As is pointed out in Libertun de Duren’s article “Jerusalem at the beginning of the twentieth century – Spatial Continuity and Social Fragmentation” we need to take a step back and identify “patterns of identity, power and place” (2004: 21). We need to analyze not only Jerusalem, but also the national as well as international context. Esser points out the importance of identifying “alliances between national and international institutions and organizations, and to examine how they influence city-level politics” (2009: abstract). In essence, and this holds in the specific case of Jerusalem, “power relations that play out in the city do not necessarily originate in the city (Beauregard, 1984; Mollenkpf, 1989; both cited in Esser, 2009: 82).
The city of Jerusalem is territorially defined and confined, but is home to a multitude of, in some cases diverging and conflicting identities and interests. What seems to be missing is a common identity of the citizens of Jerusalem, an identity that will foster social capital, understood as being of inclusionary nature, indicating what Narayan refers to as “cross-cutting ties” or “‘bridging’ social capital” (1999: 1). Narayan argues, that it is “cross-cutting ties between groups [that] open up economic opportunities to those belonging to less powerful or excluded groups [and] build social cohesion, a critical element in social stability and economic welfare over any extended period” (ibid).
I suggest introducing reform of city governance to reflect a political system similar to the one in Switzerland with regards to its direct democratic aspects. Its main pillars would be participation, representation, and decentralization. The city would be subdivided into geographic zones, or wards (decentralization). Wards may be along ethnic or religious divides. Wards are represented in a city level two house parliament reflecting some sort of proportional representation of ward population size and within ward interest groups (Parties) (representation). Representatives are elected by the citizens of each ward (participation). The total city budget is pooled (taxes, transfers from national government, international transfers etc.) to avoid undue influence from outside powerful players, and is allocated by the central city government to the wards in proportion to their populations. Wards have full autonomy, while being held accountable by their citizens through participatory budgeting processes, initiatives, and referendums. Part of the budget is held by the central city government and the parliament decides on how to allocate between city wide projects. These decisions are also subject to referendums. Central government budget may be used for special social investments, public infrastructure, and the creation of public spaces to support the accumulation of bridging social capital. To jump-start the political process the city government in cooperation with NGOs and other civil society organizations, will launch a media and education campaign, organize events and inform citizens on political processes, their political rights, and participation opportunities.
Esser, D. (2009). Postwar Political Restructuring in Freetown and Kabul: Theoretical Limits and the Test Case for Multiscalar Governance.
Narayan, D. (1999). Bonds and Bridges: Social Capital and Poverty. The World Bank.
Libertun de Duren, N. (2004). Jerusalem at the Beginning of the Twentieth Century: Spacial Continuity and social Fragmentation. City Visions.
