������Ƶ

Have you noticed lately that almost every time the state or county government opens a community issue for public comment, we see an explosion of outrage?

It’s not just that times are tough and people are on edge as a result of the bad economy, limited opportunities, or disasters happening to them — though that certainly plays a major part in it.

The way many residents responded to Gov. Josh Green’s  and  seems to suggest there is a wider undercurrent of distrust when it comes to how rules are made, policies are decided, and money is spent in local government.

To understand this, we first need to pull a concept from the international relations discipline of political science, where we talk about how conflict falls into two types, “vital” and “visual.” International actors who have money, power, political clout, or military might tend to initiate conflict against “vital” issues, that is, the actual thing that’s bothering them, as a means for resolving their grievances. 

By contrast, weaker countries, peoples in exile, and those lacking the tools of modern statecraft tend to initiate conflict against “visual” issues. Visual issues are things that may not be central to a grievance but can be leveraged for media attention, global sympathy, or public outrage among a specific target population. In short, if one doesn’t have power or the means to negotiate, every single low-hanging fruit and opportunity to fight will be taken to bring attention to one’s cause.

The public, especially the local Native Hawaiian population, has limited means to vent their frustrations and generally see themselves as being marginalized. This is likely the real reason why whenever someone wants to build something, renovate something, or do something different here in Hawaii, massive public opposition comes out of the woodwork: it is a perceived opportunity to have it out regarding the bigger systemic issues going on in Hawaii.

We say that NIMBYism is a problem in Hawaii, but that really isn’t accurate. Structural inequality and policy marginalization is a problem in Hawaii, and people are increasingly using every chance they get to flash out about what they perceive to be a broken system. So if you’re in the governor’s office or a county mayor’s office here, don’t take it personally.

Example: When local activists protest against the word “aloha” being commercialized by a poke store on the mainland, the issue is less about “how dare you use our unique word, we need to copyright it” and more “I’m upset at decades of limited opportunities, others getting ahead at my expense, and now I’m going to use this to force you to hear me out.”

We therefore need to change the engagement dynamic in Hawaii and start giving people more opportunities to have their say and have their way. Otherwise, the sharpening of differences will eventually lead to every issue being a flashpoint. Again, don’t take it personally. This is human nature. If you don’t give someone a voice, you force them to be frustrated and angry.

Changing How People Are Heard

Let’s look at Hawaii’s boards, commissions, advisory committees, task forces, and working groups as an example. Have you participated in one recently? They’re filled, or perhaps I should say stacked, with people from the government or endorsed by the government. The people’s voice is bottlenecked by the establishment’s voice, so instead of local government being advised by the people, we have government being told what government wants to hear.

And while some may say, “that’s so the policymakers can have a say,” my response is that the legislative branch already has its subject matter committees and the executive branch already has its regulatory agencies. When you go to an organization that advises government, the last thing you should see is senator this, representative that, director this, chief that on there. That looks less like community involvement and more like political control of a narrative.

One of the most disturbing examples of this can be found in , a law signed earlier this year that created a much-needed advisory committee to plan safe routes to school. The  as HB 600, said “members of the safe routes to school advisory committee shall elect one of its members to serve as chairperson” meaning the community could lead the group.

When the bill finally passed out of the Legislature,  had mutated to require the chair be an appointee of the Senate or House on a rotating basis. This is unfair because the Legislature already has its own branch of government and means for holding hearings and investigations within its own subject matter committees. 

In order to allow honest, open and fair participation in the policymaking process, we need to get more citizens in these kinds of organizations with less stacking by legislative or executive government. If legislators or executive agencies need to have their say, then they can submit testimony to these boards and commissions, but they shouldn’t sit on them. That is oppressive and it stymies the public from being stakeholders in their government.

So, next legislative session, my recommendation is to amend the mandate behind these kinds of groups and to replace legislative and executive representatives with more members of the public at-large.  And when creating a new group, whether by law or by informal convening, don’t stack it with government representatives. Invite the public to be the central part of it.

When people feel their voice is being heard and that they actually have a seat at the table, they won’t be as hostile or angry all the time. We have a responsibility to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. But how can we do that if almost everyone serving on a board, commission, advisory committee, task force, or working group represents the interests of the very people they’re supposed to advise?