Half-hearted participation - How to secure fuller commitment?

Critics of current participation frequently point out that much of it amounts to ‘going through the motions’. By this they probably mean that individuals or groups are keen to be seen to be doing something, but that their hearts are not really in it. Half-hearted may indeed be an accurate description.

This argument surfaced regularly in recent debates about the Local Democracy Bill. The new duties - to promote democracy and to respond to petitions – have both attracted the criticism that they are essentially cosmetic exercises – designed to make public bodies look good, rather than provide meaningful new machinery to enhance public involvement. Even the Government seems a little unsure. Its calculation of the likely cost of the petitions provision suggests that CLG is not anticipating many more petitions; yet the whole point is to motivate communities to express their views more frequently. If they believe something will happen, they will be more likely to take initiatives and take part in the dialogue. In a word this is about the credibility of processes. To follow this, it is useful to trace the origin of the other new duty – to promote democracy. This first emerged in Dame Jane Roberts’ unjustly neglected Report of the Councillors Commission (2007), and is designed to resuscitate the idea of becoming a local Councillor – or playing another role in the democratic process. Part of the diagnosis was that people didn’t know enough about the opportunities to contribute – especially outside traditional Council structures. So involvement with local service providers such as the Police, Courts, or the NHS can be restricted to the usual suspects who happen to know how to go about it.

But knowledge of the machinery of involvement won’t secure the full-hearted commitment of members of the public unless they also have confidence that such participation will do any good. Stated simply, people don’t forego being a Councillor because they don’t know how to seek election; they stay away because they are not sufficiently confident that they can achieve much.

This is where the two new duties come together quite neatly. Of course Councils – and other public bodies - already respond to petitions submitted to them. But much of this is hit-or-miss ad hockery influenced no doubt by the extent to which the local newspaper has championed the cause. Formalising the petitioning process, making it as easy for the online as well as the offline community to participate, and securing better publicity for the issues raised – can at a stroke strengthen the link between an individual taking action (in this case adding a signature) and something happening deep inside an otherwise impenetrable bureaucracy. That ‘something’ has to be meaningful – but if it is, we are sowing the seeds for more credible processes.

It is quite a challenge – and one that will face every local authority in England once the Bill becomes law. It will also probably have a knock-on on almost all other public bodies. For the easy part is to offer the petitioning facility in the first place. The hard part is convincing people that something is happening and that public bodies are listening.

Take a look at the UK’s most established Council e-petitioning system at Bristol. These pioneers have achieved a lot, and there is much to learn from their approach to this online facility. Currently there are 11 open petitions. They are from both supporters and opponents of a new Tesco store, from road safety campaigners, from cyclepath supporters, opponents of a school amalgamation and even those who want a Foie Gras free city. Every town or city will have its equivalent agenda, ever-changing and ever-responding to the issues that excite people.

What happens next? The Bristol process currently relies on the petitioners themselves to update the system, so it can look as if more petitions are awaiting submission to the Council than is in fact the case. They are now looking at ways to publish better data on the progress being made on each issue, so that the 'feedback loop' works better. With different Council departments involved and processes taking slightly different courses, providing updating is quite a challenge.

To conclude. Providing the machinery for participation isn’t enough – though it clearly helps. New mechanisms must have credibility, and to secure this we need slick responsive processes.

Trigger points

• Are you gearing up for the Local Democracy Bill and the two key new ‘duties’?
• Look closely at the Ask Bristol website and its e-petitioning system – it is a good role model for the systems required under the proposed legislation
• Join the Institute and the Public-i team for a specialist Roundtable – Petitions in Practice

This is the 143rd Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement