Pathways through Participation: Local engagement in democracy

This blog is an e-report of the launch of the Pathways through Participation briefing paper on local engagement in democracy. A PDF version of the report is also available to download.

Local Engagement in Democracy Event Report

What is Pathways through Participation?

The Pathways through Participation project is a joint research project led by NCVO in partnership with the Institute for Volunteering Research (IVR) and Involve, funded by the Big Lottery Fund. It explores how and why people get involved and stay involved in different forms of participation over the course of their lives and within the communities they belong to. Through improved understanding of the reasons for, and the contexts of participation, the project also aims to influence policy and practice, and encourage the development of opportunities for participation that are better suited to people’s needs and aspirations. It focuses on the following questions:

  1. How and why does participation begin and continue?
  2. Can trends and patterns of participation be identified over time?
  3. What connections, if any, are there between different forms and episodes of participation and what triggers movement between them?

The research methodology placed individuals’ own experiences throughout their lives at the centre of the research and looked at participation in three different geographical locations and contexts (suburban Enfield, rural Suffolk and inner city Leeds). The researchers conducted over 100 in-depth interviews, enabling people to tell their story in their own words.

The Pathways through Participation final report was published on 13 September 2011 and is available from the project website.

Local engagement in democracy briefing paper

Local engagement in democracy briefing paper [pdf]

This briefing paper summarises the findings and implications from the Pathways through Participation project relevant to local engagement in democracy. Specifically, it looks at:

  • the language and image of local engagement in democracy
  • the practice of local engagement in democracy
  • the accessibility of local engagement in democracy

Other project reports

Pathways through Participation full report [pdf]

Pathways through Participation summary report [pdf]

Briefing paper: Informing and influencing policy [pdf]

Briefing paper: Volunteering as a participation pathway [pdf]

Understanding participation: A literature review [pdf]

Local engagement in democracy event introduction

On 18 October 2011, in a committee room in the Houses of Parliament, the Pathways through Participation project team launched 'Local engagement in democracy', a briefing paper summarising the findings and implications of the project for public participation (below is a copy of the agenda).

The event was hosted by Stella Creasy MP, chaired by Simon Burall (director of Involve) and attended by over 40 individuals from public and civil society organisations. The event started with a presentation of the relevant research findings, followed by a short Q&A and discussion session. Our three speakers, Stella Creasy MP, Cllr Sir Merrick Cockell, and Tessy Britton, then gave their reflections on the findings and implications, followed by another short Q&A session. Participants then split off into groups to discuss three questions:

  • What has particularly struck you? 
  • What are the implications? 
  • What else do we need to know?

Each group chose key points to feedback which they wrote on coloured pieces of card (each colour matched a particular question). These were then grouped by Simon and participants commented on the themes that emerged.

In the following posts you will find:

Please leave comments on the posts, particularly filling in any gaps that we have missed.

Local engagement in democracy event agenda

Click here to download:
Local_engagement_in_democracy_agenda_Final.pdf (342 KB)
(download)

Project team presentation

After a welcome from Simon Burall (director of Involve), Ellie Brodie (NCVO) and I summarised the findings from the research. Ellie started with an introduction to the project, including our research questions and approach, and then summarised some key overall findings (see our summary report); covering:

  • why participation starts, continues or stops,
  • how people's participation changes over time, and
  • some key conclusions.

I then presented the Local engagement in democracy briefing paper, covering three issues:

  • the language and image of local engagement in democracy
  • the practice of local engagement in democracy, and
  • the accessibility of local engagement in democracy.

Audio of the presentation and our presentation slides are below.

Local engagement in democracy presentation audio

(download)

Local engagement in democracy presentation slides

Cllr Sir Merrick Cockell's reflections

Cllr Sir Merrick Cockell is Leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and Chairman of the Local Government Association.  

(download)

I’m going to refer to two examples, one from my days at London Councils and one in Kensington and Chelsea. I think what I’ve seen and heard, particularly the three slides around language and image, practice and accessibility, are explanations of why people are turned off, why they don’t want to become involved in local democratic process. I think as an active local politician these are ones that are familiar, but perhaps not brought together so persuasively, but also with the implications of what we need to do, those of us who are involved in local democracy, to make ourselves more open and accessible and for people to participate.

I’m particularly interested in – wearing my national local government hat (if that makes sense) – how do we attract, how do we actually show the positive side of local democracy, that people will actively want to be part of, that won’t be put off by the cogent and perfectly understandable reasons why people wouldn’t want to go that step, or those succession of steps further, to actually become a person who other people would then choose to put their trust in and vote for, or indeed not vote for, as active parts of that democratic process. There’s lots of reasons here given why, but you can understand why people would be put off, would be saying I don’t want to be attacked, I don’t want to be held up as something I’m not or ridiculed or seen to be a bizarre personality – something wrong with you that you might want to actively want to be a politician.

So how do you counter that? There are two examples I want to refer to. One of the problems in local government is there are actually lots of people who want to stand for councils but local government needs a mixture. You need community activists, you need people who are great in their area, in their ward, their district. But you also, because of the executive cabinet thing, you need some skills as well. And you need some quite specific skills if you’re not going to end up with the Icelandic banks repetition. You need people that can ask the officials the right questions. You don’t need to be more of an expert, but you need to know the right questions, and if you bring some expertise in an area. Finance is one of those areas.

When I was chairing London Councils – I’ll talk about the ‘Be a councillor’ campaign that we started there – but it was how do you identify some of those skills? If you come from a business background, if you’re a business and you don’t have those skills, or you want those skills on your board, you go and you find a non-executive director with those skills. That’s an obvious way of doing it. I was sitting with some colleagues having a cup of coffee in Westminster and we were talking about it and said, why don’t we go and look (in local government), why don’t we seek out people with those particular skills that are absolutely essential if we’re going to run and lead and innovate public services. Nobody wanted to do this, we tried to do it in London – I think we did get one council in each different political control, and we found these head-hunter companies who would do it pro bono and so we tried.

No one in the Conservative group in London would do it, so my stupid idea, so Kensington and Chelsea did it. Tribal were the people who were are partner in it and they operated this in a very proactive way. They talked to, I think, 225 people from 167 organisations, some of which were absolutely local community organisations, some of which were local businesses, some of which were wider businesses, people in the city who might live in Kensington and Chelsea. And actually, many of the answers they got were some of the things here, like “I’m not political”, “Politics? I’m not really political, I’m not sure which party I am”, “I don’t want to get into that world” was a very live one, “what does local government do?” “Why would I waste my time doing something like that?” That’s explaining what happens at a local level, and actually quite how much not only influence but direct change you can bring about was one of the constants that came out. But actually we did go through that process from 225, then you ended up with a final group of 20, and then the headhunters had to say, “well do you actually live in the area?” And then they went “oh no, didn’t I tell you, I actually live in Shepherd Bush,” and so we actually ended up with a handful of people, and then they were introduced to the political process – and happily one came through that process. So it’s not something you could replicate very widely, but I think it did highlight amongst people who you would think should be thinking about this at some time in their lives of actually being a real participant in the democratic process that frankly it was the last thing that they would have considered as being a sensible thing to do. But they would have considered taking their professional skills into the voluntary sector or into a business as a non executive director.

That came from something when we were in London, I think in about 2008, we’d seen all of the data, we knew, as indeed the LGA latest data show, local government politicians are getting – and it’s everything that I am – they’re getting whiter, they’re getting older, they’re getting maler. In fact, I know however old I get I’m still at the young end of active participants in local government. And those are bad signals, we would hope to have been pushing back the other way, but the most recent evidence is that that is not the case. So how do we break down those barriers so that local government is not – which it isn’t – something that you pop into town hall on a Friday afternoon sometime between the golf course and wherever, and you sign a few things.

That’s not local government at all, but how do you communicate, how do you get that message out there? So in London, all the councils participated in this, and I think almost all of us had a-political town hall meetings, we invited people in, using all of the community groups and networks that we had and of course you inevitably miss a lot of people in that, but still, even in Kensington and Chelsea, we got about a hundred people coming to an open evening. We did a poll, 40 of them had been into the town hall before but that was to pay a parking fine or pay their council tax or something sort of negative. The rest knew nothing about it, had just come because they’d heard about it and wanted to know more. And we talked, and we had a sort of fair thing outside so they could see the things we did, and they could also talk to the local political parties, and in the public part of the meeting we made sure we had all of the parties represented. We imported an independent from Somerset and most people in the audience wanted to be an independent, because that reflected that they were different from other people, that they weren’t part of a political process, they didn’t like the idea of a whip and all those sorts of things, until of course you pointed out – and of course in some places independents do hold control by working together and forming affectively political groupings – but we had to explain that if you want to achieve something you have to decide if you can work with others, and probably that means that the system is – unless you think you can break the whole system, you have to work within political parties or certainly as we are at the moment.

That was an interesting process and actually directly from that in the Conservative party in Kensington and Chelsea we have people standing in our elections who would never had stood as a Conservative a few years before. Young men and women from the local mosque, for instance, were standing as Conservative candidates and that was happening throughout London. I think we wouldn’t overclaim the results but by opening our town halls up, by talking to people, by bringing them in, by explaining what their role would be, how whatever their background, whatever their finances, whatever their circumstances they could be local councillors, they could be candidates, that I think is the way that we need to – at least at the active participation level – we need to change things. In the Local Government Association we’re going to be revitilising the ‘Be a councillor’ project, we have an annual parliamentary reception, I hope Stella you will be there, and we’re going to have ‘Be a councillor’ as the theme, so that we actually connect particularly to newer members of Parliament and we actually get their validation for the fact that we want local people to be involved in the local democratic process.

Tessy Britton's reflections

Tessy Britton is a social designer with an expertise including collaborative methodologies and behaviour, and participation and community development.

(download)

Thanks to Tim and Simon for inviting me to comment on this. I’ve never done anything of this sort so I’m a bit of a novice, commenting on proper papers like this. I suppose overall I wanted really to commend the researchers on this piece of work which I think is an extraordinarily high quality piece of research. I really welcome the idea that we’re getting more qualitative rather than just quantitative data to work from. One of the things that really stuck with me reading it was firstly that that there was hardly a word in it that I disagreed with – sorry about that, I know that you wanted me to be controversial Tim – but most of it I did really agree with and I think it’s very important to have this sort of data because there’re all sorts of assumptions that are embedded, particularly with the rush of Big Society stuff that we’ve had over the last year, and those assumptions aren’t always correct, I think, and when you dissect them and look at a rigour report like this you can see where there might be things going wrong.

It also made me feel quite radical after I read it. It is a very good snapshot of the status quo but I think – referring to your question, is there a ceiling to this idea of participation? – I think that it’s a very unsatisfactory state of affairs the way things are at the moment. My own thoughts are that we need to – as well as being very careful about change and being very strategic – that we actually need to be quite radical in the way we look about changing systems, and not just saying that this is how it is and we need to just work along with it. So I think this is a good platform to build on that thinking about how we take change forward.

I think that consultation is incredibly important and I think that we are obviously getting it completely wrong in a lot of instances. I think Tim referring to not a single instance of anyone being satisfied by a consultation was very telling. I think one of the things that happens when we fail to consult properly, when we don’t incorporate citizens’ knowledge and perspectives, is that we start to make poor decisions. Good decisions come out of everybody’s knowledge being pooled together. The citizens don’t know everything and the local authorities don’t know everything, but I think that good decisions come out of blending those two together. That it is quite a difficult thing to do. Poor decision making can lead to unnecessary levels of local activism; I think there are necessary levels of activism and then there are unnecessary levels of activism, and those normally come about through bad decisions. Not only that, I think bad consultation actually wastes the very genuine opportunity to collaborate and design projects and services that draw on the intrinsic strengths of both citizens and government. That isn’t just about skills or knowledge or time. I think that we need to start to think much more about pulling on the imagination of citizens and local authorities alike. And that I think is why consultation is so important.

Many people who work in this world know how much emphasis has been given to co-designing and co-production. There is less knowledge of this in communities. Most communities haven’t heard of co-design and I don’t think I had until relatively recently. But I think programmes like the NESTA People Powered Health programme is giving the right emphasis on actually trying to produce better outcomes through developing things and producing things together. So I think that collaboration, which is my obsession, is quite a good thing.

The economic situation I think also dictates that local authorities can’t really have a political stance that says the “You say, we did” approach anymore. I think that with the cuts that that’s no longer possible and I think that citizens deserve a much more honest approach to consultation that says that “we can’t do everything” and “how can we do things together in a much better manner”.

Tim asked me to refer to this recent project that I’ve been involved in with Reading Council. I won’t go into too much detail because we haven’t done the debriefing as yet. But in September and October we did 30 workshops across the Borough and we did try – in the two hour workshops each of them – we did try to change the conversation, so we were being very earnest about wanting to hear citizens’ priorities, but at the same time we were also trying to shift the conversation to what could be done with citizens together. I’ll be quite honest and say that certainly the first six of them were pretty hair raising, because people were not expecting that, people come to consultations expecting an opportunity to come and complain to the council and obviously we were very respectful of that as well, but it was very interesting to see that we did have an opportunity to change the conversation and be very honest and frank with citizens about what was possible and what wasn’t. So we’ll talk about that in more detail once we start to get results from that.

So I suppose the other thing I want to say, and others have mentioned it already, is this categorisation of social, public and individual. I think that those three categories are very valid. The stuff that I have been working on myself has been looking at it in a slightly different categorisation, which has been: consumer, representative, charitable, challenge and this new paradigm, which is the stuff that I’ve been doing, which is creative-collaborative. I think that the first four are quite mature, they’re quite well established, and I think that there may actually be a ceiling to that. I think that all those different paradigms attract a certain interest, certain characters, and I think that the room for growth comes in being much more imaginative about how people work together.

My final comment is about participation generally. I think that when you’re involved in this world and when you want people to participate there is a tendency to get over zealous about the idea of participation. I think at times we sort of think “why aren’t you participating, don’t you know how important it is?” I can say that because I’m sure that I have admitted such annoying signals myself, at one time or another. I think it’s good to remind ourselves that actually, not everyone has to participate all of the time. I think the report was very helpful, particularly in stating that people are participating in all different ways, and most people are participating in some way at any one time. Not only that, they are participating through their work and through raising their children, and all those other things that actually don’t get registered as participation.

I’ve got a friend called Jerry Stein and he uses this test he calls the Mozart test, which is: do you think Mozart should have been at home writing music or at a community meeting? I think that it’s a good reminder that there’re lots of people that we shouldn’t really let them participate because they should be doing other more important things. We’ve got an opportunity to build on the findings of this and to try to be a bit more radical about how we look at participation in general.

Stella Creasy MP's reflections

Dr Stella Creasy is the Member of Parliament for Walthamstow and former Head of Research at Involve, and at that time one of the initiators of the Pathways through Participation project.

(download)

I’m really pleased to be here today, not least because I was at actually at Involve when we got this research commissioned and it’s fantastic to see it finally come to fruition. I knew I was right. I think what it does so well – and I want to say just a little bit about what I take from the research, and then what that means for British politics, I think it is important to look at the cultural context in which you’re operating – is I think it finally nails some of the myths that have developed some of the structures we’re now struggling with.

When I was at Involve I used to call it the ‘field of dreams’ approach: if we build it, they will come. What this research does so clearly is point out to all of us who are involved in political engagement that if we want more people to be involved then it’s not about us, it’s about the people we want to involve, their motivations, their participation, what they’re interested in, and how we work on that.

I think on a broader level then, it really challenges some of the presumptions, particularly within the political arena, that politics is about tribes, and about people who have an automatic participation, an automatic loyalty. I have to say as a passionate politician I really welcome that myth being nailed. What we’re moving to is an appreciation of the values that people have that draw them together. And I’m somebody who absolutely upholds the importance of the political process, political parties and whipping as a result, as a way of expressing those values and that involvement and that relationship that people can build together.

I also think what’s really interesting about it is that it proves something that – as somebody who’s worked within the community and the voluntary sector – I’ve always felt for a long time: participation isn’t an escalator, it’s more of a dance; at some points people will be more active, there’ll be more steps involved than at others. And that too often we have processes that presume this escalator – that presume that people will amount towards being more involved, and that perhaps some of the guilt that Tessy’s talking about comes from people presuming that well if I took this step, you will take this step too. It’s always great within political parties, you can guarantee that if you turn up as a volunteer to deliver leaflets on the Sunday, people will say “where were you yesterday? Why weren’t you doing it yesterday?” – you know, someone’s come to help.

I think what it challenges all of us to deal with is what we used to term the ‘unconscious incompetence’ within our conditions and the way in which we work now within politics and particularly the need to challenge the very real threat that I feel particularly as a politician that we could end up with a consumer complaints approach to politics. I’m absolutely passionate about the importance of community campaigning, the importance of consumer campaigning and about the political process. My fear is that if we do not tackle the really deep-rooted problems that I think this research shows up very well, we’ll end up with that consumer approach; that we’ll segregate out the decision making processes of formal political participation from the community, from the social, from the consumer side of engagement. And actually, I genuinely think, both as a politician and somebody passionate about social justice, that that would be a mistake.

How then do we challenge that? First of all I do think there are process things we need to do. I would say here and now that we need to have an end to the arm-chewers. Arm-chewers are what I used to call some of the meetings which I would sit in as a former local councillor, and indeed now as a MP, where I would willing chew my own arm off if I could leave early. I’m sure Merrick understands well what I mean. But we have too many structures that do nothing to uphold and honour the motivations of all of us. I joined a political party, I got involved in politics, I stood to be a MP, not because I want to change governments, but because I want to change lives. Too often the way in which we operate mitigates against our motivations, let alone being able to reach out to other people’s motivations to join us in those common causes. So yes absolutely, there are process changes that we need to make.

But I think what this report does so well is set out the deeper truth about the cultural changes that we need to tackle as well. And actually, that is not a job for politicians alone. It’s a job for all of us who care passionately about a vibrant democracy, a vibrant decision making process and a vibrant participative process and where that takes us and the kind of good society that we want to get to. I think first and foremost therefore that we have to recognise that both the debate and the decision-making are important. But too often in the debates around participation we talk as though all that matters is to get everyone into the room and have a conversation and that somehow makes it a more participative, more interactive and more democratic process. Actually the point about democracy is not just simply one person’s ideas, it’s the point where we come together equally to be able to make a decision and to uphold that decision. So we need to be able to talk about the importance of decision making, and I think perhaps Merrick will understand what I feel, sometimes we feel that we have to go where people do not want to go, that sometimes we have to make the difficult decisions and that that is an important part of the process. We need to recalibrate our debate to talk not just about the importance of participation but also about making decisions.

Secondly we need to recognise that it’s the message, not the medium. And I say that as somebody who was taught at Involve how to do Twitter. I used Twitter during the riots. I organised my community in Walthamstow not only to respond to the riots in terms of trying to calm down some of the fear about it all, but also to run a respite centre for the local police. We had over 250 people volunteering over the course of that week. It’s not about the medium it’s about the messages. It’s about the fact that my community in Walthamstow was a strong community that said “we do not want to see this happening on our streets and we want to work together to deal with that”. So as much as I believe that there are process changes that will help with that cultural issue that we need to face, it is ultimately about the messages that we give out. Which is why I think it’s so important that this report talks about language, because even with the most wizzy ways of doing things, if your message isn’t good, it’s not just about telling politicians not to tweet their press releases, it’s actually about a more fundamental reason about why people will engage. Because I do the same things online as I do offline in terms of participation.

I think it’s also about appreciating just what participation offers. I don’t just want good consultation processes – I absolutely agree with everyone who says it’s better not to consult at all than to consult badly – I want people to participate because the kind of good society that I want to live in, the kind of inequalities that I see in British society, cannot be tackled here in Westminster or even in town halls alone. They are about the communities coming together, and they are about communities coming together not just in anger or fear – as often comes together in a consultation process, I always used to say, if you want to start a community group in my area just tell everyone there’s going to be a mobile phone mast at the bottom of their road, within a week you would have a very active community group. It is about that long term commitment. About the difficult decisions you have to make, the effort you have to put in. The pace of change that can sometimes be agonizingly slow. It’s hope that motivates you and hope that puts you saying that actually we can tackle these inequalities.

So it means we need a way of understanding participation as just a starting point of collaboration. It’s not just about everyone being in the room and agreeing on the decision – it’s about everyone recognising the role they can play in those decisions. But if I’ve learnt anything as a local politician and now as a national politician, it’s that if you give time and energy and effort to that the results can be transformative. Whether it’s the projects I see in my local community in Walthamstow – the library that we’ve saved that is now a community centre that generates literacy lessons taught by local communities in all sorts of different languages – or whether it’s the work that we’re doing here now nationally in terms of tackling the impact of illegal loan sharking on local communities. And the fact that we’ve got the government to a point where they’ve recognised that something needs to be done about it – and I’m hoping that that coalition of people working at a local and national level will convince them to bring in a cap on the cost of credit. It is completely possible.

I think that leads into my final point, which is the other thing that this report makes so clear to me, which is that both relationships and resources matter. That as much as we need to tackle the cultural problems we have that stop people wanting to be participative, that stop people like Merrick and I admitting in a pub on a Friday night that we’re politicians in fear of people wanting to talk to us about their parking or their bins, or indeed how we’re going to tackle world poverty – which on a Friday night is quite a hard thing to try to get into. It’s also about the resources that people have to take part. As somebody who’s passionate about social justice, I want to resource my community because I can see the contribution that they can make. So when I see a barrier to equality and a barrier to participation I see the same thing. I see something that stops my community from progressing. If we don’t have one, we don’t have both. And I think that’s a really important lesson from this research – that as much as we can will people to be involved, as much as we can look at new processes of involvement, as much as we can say we need to talk a different language, we need to be willing to work with people in different ways, we’ve also got to resource and build that capacity to do so.

But again, I end on that point that when you do that, when you work in those ways, I’ve seen the difference that it makes. I hope that we’re starting to see some of that difference at a national level too by recognising that in the future we’re only going to tackle some of the challenges that we have as a nation if we work in those ways. But I think that there’s a growing willingness to do it, and I think this research is a really useful contribution for that debate. So well done for keeping going with it, because I know at the start it felt like such a big project to do, and I’m really looking forward to hearing what people have to say.

Group discussion

Following the reflections of our three speakers, participants split off into groups to reflect on three things:

  • What had particularly stuck them
  • What the implications were
  • What else we need to know

Groups wrote key points on cards and these were then fed back to the larger group. Below is a summary of the points raised in this discussion and a write-up of each group's cards.

Large group discussion

(download)

- What institutions do we need to support engagement? Current structures and institutions seem to be getting in the way of politicians engaging.

- Issues of power are not being addressed when we come to look at questions of consultation or political participation. Power is held by all parties, not just those in power. We need to address power as it really is - in the community, in the council office or in Parliament - and allow those communities to interact. The moment there's assumed to be a powerless population, they are asked their opinion and then ignored in many cases. But there are powers within the community - networks that are really locked in and working with the political powers, and these are ignored in the report. We need to move to a place where we recognise that power is not located within individuals, or within "the community", but actually in networks that move shift and change over time. That's where the zero-sum game question comes in - that we're looking to mobilise power in a whole range of new places where power has previously been ignored or excluded or underplayed.

- There is a distinction between decision-making process and getting to that decision-making process. Participation is crucial to getting to the decision making process, because we don't have the best information for decisions to be taken. We confuse participation at the decision-making level with getting as much quality information into the process up to the point when you make decision.

- The ultimate goal of localism and participation is people themselves making the decisions, and that means devolving resources, devolving decision-making, devolving assets. But then there's need for wider accountability because of the point that there are "insiders" and "outsiders", and certain groups have more power than others. So in devolving decision-making and assets there's going to be a concern that some voices are louder than others and the decision might not be in the interest of the whole community. There's a role of representative groups like councils to mediate.

- Timescales of how public bodies want you to participate are completely out of sync with how people want to get involved. Rather than expecting people to jump through hoops to get involved its about simplifying processes and starting early, from the beginning, in involving people - not right at the end.

- It's a cultural thing of not expecting people to participate where you want them to, but where they're willing to.

- The findings from the research are obvious but really important to have them because we were ignoring it all. It makes total sense that people will participate in different ways over their life times and a lot of the other points that were made, but we're not actually taking that into account in consultation processes. 

- We talk about the value of co-production and the savings that come from that, and we slightly change the buzz-word every six-months, but then we don't do anything else - because as soon as you start to actually co-produce, then some vested interest has to give up some of their powers, some of their influence, even some of their budget, some of their commissioning power, and it stops because they are powerful. Citizens, you can bring them together in a room, but they're still a collective of individual citizens. Unless that collective can become empowered to stand up to the very empowered groupings in government, nothing happens. They're patted on the head and they go home. Then it becomes harder and harded to enthuse people to want to try again.

- It's a fairly recent development, but now party politics has got a stranglehold on politics at a local level. It didn't use to have. It's been around at the national level for a long time, but at the local level it did not use to have the strangle hold it's got now. As a community activist, it really does suck, it's terrible, because the way in which it works is that the politicians are always directing everything into the next election. It gets in the way of a huge amount of things. Until we get some way of helping the local politicians to not be obsessed by that, we're going to have to find some other ways to empower citizens.

Cards produced by groups

Cards

What has particularly struck you? (Blue cards)

  • The importance of individual/personal motivations – and not what ‘we’ think.
  • How can we dance on an escalator? How can we work with the messy reality of participation?
  • Co-producing communities. Capacity building. Obvious.
  • Respect people’s choices for how to engage.
  • What is needed: fundamental change in (power) relations – co-operative model.
  • Party politics sucks local citizens’ participation.
  • Insight: People can be put off by participatory processes if their very design is top-down. Implication: Start participation early (in even the design of the process).

What are the implications? (Yellow cards)

  • Participation is meaningless without purpose.
  • Incentives. Nudging.
  • Tension between local decision making and wider accountability.
  • Rational government vs. Right answer = Right process
  • Insight: Participation can be motivated by fear and anger. Implication: Resource for ‘anti-X’ groups. Processes which are inclusive.
  • Insight: People can be put off by participatory processes if their design feels top-down and not participatory. Implication: Include people early and make design of process participatory.
  • Insight: Scepticism towards formal politics drives people to informal politics but even that builds people’s ‘felt resources’. Implication: Encourage informal participation to drive formal participation.
  • Moving from consumer to participant to collaborator and attach to decision making.

What else do we need to know? (Purple cards)

  • How do power and networks influence people’s ability to take up opportunities to participate?
  • Need to understand the interplay between engagement activity, motivation and deprivation.
  • Best practice and next steps.
  • Structures don’t work at the moment – radical mindset change in Whitehall and town halls needed.
  • Data on what engagement each politician is doing.
  • Is power zero sum or can participation add to total power?

Media and blog posts linked to 'Local engagement in democracy'