Mass participation is better than centralised power

Power is concentrated in the hands of too few people. More decisions should be made by larger groups of people with a shared interest or expertise in the subject, starting with those whose voices have not been heard: ‘no decisions about us without us’. Moreover, public agencies, charities and businesses achieve most when they move away from command and control by the few and stimulate the resourcefulness of the many.

The evidence for mass participation

In 2017 we spent some time looking at this. Here is what we found:

Featured

Centralised decisions made by groups of people in isolation from society are damaging.

Decentralised models of decision making have a number of advantages over centralised models.

There are a number of arguments for retaining centralised models of decision making.

Obstacles to decentralised decision making

There are a number of obstacles to overcome to achieve a model that allows for decentralised decision making.

Despite the difficulties, alternative models of decision making which encourage greater citizen participation are gaining traction.

There are some unintended consequences of localised decision making processes.

Small-scale localised decision making initiatives have been occurring in the UK.

Many participatory budgeting initiatives in the UK have been criticised for being piecemeal and marginal.

International experience of larger scale initiatives

Much larger scale localised decision making processes have been occurring internationally.

**Insights from our members and others**

We've published a collection of essays about this and other propositions which show how our members and others are putting this into practice. Here's what they have to say on mass participation.

If you have a good example of this principle that you would like to share, please get in touch.

< Previous principle

Back to all evidence

Next principle >