Originally published 6 November 2007. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
The Government’s proposed duty to inform, consult and involve is leading to some pretty deep discussions in many a public body. There is a lot of muddled thinking around as many of the words bandied about are gloriously imprecise and defy legislative definition.
What’s becoming abundantly clear, however, is that there is an emerging consensus over the need to widen public dialogues and to seek to “involve” lots of people who have hitherto not participated in our traditional processes. Another way of putting it is that the Government’s agenda is to activate the silent majority and persuade them to become “involved” – however you define it. Not everyone agrees that this is the best thing since sliced bread. There are many objections. They range from the danger of raising unrealistic expectations, through to there being something wrong in putting pressure upon people to engage if they don’t want to; after all, we don’t have compulsory voting in this country. On the other hand, we all know that traditional forms of consultation have been somewhat elitist, and the phrase “the usual suspects” is often used by its critics. It results in public discussion highlighting opposite views rather than identifying consensus. Polarisation is often an unintended consequence of traditional consultation.
This is why there is much to be said for taking time and trouble to know the views of those who might not normally elect to take part in these dialogues. A structured sample of residents, for example, will provide this data; so will asking people about their priorities and concerns rather than forcing them to choose between options in which they have little interest. Well-structured citizens panels can also provide insights which cannot be found just by talking to those who volunteer their views.
The silent majority can be really important on controversial issues where there are vocal protagonists on either side. Consider the recent furore regarding waste collection, and think of proposals to tax or penalise less fuel-efficient cars. Or take various proposals for mobile telephony masts, wind farms, or airports etc etc.
Once people see an issue as becoming vitally important for them, they become involved – and in that sense, the system has a self-correcting mechanism. The trouble is that they do not often perceive this in time, and because public bodies have not succeeded in persuading them of its importance early enough, public involvement often happens late, and is, by then, less likely to affect the outcome.
So, ironically, it is possible that the key to the Government’s new duty to involve may well lie in the first of the three obligations – the duty to inform. If we do a better job of communicating with communities and helping them understand what does and what does not matter to them, then there is a much better chance of hearing what the majority thinks. After all, remember the old conundrum - if the silent majority is so silent, how do we know it is a majority?
Trigger points
- Is the absence of data from the silent majority affecting your ability to interpret consultation data in your organisation?
- Do you have mechanisms to address any gap in this information?
- Help us think through how the Local Government White Paper, Strong & Prosperous Communities will impact public service organisations, and their duty to inform, consult and involve – join the White Paper Implications Forum.
This is the 87th 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