![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
The objective of this paper is to compare the different types of citizens’ committees that exist in Montreal (Canada) and Marseille (France). These organizations, which engage inhabitants of specific neighbourhoods, generally struggle against planning urban projects. With this comparison, I seek to question the way in which groups that do not explicitly adhere to any social nor political movements participate in urban conflicts and attract the attention of political representatives. The comparison between Montreal and Marseille is particularly relevant, as both cities have recently implemented consultative and participatory mechanisms. The city of Montreal underwent a complex process of municipal mergers and de-mergers (2000-2002) and is now among the most decentralized cities in the world. Moreover, one of its more progressive and active boroughs, the Plateau Mont-Royal, has announced to adopt a participatory budget. And in Marseille, various decentralization reforms have taken place to adopt several districts and consultative bodies. However, while the Canadian metropolis looks back on a long tradition of citizen involvement and urban conflicts, the Phocaean city is characterized by a “clientelist management” that has hindered the emergence and collective action of social movements. What have been the consequences of these decentralization reforms on the urban conflicts and on the collective action of citizens’ committees? What is the significance of the transformations observed? Do these new consultative/participatory mechanisms promote a better collaboration between municipal representatives and citizens’ groups?
To answer these questions, I conducted a field study in two citizens’ committees in poor neighbourhoods, followed by an analysis thereof in a larger historical perspective. In this way, the paper engages in a broader reflection about the evolution of urban struggle and its significance for “the spirit of democracy.”