Title

‘Participatory democracy doesn't threaten representational democracy. It's an empty argument that is in the past.' That's what the secretary of state, Hazel Blears, argued in her interview with local government weekly The MJ earlier this month (3 July). I have no problem with the first statement, but I fear Ms Blears is being extremely optimistic with the views expressed in the second sentence. Many councillors consider the fact that they are elected gives them not just a legitimacy and primacy over other bodies but a monopoly on decision-making in their area. Even those elected members who believe in listening, involving and empowering local people will often do so as long as it does not threaten or conflict with their role and position. Look at Sir Simon Milton's response to the empowerment White Paper: ‘It is through representative democracy that elected councillors make tough decisions based on the interests of residents, and this should remain the lynchpin of involving people locally' (see The MJ, 17 July) The innovative One City model which Westminster City Council adopted under Sir Simon's leadership illustrates the point. The ward budgets and forums at the heart of the scheme certainly make for more responsive services, and give more say to local people in shaping local priorities, but they do so through strengthening the role of ward councillors. The Westminster initiative is excellent and I am not knocking it. But it is a limited form of participative democracy. Full participative democracy means being prepared to give power away, whether to individuals, groups or communities. It involves – though the phrase seems to have gone out of fashion – double devolution. Examples of deeper participative democracy include: giving individuals power to purchase their services through direct payments, individual budgets, entitlements or vouchers enabling local people to run a service, as happens with a housing co-op or handing over community assets to a local trust empowering parents to set up new schools using citizens' juries and panels to help mediate or resolve tough local issues devolving power to area and neighbourhood committees, and parish and town councils. There are excellent councils which are developing and implementing this agenda. But my contention is that councillors as a class and officers as professionals remain resistant to approaches that involve giving away some of their power. Look how slow local government has been to implement direct payments – after 10 years, only around 40,000 adults, out of the one million who are eligible, actually receive them. All sorts of reasons are given as to why participative democracy isn't such a good idea... ‘people don't want to be bothered with coming to meetings', ‘residents only want involvement when things aren't right', ‘the middle classes and lobby groups will just monopolise things', ‘communities will use power to block progress and protect their way of life', ‘it will lead to conflicts between different groups', and ‘the most deprived communities haven't got the capacity to take on responsibilities', are just some of things that are said. Not all these objections are groundless. But understanding how to design and implement initiatives in participative democracy will take care of most of them. And the pros far outweigh the cons. Giving individuals and organisations their own budgets leads to higher levels of satisfaction and more efficient spending. Empowering communities provides the right context for local people to contribute towards solving some of the big challenges of our time such as anti-social behaviour, care for the elderly, and improving English and other basic skills. And treating people responsibly is a good foundation for addressing controversial planning, budgetary and service configuration issues. In short, participative democracy is the bedrock on which we need to build a strong civil society. It is the antidote to the ‘me, me, me society', which encourages people to think of themselves just as individual consumers rather than as concerned citizens. It reinforces rather than undermines representative democracy. The empowerment White Paper overdoses on initiatives – what on earth is the Government doing by proposing to bring back aldermen? – and most of it can be achieved within existing legislation, but its underlying theme is surely right. And councillors need to embrace rather than resist its message. Robert Hill was an adviser to former prime minister, Tony Blair, and now works as an independent consultant on public policy issues

Title

WHITEHALL

Do councillors really get it?

SUBSCRIBE TO CONTINUE READING