There has already been a lot of work on community empowerment in relation to existing processes of local government (this is ‘inside-out’ thinking; mostly motivated by the need to reinvigorate existing processes of representative democracy).

‘Outside-in’ thinking would mean working with community groups that focus on sustainable development issues. It would mean a bottom-up process of thinking about how community organising could help democracy to work for sustainable development.

There are also wider questions about how community groups self-organise on issues related to sustainable development in the public sphere, and what happens when they choose not to engage with local government or to develop alternative approaches.

In the UK, the rapidly accelerating Transition Town movement is just one example of community self-organisation on sustainable development. Not only does it challenge economic growth models to which most democracies are committed, but it is rooted in community self-organisation: with the goal of fostering resilience in the face of climate change and peak oil.

The spread of the Transition Town movement offers insights into a potential seismic shift in the balance between civic self-organisation on key issues of public concern on the one hand and representative democracy that engages citizens on the other.

Elsewhere, the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 offers a potentially innovative pathway to community empowerment for sustainable development. And the establishment of a new ‘duty to involve’ local people which has been placed upon on local and regional authorities under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health (LGPIH) Act 2007 may work to promote greater accountability on the part of elected representatives and public officials and foster greater public engagement.

But if these new opportunities are implemented in ways that simply replicate existing decision-making structures in local government, they may fail to realise their potential.

In the UK, major changes to the spatial planning system have also been proposed. These include the establishment of an appointed (not elected) Infrastructure Planning Commission to decide on major infrastructure proposals of national significance, and potentially the proposed delegation of some planning roles to Regional Development Authorities tasked with promoting economic development.

Changes like these might or might not enable faster take-up of building and infrastructure development that favours sustainable development; but they also reduce the role of elected representatives and community-level participation in controversial planning matters.

There are many examples of innovation in democratic decision-making for sustainable development, but many community groups have frustrating experiences of engagement with local level representative democracy on issues related to sustainable development.

Common complaints include that consultation is largely a box-ticking exercise that takes place too late or fails to involve interested citizens or groups; unprofessional behaviour on the part of officials or lazy thinking on the part of councillors. When such perceptions dominate within community groups, elected officials can start to be viewed as obstacles to social and environmental progress, rather than allies.

We want to find ways to foster reflection within local groups working at community level on issues related to sustainable development. Our goal is to help local groups consciously to strategise sustainable development activity in terms of its contribution to democracy.

If you are involved in a community group and you are interested in this idea, please feel free to contact us to explore whether we could work together.

His answer is that the West benefited from six “killer apps”. These were: “the capitalist enterprise, the scientific method, a legal and political system based on private property rights and individual freedom, traditional imperialism, the consumer society and what Weber probably misnamed the ‘Protestant’ ethic of work and capital accumulation as ends in themselves.”

Some of these, Ferguson argues, particularly numbers one and two, China has already replicated. Other, and among these he includes imperialism, consumption and the work ethic, it is making headway on. “Only number three,” he notes, “the Western way of law and politics – shows little sign of emerging in the one-party state that is the People’s Republic.” But, he muses, “does China need dear old democracy to achieve enduring prosperity?”

Those two words, enduring and prosperity, put the question slap-bang into the heartland of the territory the Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development team is beginning to map out. Read Niall Ferguson’s fascinating article and ponder our collective future trajectories – as I did. Then join us, in 2010 and beyond, in the quest to find out how to marry the best of West and East in pursuit of democracy and sustainability.

The first is a Guidance Note of the Secretary General on the United Nations Approach to Democracy. This has emerged out of consultations within the Inter-Agency Working Group on Democracy of the Executive Committee on Peace and Security, and sets out ‘the United Nations framework for democracy’.

The second document is an ‘advanced unedited copy’ Report of the Secretary General on climate change and its possible security implications. The summary of the latter identifies ‘democratic governance’ as one of the ‘threat minimizers’ which can help to lower the risks of climate-related insecurity. 

Our own open letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, four days later on International Day of Democracy, unconsciously served to shine a spotlight on the links between these themes.

However difficult might be for the United Nations to work collectively on democracy given its diverse membership, it is good to see concrete signs of progress both in terms of elaborating an acceptable UN approach to democracy and democratisation at the national level, and in terms of its linkages to the most pressing sustainable development challenge of our time.

One need only think of the process of democratisation by means of the war in Iraq, and the ongoing role of occupying forces in supporting the democratically elected government, to trigger reflection on the rights and wrongs of democratisation. Where is sustainable development in the process?

Economic development, public institution-building and human rights are certainly visible themes. But poverty reduction; protection of the environment; economic development pathways that could lead to non fossil-fuel dependent futures – these themes don’t seem to be very visible at least in the ongoing process of change in Iraq, where the oil on which the country depends continues to flow.

In a book I’ve just been reviewing for the journal International Affairs, “The Ethics of Global Governance” (edited by Antonio Franceschet), chapter author Tom Keating explores the ethical limits of democracy promotion. He argues that “democracy promotion advocates and practices too often narrowly define democracy in relation to the establishment of markets.”

One former USAID official who I spoke to informally recently suggested that the existence of a free market may itself be an essential attribute or indicator of a democracy. For many advocates of sustainable development, who see economic liberalism (and liberalisation) as part of the problem, this is an extraordinary idea.

One key question then is this: how long before sustainable development gets integrated within the practice of democratisation on the ground? And what would democratisation designed with sustainable development in mind look like?