Emancipation
England, Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales
Enhancing the involvement of citizens
Lord Goldsmith published a report recently and entitled: "Citizenship: Our Common Bond" and in which, amongst other matters, he reviews the issue of enhancing the involvement of citizens in political process. He states that "The central issue may not be that citizens are uninterested in political issues but that they are politically active in new ways. Hence citizens may be using alternative modes of political engagement, like joining campaigning organisations or signing petitions instead of voting. This suggests that the challenge is to connect alternative modes of political engagement to formal politics and hence help to ensure that people who take part in the former see the impact of what they do on the latter and then go on and take part in the latter as well."
This is perhaps to miss the point as to where adaptation of process needs to occur. The Power Report (2006) chaired by Helena Kennedy covered much of this form of analysis in some detail but perhaps also read too much into the new forms of "expression'.
The reality is that what Goldsmith refers to as "formal politics" has come to be regarded as one of marginalisation of the electorate from any meaningful participation in the significant decisions which affect them. This has been associated with, during the last half-century, a broader penetration of information and knowledge on the part of the electorate. As a result the so called formal politics has been exposed to a more critical although largely silent oversight by the electorate who see the system largely controlled by political parties. Over the same period there has been a retrograde movement in the way in which politicians exercise their rights and duties on behalf of the electorate which sets no example of consideration for the views of communities represented. Politicians have become somewhat more aloof. Many see serving party over people as a way to gain personal status and perhaps relative wealth. Political parties have this somewhat visceral collective sense to them with a strong power heirarchy where faithful and dedicated service is directed towards getting some of their members elected at general elections. Political parties, unlike non-government organizations spawn a form of cloned and intellectually-shackled membership who seem to be incapable of reflecting and reasoning outside the bounds of the party policy regime. In the case of members of parliament this trend continues under the guidance of the whip and over-powerful prime minsters with ther power of patronage. So comparing individual or group initiatives as a political process on par with the motivation and modus operendi of political parties is almost an insult to the intelligence of the electorate. Why is it, after all, that the national membership of all British poltiical parties put together does not surpass 1% of the electorate? The message is clear. Political parties are not perceived to serve most perople's personal interests nor, for than matter, the interests of the public at large.
Goldsmith makes a suggestion as to how the other interests and activities people participate in might be directed towards formal politics. He writes, "One way to do this may be through the concept of a Deliberation Day. This would be a forum attached to a general election – possibly taking place on the Saturday before an election – which would receive government support, especially funding, and would provide an opportunity for civil society organisations – including political parties but also those other organisations that citizens are joining in increasing numbers – to organise political debates and events. No doubt some of these events would focus directly on the contest between the parties and candidates as we are used to but others may choose to highlight a particular issue or theme."
The problem with this proposal is its suggestion that by associating these Deliberation Days with a formal poltiical event, the general election, that this will cause people to become more involved in politics. The plain message which shoud be sinking into those who inhabit the formal poltical domain is that ferwer people wish to participate in a political process where the terms and conditions, as well as the issues of importance are set by political party agendas.
Goldsmith makes a suggestion which has failed in many other domains. He suggests government, read political part, funding could energise this process, "Creating a Deliberation Day, and providing organisations with the financial support to make it vibrant and interesting, would draw those organisations and their members into formal politics, as well as provide a very significant statement of the value attached to politics and to civic participation in general."
A well known development in the relationship between governments, international organizations and non-government organizations has been the use of funding to buy over NGO support. This is because funding provisions, although perhaps initiated with a naive and yet good intent in mind, normally end up becoming a political tool to temper the agendas followed by NGOs. Put more plainly, by buying over the management of NGOs with financial support the membership of an NGO becomes a proxy for legitimacy of those providing funds. Certainly suring the 1990s, the World Bank, for example, to stem widespread criticism of NGOs in the area of environemntal protection simply contracted NGOs as consultants. Very few NGOs were able to sustain their independence as a result of this evolution with more committed and knowledgeable members of staff leaving the organizations.
|
|
|
 |