A Working Paper for the Fourth International Conference on
Multi-Organizational Partnerships and Cooperative Strategy
Oxford University, 8-10 July 1997

Introduction

There is a growing interest in strengthening democratic institutions and expanding democratic practices at national and local levels throughout the world. Although visions and their applications vary widely, much of this interest goes beyond establishing or increasing voting for governmental representatives of the popular will. It promotes the expansion and deepening of citizen engagement in ongoing processes of representative government, as well as in democratic governance and collaborative problem-solving for common purposes.

During the past ten years, the collapse of totalitarian regimes and dictatorships, and widespread concerns in democratic countries about elected officials and bureaucratic government, have produced insightful and sometimes provocative literature about the theory and practices of democracy and civic responsibility. Interestingly, much of the literature draws extensively upon community and neighborhood-based citizen initiatives (Brookings Institute 1994; Chrislip and Larson 1994) as the basis upon which citizens can help solve problems by gaining democratic power and revitalizing democratic institutions. These initiatives, often described as collaborative partnerships, are increasingly proclaimed to be essential to democratic renewal.

Those helping us to understand the barriers to expanding and deepening democratic practices tend to focus on what appears to be a decrease in common, voluntary forms of "civic engagement" and related "social capital" (Putnam 1995) or draw our attention to the power of economic and political elites to dominate both public and civic life (Grieder 1992 and 1996; Korten 1995; Lind 1995; Phillips 1992 and 1994). Although this kind of literature provides significant analysis, it can be difficult to connect to the everyday lives of people. Fortunately, other writers both consider philosophical questions and connect them to examples of "living democracy" that provide people with an understanding of how democratic principles can be implemented by citizens to expand democratic governance (Lappe and DuBois 1994).

This paper argues that multi-organizational partnerships also can be viewed as examples of "living democracy" by more explicitly connecting democratic ideas and theories to collaborative community-based practices. Indeed, there are opportunities for more conscious connections in many countries as people and communities work through informal associations or formal organizations to transform power relations in partnerships with large institutions. This paper suggests that partnerships to increase the capacity of the disenfranchised for democratic self-governance can be a primary focus of change in the devolution of central governmental authority to state and local government and communities in the United States (U.S.), Great Britain, and other countries in the early development of democratic institutions, or engaging in a deepening and expansion of long-standing democratic traditions.

For this to happen, multi-sector, multi-organizational partnerships that are increasingly advocated as vehicles for involving citizens and communities in the processes of devolution will have to become more explicitly viewed as experiments in democratic processes. A significant barrier to this possibility is the highly practical and institutionally-driven nature of most partnerships fostered by all levels of government in their devolutionary initiatives. For example, local governmental/community partnerships are charged with creating affordable housing, providing expanded, more effective health care services, increasing student success in public schools, or making social services more user-friendly for families and children.

In such efforts, multi-organizational processes (generically called collaboration) are given "technical assistance," and there is strong emphasis on achieving the results (products) sanctioned and determined by government funding (the same is generally true with philanthropic funding). Without discounting the value of practical/technical advice on processes, and the legitimate need for results and products, unless the value of expanding democratic capacities of citizens is also a primary purpose of such partnerships, devolution will only reinforce the status quo in power relations. Of course, to state the obvious, many in government and philanthropic sectors, sometimes acting in stark contrast to their use of supportive rhetoric, are committed to protecting and maintaining existing power relations. Given this agenda, these gatekeepers to ruling elites attempt to ensure that devolution's partnerships do not include conscious efforts to transform power relations.

Nevertheless, there is considerable evidence available from U.S. devolutionary initiatives indicating that such collaborative partnerships result in extensive citizen participation and, albeit to a lesser extent, transform power relations by expanding citizen governance. This paper argues that, if multi-organizational processes can be understood as experiments in expanded democratic governance, they can be designed to transform power relations by increasing shared power and decision-making in partnerships between large institutions and citizens and communities commonly excluded from governance roles and responsibilities.

Devolution and Multi-sector Roles and Responsibilities

There is a general consensus among policy-makers in the U.S. that power and responsibility should be transferred and devolved from the federal level to states and local government and communities. The current interest in devolving federal power reflects a long-standing U.S. resistance to centralized authority, perhaps most clearly formulated in the doctrine of "states rights." When the U.S. first became a nation, this doctrine was forcefully advocated by southern states as a precondition for accepting federal sovereignty. As a result, southern states retained the right to maintain slavery within their borders without federal interference.

Most who argue for states' rights also resist the establishment of powerful government at the state level except as a strong restraint against federal authority. This view of government is derived from the belief that freedom requires the primacy of the individual over the state. This conception of freedom was adopted in the U. S. from England where it was advocated as a principle of civil government by an emerging mercantile class in the 17th century in order to establish the right to own property that could be protected from the actions of kings and land barons. As a principle of U. S. capitalism, the primacy of the individual and property ("free" market) rights over collective and public rights has generally, with important exceptions, made it difficult to use the federal government to establish commitments to political, economic, and social legislation for the common good of the nation (Sibley 1970). Examples of such exceptions include the policies and programs of the New Deal and the Great Society, through which the federal government enacted legislation and implemented policies and programs deriving their authority from a national vision of the common good.

Interestingly, the roles and responsibilities of the public (state), private (market), and nonprofit (social) sectors in the U.S. receive very little careful analysis when the sectors engage in multi-organizational collaborative efforts because of strong preferences for practical actions rather than philosophical thought. Nevertheless, some have made important arguments for a theory of social assignments that requires more than ideological viewpoints or ignorant prejudices as justifications for each sector's contributions to common efforts. These arguments suggest that each sector not only has strengths, but also that each sector has victims, e.g., people and places that cannot find redress within it. As a result, there must be a conscious balancing/assignment of the sectors in democratic societies if we are to move toward a common good (Walser 1986). If such philosophical discussions can be made more important to multi-sector, multi-organizational partnerships, they can provide a better basis for determining the most effective balancing of shared responsibilities among sectors.

Devolution and Collaborating to Do-More-With-Less

In its current applications, devolution is resulting in challenges to the practices of federal, state, and local government that have been in place over the past 60 years. In contrast to important periods of federal government activism during this time, devolution now not only promotes state and local responsibility, but also requires state and local government and nonprofits to "do-more-with-less" through collaboration within and between these sectors. Few would deny the general argument that greater cost-effectiveness is necessary and appropriate in responding to human and infrastructure needs. However, if almost all responses to devolution are reduced to variations on this theme, much of what needs to be done to improve the lives of people and communities cannot be accomplished. In terms of simple logic, what is necessary will not be sufficient.

In the policies and practices of devolution, the word collaboration often is used in a generic manner to describe the preferred strategy for working together in multi-organizational partnerships that implement doing-more-with-less initiatives. Doing-more-with-less has achieved an ideological status and, when combined with collaboration as a generic process, often produces depoliticized (except for "deal-making") multi-organizational processes in highly politicized environments. This extraordinary accomplishment requires: (1) that the ideological assumption must be protected from serious questions about why there are fewer resources for public and nonprofit purposes (or where such resources went instead); and (2) that collaboration must be limited to multi-organizational service integration and cost-effectiveness and not used as a strategy to transform power relations (Himmelman 1996).

Defining Terms: Meaning and Methods

It is wonderfully ironic that the term collaboration is not well understood because it is used to describe so many kinds of relationships and activities. In a way, it suffers not from a lack of meaning - a malaise of some agnostics and existentialists - but from too much meaning! Indeed, it is often used interchangeably with its neighbor, cooperation, as if whatever differences exist between them are irrelevant. A fine example of such unrestrained usage is found in a 24 May 1997 New York Times story describing the role of military officers in the Mexican Government's anti-drug operations:

The author of this paper is aligned with the "clarifiers of meaning" in this matter and, therefore, believes it is essential to carefully define the usage of collaboration in order to connect it to strategic choices in organizational relationships and activities. The author's definition of collaboration builds upon three other commonly used terms - networking, coordinating, and cooperating - all of which describe working-together strategies (Himmelman 1994). The four definitions, first formulated in a 1990 Humphrey Institute working paper, attempt to help clarify the most appropriate use of each strategy in particular settings along a developmental continuum of complexity and commitment. It is hoped that the logic of this continuum approaches, if not manifests, an outbreak of common sense.

It is important to emphasize that each of the four strategies can be appropriate for particular circumstances, depending on the degree to which the three most common barriers to working together -- time, trust, and turf -- can be overcome. Of course, these strategies will be most useful when there is a common vision, meaningful power-sharing, and responsible and accountable mutual action. The definitions are offered to assist organizations in making appropriate choices about working-together relationships as well as in assessing their readiness to make the internal changes required of multi-organizational working relationships.

(1) NETWORKING is defined as exchanging information for mutual benefit.

Networking is the most informal of the inter-organizational linkages and, as a result, can be used most easily. It often reflects an initial level of trust, limited time availability, and a reluctance to share turf.

Example: A hospital and community clinic exchange information about prenatal services.

(2) COORDINATING is defined as exchanging information and altering activities for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose.

Coordinating requires more organizational involvement than networking and, given the degree to which activities are poorly coordinated, it is a very crucial change strategy. It is obvious that uncoordinated services are not "user-friendly" and create needless access barriers for those seeking them. Compared to networking, coordinating involves more time, higher levels of trust, and some access to each other's turf.

Example: A hospital and community clinic exchange information about prenatal services and decide to alter service schedules so that they can better meet the needs of common clients.

(3) COOPERATING is defined as exchanging information, altering activities, and sharing resources for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose.

Cooperating requires greater organizational commitments than networking or coordinating and, in some cases, may involve written (perhaps, even legal) agreements. Shared resources can encompass a variety of human, financial, and technical contributions, including knowledge, staffing, physical property, access to people, money, and others. Cooperating can require a substantial amount of time, high levels of trust, and significant access to each other's turf.

Example: A hospital and community clinic exchange information about prenatal services, decide to alter service schedules, and agree to share physical space and funding for prenatal services so that the hospital and community clinic can better meet the needs of common clients.

(4) COLLABORATING is defined as exchanging information, altering activities, sharing resources, and enhancing the capacity of another for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose.

The qualitative difference between collaboration and cooperation is based upon the willingness of organizations/individuals to enhance each other's capacity for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose. Collaboration is a relationship in which each organization wants to help its partners become better at what they do. This definition assumes that when organizations collaborate they share risks, responsibilities, and rewards, each of which contributes to enhancing each other's capacity to achieve a common purpose. Collaboration is usually characterized by substantial time commitments, very high levels of trust, and extensive areas of common turf. Organizational collaboration is defined as a process in which organizations exchange information, alter activities, share resources, and enhance each other's capacity for mutual benefit and to achieve a common purpose by sharing risks, responsibilities, and rewards.

Example: A hospital and community clinic exchange information about prenatal services, decide to alter service schedules, share physical space and funding for prenatal services, and provide professional development training for each other's staff in areas of their special expertise so that they can better meet the needs of common clients.

A significant challenge in offering these, or any other definitions of terms for working-together strategies, are the barriers to their direct application in practice. These barriers include, but are not limited to: (a) a general lack of interest in the precision of language used in common practice; (b) the difficulties in creating a consensus among diverse organizations about definitions of terms and then to act strategically within the resulting boundaries established by such clarification; and (c) the continued opposition to Hegel's idea of freedom as the recognition of necessity, the latter, of course, being the least of such concerns.

Devolution as a Chinese Pictograph for Crisis: Danger and Opportunity

As it evolves in the U.S., devolution's budget cuts in services and in direct payments to vulnerable populations tend to dominate discussions about planning and implementing state and local policies and programs. However, as unfair as the budget cuts are (currently 93% are coming from assistance to the poor), they may prove less important to long-term societal change than resulting or related challenges to the power and decision-making authority of government. Such challenges often emerge when decision-making and ownership become issues in devolution's multi-organizational partnership processes at state and local levels.

Most state and local responses to devolution, some of which (such as in state of Michigan) are very sophisticated, include governmental requirements for "collaboration" with partners from the public, private, and nonprofit sectors (Michigan Systems Reform Task Force Report 1995). As a result, there are growing numbers of multi-sector partnerships providing opportunities for economic development, housing, health care, education, human and social services, culture and the arts, recreation, and environmental protection/improvement. These efforts are adding to countless already existing multi-sector/multi-organizational partnerships across the U.S. Unfortunately, this expansion in the number of partnerships (usually to do-more-with-less) brings with it the unintended consequence of exhausting the capacity of organizations and citizens to be effective, competent partners in these common efforts.

While often ignoring this issue, well-meaning governmental and philanthropic initiatives responding to devolution require a strong emphasis on "citizen participation," "multi-sector collaboration," and "asset-based community-building" in the planning, implementing, and evaluation of change initiatives. These efforts are related to others calling for "civic engagement" to increase the viablility of a democratic "civil society" that balances roles and responsibilities of the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. If there is a common viewpoint among most institutional gatekeepers responding to devolution, it is that citizen participation, multi-sector/multi-organizational collaboration, community-building, and civic engagement should be led by those who do not promote any fundamental alteration of existing power relations. To better understand this institutional preference, it is useful to consider the differences between citizen participation and citizen governance and their relationship to maintaining and transforming existing power relations.

Citizen governance includes the power to make and carry-out decisions. Citizen participation is limited to advising others with the power to make and carry-out decisions. It is easy to understand why most of those in power would favor citizen participation over citizen governance. While not without challenges to existing power relations, generally, citizen participation involves people in studying, debating, planning, and evaluating activities controlled by large institutions. From the perspectives of existing power relations, citizen participation not only provides useful information but, more importantly, it legitimizes the decision-making authority of those in power. Multi-sector, multi-organizational collaboration can be designed and implemented either to encourage citizen participation, i.e., collaborative betterment or citizen governance, i.e., collaborative empowerment.

Collaborative Betterment and Empowerment and Citizen Participation and Governance

This paper argues that multi-sector, multi-organizational partnerships can be useful as experiments in citizen governance. To develop this argument, it is important to show the correspondence between decision-making models or processes of collaboration and their counterparts in citizen participation and citizen governance. The models that follow are based upon the assumption that, in societal change, the power to make decisions and resulting ownership of decision-making are central characteristics of governance. The importance of governance in multi-organizational partnerships is found in a growing literature that attempts to show positive relationships between ownership of collaborative change processes and products and their longer-term value and sustainability among those most affected by them (Barnett 1993; Chang, Salazar, and Leong 1994; Himmelman 1994; Kaye and Wolff 1995; Kretzmann and McKnight 1993; Wolff 1994). Citizen governance is also a reflection of the capacity for self-determination, a capacity associated with democratic revolutions.

In collabortive efforts involving large institutions, e.g, government, the power of communities, neighborhoods, constituencies, or citizen-based organizations to exert governance can be intentionally enhanced or limited depending upon how collaboration is designed, implemented, and evaluated. In the section that follows, these three elements of collaboration are described in models that serve as instruments of citizen participation (collaborative betterment) or of citizen governance (collaborative empowerment). While both models are collaborative, they differ in many ways in relationship to issues of power, ownership, long-term sustainability, and self-determination.

Collaborative Betterment: Definition and Primary Characteristics

Collaborative betterment begins within public, private, or nonprofit institutions outside the community and is brought into communities (community is used here as a generic term including non-institutional associations and organizations). Community involvement is invited into a process controlled by larger institutions. This collaborative strategy can produce policy changes and improvements in program delivery and services, but tends not to produce long-term ownership in communities or to significantly increase communities' self-determination.

Most collaborations (multi-organizational partnerships) can be classified as betterment processes that include many of the following characteristics:

In this paper, empowerment is defined as "the capacity to set priorities and control resources that are essential for increasing community self-determination." Collaborative empowerment begins within the community and is brought to public, private, or nonprofit institutions. An empowerment strategy includes two basic activities: (1) organizing a community in support of a collaborative purpose determined by the community; and (2) facilitating a process for integrating outside institutions in support of this community purpose. The empowerment approach can produce policy changes and improvements in program delivery and services. It is also more likely to produce long-term ownership of the collaborative's purpose, processes, and products in communities and to enhance communities' capacity for self-determination.

Many of the following characteristics are found in collaborative empowerment:

Multi-organizational Partnerships: Beyond Methods and Techniques

The visions, processes, and evaluation measurements for partnerships among sectors and organizations is of growing interest to those directly involved as well as to scholars and students of multi-organizational change. As a result, the literature on multi-organizational processes now provides significant insights about "best practices" and what can be expected in such complex relationships (Blank and Melaville 1993; Bruner 1991; Connell, Kubisch, Schorr, and Weiss 1995; Gray 1989; Huxham 1996; Mattessich and Monsey 1992; Mayer 1994; Potapchuk and Polk 1993; Rosenthal and Mazrahi 1994; Stone 1996; Sink 1996; Winer and Ray 1994). These and other excellent sources notwithstanding, this paper argues that more attention should be devoted to how such partnerships can explicitly support expanded citizen governance and become useful to movements for democratic revolutions. Indeed, unless we look beneath the surface and past the complexity of multi-sector, multi-organizational partnerships, we will fail to grasp possibilities for deeper currents of change. The time to transform power relations is before political tyranny or institutional atrophy destroys the capacity of government to effect such a transformation nonviolently.

It is difficult to assess the usefulness of multi-organizational partnerships for transforming power relations in part because the kinds of scholarly research and reflective practice noted above, with some important exceptions (Bruner 1996), are focused on partnership methods, techniques, processes, and strategies that are depoliticized, i.e., without an analysis of the relationship of such efforts to transforming existing power relations or offering an explicit political framework for assessing the purposes and practices of multi-organizational initiatives. This lack of attention to transforming power and the realpolitik is understandable; indeed, many argue that it is essential for scholarly and professional analysis. On the other hand, such conventions may contribute far more to our understanding of how to rearrange deck chairs on societal Titanics rather than helping us to steer them away form impending disasters.

From Government Devolution to a Governance Revolution

We can assume that, at least for the next several years, public sector leadership will remain reticent to seek substantial increases in, or redistributions of, taxes or expansions of its authority. As a result, many human and infrastructure needs will go unresolved and may well become exacerbated. As noted previously, this suggests that more multi-sector, multi-organizational cooperation will be promoted by government, particularly with the nonprofit sector. In the U.S., the ground rules or terms and conditions for how such complex partnerships operate continues to be determined by government bureaucracies and other large institutions in the private and nonprofit sectors, including banks, health maintenance organizations, insurance companies, foundations, universities, and cultural organizations. The control of these partnerships and technical processes, e.g., planning, management, evaluation, are primarily maintained by and adopted from large institutions. However, when power and decision-making becomes a central issue, the possibility emerges that a transformational form of collaboration can take place in multi-organizational efforts.

Moving from a focus on leadership and technical aspects of multi-organizational initiatives to a concentration on governance and transforming power relations requires a conscious and intentional commitment to increase the capacity of those historically excluded from governance to gain and be responsible in their use of power. This is a two-fold challenge because those with institutional power must voluntarily share it - or be persuaded to share it by a variety of means -and those who gain power must learn how to govern with it while sharing it with those who once excluded them from power. The path to power includes many challenges, including raising expectations for excellence and competence, two qualities often eschewed by the disenfranchised because they are associated with oppressive elites and their institutions.

Historical experience has shown that sharing power after transforming power relations is more of a vision than a reality. While the South African revolution deserves great praise for sharing power, the current struggle to liberate South Africa by governing democratically may be even more difficult. Revolutionary movements, while able to educate the people about the need for revolution, and train their leaders and supporters in the processes of revolutionary action, are usually poorly prepared for the responsibilities of governance and the functional requirements of government. To be fair, neither of these challenges is easy, even under the best of conditions which, ideally, would include a nonviolent transition in power.

This paper suggests that, when nonviolent transformations in power relations are possible, those who seek them should carefully consider the question of how people, communities, organizations and institutions can be prepared to be both powerful and democratic. Without substantial opportunities to conceptualize, practice, and assess democratic applications of power, it is highly unlikely that they can be "invented" after the fact of a fundamental change in power relations. To the contrary, revolutions often install dictatorial "guarantees" of revolutionary ideals, an irony not lost on those emerging from tyranny in the name of the people.

The history of revolutions that fail to govern democratically suggests that a central challenge for those committed to a "governance revolution" is to provide a large enough "practice field" so that those who transform power relations are capable of doing so democratically. Again, there can be little argument that the less violence associated with this transformation the more likely that democratic governance will result. This paper suggests that a possible practice field for such experimentation is the devolution of government in the U.S. and other countries. Of course, there are very substantial problems in establishing a general agreement among many diverse, funding-defined partnership efforts that: (1) they are on a common, societal practice field on which transforming power through citizen governance - in a democratic revolution - should, can, or does exist; (2) they are capable of building alliances across and among smaller practice fields in order to reach a critical mass (this implies moving past a mass of critics) that can effect societal change; (3) they are able to maintain working relationships with government (including elected officials, civil servants, and public sector unions) without becoming subsumed under or confined within governmental rules, regulations, and processes; and (4) they are disciplined enough to continually energize broad, popular support through community and constituency organizing that both draws upon an inspirational vision, and engages in significant problem-solving through effective multi-sector, multi-organizational partnerships.

Multi-organizational Partnerships as Experiments in Citizen Governance

In the U.S., those who seek to expand and deepen democratic practices beyond institutional definitions, including but not limited to the governmental sector, must do so in a country that believes that its relatively weak public sector results from "American exceptionalism." This viewpoint suggests that, because the U.S. did not base its ideology on the class distinctions of Europe, convincing itself that in America "all men were created equal," it developed neither radical labor or socialist movements, nor resulting sustained class conflicts with ruling elites. American exceptionalism includes, as noted earlier [in this paper], a profound distrust of state authority which, in turn, greatly limits public sector leadership for establishing anything close to social democratic European welfare states. As is common when such ideas are celebrated, discussions of American exceptionalism do not dwell on U.S. genocide and slavery, nor forcefully criticize the white male, property-based privileges on which its early democratic forms were established. For such discussions, one must turn to other views of history (Zinn 1995).

The belief in American exceptionalism is important to consider because it suggests that government is less likely to be the instrument of power in societal change than in Europe, although advocates for much stronger public sector responsibility continue to argue that the U.S. should conform more to the European model (Bok 1996). The American fascination with its "third sector" is deeply rooted and, as the 1997 President's Summit on Volunteerism made clear, calls for non-governmental, volunteer community involvement continue to emphasize alternatives to European-style social democracy. This context seems to suggest that efforts to promote citizen governance in the U.S. must both remain well grounded in the third sector and, at the same time, powerfully engage with government, sometimes as partners and other times as alternative power structures.

The purposes of a powerful citizen governance movement are the substance not the form of a democratic revolution. Citizen governance is a process that, like collaboration, can be a means to good or evil. The substance, results, products, and outcomes of greater citizen/community determination of the public good depends, of course, on specific beliefs, ideas, and activities. The following framework suggested for experiments in citizen governance assume that these profound questions of substance can be debated, discussed, and decided upon in a manner that reflects democratic ideals and practices. Even so, there are more important matters of the spirit, of the heart, and of human community facing those who engage in these processes of transformation.

Having said this, please keep in mind that the following framework is by no means exhaustive; it only begins to outline possibilities that will require far more analysis and description. Therefore, it is modestly offered to encourage a conversation among those who are committed to democratic revolutions in power relations and believe, at least in some cases, this can be accomplished by bringing this intention to multi-sector, multi-organizational partnerships called for by government as it devolves power to states and local communities. It is understood that, in this devolution, government will generally prefer citizen participation (collaborative betterment) rather than citizen governance (collaborative empowerment) partnerships.

Given this context, it is possible that partnerships assisting in the devolution of authority can lend themselves to citizen governance and democratic revolutions in transforming power relations through seven capacities: (1) Inspiring deeply felt commitments to a common vision and purpose that can mobilize large numbers of people and organizations; (2) Creating unity while valuing diversity; (3) Understanding, gaining, and using power; (4) Practicing institutional and community-based problem-solving that integrates learning into decision-making processes; (5) Creating and blending cultures in which individual, group, and organizational behavior reflects democratic, respectful visions and practices; (6) Promoting leadership, management, and organizing that facilitates necessary transitions in roles and responsibilities while maintaining a social memory; and (7) Connecting local efforts to national and international movements of a similar nature.

(1) The capacity to inspire deeply felt commitments to a common vision and purpose that can mobilize large numbers of people and organizations was dramatically demonstrated by recent street demonstrations in Serbia demanding the seating of those elected to government. Despite the hard-line opposition of a ruthless dictator, a so-called socialist, hundreds of thousands of Serbians took to the streets for months until their electoral victories were assured. Another example is the Million Man March on 16 October 1995 in which over 1,000,000 African-American men assembled in Washington D.C. for a day of atonement, reflection, and renewing commitments to their families and communities. These extraordinary examples of this capacity offer a sense of what a "physical presence" would look like if a broadly common vision could be created from the countless specific, local, particular devolution partnerships across the U.S. In the U.S., the street demonstrations and related ongoing organizational efforts opposing the War in Vietnam and in support of Civil Rights also are extraordinary examples.

On smaller scales, local communities have created festivals and celebrations that bring together people, organizations, and partnerships engaged in what is called "community-building." Community-building is a process directed at resolving conflicts in approaches to reducing urban poverty that includes engaging government systems; building local institutions; investing in outreach and organizing; involving the corporate sector; and developing new structures (Walsh 1996). Usually, these festivals are partly created and shaped by artists who help to weave a common tapestry from a crazy quilt of activities, programs, services, and projects. Festivals and celebrations including visual artists, musicians, poets, writers, playwrights, story-tellers, and dancers can attract diverse participation in existing cultural traditions as well as to new relationships emerging from partnerships normally isolated from each other.

(2) The capacity to create unity while valuing diversity is enhanced by the cultural celebrations noted above, but also requires careful resolutions of contradictions between identity-based activities and broadly integrated efforts. It is common to find people and organizations basing their interests on what they define as their primary identity, e.g., women, Latinos, etc. While these identities can provide reinforcement for values, beliefs, traditions, legacies, and organizational forms, they also can make it very difficult to build a broader movement for change. Multi-organizational partnerships find this challenge on several levels, including not only the particular identity-based perspectives of partner organizations, but also when

funding sources define the identity of the partnership, e.g., a children's mental health initiative. In fact, most participants in partnerships define themselves by their primary funding source (s), e.g., I am a mental health worker or I am an educator. While these forms of identity are necessary for understanding "where people are coming from," it is equally important to know where people are going to. In order to know this and in order to get there, some blending of particular identities, including going well beyond those defined by funding sources, will have to occur. Multi-organizational partnerships challenged by this contradiction must not be reduced to attending only to the particular interests of countless, limited, identity-defined commitments. If democratic common efforts are to emerge within and among such multi-organizational partnerships, visions and practices of unity will have to assume priority.

(3) The capacity to understand, gain, and use power is at the core of citizen governance. Without power, defined here as the capacity to produce intended results rather than the capacity to dominate and control, governance is impossible. Perhaps the first challenge in understanding power is to assess where it comes from in different contexts. The power of street demonstrations is an essential source when, as in the case of Serbia, parliamentary avenues were closed. On far less dramatic scales, multi-organizational partnerships can provide an excellent laboratory for discussions of how power can be gained and applied in common efforts and, in turn, a practice field on which to use power for common purposes. The tension between acting efficiently and acting inclusively will challenge these discussions and applications, and yet it is this kind of tension that reveals the degree to which citizen engagement is democratic.

Examples of power generated by "community-building" multi-organizational partnerships in the U.S. also suggest that the power to act locally, with an emphasis on neighborhoods, local assets and self-reliance

(5) The capacity to create and blend cultures in which individual, group, and organizational behavior reflects democratic, respectful visions and practices nurtures the deeper foundations on which democratic, citizen governance can develop. There is a growing literature about how informal relationship-building, small group processes, community forums, active listening, participatory meetings, and other forms and processes of democratic practice can be fostered (Gastil 1996; Lakey, Lakey, Napier, and Robinson 1996; Shields 1995; Lappe and DuBois Ibid.). All of these forms can be integrated into multi-organizational partnerships and, as a result, significantly shape the values, beliefs, ground rules, and behavior (culture) of such partnerships. While not always the case, problematic conflict in partnerships, i.e., conflict that cannot be resolved constructively, often results from weaknesses in the partnership's democratic culture. Those attempting to address such conflict with organizational restructuring or leadership training may fail to understand that it is the lack of a resilient, democratic common culture in the partnership that is the cause of the problem. Again, multi-organizational partnerships can be excellent practice fields for learning about democratic culture and the practices (and courage) it takes to sustain it while transforming power relations.

(6) The capacity to promote leadership, management, and organizing that facilitates necessary transitions in roles and responsibilities, while maintaining a social memory, is essential for achieving a cumulative benefit of partnership participation. A common weakness in multi-organizational partnerships is the crisis caused by "transitions" in roles and responsibilities. On small scales, these transitions reflect characteristics of larger-scale examples in government when power is transferred. In multi-organizational partnerships, questions to consider include: (a) How does the partnership best prepare for leadership succession? (b) Can management functions be distinguished from policy-making requirements so that boundaries between them are not confused? (c) Do partnership members value the renewal that community organizing brings with it, even when there may be discomfort resulting from new participants in the partnership's power structure? and (d) Can the partnership rely on a "social memory" to maintain its democratic culture so that these values and practices are not lost when particular individuals leave?

On the smaller scale of multi-organizational partnerships, these and other questions can be answered in ways that provide experience for similar issues facing combinations of partnerships, community and governmental partnerships, and even larger-scale transitions in power that may result from broad social movements. The practice field is available.

(7) The capacity to connect local efforts to national and international movements is made easier by access to the Internet and other forms of technological communications. The human beings behind the technology will ensure that news of many inspiring national and international efforts promoting community empowerment, citizen governance, healthy communities, peace and justice, environmental sustainability, and other efforts will be linked to local initiatives. Even so, technology will never replace the human desire to be physically present in community with those with whom a comprehensive vision for peace, justice, and democracy can be celebrated and shared. The information super highway cannot replace wisdom's walking path.

Closing Comment

This essay is at best only an initial shaping of ideas about how partnership processes resulting from devolution (but not limited to this phenomenon) can be considered "practice fields" for deepening practices of democratic citizen governance and, perhaps, for larger movements based upon them. In order for these ideas to have relevance and import, and to bridge the gap between theory to practice, they will require debate, elaboration, and much refinement. The author would consider any comments, corrections, and recommended changes that readers offer welcome contributions to these requirements for further development.

REFERENCES

Barnett, Kevin. "Collaboration for Community Empowerment: Re-defining the Role of Academic Institutions, Developing New Partnerships to Improve Community Quality of Life." Berkeley: Center for Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, 1993.

Blank, Martin J. and Melaville, Atelia. Together We Can: A Guide for Crafting a Profamily System of Education and Human Services Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education/Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1993.

Bok, Derek. The State of the Nation Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1996.

Brookings Institute, The. The Rebirth of Urban Democracy: Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, 1994.

Bruner, Charles. Thinking Collaboratively: Ten Questions and Answers to Help Policy-makers Improve Children's Services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium, 1991.

Realizing a Vision for Children, Families, and Neighborhoods: An Alternative to Other Modest Proposals. Des Moines: National Center for Service Integration, 1996.

Chang, Hedy. Salazar, Denise. and Leong, Cecilia. Drawing Strength from Diversity: Effective Services for Children, Youth, and Families San Francisco: California Tomorrow, 1994.

Chrislip, David D. and Larson, Carl E. Collaborative Leadership: How Citizens and Civic Leaders Can Make A Difference San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Connell, James P. Kubishch, Anne C. Schorr, Lisbeth B. Weiss, Carol H. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts New York: The Aspen Institute, 1995.

Gastil, John. Democracy in Small Groups: Participation, Decision-making, and Communication New Haven: New Society Publishers, 1996.

Gray, Barbara. Collaborating San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1989.

Greider, William. Who Will Tell the People?: The Betrayal of American Democracy New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.

One World, Ready or Not New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

Himmelman, Arthur Turovh. "Communities Working Collaboratively for a Change," in Resolving Conflict: Strategies for Local Government Margaret S. Herrman, Ed.: Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association, 1994, pp. 27-47.

"On the Theory and Practice of Transformational Collaboration: From Social Service to Social Justice," in Creating Collaborative Advantage Chris Huxham, Ed. London: Sage Publications, Ltd., 1996, pp. 19-43.

Huxham, Chris. "Pursuing Collaborative Advantage" Glasgow: Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44 (6): pp. 599-611.

Creating Collaborative Advantage London: Sage Publications, Ltd., 1996.

Kaye, Gillian. and Wolff, Tom. Eds., "From the Ground Up: A Workbook on Coalition Building and Community Development." Amherst, Mass: AHEC/Community Partners, 1995.

Korten, David. When Corporations Rule the World West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press, Inc., and San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc., 1995.

Kretzmann, John and McKnight, John. Building Communities from the Inside Out Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1993.

Lakey, Berit. Lakey, George. Napier, Rod. and Robinson, Janice. Grassroots and Nonprofit Leadership: A Guide for Organizations in Changing Times New Haven: New Society Publishers, 1996.

Lappe, Frances Moore and DuBois, Paul Martin. The Quickening of America San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

Lind, Michael. The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution New York: The Free Press, 1995.

Mattessich, Paul. and Monsey, Barbara. "Collaboration, What Makes It Work? A Review of Research Literature on Factors Influencing Successful Collaboration." Saint Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1992.

Mayer, Steven E. Building Community Capacity: The Potential for Community Foundations Minneapolis: Rainbow Research, Inc., 1994.

Michigan Systems Reform Task Force Report: Ann Arbor, Michigan: State of Michigan, 1995.

Phillips, Kevin. The Politics of Rich and Poor New York: Harper Perennial, 1992.

. Arrogant Capital: Washington, Wall Street, and the Frustration of American Politics Boston: Little Brown, 1994.

Potapchuk, William R. and Polk, Caroline G. Building the Collaborative Community

Washington D.C.: National Institute for Dispute Resolution, 1993.

Putnam, Robert. "Bowling Alone." Journal of Democracy January, 1995.

Rosenthal, Beth. and Mizrahi, T. Strategic Partnerships: How to Create and Maintain Interorganizational Collaborations and Coalitions New York City: Education Center for Community Organizing, 1994. (also numerous training materials and bibliography)

Shields, Katrina. In the Tiger's Mouth: An Empowerment Guide to Social Action Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1994.

Sibley, Mulford Q. Political Ideas and Ideologies: A History of Political Thought New York: Harper and Row, 1970.

Sink, David. "Five Obstacles to Community-based Collaboration and Some Thoughts on Overcoming Them," in Creating Collaboration Advantage Chris Huxham, Ed. London: Sage Publications, Ltd., 1996, pp. 101-109.

Stone, Rebecca, Ed. "Core Issues in Comprehensive Community-Building Initiatives." Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1996.

Walsh, Joan. "Stories of Renewal: Community Building and the Future of Urban America" New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 1997.

Walzer, Michael. "Toward a Theory of Social Assignments," in American Society: Public and Private Responsibilities Knowlton, Winthrop and Zeckhauser, Richard, Eds.

New York: Ballinger, 1986.

Winer, Michael. and Ray, Karen. "Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and Enjoying the Journey." Saint Paul: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1994.

Wolff, Thomas. Coalition Building: One Path Toward Empowered Communities Amherst, MA: AHEC Health and Human Service Coalitions, 1994. (also numerous other publications and training materials)

Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States New York: Harper Collins, 1995.