Audit of Political Engagement : Duty to Involve

The Hansard Society published its latest Audit of Political Engagement on April 1st. Makes for a fascinating read considering how much energy has gone into meeting NI4.

(NI4: National Indicator4 is a benchmark by which local authorities are judged on how empowered people feel at a local level.)

I have highlighted some of the most interesting parts from a public engagement perspective here below in green.

Perceived influence over decision-making at the local and national levels
An overwhelming majority of the public feel they have ‘not very much influence’ or ‘no influence at all’ over decision-making in both their local area (73%) and the country as a whole (85%). However, more people feel they have an influence in their local area than in the country as a whole (25% versus 14%).

So it seems as if there is a swing towards local influence rather than national, yet still the positive results are very low overall showing that the public at large still feel disengaged from the policy decisions that affect their lives.

Reasons for not feeling influential in decision-making
The most commonly cited reasons for not feeling influential in decision-making point to a belief that politicians and the political system overlook the public’s views. The top two answers, ‘nobody listens to what I have to say’ (29%) and ‘decisions are made without talking to the people’ (20%) convey a strong feeling among the public that they are ignored by decision-makers. Other popularly cited reasons include ‘the system doesn’t allow for me to have an influence’ (19%) and ‘politicians are just out for themselves’ (17%).

So, we have more opportunities than ever before to be listened to through a variety of initiatives at local and national levels – yet still people feel as if their input is not taken into account, that decisions will be made without them.

Desire to be involved in decision-making
Half the public do not actually want to be involved in decision-making in their local area. Even more – 55% – do not wish to be involved in decision-making in the country as a whole.

This is really the most interesting one for me – about half of us just don’t want to be involved… why is this – I have a number of ideas:

1) Because we feel like we’re not being listened to by those in power as mentioned above.

2) We’re too busy and tired to get involved anyway, we have better things to do with our time (see below.)

3) The formats for engagement that exist require a lot of time and effort for people to participate in them effectively-in other words, traditional methods are still letting us down.

4) The effects of ‘consultation fatigue’ or cynicism increase owing to many meaningless consultation tickbox exercises. These create a vicious circle, bringing down the standards and reputation of public involvement across the board, and reaffirming people’s feelings of not being listened to.

Barriers to participation among potential participants
People who do not currently feel that they have an influence in decision-making – but who say they would like to be involved – were asked what factors, if any, prevent them from doing so. Nearly half (40%) cite lack of time as the main reason.

Let’s have a quick dose of realism to finish off – it seems like we basically have better things to do with our time! The experience of public involvement at national or local level should be a pleasure, not a pain – it is just one of many activities and commitments that competes for attention in people’s lives. Too often, still, it is an uninspiring experience for those who do actually turn up at the town hall.

The Duty to Involve (which requires local government to involve citizens in decision making as a matter of course) has just come into play as of April 1st. I just hope that it leads to higher quality, more considered consultation and involvement – not just MORE consultation and involvement. If this is the case, then we should expect to see even worse results in these areas in next year’s audit.

So – if we want people to engage with services, with local decision making and with policy formulation then we are going to have to try a damn sight harder to make those processess better; making them more

1) Genuine

2) Open and Inviting

3) Enjoyable

4) Responsive (ie. tell people what happened afterwards).

I am sure there are a few more to add to this… any ideas?

Political parties and decentralisation

Irish elections: generally more posters than in the UK

So much is changing so quickly. Newspapers and broadcasters are changing. Governments now communicate using radically different means to the ones that were practiced a decade ago. Here’s Exhibit A.

We now have free interactive tools that enable us to hold huge multilateral conversations based upon collaborative filtering and reputation management. We can find useful strangers easily – and I don’t just mean with dating websites.

Of course, these changes throw up hazards. New doors have opened for budding demagogues, busy-bodies, lobbyists, snoopers and quacks. But it also throws up huge opportunities.

For me, the glittering prize – from a democratic point of view – is the potential to promote decentralisation of power. Putting the levers of power in a place that is geographically closer. Breaking down the rigidities that made participation impossible.

In the same way that the DIY ethic of blogging and social media has helped millions to somehow dilute the alienation of modern living, it has allowed many of us the chance to test our voice, contribute and to take some responsibility for public discourse – often for the first time.

Populism. And local newspapers.

Two very interesting posts – one via Chris Dillow, and one directly from his site. Firstly, Chris signposts this:

“….perhaps it’s “populist” to think political elites always end up in bed with economic elites, but it seems, as a matter of fact, they often do. My opinion is that a certain “populist” enthusiasm for democracy, in the absence of strong legal and cultural constraints on government action, almost inevitably delivers a great deal of regulatory capture–that is, tucks political elites snugly in bed with corporate elites. Isn’t that a cynical vision? Moreover, when the incentives of insufficiently-limited democracies lead to this kind of result, supra-national technocratic institutions can in fact act as a salutary check on governments precisely because they are undemocratic.”

There we have it again: “…insufficiently-limited democracies.” What does this mean? Does it mean the populist mode of democracy as opposed to the model with strong political parties, shortish manifestos and un-mandated politicians? Surely the latter option is really the unlimited democracy?

Secondly, Chris has some evidence – nothing conclusive mind….

Reprising the question of a bail-out for journalism, here’s Martin Bright’s original New Deal of the Mind article from the New Statesman – it’s an idea that seems to be going places.