The Disraeli Room
Election, Election, Election
How true community empowement can counteract Britain's democratic disengagement
Despite uncertainties over the precisely when, we all know that an election is coming. A plethora of studies and commentaries concentrating on the probability of a hung parliament and the consequences of this for the coming years of British politics has meant that there is nevertheless an important question that has not received its due attention: voter turnout.
In Saturday’s edition of The Guardian (27th February 2010) one small article hidden away on page twelve attempted to bridge the issue. Referencing the Hansard Society’s report Audit of Political Engagement , the article mentions how ‘a generation of Ms Mistrustfuls and Mr Boreds [...] hold the key to No. 10’. A combination of long-term alienation from the political sphere and short-term rejection as a result of the expenses scandal has left the political engagement of the British public at gravely low levels, with only 10% of the 2,000 voters surveyed being defined as ‘politically committed’, while 14% were active campaigners, 14% were interested bystanders and 8% politically contented. The flipside of the data is that 54% of the respondents fell into the disengaged/mistrustful, alienated/hostile, detached cynic and bored/apathetic categories. In other words, over half of the surveyed sample of the British electorate are disengaged from politics.
This is not simply a short-term response to the shortcomings of the present incumbents. Voter turnout in the UK has been declining steadily for decades and rapidly since 1997, falling from 71.4% to around 60% in 2001 and 2005 (according to House of Commons Research Papers 01/54 & 05/33). This latest survey from the Hansard Society indicates that this figure could fall even further, with significant consequences for the quality of Britain’s democracy.
The data illustrates that a power gap has opened between politicians and the electorate. A homogenised perception of the political class, exacerbated by the expenses scandal, means that a majority of the population have little hope or trust in the proposals on offer. This comes at a time when the recession, the promise of budget cuts and uncertainty on the labour market may add to social unrest: we should not forget how similar conditions were central to the rise in popularity of populist radical right wing groups in places such as Italy, France, Austria and Belgium. Although the threat of the radical right to British politics is relatively minor due to the bias against smaller fringe parties in our first past the post electoral system over the coming years we should be aware of the possibility of disaffected communities and individuals turning to those expressing more radical and intolerant political views.
The wider problem associated with the disengagement and distrust of the electorate refers to the quality of Britain’s democracy. An inactive and segregated population is unable to adequately formulate and express its needs and hopes to the political class, and this limits the extent to which leaders can truly represent the interests of the represented. Recent developments from parties, institutions, social enterprises, think-tanks, and charities have promised to give power back to the individuals in society. Indeed, ‘power’ seems to have become the buzz word in contemporary Britain. The theory is positive. The practice may however be more difficult.
Engaging with local communities and empowering society are vital steps towards bridging this gap between politicians and the electorate. Suggestions so far, such as community referenda and public vetoes on council tax only give society the chance to accept or reject top-down propositions. This is not true empowerment. Going further, neighbourhood assemblies providing a forum for community members to articulate and deliberate their opinions would provide a democratic platform for the bottom-up communication of local interests to councillors and councils. On the one hand, individuals would have a real chance to have their voices heard, whilst on the other hand interaction and cooperation between neighbours would be encouraged, thus giving society greater cohesion. This could provide the foundations for a politically active, integrated British society. A step in this direction has already been taken in some parts of London, and has been particularly effective at politically mobilising communities across Bolivia.
However, the process will not occur overnight: a culture of participation and deliberation must be fostered and encouraged through the provision of spaces for debate. As a result, although empowerment will be a key phrase during the coming months, substantive developments towards the improvement of our democracy must look beyond short-term electioneering.
About the Disraeli Room
The Disraeli Room is ResPublica’s blog, dedicated to radical, progressive ideas and analysis. ResPublica’s experts, fellows and friends of all political stripes from the worlds of policy making, social innovation and entrepreneurship meet here to swap ideas, debate and provoke.
Tag Cloud
Monthly archive
- July 2010 (9)
- June 2010 (18)
- May 2010 (17)
- April 2010 (20)
- March 2010 (24)
- February 2010 (19)
- November 2009 (1)
Comments (8)
Often we talk about just 'active' citizenship. Instead, I would like us to talk about 'Empowered Citizenship'. This is about citizens being assisted, educated and indeed allowed to take action that has been shown to make a real difference. The next frontier of public service leadership (for politicians, managers and practitioners) is to identify and support evidence based action that citizens can take to help themselves and their communities become even safer, healthier, wealthier, cleaner and so on.
This means shedding patrician, populist and crypto-professional practices in favour of approaches that reach out and engage everyone.
We don't just want citizens being active - all of us need all of us to be actively doing the rights kinds of things that actually work! If it makes sense to grow Burberis outside my back window to deter burglars - then we should all know this!
http://jonharveyassociates.blogspot.com/2009/05/empowered-citizenship.html
Nice post, Simon.
@Jon - I would prefer precisely the opposite: an active citizenry rather than an empowered citizenry. The distinction, as I understand your comment correctly, reflects which actor is to be held responsible for voters' disengagement, society or the state/political class. I think the populus should be held responsible for it's representatives and their actions, not vica versa.
@Simon - Do active citizens need to be "fostered and encouraged?" Can't tindividuals just engage politically? What is the problem if they choose not to?
Wrong Adam, activity is useless without power.
And this is precisely the situation in the UK today.
A lot of politicians talking about getting people 'active' - when really that activity goes precisely - nowhere.
It's time for the conversations to end and the empowerment to begin.
Which is where ownership comes in.
@Adam
If that is what you interpreted Adam then I obviously have not been clear enough on these pages. My apologies.
For me this is not about accountability. It is about who needs to take action in order for us all to live in the kind of country we would probably all wish. In my view - both public service providers (the NHS, local government, central government etc.) need to be working with, alongside and for the public themselves far more - so that improvements in social outcomes are 'co-created'.
Yes the citizens should, of course, still hold these public organisations to account for spending tax payer's money wisely etc.
In terms of why voters are not engaged - I think there are many factors. As I suggest the tired old forms of politics and public service delivery that are patrician, tribally partisan, not evidence based, and insufficiently citizen/user/customer orientated have played their part. As has a media culture which favours nanosecond sound bites and the dumbing down of political discourse. Also - and as a long time campaigner on the issue - I would place quite a lot of 'responsibility' for the parlous state of voter engagement with First Past the Post. This system of electing MPs may have worked OK when there were only two main parties - but as political interests have multiplied - it is simply not up to the job. The expenses scandals and more recent news that gives the impression of a political elite well detached from the ordinary man/woman in the street - has not helped either of course.
But my major point is still this - we all need all of us taking the right kinds of action that make a difference. I think the public services have a distinct role in supporting, sponsoring, researching, enabling and indeed just allowing citizens to take effective action.
Who wants citizens actively doing the wrong things?
The problem if people do not engage in politics is that we end up with a fragmented and self centred society, in my view.
@Hansson - while activity might be useless without power, equally, activity and power are both futile without ideas. The direct empowerment of citizens can bring a revitalization of democracy, though this can also bring chaos.
Perhaps the best illustration of this distinct possibility is California, where the empowerment of people to dirctly vote on laws through the ballot led to a proposition being passed to cap property tax and eventually to the present state of bankruptcy of one of the wealthiest regions in the world.
Hence, empowerment is constructive to the degree that is moderated by thought and an ideal of citizenship by which empowered individuals see themselves and act on the basis of citizens and not just people trying to protect their own interests. This is why the promotion of deliberation and a general civic culture is as important as placing the instruments of power in the hands of the population.
But Tom - democracy is not the same thing as ownership. I can be able to vote on any number of things, but it affords me precious little option to manage or change the state of affairs around me.
Ownership allows me to remain in a community or trade up to a wider market. Democracy gives me nothing else than diluted and limited 'control' over the community I am in.
Democracy is a poor proxy for distributism.
@Jon
I agree and co-creation is best achieved in co-operative type structures - more specifically, limited liability structures that aren't bound by the articled constraints of joint stock companies.
These need not be old style mutuals that maintained the status quo. Networked Peer 2 Peer groups offer opportunities to spread innovation within a mutual space.
Am I talking gobbledygook? Look at Zopa.com to see democracy in action. Turn the debt into equity and you have distributism.
Firstly, apologies from me for not having replied sooner to the debate around my piece. I just have a couple of things to add.
Adam, I am afraid that I agree with Jon Harvey: active and engaging citizen debate and participation in politics must be developed over time. The disengagement of the electorate from the political class has evolved over time, and cannot be simply and quickly turned around. Simply telling citizens that engaging with politics can be beneficial is not enough, it must be experienced. From each experience forms a more active political culture. And if people choose not to, that is fine. They should not be forced. But we should be cautious when that choice is made by individuals who do not have adequate information or experience to make a balanced decision. Hence the need to educate and create opportunities over the long-term.
And yes, this is related to power. However, Tom and Hansson I feel that you interpret democracy in a narrow sense: that of electoral politics. The California case is an example of the shortcomings of referenda, polls and elections: the individual's vote does not simply refer to the proposition at hand but is also a tool of retrospective accountability and prospective granting of authority. Public opinion regarding the actor that has suggested the proposition is often therefore much more significant than the content itself. In California the problem was not the proposal, but the process.
Participatory democracy should go much further than voting to accept or reject policies and representatives. It can give more than a 'limited 'control' over the community I am in' and enable definition of that community.
Post new comment