The use of a Decentralized Governance Service (DDS) has been debated in some detail by some distinguished members of the World Trade Organization. At their meeting in Geneva in March 1997, they called for an international standard on DDS to be agreed upon and included in the original draft of the Single International Code on International Terrorism, click to learn more about proof of concept. The members did not adopt this call until September last, after it had been widely debated and included in the final treaty text. This is unfortunate because there is much that may still be salvaged from such a standard, and the fact that there is no consensus on the exact standard is a very bad sign indeed. In fact, there is reason to believe that this lack of agreement could further damage the cause of participatory planning.
Why do we need a decentralized governance service? Well, international terrorism has shown how spontaneous action at the local level can quickly escalate into something that takes control of entire regions or maybe even the world. This can only happen if there is no effective system in place that makes sharing of information and other activities more efficient. The very idea that a large institution like the UN can work through a decentralized planning process that involves its member states raises many questions. It is no longer enough simply to have strong diplomatic power; it must be able to build a very inclusive and participatory rule-making process too.
The lack of a standard on participatory planning at the global scale means that there is a lot of room for abuse of power and corruption. International terrorists could easily set up shop in a democratic country such as Ireland and start terrorist activities there without being detected. Likewise, small countries at the edge of Africa or the Middle East could fall prey to illicit trade. If the DDS had been in place, then these problems could be avoided and the benefits of participatory planning would have been extended.
The benefits of participatory planning are not limited to the aforementioned cases. In fact, they can be applied equally well in any situation where there is a lack of clear-cut goals and a difficult terrain to negotiate. For instance, a project to revitalize a village in sub Saharan Africa could become bogged down due to local rivalry and lack of consensus on strategic priorities, read more at https://governordao.org/. A decentralized governance service delivery model that includes participation of the local people can help resolve this situation. This is because decisions that affect the lives of the residents of the community are taken through an inclusive process of priority identification.
Once projects are in place, they can be monitored by a participatory decision-making process that has local majority support. When this happens, the residents of the community can ensure that their rights are protected. Their interests are recognized and respected. The benefits of a participatory approach can be seen in everyday projects such as community development projects in Latin America, where local groups have successfully used participatory involvement to bring about major changes in their communities and improve basic living standards.
How do we move towards a truly decentralized governance service model? There are many different models and approaches. However, one possible solution is to use the model of a participatory elected body as a base for all policy decisions. Such a body would include a group of local people meeting together regularly to make decisions, make recommendations and facilitate decision-making at the grassroots level. Such a body could be modeled on the popular assemblies known as town halls that allow direct democracy and popular self-government. Such assemblies promote direct participation by citizens in decision-making processes through their elected representatives. Read more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance
