Is solidarity and a collective articulation of interests a necessary condition for the socially disadvantaged to have a voice in institutions of local governance, as some commentators argue? Or can their inclusion in sufficient numbers equally serve this purpose, as implied in the global lobbying for quotas? Also, by what process can numbers transform into solidarity? And how can the impact of inclusion in local institutions move beyond the local? Answers to these questions would be relevant in many contexts, not least in emerging global debates on the social and solidarity economy (SSE). This paper argues that the power of numbers and implicitly shared interests can, in themselves, go a long way towards improving outcomes for the disadvantaged, although a conscious recognition and collective articulation of shared interests can further enhance effectiveness. The shift from implicitly shared interests to their collective expression, however, will require a concerted engagement with intra-group dynamics and processes of group formation and democratic deliberation. These aspects have been relatively neglected in existing SSE debates, which have focused mainly on a group's interaction with outside-group agencies rather than on intra-group interaction. The paper examines within-group dynamics through the prism of gender and class. Drawing on the author's empirical results relating to community forestry groups in South Asia, it demonstrates that a critical mass of 'women-in-themselves' can make a notable difference even without a 'women-for-themselves' social consciousness. It also explores how horizontal linkages across local groups and their vertical representation via federations can enhance impact beyond the local.
