard J. Daley (1955-1976) Centralized patronage – controlled 40,000 municipal

workers Benefits flowed to white ethnics, but black

neighborhoods less central over time Daley courted big business for development projects

(e.g. O’Hare, expressways), often against resistance from neighborhoods


Decline of the Daley Machine Suburbanization

City’s population only 3 million out of the 7 million in metro area Machine dominated some metro bodies (e.g. Cook County Board of

Commissioners) while ignoring others Little coordinated metropolitan planning (cf. Downs)

Electoral successes of “Independent” candidates E.g. the “lakefront liberals” and IVI-IPO Focus on “reform” issues like expanded civil service, tighter

election procedures, open government Emergence of block and neighborhood organizations

Immediate roots in Great Society programs, civil rights, Black power

Long history (e.g. Hull House, Alinsky organizations such as Back of the Yards council)

Disaffection of black voters Key to early Daley victories, but voter turnout decreased over time Major disaffection after Daley’s hostile response to civil right

movement


Between the Daleys Michael Bilandic (1976-1979)

Machine candidate challenged by Washington & Pucinski Blizzard of 1979 led to reputation as ineffectual

Jane Byrne (1979-1983) Ran as reformer and initially supported by black voters Massive voter registration drive among blacks in late 1982

and early 1983 built on black disaffection and politicized neighborhood organizations

Harold Washington (1983-1987) 3-way race in Democratic primary led to racialized general

election Washington’s power limited by Vrdolyak 29 and “council

wars” Won re-election in 1987 with council majority (died soon

after) Eugene Sawyer (1987-1989)


Harold Washington: Neighborhood Movements and a Progressive Administration

Focus not on the racial issues, but on economic development and political participation Washington got much electoral support from neighborhood

organizations Sought shift from big, central projects to neighborhood

development Wanted to not only end machine politics, but to establish a

“progressive administration” Economic development

Daley’s machine was a “growth machine” A “producer coalition” organized around executive leadership and

indirectly accountable boards and commissions Economic growth supposed to solve urban problems

Neighborhood movements Shift development focus from downtown to neighborhoods Neighborhood control and citizen participation (cf. Arnstein) Decentralized delivery

Progressive administrations (e.g. Santa Monica, Burlington) Govern city while respecting and empowering neighborhoods City government as ally, not opponent


Arnstein: Ladder of Citizen Participation Citizen participation

“the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future” (LeGates, 235)

Rooted in political struggles coming out of Great Society programs and “maximum feasible participation”

Relevant to neighborhood movements under H. Washington with demands for neighborhood development

Three types of participation “non-participation” – manipulation and therapy “tokenism”

Informing, consultation, placation citizens may be heard, but not heeded

Citizen power Partnership, delegated power, citizen control Neighborhood movement under Washington aimed at this level of

powerApril 20, 2023 The City and Citizenship 10

Examples of Citizen Participation Community (Chicago) Workshop for Economic Development

Emerged prior to 1983 mayoral campaign in Chicago Source of development plans and (eventually) some city officials

Local School Councils (Chicago) Established after Daley “took over” Chicago schools Each school elects representatives from among parents,

teachers, and community Have some budgetary responsibility; hire/fire principals

Neighborhood watch organizations? Harvey’s “militant particularism” Does it make sense to apply Arnstein’s model (focused on

have-nots) to other citizen groups? E.g. Parent-teacher organizations Local chambers of commerce, neighborhood improvement

groups Public-private “partnerships”


Policing and Urban Social Order Empowering the community/neighborhood

“progressive administrations” Arnstein Jacobs

“Broken Windows” (Wilson & Kelling) Assumes that urban social order is fragile Lack of response to a “broken window” signals that neighbors don’t care

(anymore) Effective response is “community policing”

Police patrol (preferably on foot) to develop relationships, sense of local mores and problems

Goal is to “maintain order” not “fight crime” Enforce community standards

The politics of “community policing” Alternative to community empowerment? Or supplement to it? Whose community standards are being enforced? To whom are police

accountable? Is responding to “minor” violations punitive? Arbitrary? Oppressive?


the city and citizenship1. political structures and citizen participation how do residents of city...

Documents