Originally published 8 December 2015. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
Over the weekend, the Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn wrote to party members to ‘consult’ them about their opinions on the difficult issue of whether or not the UK should conduct air strikes against the Daesh (ISIS) in Syria.
For many people, this immediately broke the rules, notably a breach of the Gunning One principle that consultations must be held when the issue is at a ‘formative’ stage, and that therefore the consultor has made up his or her mind. The facts appear to speak for themselves. The Leader had made his position quite clear as being against this extension to our military involvement. The ‘consultation’ was widely reported by the media as an attempt to go over the heads of the Shadow Cabinet by appealing to party members whom he expected to support the Leader’s position more enthusiastically than MPs.
This begs an important question of whether there are circumstances where it is acceptable for policy-makers to conduct such an exercise – seeking the views of a wider public, even though the decision has already been taken. We should remember that the realpolitik of democratic policy-making does not always fit comfortably with legal principles that were designed to help Judges rule upon disputed consultations. It is unlikely (though not impossible) that anyone will mount a legal challenge against this exercise, so we are less in the world of legality, and more in the world of practical politics. “What is wrong”, claim Corbyn’s supporters “in a Leader deciding upon a policy and then seeking a mandate to implement it by asking Party members for their views?” The counter-argument is that anything called a consultation creates the expectation that the decision can still be influenced. If building support for the decision is what the exercise is really about, why not be totally honest and admit it?
But is that an over-simplified purist position? Are there possibly circumstances when this kind of process makes sense? Let’s examine three plausible scenarios:-
- Where a decision has more-or-less been taken but decision-makers have retained a little ‘wiggle-room’ to fine-tune their plans in the light of consultation responses? In this case, the consultation could be useful, provided its purpose is explained and the possibility of at least some influence being exerted. It would, however, need to be fully appreciated by all concerned.
- Where there is debate or doubt as to whom precisely is able to take the decision. Here, it may be a case of one organisation saying that this is the decision IT feels it should take but that other bodies may have a stronger case for being the decision-maker. Maybe it is a collective decision, and the view of the consultor may need to be balanced against the views of others.
- Where there may be serious implications for the decision already taken, and a wider consultation might help stakeholders identify the issues. The reality here is that it is not a consultation on the issue, but its perceived impact; granted these can often look very similar.
None of these situations apply exactly to the Corbyn case. But his supporters might well argue that they are genuinely attempting a more inclusive form of political policy-making and providing people with more opportunities to have an influence. They are close to the increasingly popular notion of ‘continuous engagement’ and social media certainly provides a platform upon which interested people can participate. Indeed, all political parties now see the development and assessment of policy options as a never-ending process with only a few clear-cut decision points such as finalising a Manifesto.
This does not just apply to political parties. All manner of organisations try to engage with a long list of stakeholders – and even the general public - as they gradually edge towards a definitive position. Just think of spatial planning and the years it can take a Council to move towards an adopted plan. During this time there is almost perpetual engagement punctuated by the odd formal consultation where the stricter process rules apply. Corbyn’s initiative will probably be imitated by other leaders and parties soon enough. Although his approach may have been clumsy and undoubtedly broke the Gunning One rule, it may yet be the sign of things to come.
If that is so, the onus will be firmly on consultors to spell out even more clearly what exactly there is to influence. Is it the general direction of policies going forward?
Or is it THIS decision here and now, and if so, what aspects of it?
Organisations – and their stakeholders - will need to learn the difference between influential engagement and formal consultation. They will also need to define more precisely the moment a decision is taken, and publish in advance the process to make it. Only when these pre-conditions exist can those who advocate greater participation move towards the more consultative culture they want to see.
TRIGGER POINTS
- Have you ever experienced consultations where the decision has apparently been taken, but the decision-makers may still want to hear from stakeholders?
- Does your organisation distinguish clearly between engagement and consultation?
- Would you welcome Institute Guidance on this distinction?
- An understanding of the Gunning principles is critical for consultation professionals; become thoroughly informed on them by attending the Law of Consultation course; next dates:- 9th December or 4th February in London. Contact Martin Roach at the Institute Centre for booking information
This is the 286th 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.