Originally published 24 January 2017. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
Are car drivers too scared to look under the bonnet?
Those who found Donald Trump’s Inauguration speech last Friday distasteful have been dismissed as part of the political classes that have ostensibly lost touch with large parts of the electorate they are meant to serve. More accurately, what we may be witnessing is the tension between the technocrats and the marketeers!
Eighty years ago, in the early days of the motor car, you needed an oily-shirted mechanic to explain and express the difference between a Triumph and an Aston Martin. By the end of the century, relatively few drivers cared much what was under the bonnet, as long its looks and status on the road accorded with their self-image. In short, we had moved away from decision-making based upon a technical understanding to an obsession with outcomes and performance. Maybe this is what is happening to our politics. Is there a move away from any wish to understand what goes on under the political bonnet?
Is the age of short attention-spans, 140-character bit-sized communications and the need for regular instant gratification dumbing down some if not all policy debates? Is it this that occurred during the BREXIT debate where the need for easily-understood simple messages proved troublesome for both sets of campaigners. Did Donald Trump disappoint the political apparatchiks of Washington because he failed to follow the established pattern for Inauguration speeches by sticking to his Twitter-speak style that relies on short, pithy optimistic promises he knows his supporters want to hear? Are experienced politicians and policy-makers frustrated simply because they remain in the dark about the details? They just can’t wait to open that bonnet and look to see how this driver will make the car go faster….
For lack of detail, read lack of nuance, and recognise how vital it is; Ask most people to define what makes for a healthy democracy, and they will answer that it is the ability to disagree on matters of public policy. Where everyone agrees, there is less need for democracy. Indeed, a weakness of our system in recent decades has been the overwhelming popularity of a liberal market economic consensus – so that voters complained that they saw little difference between one party and another.
To find the difference, one had to delve beneath the top-level rhetoric and look under that bonnet. And this is what became troublesome. Politicians – and Civil Servants go on courses to learn how to stick to the top-level messages and, if at all, possible avoid going into detail. Why? Because beneath the shiny metalwork, deep in the engine-room lurk dangers that what one may say differs from what colleagues may say. The word nuance stands for shades of opinion – and monolithic political parties are terrified of any suggestion of disunity. Keep the messages simple – and avoid prying eyes from looking at the detail. In summary, rampant populism has conspired with political parties’ fear of debate to produce an aversion to the nuances of the argument.
Three cheers therefore for public consultation. An effective exercise that seeks to influence a decision, a policy or a programme of action, invites opinions from a range of stakeholders. Some may have only the most general appreciation of the issues, but are, of course, entitled to express their views. Others may be at the opposite end of the spectrum – fully informed and able to contribute on a comparable basis of knowledge and insight to the decision-makers. In fact, the whole point of consultation is to widen the range of views that will inform that decision. Its purpose is to act as one of the checks and balances that should minimise the risk of poor decisions. This cannot be done by trying to restrict the debate to generalities. One has to look under the bonnet!
Responding to a serious consultation with slogans and broad-brush assertions is pretty ineffective. It won’t have much influence. To take just one example, a ritual “Save our hospital” or “I want my hospital back” cannot help if the premise of the consultation is that there are staffing, financial or quality-of-care problems that need solutions. If a consultation goes beyond a mere tick-box exercise, it should probe the various possible approaches to the issues under discussion. Here is the territory of nuance. Here is room for disagreement – for positive suggestions, for new ideas, for innovation… or for caution. On occasions, little of practical value emerges. But equally there are times when worthwhile, practical ideas are proposed. Managers do not have a monopoly of wisdom. Qualitative analysis of responses is the key skill, and when done properly, the nuances are captured and can be explored further.
The latest buzz-word is post-truth, and one interpretation is that evidence may not matter any more. This article tries to acknowledge that there is a strong – maybe unstoppable trend towards overarching emotion and a desire for certain outcomes. But it also argues that public consultations offer the opportunity to delve into the detail, identify shades of opinion – nuances and explore them in an attempt to influence decisions and policies and make them better.
TRIGGER POINTS
- Have your consultations sufficiently explored the details? Or do you over-rely on generalities?
- Do your consultations allow sufficient scope for a range of opinions to be heard?
- Do you make appropriate use of qualitative methods and qualitative analysis?
- The Institute’s Conference this year will be on 7th June in Birmingham and will consider the role of consultation in the age of fake-news, post-truth and a potential retreat from evidence-based decision-making. Advanced bookings available by telephone or email
This is the 313th 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.