Conference Topic: In defence of representative decision-making…

What’s needed to make our creaking system work better?

The Institute’s 2014 Conference theme is The Power of the People.

Its potential is truly awesome. In North Africa, or in the Ukraine, it has been shown to have the power to destroy. Nearer to home, the power to decide seems to have galvanised the population of Scotland in the recent Referendum. Most recently, the residents of Clacton demonstrated that the power to vote can, of itself, have an immense effect on the political agenda.

In the representative democracy model, the power to influence is all-important, for, in between elections, the public – individually or collectively, cherish their right to advocate, to campaign, to petition and to argue. It is the stuff of day-to-day politics, but it is also the kind of activity that has alienated a substantial part of the electorate.

That our mature democracy is in trouble is hardly in doubt. At a gathering of some of the leading thinkers on the subject in Windsor last week, the consensus was that serious action is needed to restore confidence in a creaking system. Professor Will Jennings of Southampton University refers to the rise of anti-politics and this is cited as one (of many) explanations for the rise of UKIP. What he and many others suspect is that the answer may lie in more direct democracy and they cite the apparent success of the Scottish Referendum as evidence.

The media has forgotten that Douglas Carswell was one of the Conservative Party’s leading campaigners pushing hard for direct democracy. They had mixed success. One of their radical ideas was to replace Police Authorities with elected Police & Crime Commissioners and two years on there is quite a debate as to whether it was a botched implementation of a sound policy, or whether the public just don’t want to think about a complex issue such as the management of our police forces and the best ways to tackle crime.

Another big idea was what Carswell called ‘radical localism’. Indeed when the Localism Bill was first published it contained a proposal for a local ‘referendum on demand’ - a power quickly dropped by Eric Pickles once DCLG got to think seriously about it.

What did survive was the referendum that is held to obtain public approval for a Neighbourhood Plan. The trouble is that many enthusiasts for neighbourhood planning were those hoping to stop, or at least curtail, unpopular housebuilding. As they discover that few such plans can achieve such an objective, expect more controversy; is it possible perhaps that some of the advocates of direct democracy only want it if they think their own particular viewpoint will prevail?

So here’s the question. The people no doubt have power. But is it best exercised through representatives, legitimised by elections? Or are Parliaments and Councils past their heyday? With a better-educated electorate, should we be moving towards more direct decision-making? It is at this point we should remind ourselves of the benefits of the representative system:

• It recognises the complexity of modern policy issues and enables those who decide to become properly informed
• It recognises the interdependence of issues and the need for one decision to be consistent with another
• It creates accountability and preserves the power to vote against those whose decisions one dislikes
• A representative structure provides a logical basis for determining who decides – rather than giving power to those who happen to participate

But it is too easy to overlook the conditions that also need to be present if the representative system is to work well. One is public confidence. Corruption, sleaze, the spectre of people in it for themselves all corrode the credibility of politicians; although our politics, by international standards are clean, our aggressive media and a growing cultural dislike for political parties has damaged the reputation of political institutions.

But the other requirement is that politicians – national and local – get better at consulting the public and listen to stakeholders rather better. There’s a whole range of ‘wicked’ issues where decision-makers are stuck with a range of policy options – all unpopular with voters. Think Immigration, Airports, High-speed trains, NHS rationalisation or perhaps Housing. This latter issue continues to challenge all political parties, faced with a massive shortage – likely to be 2 million homes by 2020! Both the Coalition, through its Localism Act and the Labour Party (see last week’s Report by Sir Michael Lyons) claim to want to leave the decision to local people. Yet both also have to find ways of over-ruling local voices…or perhaps ‘persuading’ local Councillors to think again.

Direct democracy isn’t great at thinking again! But then really difficult issues pose problems, whatever system is used. The one thing we know works is to cultivate a culture of deliberation, supported by good evidence, where all the relevant voices can be heard properly. In short, the power of influence.

TRIGGER POINTS

• To what extent does your organisation experience elements of ‘direct democracy’?
• Are current elected members sufficiently aware of their obligation to take difficult decisions? And how do they approach it?
• To what extent are decision-makers conscious of their need to engage and consult?
• The Lyons Housing Review for the Labour Party can be found on: http://www.yourbritain.org.uk/uploads/editor/files/The_Lyons_Housing_Review_2.pdf
• Some of the themes considered in this Topic are also covered in the ‘management-game’ Masterclass “Managing & Measuring Public Engagement”. Next available date – 6 November 2014, London

This is Tuesday Topic 267; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement