Like the recently discovered mastertapes of Bob Dylan playing live in abasement or rerecorded versions of discarded Beatles tracks that became top ten hits or John Lewis adverts here is a completely useless bit of academic writing which will probably serve no purpose other than to compare whether it actually improves in coming years. It’s called Community and Participation for no other reason than that is what it is supposed to be about.
COMMUNITY AND PARTICIPATION:
At a time when public participation in political activity is in decline (Wilks-Heeg et al, (2012), successive Governments have sought to engage citizens through targeted activity to give them a greater sense of control or feeling of empowerment. From New Labour’s Third Way – that aimed to put communities at the heart of decision making, to the successive Government, led by a Coalition, that delivered an idea of a “Big Society”, attempts to support people outside of authority to have a voice has been at the heart of political policies since the UK election of 1997.
Since then, there has been a continuous, conscious attempt to involve the public in governance. This article attempts to look at how communities have been targeted and how the relationship between public and authority works.
In 1997, Tony Blair’s New Labour put the Third Way at the heart of his newly-formed Government claiming it stood for a “modernised social democracy” (Romano F, (2006).
In Community, Citizenship and the Third Way, it is noted that there was “the emergence of a new politics of conduct that seeks to reconstruct citizens as moral subjects of responsible communities” described by politicians as the “Third Way” (Rose, 2003).
The idea put the community at the heart of decision making, following a belief that ethical citizenship and responsible citizenship “could be fostered, but not administered” by the state (Rose, 2003).
A community targeted for participation is not necessarily defined by contributions of individuals, he argues, but often groups, clubs and associations that make a contribution. Rose states that the public want a greater role in decision making than ever before, particularly at community level.
In When Public Participation in Administration Leads to Trust: An Empirical Assessment of Managers’ Perceptions (Wang, (2007) it is argued that public participation done correctly can lead to greater trust through seeing an improvement in public services and ethical behaviour as an outcome of the engagement.
It is suggested in findings of a report called What do people need and expect from public services? (Ipsos MORI, (2010) that the public are generally more positive about local services than about services nationally, are more likely to feel that they can have a say in how local services operate, and more likely to feel good about their area if they feel able to affect decision making at a local level.
The idea of the Third Way links community, citizenship, collective belonging and individual responsibility (Rose, 2003). While the idea does put some club, group and association members at the heart of the engagement, it does not necessarily offer a true representation of a community, nor does it suggest that this might in some way lead to tackling issues of social exclusion.
Therefore it raises questions of what is a community? Community, may be an imaginary domain of social relationships based on mutuality or reciprocity, or identified as being from, or associated with, a space or geographical area (Barnes et al, (2007).
This draws further questions around how publics are targeted to participate. Often specific groups or sections of a community are sought to contribute across three themes, awareness-raising, consultation and decision making. (Barnes et al, (2007).
It is suggested that different groups benefit from the discourse provided by participation (Barnes et al (2007 p67). One example, describes how, over time, participation has broken down barriers of exclusion and some groups have become “normalised ” by the process. By making their voices heard through engagement, minority groups have seen the use of unacceptable antecedents like “beggars, handicapped or retarded”, have been challenged and eroded.
To create an idea of an inclusive engagement so that a cross-section of opinion can be heard, authorities must work hard to unite the different communities that make up the publics for participation.
Differences are accommodated in participation (Barnes et al, (2007) and it is argued this is achieved through three possible approaches: openness i.e meeting timings, accessibility etc, representativeness through the contributions of interested groups and the targeting of important voices from identity or interest groups. They say such approaches have important consequences for inclusion and exclusion of particular groups, but “also what kind of collective voices and interests can be heard”.
These attempts at engagement have taken place at a time when, in many Western democracies, public participation in governance is falling (Barnes et al, (2007), suggesting that increasing numbers of people are excluded from engagement with statutory bodies and institutions. It argues that public participation has become important factor for authority at a time when it is becoming harder to achieve.
This has been caused by some Governments centralising activity (Ostrom, (2000), the dilution of the act of citizenship to an act of making choices about consumption, argued in work by political and social activists, or attributed to a “wider societal malaise in which economic, social and technological changes have reduced citizens’ capacity to participate” (Putnam (1993), identifying that people from poorer backgrounds have been in need of special attention from voluntary and state bodies to encourage them to engage in governance.
This has been feature of UK regeneration programmes in the past 20 years (Barnes et al (2007). This did not change when the Coalition Government was elected to govern the United Kingdom in 2010. There were continuities of New Labour’s Third Way when when the subsequent Coalition Government took over (McCabe, (2010) particularly around devolution of power to a local level, promotion of community engagement, empowerment and active cititizenship through the idea of the “Big Society”. McCabe argues this was done with the aim of re-engaging citizens, increasing participation and involvement and were linked to a series of policy initiatives that targeted the concerns of declining social capital (Puttnam, (2000) community decline and political disengagement.
The idea of Big Society was criticised for allowing communities to be “co-opted by the state” (Ledwith, (2005) and as a means of sustaining social order (Cooper, (2008).
In 2006, questions were raised over whether encouraging public participation was the correct method to increase political engagement when, despite falling participation in governance, evidence showed very large numbers were already involved in community activity (The Power Inquiry, (2006).
Findings in the How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit paper suggest this is the case: “While engagement in the core elements of representative democracy – such as voting in elections and involvement with political parties – is clearly in decline in the UK and elsewhere, participation in wider forms of political and civic activity appears more resilient.” (Wilks-Heeg et al, (2012)
In conclusion, it would appear that there has been a continuous effort to increase community participation, particularly in politics in the United Kingdom. The aim is to engage participants for mutually beneficial outcomes, from giving the public the sense of having a voice as a tool to build trust in authorities. In politics, one of the aims is make people feel empowered by participation and hope that this increases engagement in democratic processes. So far, it is argued that the impact of this has not been significant on voter numbers in recent elections, while commitment to community activities by members of the public remain strong. It could be argued that attempts through politically driven initiatives like the Third Way and Big Society have not delivered a new form of democratic engagement but may have strengthened people’s commitment to supporting their local community through active membership of groups and associations which they feel fulfil civic duties and give them a voice in decision making.
References
Wilks-Heeg S, Blick A and Crone S, (2012) How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit, Chapter 3, p7
Romano F, (2006) Clinton and Blair: the political economy of the Third Way, p6.
Rose N, (2003) Community, Citizenship and the Third Way, p1
Rose N, (2003) Community, Citizenship and the Third Way, p5
Wang X, (2007) When Public Participation in Administration Leads to Trust: An Empirical Assessment of Managers’ Perceptions. Essays on Citizen Participation and Governance, p276
Ipsos MORI, (2010) What do people need and expect from public services? p18
Rose N, (2003) Community, Citizenship and the Third Way, p10
Barnes M, Newman J and Sullivan H, (2007) Power, Participation and Political Renewal, p67
Barnes M, Newman J and Sullivan H, (2007) Power, Participation and Political Renewal, p55
Barnes M, Newman J and Sullivan H, (2007) Power, Participation and Political Renewal, p67
Barnes M, Newman J and Sullivan H, (2007) Power, Participation and Political Renewal, p7
Ostrom E, (2000) Crowding out citizenship, Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol 23, p12
Putnam RD, (1995) Bowling Alone, America’s Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy, P9
Barnes M, Newman J and Sullivan H, (2007) Power, Participation and Political Renewal, p7
McCabe A, (2010) Below the Radar in a Big Society?, p2
Putnam RD, (1995) Bowling Alone, America’s Declining Social Capital, Journal of Democracy, P9
Ledwith, M. (2005) Community Development: A critical approach.
Cooper, C. (2008) Community, Conflict and the State: Rethinking Notions of Safety, Cohesion and Wellbeing, p4.
The Power Inquiry, (2006) Power to the People, p16
Wilks-Heeg S, Blick A and Crone S, (2012) How Democratic is the UK? The 2012 Audit, Chapter 3, p7
