Purists and Pragmatists - Consultation can expose significant tensions among stakeholders

From time to time, democracies provide the spectacle of a tussle between ideologies – or at least, philosophies

American politics, in 2013 for example, has been a historic battle between the Purists of the Republican tea-party movement and the more pragmatic elements on Capitol Hill. Thirty years ago the British Labour party found itself in similar convulsions. Some would say that the Conservative Party is still torn between radically different approaches to the European question.

These are but the most obvious illustrations that help shed light on an important characteristic of consultations – their tendency to expose weaknesses in the public positions of some stakeholders. This paper considers the implications.

First, to demonstrate the point, consider some of the high-profile issues often currently consulted upon. Housing in the Green belt maybe, - where environmental purists regard every blade of grass that is so designated as a cause to fight to the death! Wind farms also, where green energy campaigners are tempted to promote them in even the most inappropriate locations. Leaving planning issues, consider the dilemmas faced by those who oppose closures to cherished institutions like libraries. Many would sympathise with those who object to any closure – or any service reduction. Their stance differs markedly from those who see the necessity to agree a different model of delivery, and who may work with Managers to dismantle and rebuild the traditional service. They are the pragmatists.

In Wales, the NHS has a set of Consultation Guidelines that obliges it to treat Community Health Councils (CHCs) in a particular way. CHCs have a statutory right to be consulted, but this comes with specific responsibilities. Should they object to Health Board proposals, they must prepare their own alternative! This is not easy, for consultees – even statutory ones – lack the management information available to those who have developed the consultation options in the first place. But they also probably lack something else – a sense of comparable purpose. One can imagine the disagreements, and the tension between those willing to accept and pursue the policy objectives underlying the proposals and those who may be unwilling to consider any change to the status quo. It can also work the other way around of course – with the Purists advocating radical change.

So what does it mean for a consultor organisation if it realises that stakeholders may be divided?

A cynical – maybe traditional - approach can be called divide and rule. Place your opponents on the spot. Require them to plump for one extreme or another. Expose their lack of unanimity; try to assess which side of the argument commands most support. This can happen when the range of options is rather narrow, and where it presents stakeholders with a mostly binary choice. The difficulty with this is that it puts stakeholder organisations on the defensive. No-one likes to have their divisions exposed, and, frankly, a resentful consultee will do no good to anyone.

Were it possible, it is always better to seek a more consensual position. Use the occasion of the consultation to seek as much agreement as possible, and the best time for this is during the option development phase – at pre-consultation. At this point, purists will generally argue that there is no case to answer, and this places the onus firmly on the consultor to demonstrate the need for the very pragmatism that other stakeholders may be more willing to consider. The dynamics of a debate always change if people think there is something to play for. If the consultor is seriously open to persuasion, there is always a chance that those with a serious stake in the problem will use their ingenuity to seek solutions.

We sometimes make the mistake of finding Purists just too difficult to deal with – that is why we often settle for marginalising them. They are almost always well motivated and often extremely well-informed. True dialogue means talking to those with an interest regardless of their views. Their right to be heard is a function of what/who they are, and what their interest might be – not what they believe, or the extent to which they are willing to compromise.

Some consultors do not even know whether these stakeholders have internal debates – or to what extent. So when a consultation prompts greater acrimony than anyone forecast – it is often a simple case of an unexpected debate. The best policy is to know the stakeholders well enough to anticipate the fault-lines of any argument, and maybe structure a consultation so as to facilitate a constructive debate.

TRIGGER POINTS

To what extent are you aware of the divisions within key stakeholder organisations?

• Some of these issues will be discussed at the Local Government Special Interest Group (SIG) meeting, 21st November 2013 at the Institute HQ in Biggleswade. Free to members
• The Institute’s Winter Training programme is now published; download from www.consultationinstitute.org or talk to Martin Roach
• If you enjoyed this Topic, you may also enjoy:-
• – Topic 216 The thin end of the wedge
• – Topic 206: Talking to our friends
• – Topic 190: Being awkward
• – Topic 133: Authoritative consultees

This is the 249th 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