Vol. 21 No. 9 (September, 2011) pp.490-494
DEMOCRACY, LAW AND GOVERNANCE, by Jacque Lenoble and Marc Maesschalck.
London, UK and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2010. 276pp.
Hardback. $124.95/£65.00. ISBN: 9781409403951. E-book. ISBN: 9781409403968.
Reviewed by Tracy Lightcap, Department of Political Science, LaGrange College.
E-mail: tlightcap [at] lagrange.edu.
Clearly
she was encouraged by the options Charlotte had described; they were structures
after all. Engineering of an imaginary sort, which nevertheless resembled real
engineering. So Nadia was tapping away at her screen, sketching out designs as
if working on a building, a small smile tugging the corners of her mouth.
“You’re
happy,” Art said.
She
didn’t hear him. But that night in their radio talk with the travelers, she said
to Sax, “It was so nice to find that political science had abstracted something
useful in all these years.”
Eight
minutes later his reply came in “I’ve never understood why they call it that.”
(Robinson 1997)
When Nadia Cherneschevsky was putting together the Martian constitution she
might have found this book useful. Jacque Lenoble and Marc Maesschalck are
trying to do exactly what she was talking about: provide a set of engineering
principles that can be used to build new structures of governance in a rapidly
changing environment. Their solution – what they call a “genetic approach to
governance” – is sufficiently interesting to warrant the careful reading their
work requires. I remain unconvinced by some of their arguments for reasons I
will give in a later section of this review. But first, I need to give those
arguments the close review they deserve.
Let us join Lenoble and Maesschalck in considering the problem of collective
public action in democracies. The authors identify the problem here as the need
to accommodate the shift to “governance” – the increased use of private-public
interactions to coordinate public policy favored by neo-liberal regimes. Their
main concern is to formulate the imaginary engineering Nadia favors to
accomplish this goal while at the same time preserving democratic processes.
But, according to Lenoble and Maesschalck, this is not as easy to do as might be
thought. They assert that there are two main obstacles to introducing democratic
processes into the evolving legal situation. I will follow them by presenting
these in order.
The first obstacle the authors describe is a well-taken one, given their
emphasis: the concentration by legal theorists on public authorities as sources
of workable law. As Lenoble and Maesschalck correctly point out, until recently
most legal theories have looked at laws as commands emanating from public
authorities. Consequently, the legitimacy of law must be a matter of the
capability of public authorities to assert the moral force of their commands.
However, as [*491] the authors point out, this course of justification has two
problems. First, it assumes what it is trying to prove; law has legitimate
authority because authorities can claim it, usually through some reference to
the processes used to write the laws in the first place. As Lenoble and
Maesschalck say, this does little to advance our inquiry. What such theories
(they cite Kelsen and Austin in particular on this) have not done is tell us why
the population would recognize the legitimacy of laws they do not approve of
simply because they were passed in a legal fashion and the authorities move to
enforce them. Second, such theories are dependent on an assertion of an internal
mental state among the population. People accept law as legitimate because they
have an inherent propensity to do so. No matter how this propensity is formed,
it must still be inferred from individual behavior.
Getting around these obstacles, however, is not so difficult. Lenoble and
Maesschalck point out that laws can only be established effectively by taking
into consideration the actual behaviors of those to whom they are applied. Here
they adhere to what they refer to as “the pragmatic turn” in legal theory; i.e.
to the idea that law is in fact formed by processes involving interaction
between authorities and citizens. Their work includes an extensive critique of
the ideas of pragmatic legal theorists, concentrating closely on work by Jules
Coleman. The basic critique here, however, is a relatively familiar one: law, to
work effectively, must be formed and reformed in interaction with those persons
who are subject to it. Hence, the concentration on public authority that is
criticized above can be partially redeemed by a recognition that legal
principles are contingent on the practical acceptance of the persons to whom
they are addressed. This does not mean, as the authors are quick to point out,
that law has to be applied to take the preferences of citizens into
consideration; indeed, they hold that regulation in modern societies, especially
autocratic ones, specifically fails to do this. But, that does not mean that the
method of analysis is a failure. Even in authoritarian tyrannies, the passive
resistance of the population functions as a test for the actual performance of
the law as a regulatory mechanism. Dictators end by being pragmatists. In
democratic societies the process is usually more explicit, but, as Lenoble and
Maesschalck say, there is still a continuing failure to consider how best to
incorporate the preferences of all “stakeholders” into the law.
This failure is most apparent in the difficult transition to the use of
governance, and it has a specific cause that the authors identify as the second
obstacle to democracy: the persistence of institutions and theories that do not
offer clear paths for maximizing cooperation in policymaking. Here Lenoble and
Maesschalck identify a true problem for all epigones of governance. Cooperation
of both public and private organizations is difficult to obtain even in the best
of circumstances, let alone in areas where new public policy is established.
They call for the preferences of all stakeholders to be considered
democratically. But what if prior commitments and ideological stances stand in
the way; i.e. what if the parties involved simply stick to their lasts and
refuse to face the requirements of making policy through governance? [*492 How
can such intransigence be addressed democratically? Their answer to this
question lies in the second part of this book.
Lenoble and Maesschalck postulate that the only way to meet the challenges of
their two obstacles is through the “learning process” incorporated in pragmatic
policy making. The second part of their work involves a close reading of three
different strains of theory in the modern social sciences that have cropped up
in examinations of governance: “neo-institutional” economic theory, and what
they call “experimentalist” and “reflexive” pragmatism. The authors have some
good points to make about each perspective and do a decent job of critiquing
their positions. I think it is legitimate, for instance, to criticize the
institutional school of economics for using the “natural selection” imposed by
market mechanisms as a tool for assuming away coordination problems. When trying
to establish governance mechanisms, the authors are correct in pointing out that
depending on the market both to effect personal and organizational change and to
maintain democratic processes is a bit too much to ask. Similarly, their
critiques of experimentalist and reflexive pragmatism as neglecting the need to
address directly the superannuated attitudes and commitments that can undermine
the learning process in governance situations are also pertinent. Lenoble and
Maesschalck’s solution is a new kind of pragmatism, what they call a “genetic
approach.” The proposal is to get around the attitudes inhibiting governance by
reorienting the stakeholders through “terceization.” As they describe it, this
is a process of change in personal and organizational identity achieved by a
reorientation to an external party that can refocus the parties’ relations to
themselves. (Their example is the shifting of the goals of labor unions from
conflicts with management to calls for better work conditions to improve service
to consumers.) By such a change, the problems caused by prior commitments in
governance policy making can be overcome and the preferences of all stakeholders
can be negotiated democratically.
“We
showed them what to do! What the Hell went wrong?”
Mies
Van der Roe to Anton Drexler.
“It is
a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.”
H. L.
Mencken
What are we to make of all this? My first reaction is summed up in the quotes
above. It was remarkable to me that
Lenoble and Maesschalck could have read so much social science theory on
governance and missed the salient point in critiques of the idea: that it
ignores the influence of power differences between stakeholders. I do not mean
to say that they have ignored differences of power between stakeholders in
policymaking situations. It is more that they seem to have set aside the effects
of those differences. There are two such effects that are of particular
influence here. First, the differences of power between actors can shape the
kinds of preferences that stakeholders feel they can put forward. This is the
old idea of “non-decisions;” i.e. preferences that are not voiced because there
is no real prospect of them prevailing in any negotiation. How will a “learning
process” even one [*493] predicated on a “genetic approach” do much to see that
those preferences come to the fore? I suppose that Lenoble and Maesschalck might
reply that the very process of re-orientation would change the perceptions of
the stakeholders in such ways that parties would see opportunities to bring
their suppressed preferences to the fore. But, that avoids the criticism: if the
actual structural inequalities that led to the original suppression have not
changed, why should the re-orientation they support change the incentives for
less powerful parties to continue to avoid pressing for preferences that have
little chance of success?
The second effect is even more subtle and difficult to overcome. This arises
when power differences affect the very preferences of the less powerful. This is
Lukes’ (2004) third dimension of power: the use of power to shape the
ideological and cultural dimension of societies so as to preclude challenges to
prevailing modes of domination. From this perspective, we could find the
“genetic approach” working democratically, but producing the perpetuation of
existing limitations on the expression of preferences. If the stakeholders have
already subsumed attitudes that preclude challenges to prevailing inequalities,
their re-orientation of their organizational objectives will simply reinforce
existing inequalities since they will never suggest new courses that challenge
them. I was not surprised, for instance, that Lenoble and Maesschalck’s example
of how the “genetic approach” worked involved a re-casting of union objectives
in the Belgian power industry to concentrate less on issues involving
management-labor conflicts and more on service to power customers. This tracks
the constant pressure by a more powerful capital, in this case backed by the
state, to curb the influence of organized labor in neo-liberal economies. That
the unions felt their options limited by the economic power of their opponents,
bereft of support from the state, and limited by their acceptance of existing
economic institutions is obvious, though unstated, in the authors’ account. This
is governance alright and in the very form that makes so many suspect it of
being a device to tone down opposition along class lines instead of a new method
of policymaking. One can call this many things, including an expression of
democracy – after all, the unions did acquiesce. However, bootstrapping it into
an equal and democratic negotiation characterized by re-orientation by all
parties to the preferences of other stakeholders is, in my opinion, a bridge too
far.
But, perhaps I should come to a bottom line. I think this book will be a source
of continuing scholarly debate for some time. The criticisms made by Lenoble and
Maesschalck of other approaches are both well founded and ably argued. Their
overview of governance theory is also useful, if sometimes more opaque then
necessary. I think the book will attract scholarly interest – Nadia’s “Imaginary
engineering” is important, and the whole project of grounding ideas about
governance in adequate theory is advanced by their work. However, I doubt that
this text will find much use in the classroom. This does not have much to do
with the arguments, but with the style of the book. This review is
unconscionably late due in large part to the almost impenetrably dense nature of
its prose. I do not blame Lenoble and [*494] Maesschalck for this; they are
continental scholars and write within their tradition. Of all the books I have
reviewed, however, this one stood most in need of an editor more attuned to the
stylistic preferences of Anglo-American readers. This is too bad. Lenoble and
Maesschalck are imminent scholars who have thought long and hard about the
issues they are addressing. Despite my doubts concerning some of their
conclusions, I think their work deserves more use than it will probably get in
the graduate courses concerned with legal theory and governance to which it is
partially aimed. Let us hope that a revised edition will make their work more
accessible to both scholars and students alike.
REFERENCES:
Lukes, Steven. 2004. POWER: A RADICAL VIEW.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Robinson, Kim Stanley. 1997. BLUE MARS.
New York: Bantam.
*********************
© Copyright 2011 by the author, Tracy Lightcap.