On Benjamin Barber: Cities, democracy, and global governance
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
The passing last month of visionary thinker Dr. Benjamin Barber occurred during a difficult stretch for democracy, the topic that animated Barber the most during his long career. A passionate advocate for democracy, Barber devoted his life to empowering citizens for democratic self-governance. He was convinced that it offered the best possible form of government for societies and the world.
Globalization and Urbanization
It was in this spirit that Barber wrestled with the democratic implications of two of the defining phenomena of our times: globalization and urbanization.
Jihad vs. McWorld, the 1995 book which made Barber famous, acknowledged globalization’s virtues but also assaulted its flaws. In an earlier essay that presaged his book, Barber wrote that globalization might create efficiencies, spread wealth, and knit the world more closely together. But he also argued that globalization is no substitute for democracy, which “grows from the bottom up and cannot be imposed from the top down.”
This insight was central to Barber’s later focus on urbanization. Barber believed cities could become a counterweight to globalization through the kind of bottom-up citizenship that he championed. This faith in an urban-centric democratic cosmopolitanism was the rationale behind his latest books, If Mayors Ruled the World and Cool Cities (published the same day he died).
Barber thought that cities could lead a global democratic renaissance. Unlike nation-states, which jealously guard their sovereignty, Barber believed that city residents and their leaders have a natural inclination toward practical and cooperative solutions to big challenges. He therefore thought that mayors could provide fresh and democratic leadership on global problems ranging from climate change to terrorism.
A Global Parliament of Mayors
Barber’s contributions will be missed all the greater because he was more than a fascinating theorist; he put his ideas into practice, as the charismatic driving force behind the Global Parliament of Mayors (GPM). Launched in the Netherlands last September, GPM realizes Barber’s thinking: if cities are bastions of democracy, then cities need to become a more organized force at the global level. GPM advances this cause by giving cities as diverse as Athens, Buenos Aires, Oklahoma City, Rabat, and Seoul a platform on which their leaders can more easily connect, find practical solutions to common problems, and turn their collective ambition into independent action on the world stage.
To live up to Barber’s vision, there are three complementary ways forward
One: support city networks
Cities should continue to throw their considerable soft power weight behind transnational municipal networks like the GPM. The GPM – and similar networks like C40 and ICLEI – enable mayors, as elected officials, to participate in high-level international processes. Through them, cities are given more formal voice within interstate forums such as the UN climate negotiations.
At the same time, these networks also facilitate cities’ entrepreneurialism. Through their participation in network summits and bilateral discussions, mayors and city officials learn about practical, low-cost solutions to their own problems.
From popular bikeshare schemes, now in nearly 1200 metropolises globally, to participatory budgeting – an idea from Porto Alegre in Brazil – these ideas disseminate more rapidly and widely thanks to city networks, improving the quality of life for countless people worldwide.
Two: help their siblings out
The world’s biggest cities, especially in the global north, bear a special responsibility to be at the forefront of these efforts. As is true of the largest and wealthiest states, these cities have the resources, visibility, and favorable positioning to lead and to attract global attention. The largest members of networks like the GPM should redouble their efforts to support smaller and poorer cities, especially in the world’s fastest-growing regions such as South Asia and Africa, to ensure that they are both given voice at global level and can develop in a sustainable and democratic fashion.
Three: nations as partners
Cities must recognize states as partners, not opponents, and get states to embrace cities’ work at a global level. Barber’s visionary ideal about urban cosmopolitanism notwithstanding, few believe that nation-states will disappear anytime soon.
When states do their work well, they enable cities to function, innovate, and craft new policies. For example, cities do not have to concern themselves with high politics, especially international conflict and warfare. States also do a host of other things that cities do not have to do, whether crafting intellectual property laws or building intercity infrastructure.
For cities to become more important in international affairs, their aim should be to work alongside states when they can. Indeed, the interests of cities and states should align frequently, as when London and Paris find themselves on the front lines of terrorism. Nevertheless, it will be time to fight, and fight smartly, in those cases where interests clash, as when cities across the United States vow to continue reducing their climate emissions regardless of the current administration’s wishes.
A revolution in global governance
Achieving these goals will not be easy. Per Barber’s work, states are indeed reluctant to relinquish power, and cities are going to face a slog to be taken seriously by states in international affairs. Global intercity networks therefore will have to compete for funding, standing, and relevance.
But it is only right and fitting that if we are to ensure an appropriate legacy for Benjamin Barber, then we should aim for nothing less than a revolution in global governance during this century, and bring cities to the fore.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?