I am studying an
online course called Engaging Citizens: A Game Changer for
Development? and trying to blog as I go. Although the course is
focussed on international development, I want to try to apply the ideas to UK
politics (both national and local) and also to student engagement in higher
education.
Here are my thoughts on week 1:
Citizen engagement has a long
history from Athenian democracy to Islamic Shuras
to modern participatory budgeting. The basic concept is
that governments derive their authority from their people so have a
responsibility to respond to their needs. The course defines citizen
engagement as "the two-way interaction between citizens
and government or the private sector that gives citizens a stake
in decision-making, with the objective of improving development
outcomes". The course defines citizens in a non-legal sense i.e. everyone
in a geographical area (including minorities and excluded groups).The simple
model of citizen engagement is: government shares information, then citizens
give feedback, then finally government takes action. There is a scale of
engagement from consultation to collaboration to participation to
empowerment.
Reflecting on the video, I can identify the various groups of citizens in my examples: for UK politics - all residents, for local politics - residents and workers, and for higher education - students. It is easy to identify residents and students but much harder to identify workers. I work in Coventry but don't live in the city. I have lots of opinions on local issues (mainly about transport) but I have never been asked my opinion and doubt I ever will be.
The long-standing mechanism for
citizen engagement is elections but this is a blunt instrument. A alternative
mechanism is "invited spaces of participation" (e.g. making
constitutions and budget making) - basically activities that take place between
elections. The role of civil society organisations (NGOs) is to channel the
citizen voice to elected officials. Is the value of citizen engagement an
intrinsic good (i.e. an objective in itself) or an instrumental good (i.e. a
tool to meet other objectives)? Mechanisms for feedback do not automatically
lead to engagement.
In UK politics, there are elections
but there aren't any invited spaces of participation. In local politics, there
are elections and there are some invited spaces e.g. planning inquiries and
council petition. In higher education, there are elections to
student representative positions (in Students' Unions and as course reps).
There are also regular invited spaces such as student forums and focus groups.
I think all the mechanisms treat citizen engagement as an intrinsic good -
engagement is beneficial to residents and students, whatever the outcome.
Video 3: Context and the Enabling Environment
Citizen engagement is not a set of
activities that can be replicated in any country - the national context
matters. Social accountability is the extent and capability of citizens to hold
the state accountable and make it responsive to their needs. This is not the exactly
the same as citizen engagement but related. There are five elements of citizen
engagement: Citizen action, State action, Civic mobilization (e.g. by
NGOs), Citizen-State interface, and Information. The process is iterative and
non-linear. The role of the state is to be an enabling environment, offer
diverse avenues of accountability, and support citizen engagement
approaches. The capacity of the state to respond to citizen demands will
determine the outcome of citizen engagement initiatives. The national context
will include political society (the nature of the state and rule of law), the
state-society relationship, civil society (the capacity and networking ability
of civil society organisations), cultural norms and global
factors. Drivers of citizen action include awareness and salience of
issue, intrinsic motivation, efficacy, capacity for collective action, and the cost
of inaction. Drivers of state action include awareness, ability to resolve
issue, attitude to responding to civil society demands, intrinsic motivation, and
the cost of inaction (for elected and non-elected officials). Drivers of
information include accessibility, framing of the information, and trustworthiness. Drivers
of interface include awareness, credibility, mediation, and capability. Drivers
of civic mobilization include awareness, capability, networks and credibility.
On reflection, citizen engagement
is an iterative process with multiple actors. It is easy to identify the five
elements in UK politics and higher education. There is a lack of civic mobilization
in local politics as political parties and campaign/resident groups are patchy.
Studies on the impact of citizen
engagement show mixed results. There are basically two approaches: Tactical
(short term, using one tool at a local level) and Strategic (long term, using
multiple tools and scaled up from local). The tactical approach assumes that
providing more information will result in local action which will stimulate
national action. Studies of engagement with low impacts has shown that
information is not enough, that bottom-up oversight does not limit corruption
and that imposed local decision making can be captured by local elites. The
strategic approach assumes that actionable accessible information can motivate
action, only democratic decentralisation bring government closer to the people,
and community monitoring can reduce corruption when paired with oversight
from above. The concept of Voice - the aggregation and representation of
the views of under-represented citizens. The concept of Teeth -
the government capacity for responsiveness. There is a need for both voice
and teeth - citizen engagement paired with reforms to encourage government
responses.
On reflection, too many citizen
engagement initiatives are tactical, box-ticking "consultations" - in
UK and local politics and in higher education. We should want a strategic
approach to citizen engagement - reflecting the intrinsic benefit and a long
term approach. We should beware of local elites (e.g. residents' group,
students' union sabbatical officers) - are they representing all citizens?
Citizen engagement increases
citizen voice and power AND helps groups work together. There is an impact at
both the macro and micro levels in multiple dimensions. The barriers to citizen
engagement include how citizens engage (traditional) AND how institutions
respond (the biggest issue). Changing national policies takes time (15-20
years!). Citizens create their own spaces (formal and informal) to develop
voice. National contexts matter.
On reflection, citizens need to see
positive reinforcement of citizen engagement. Institutions must be seen to be
responding. Campaigns should identify quick wins to keep up momentum. I'm
glad I live in (a mostly) democratic society so change does happen (e.g.
same-sex marriage in five years thanks to the Lib Dems).
John Stuart Mill said
"universal suffrage and national participation are of little use unless
citizens have been prepared for participation at a local level".
Preparation makes citizens able to understand the public good. Mohandas
Gandi described the village-republic model, emblematic of perfect democracy.
The colonial legacies of decentralization was local administrative rule. In
the 1950s international aid was community development. This was perceived
to have failed - not sure why - elite capture or lack of partnership. In
the 1960s and 1970s international aid focussed on agricultural and
industrial growth. This was centralized and representative democracy
(governments) rather than participatory democracy (citizens). By the 1980s
top-down development was seen as performing poorly with significant
environmental damage and poverty. There was a move to community-driven
development. In the 1990s there were pro-democracy movements and radical
redistribution of power in some countries. This resulted in democratic
decentralization and better governance. Organic participation includes
bottom-up social movements (including trade unions). Induced participation
include top-down structures. These can be scaled up organic
structures. Possible participation structures include political
decentralization (local elections), deconcentration (local administration), and
community-driven development (external funding of projects).
On reflection, the UK should
look at supporting political decentralization at home as well as abroad!
Quiz
The MOOC includes
weekly quizzes. There are ten questions. For my first attempt, I took a
closed book approach and got six correct. I did some revision and tried again
with a closed book approach and got nine correct. On reflection, i might try an
open book approach in future weeks!
Previous MOOC blog posts:
No comments:
Post a Comment