Fullstendig transkripsjon av It Takes a City

ideas. Okay. Second step, the civil servants. So the. The several departments within the city Council of Lisbon analyze all the ideas of citizens and if you want, transform those ideas into projects. Because usually people don't know how much is the investment on a school. 16 00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:07.000 Okay. 17 00:07:06.000 --> 00:07:09.000 They don't know, not even me. I don't know. 18 00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:12.000 They're hard to assess. Yeah, yeah, right. 19 00:07:12.000 --> 00:07:28.000 So, but. But you need to transform one idea into a project in a project of public investment. So that was step two. Public servants would speak ideas, transform it into project with a chronogram, with a calendar, with a budget. 20 00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:36.000 And so every single idea would be worked through. Or you had already a pre selection of the ideas? 21 00:07:36.000 --> 00:07:38.000 No, no, no. Pre selection. 22 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:41.000 Do you have an idea how many were there each year? 23 00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:46.000 It depends, but 400 hundred always around that. 24 00:07:46.000 --> 00:07:47.000 Yeah. 25 00:07:47.000 --> 00:09:44.000 What could happen was that in many cases, for instance, imagine you have two similar ideas for the same neighborhood. So the civil servants and the departments would emerge the proposal, the ideas. And it was only one. Imagine it happened a lot. Or in some circumstances the idea was not viable. Imagine someone proposed to occupy a private building. We cannot do that. So that was step two. And all ideas were analyzed by departments of city council. And then the project. So what is the result of the technical analysis by civil servants of the idea? Then projects were put to vote. Okay. And that was a third step, voting by citizens choosing would they like to become real within all the projects that were in the voting period. Okay. Usually the voting would happen through online or text message. Many years we use the text message for people is much more easier and we can control it in the same way as web. So we just use it. And then the fourth and really important is implementation, period. So what would happen was all the most voted projects up to 5 million of investment, because each project had its own budget, right? So up to 5 million. All the most voted project were then incorporated into the mission of the respective departments. So urban, space, education, sports, youth. So it depend on, of course, on the areas of the projects. And then there was a permanent consultation with citizens on how the implementation was going, where we were, what we need. We would sometimes talk with citizens that propose that idea and ask, okay, so what did you mean by this? 26 00:09:44.000 --> 00:09:52.000 Do you have an estimate on how Much you spent on top of that on running the program? 27 00:09:52.000 --> 00:10:25.000 Yeah, it was not really expensive because mainly we work with our teams in city council, so civil servants and

my team, my political team at that time, of course, we had a lot of strange ideas and crazy ideas across the city. We'll get more people. But I would say it would take around. I would say, I think it was around 100 to €100,000, something like that. Of course, I'm not putting here the initial investment, for instance, in a platform, in a technological platform, but it was really not that expensive. 28 00:10:25.000 --> 00:10:30.000 Did you spend that all on advertisement and outreach? 29 00:10:30.000 --> 00:12:34.000 No. That was really one of the most challenging tasks we had. It was communication. Nowadays it's even worse actually. But at that time it already was a challenge because people have so many contents, information. You are exposed to so much noise since the beginning of your day, until the moment that you go to bed. That is really difficult to get a piece of information to the people and say, listen, you can be a part of this, come to this place and be in this participatory assembly tonight. What for us was more effective was of course, we, as a city council, we have local infrastructures for communication. So for instance, public urban spaces where city has contents to institutional information. For instance, we partner with a lot of stakeholders in the city, like parishes, universities, local associations, NGOs, you name it. Some years we even have kind of a door to door team in Saint Neighbors with some flyer and some information for. Okay, tonight we'll be here. So, you know, just appear with your ideas. We tried everything basically, but we didn't spend that much on that because we had internal resources to do it. The best way to interact with people is where they are, where they pass through, where they go to their coffee, whatever. So we tried some years to have initiatives. Like we decided to do this giant wall of colorful post its in the museum downtown. And each post itself was an idea for Lisbon that citizens passing through the main square could live. Right. So they were just, you know, going to restaurants or to the coffee or somewhere and we're like, do you want to leave an idea for Lisbon? Okay, this is the big wall of postits. Your idea will be there. 30 00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:40.000 How did the population that was participating in the budgeting change? 31 00:12:40.000 --> 00:12:56.000 We have two demographics, if you want, or two groups. First is the more organized ones. I know that most of the proposals for cycle lanes came from all the groups that, you know. 32 00:12:56.000 --> 00:12:57.000 Cyclists. Exactly. 33 00:12:57.000 --> 00:14:12.000 Yeah, exactly. Then you have a second group that is just, you know, inorganic movements. It's people that you know, are more active in terms of civic engagement. They are part of local associations. They like to have an opinion on everything about the public life. And basically those were the proposals or imagine. Each year there were, for instance, a lot of new playground areas for kids in neighborhoods. Because it was something that people really felt the need in the area where they live for kids to go to play, for grandparents to go with the kids. There's a lot of new playgrounds in the city that came from there. Also sport areas, like I was mentioning, education hubs, a lot of entrepreneur creative spaces, all of that. Maybe in this second group you have a second demographic that is older people that are really an important part of the city and of the life in the city. And there you have a lot of things concerned with quality of life. Lisbon is a very high heel city. 34 00:14:12.000 --> 00:14:14.000 Yeah, I was thinking about the accessibility. 35 00:14:14.000 --> 00:14:23.000 Accessibility. There was a lot of proposals about accessibility for older people, for people with some mobility difficulties. 36 00:14:23.000 --> 00:14:45.000 I hear you list a lot of groups and it's very diverse. But I'm really curious about a specific group. Poor people, economically vulnerable people. Did you have any success in involving them into this or were there any other initiatives at the municipality to involve those people's voices? 37 00:14:45.000 --> 00:15:00.000 We did a lot of participatory assemblies and participatory encounters. And we would go to all the different areas in the city. And in many areas it was socially and economically more deprived areas. 38 00:15:00.000 --> 00:15:01.000 Okay, right. 39 00:15:01.000 --> 00:16:07.000 So we did it in several areas. And it was of course a challenge to bring those people because, you know, it's where you encounter more distrust, more distant relations. It's where you find more anger, actually. So it is a challenge in many ways. But we went there and we work with several local partners to do it. But in Lisbon there was also another project that was not leaving that one, but it was interconnected. That was what we called bipcip. So it was priority neighborhoods. So the city council identifies some priority neighborhoods, areas more socially and economically and urbanistic deprived. And those were defined as priority neighborhoods. And there was this specific budget for each of these parity neighborhoods. And people of those neighborhoods proposed ideas and chose what they wanted. 40 00:16:07.000 --> 00:16:10.000 Have you been able to achieve any 41 00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:23.000 change if you have real political will to do participatory budget? That is to say, if it's not something just for campaign or to be a good picture for you. 42 00:16:23.000 --> 00:16:24.000 Cosmetic. 43 00:16:24.000 --> 00:16:28.000 Yeah, if it is real. Okay. And this is important. 44 00:16:28.000 --> 00:16:29.000 Okay. 45 00:16:28.000 --> 00:19:48.000 So people need to feel it that you are there and you are exposed to their critics and their distress and their. What are you doing here, you are all the same. So people need to feel that all of that they can tell you, and still you remain there. So first, you

have to really gain people's trust. Second, if you do it in a very transparent and clear approach, that is to say these are the rules we will follow by these rules, and if we do not follow these rules, you are entitled to then say whatever you want about the process and about us. But until then, this is our commitment and we ask you to trust us. And this across time, that would start changing. There's a lot of people, for instance, that each year when the voting ended, and so we did this, you know, public ceremony inviting everybody coming here, just announcing who are the most voted projects, who are the people giving them the stage. It's up to you. And so, and so on and so on. And in the last years that I was in city council, there was a lot of people that were there in this closing ceremony that it was their third time trying to have a most voted proposal on participatory budget, which means that they didn't give up. Because what I always told them is that democracy is hard. You need to have a good idea, you need to campaign for it, you need to convince your friends, your neighbors, whatever you want to vote in you. So this was something that started to change the way that people engaged in the process, that started the way that people saw democracy and politicians work, because they also had to campaign for that. Democracy costs. It takes time, right. And then there was another thing that I think is really important in these processes is the relation between civil servants and citizens, and vice versa. We talk a lot about the distress between citizens, politicians, we don't talk so much. The distress between citizens and public services and the state and the education and health services and everything. Exactly. So we designed a team of civil servants and political advisors. My political team was leading that team. And each department and each member of government had one representative in this group. Okay? And this group was responsible for managing the participatory project. And it was also responsible for being there face to face with citizens and explain why, for instance, the project was delayed and the reasons why. And it was a face to face. And the idea was that it is important for citizens to understand that civil servants also face difficulties in their work. And it's not always easy. They have bureaucratic problems, they have financial problems, they have leadership problems, many problems in doing their job right. And people really need to understand that it's not because they don't want to do it. It's because sometimes they really don't have the conditions to do it. And on the other way around, it is important for civil servants to understand that people just want an answer, even if it's no. 46 00:19:48.000 --> 00:19:55.000 Do you have any, you know, data that really give a feel of all this change for our listeners? 47 00:19:55.000 --> 00:20:46.000 There are not many international studies about social, political or economic impacts of participatory budget. There are some, but not many. Yeah, there are some studies about participatory budgets in Portugal, but not with many data. My data, to give you an example, when we started, so 2009, we had around 500 proposals, and if I'm not mistaken, around 2,100, something like that, votes in that year. 2,000 people voted in 2016, so I left in 15. So 2016 we had around the same amount of projects, but we had around 50,000 votes. So 50,000 people voted. 48 00:20:46.000 --> 00:20:51.000 What was the big, big headache you had when you were, you know, starting off? 49 00:20:51.000 --> 00:21:57.000 How to build sufficient trust and how to build a project that is resilient enough to survive you? I know that this kind of projects really depends on political leadership in that moment. And the mayor was a really committed person with this. So Ayat is back if you want, and all the government was really committed with this. But I know that once the elections change, the probability of this kind of projects die are really high. It is a matter of giving people the sense of this is important for us. It's not important in a political context. It is important for us. If people feel that this is there, it will mean that even when government changes, they will be the best ambassadors to say, listen, you might be new here, but we want these commitments to continue. 50 00:21:57.000 --> 00:22:00.000 What would be your advice to someone who's starting? 51 00:22:00.000 --> 00:22:43.000 Don't be comfortable. Challenge each year what you are doing. You have to be creative. You really have to put your imagination to work. Work with creatives, work with artists, work with the storytellers. Don't just go for the people from economics, from social sciences. I mean, bring all of those, but bring artists, bring creative, bring storytellers. Because, you know, you need to be above all the noise and all the difficulties and all the complexities of contemporary societies. And you need to find new ways to develop participatory democracy tools that will overcome this distrust between people. 52 00:22:43.000 --> 00:22:44.000 Terrific. 53 00:22:43.000 --> 00:22:44.000 Thank you. 54 00:22:44.000 --> 00:22:58.000 That was great, Gracia. So where do we go from here? Let's hear from an expert sharing their view. 55 00:22:58.000 --> 00:27:29.000 I'm Katie Rubin and I'm a legislative theatre practitioner and founder of the People act hub for creative civic practice based here in the uk. And I loved hearing Grasse talk about the growth of participatory budgeting in Lisbon. And her story made me think about a couple of things that really connect legislative theater and participatory budgeting, which are both part of the ecosystem of participatory democracy. Different ways that citizens can identify challenges in their neighborhoods or in their communities and identify solutions and be part of enacting those solutions together with leaders, with politicians, with civil

servants. The first thing it made me think about was trust. Grasse talked a lot about the need to rebuild trust and how that happens slowly. And I think about in legislative theater, trust develops in kind of three stages. And I saw that happening in her examples from pb, from participatory budgeting as well. First, we need a shared understanding of the problems. And Grasse talked about the civil servants needed to be in the neighborhoods, to be exposed to the critique of the citizens, to hear their distrust, to build that shared understanding of the problems together. But that's just the first step that we see. We understand that our leaders and our citizens have a similar understanding of what's going wrong. Then we need a shared experience, experience of problem solving in legislative theater that's about hands on testing, really kind of improvising what will happen if we try this policy solution or that policy solution. In the PB process, it was about creating and following the transparent and clear rules of PB together and actually citizens and policymakers showing up, putting ideas out there, working side by side to follow the rules, and feeling like we're co owners of the rules. And the last ingredient, if you will, of trust to my mind, is a shared risk that citizens and or residents and civil servants and politicians take a shared risk that they both understand what each other are up against. Citizens having to live in the world, having to deal with the challenges, let's say in Lisbon, you know, economic challenges. But civil servants also, as Grasse said, have a lot to face. And for citizens to be able to understand that and everyone to be able to kind of meet each other where they're at, with an understanding of their shared risk, that really builds trust. And I love how in that story, part of also building the trust was communicating powerfully about the opportunity to identify and spend money together. And Grasse really talked about cutting above the noise and the need for artists and storytellers to be able to communicate differently, to inspire people to reimagine their communities, their neighborhoods, their entire democratic process, to reimagine a budget, and that artists are key. And I think we overlook this too much. Of course I'm biased, but that arts, the arts and the creative methods are key to bringing people together, to opening up creative problem solving, and to approaching democratic processes with joy, to making them irresistible. The last thing that I loved about this story was just the reminder, which I think we can never forget, that there might be opportunity in crisis. Sometimes we say in legislative theater, the best time to do these kinds of processes is when everyone is mad at each other, because that's an opportunity to say, let's do things really differently. The way we've been doing it so far isn't working. And again, in this participatory budgeting story, the city said, you know what? We're really having a financial crisis, all kinds of social challenges happening in the city. We must do something differently. That's an opportunity for an elected official or a civil servant to say, let's open up public spending to the entire city of Lisbon. I loved hearing about that story. It's so exciting, and I would love to see that kind of boldness, of risk taking, of creative thinking replicated in cities all around the world. 56 00:27:29.000 --> 00:27:45.000 How to Save Democracy is produced in partnership with the conduit and wouldn't be possible without the kind support of open society foundations and you, our listeners. We've got big plans, so if you can chip in to help us make them happen, we'd love to have you on board.