Majority Vote – A Referendum is only one form of decision-making and there are other good ideas around!

A Referendum is only one form of decision-making and there are other good ideas around!

Ever since the Institute began, the first thing taught to members and supporters is the mantra Consultation is not a Vote. Indeed, it was the theme of the first ever Tuesday Topic. But, of course, there are times when major decisions only feel fair and democratic if a Referendum is held; and supporters of direct democracy were much encouraged by the apparent success of the Scottish Independence referendum in 2014. The same people will no doubt revel in the forthcoming in-out vote on our future in the European Union.

But for lower-profile decisions, we rely on the established tools of representative democracy and look to our Parliaments or Councils to act on our behalf. Alternatively, where there is less democratic accountability, we oblige Managers to seek stakeholder opinions and then weigh up the arguments before taking the decision. That model works well enough when there is sufficient trust between politicians or bureaucrats, but is badly strained when communities lose confidence in those institutions and structures.

In one sense, this is what’s happened over the EU. Significant parts of the electorate have lost faith in Parliament’s willingness or ability to challenge the basis of our European relationship. In a similar way, the devolution referenda in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland arose from decades of disenchantment with an English-dominated Parliament that would probably never vote to devolve powers in a way acceptable to the people of those countries. At a more local level, neighbourhood planning referenda (there have been over a hundred by now) can be said to have become essential because local communities lost faith in the ability of local planning authorities to address local needs and concerns through the traditional plan-making process.

What this is all about is the relationship between communities and decision-makers who affect them. And communities have become complex. In the case of devolution, it is simple – it’s a geographic entity, like the people of Scotland or those who live in Northern Ireland. But today, we are as likely to belong to and identify with a social media community as to a church, a trades union, a local society or a Parish Council. Robert Putnam‘s predictions in Bowling Alone (2000) seems to have come to pass in many ways! Many will therefore argue that 21^st century Society has weaker social capital.

As a result, new tools and techniques have to be found to supplement or replace traditional ties of allegiance and trust. Referendums are one such tool, but there are other ideas around, some of which have a proven record of success:

• Participatory Budgeting has been around a while and is an effective way of engaging wider elements of a particular community in deciding how money is spent. In reality, it is part of a broader, culture-change – opening the door wide for community members to participate.

• Asset-based Community development (ABCD) is about identifying community skills and capabilities alongside physical assets to build solutions from the bottom-up – a little like Appreciative Inquiry which constructs insights and makes progress by recognising successful precedents and building on them.

• Co-production can take things further by using the experience and know-how of users, customers or key stakeholders to design and (sometimes) deliver new products and services. It leverages the greater commitment we all have if we have been part of a development rather than just be recipients of someone else’s efforts.

• Continuous engagement can describe an ongoing – even routine – relationship with the power to build confidence and hopefully serve as a trusted platform for tackling more serious issues when they arise.

We have some flexibility in how to implement these ideas, and they can be customised for local circumstances. One of their attractions is the absence of over-prescriptive rules and there are no heavy-handed regulators to take us to task if we make mistakes or they don’t work very well. How different from consultation with established best practice and Courts only too able to declare a consultation unlawful if it is unfair to someone. At first sight, it looks something to avoid. But look closer and we notice that most of these other forms of engagement already contain within them, elements of ‘consultation’; without seeking people’s views and letting them influence what we do, they rarely achieve much.

It boils down to the ‘community’ in question, and how they want to exert influence. The political class in England seems to have decided it wants a Referendum. But what do other communities want? In a 2014 High Court case dentists paying their dues to the General Dental Council decided they were not being consulted properly about increases in their fees. Like many other ‘communities’ they had a distinct expectation of how to be engaged with fairly.

For this reason, whatever methods we employ, we will increasingly need to have regard to the rules. Even when running a Referendum!

Trigger points

• Do you have communities where trust and relationships need improvement?
• Are you sufficiently familiar with new community engagement tools and techniques?
• The case of British Dental Association v General Dental Council [2014] is discussed in the Law of Consultation course
• The issues considered in this Topic – especially how engagement techniques can ‘morph’ into a ‘consultation’ is discussed in the Institute’s new Masterclass: Understanding Community engagement.

This is the 291^st 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