Note from a network discussion: Re-building trust in democracy
Re-building Trust in Democracy: record of a Better Way discussion, 24 March 2020
Steve Wyler, co-convenor of a Better Way, opened the discussion by saying that trust in democracy was critical during the pandemic and so the issue was timely. Dr Henry Tam, academic and author of Time to Save Democracy, introduced the topic by outlining the three main elements which he said are needed to make democracy work well:
Togetherness, which occurs when a) there is communication of a shared mission (as is happening today over Covid-19 but which is sometimes lacking); b) commitment to mutual respect, with zero tolerance of discrimination; and c) a coherent membership (eg criteria about who you admit as a member).
Objectivity, which is created when a) there is open and co-operative learning b) built-in systems to enable critical review to question assumptions c) there are clear rules which are respected (eg respect for facts).
Power balance, which a) includes participatory decision-making b) maximising civic parity, rather than, for example, election campaigns financed by those who have more money c) public accountability.
These apply both to a whole country and to individual organisations and can be used as a template to look at areas for improvement, he said. Some Scandinavian countries are scoring highly on these indicators, eg Sweden, and also the Netherlands, he added. That said, in both countries the far right were seeking to demonise migrant populations, jeopardising ‘togetherness’.
In discussion the following points were made:
A new paradigm is needed locally. The New Local Government Network’s (NLGN) Community Paradigm sets out the shift it seeks with public services giving more power and control to local people. The NLGN were calling for a Community Power Act designed to compel public services to distribute some of their power toward community rights and improve civic parity.
The current system isn’t working for many and perpetuates inequality. It was argued that the political system we have was set up in the 1800s and needs reform. Local government, for example, is dominated by white men, and people from lower socio-economic groups are far more inclined to think democracy does not work for them than wealthier people, surveys show.
The consensus required for ‘togetherness’ is beginning to be challenged. Research suggests that a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination is increasingly being questioned in the UK, with a majority of people thinking that ‘political correctness’ has gone too far. There is also a lack of trust in politicians. Young people are reporting the lowest commitment to democracy, and an argument was developing that our democracy is ill placed to deal with a crisis like Covid-19, unlike China and Singapore. Young people also are less likely to value community, whilst being more liberal than older people. That said, it was uncertain whether young people really were expressing a loss of faith in democracy itself. They might instead be indicating a lack of trust in our current first past the post electoral system which means their vote often doesn’t count. And it was important to look at the underlying reasons why people are challenging ‘political correctness’.
The conditions needed to ensure civic parity in our democracy include building confidence and capability. Surveys show that affluent people are far more engaged, politically. Community Links was looking at what skills are required to enable everyone to participate fully: consultation pointed to the importance of digital capability and literacy as well as good health. The campaign by Community Organisers for free broadband was noted. The Call to Action for a Better Way refers to the importance of creating platforms and channels for everyone to influence what matters to them; of building confidence and capacity for individuals and communities to take more power; and to realise the importance of communities and place. In Sheffield a Better Way group was beginning to explore what would make a ‘good democracy’ in their city.
Scepticism was expressed about the value of citizens assemblies: they had become the latest fashion, they were sometimes used inappropriately, they could be a logistical nightmare, and they only worked if their decisions were heeded. Accountability was also an issue and participation needed to work at very local level. The ingredients for a good democracy were far more than just changes to existing mechanisms and involved co-production, changes in behaviour and ways of bringing in lived experience. Different things work for different people.
Devolving more power locally is desirable but requires clear parameters and commitment. The loudest voices can sometimes crowd out others and arrangements need to be inclusive and accountable. In Kensington and Chelsea, after the Grenfell Tower fire, the council was genuinely trying to engage widely and deeply with local people, including through participatory grant-making, but it was undeniably challenging for the council to achieve this, given the extreme inequality and power imbalance in the area. It is also important to apply subsidiarity so that the right things are delegated upwards, provided there is clear accountability, as well as downwards.
The current coronavirus crisis is a test of our democracy but it might also create opportunities to improve it. Would only the loudest voices be heard? Is there enough bandwidth to surface and address the specific issues being faced by different groups? Is there sufficient trust in politicians given recent issues about truthfulness and lack of transparency? However, the growth of neighbourliness and mutual aid potentially might help create better conditions for ‘togetherness’ but it might also exacerbate civic inequalities, as some neighbourhoods might be much better at this than others.