Dear HCN,
Thank you for the great
commentary on collaboration and the criticism it receives (HCN,
8/28/00: Squishy-soft processes – hard results). As someone who has
participated in several of these processes on behalf of ranchers
and farmers, I’ve been told that collaborators are those that
helped the Nazis in World War II France and that collaboration
represents a lack of leadership. In each case, the discussions
receiving such criticism resulted in solutions that were locally
grown and ultimately successful.
I believe that
the process requires a new (and more powerful) form of leadership
as well as a faith in a “third alternative’ – one that goes beyond
the either-or decisions inherent in traditional, position-based
negotiations. This third (or fourth or fifth) alternative is, in my
experience, a synergistic solution that accomplishes far more than
what any individual party may have originally
proposed.
I was also interested in Michael
McCloskey’s comment that collaborative processes are “a grievous
wound to the practice of democracy.” One of the foremost challenges
that we face in the West is the need to balance the long-term
stewardship of our natural resources with a political system that
shifts emphasis every four or eight years. Contrary to Mr.
McCloskey’s perspective, I believe that the collaboration is
exactly what the creators of our system of government had in mind.
Collaboration allows communities – of people and interests – to
creatively solve our most pressing resource-management issues. By
embracing local experience, knowledge and viewpoints, these efforts
create more lasting solutions than litigation or legislation.
Dan Macon
Penryn,
California
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Collaboration makes democracy work.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
