Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A ‘Listening Parliament’?
Research in associa,on with
October 2014
Part 1: A Listening Parliament Contents • Executive summary • Background and objectives • What we did • Background views • Key criteria for engagement • Stretch and Build
• Making MPs more accountable • PMQs • Accountability in the constituency: People’s Question Time
• Improving Parliament’s current work • E-petitions • Select Committees
• Alternative ways for Parliament to listen • Citizens’ Juries • Referendums
• Overview
Part 2: Deliberative democracy: what works? Contents
• Deliberative models • Clear rules of engagement/fair process • Clear path to impact • Gatekeepers: the role of politicians in the process • Should politicians take part? • Expert facilitation • Selection and weighting of participants • Selection of issues • Design and integration of technology • Features of online/offline deliberation
Part 1: A Listening Parliament… What we did…………
18 member ci,zens’ jury drawn from across London, mee,ng in Portcullis House, Westminster on 19 September 2014 to discuss a ‘listening Parliament’
Executive Summary
Executive Summary • Despite being relatively well informed, participants had a strong sense
that it is pointless to try and make their voice heard
• The principle driver of this is a perception that the public’s voice carries no weight in Parliament
• Participants identified language as a key barrier to engagement
• Participants often re-formulated concepts and ideas into their own words
• Participants were consistent about their top criteria for engaging with politics:
• Tangible (measurable) outcomes • Clear and fair process • Local focus • Transparency and accountability • Innovation
• At the end of the day three overarching ideas stood out:
• Citizens’ Juries and other co-creative formats • Integration between different forms of engagement • Measures to make MPs more accountable
Executive Summary • There is excitement at the role technology could play in re-
shaping public engagement
• Public opinion can be measured quickly and over a wide geographical area
• Members of the public can get their voice heard in large numbers
• Allows for convenient, direct communication
• But participants are sceptical as to whether this will lead to better engagement
• Increased volume of communications could lead to individual
voices getting lost • Increased outlets for communicating are no good if those voices
are not being listened to • Concern that technology will lead to decline in face to face
contact
Background and objectives
Background and objectives • The Hansard Society undertook a research project for Parliament’s
Group on Information for the Public and the Speaker’s Digital Democracy Commission to explore:
i) the criteria for a ‘listening Parliament’; and
ii) the role technology might play in enhancing public engagement with the political (particularly the parliamentary) process.
• As part of the project, the Hansard Society commissioned BritainThinks to facilitate a one-day Citizens’ Jury in September 2014. The objective was to:
• Develop clear principles for a listening Parliament; • Test ideas for reform to understand what works and what doesn’t work; • Explore the role technology could play in developing new forms of
engagement.
The Citizens’ Jury – 19 September 2014
• 18 members of the public from across London were recruited to take part in an all-day workshop in Portcullis House, Westminster.
• A Citizens’ Jury is a deliberative, qualitative research method designed to give members of the public the time, space and information to deliberate on a complex issue in order to develop a rich and considered ‘citizen’s view’ on that issue.
• Participants were broadly representative of the national
population including a mix of gender, age, socio-economic grouping and ethnicity.
• Quotas were set on levels of political engagement and technological aptitude to ensure these reflected the broader population
Structure / organisation
• The event was structured as follows:
• Background views on barriers to public engagement • Development of guidelines for public engagement • Pub quiz and presentations from the Hansard Society • Stretch and build sessions to generate ideas in three key areas:
• Improving Parliament’s current work • Making MPs more accountable • Alternative ways for Parliament to listen
• Presentations from participants outlining: • Top barriers • Most important principles • Top three ideas for reform
Background views
0 Pre-questionnaire Post-Questionnaire
‘How much, if anything do you feel you know about politics?’
A great deal
0
A great deal
3
‘When someone like me gets involved in politics, I can really change the way the UK is run’
Agree
11
Agree
9
Across the day participants grew a little in confidence and knowledge, but became a little less optimistic about the value of public engagement
Increased understanding of the political system actually made participants more cynical about the benefits of public engagement
The public feels shut out of the political system, and suspects this is deliberate • The language and processes of politics are
alienating • Politicians don’t talk about ‘the issues that matter to
me’ • Manifestos are too complex and not easily navigable • PMQs is aggressive and off putting
• There is considerable distrust of politicians • Perceived to have ignored public opinion when it has
made itself heard in the past e.g. Iraq war/ bedroom tax
• Perceived to pay greater attention to corporate influence rather than public voice
• Perceived to be elitist and far removed from the ‘man on the street’
• This results in a perception that the political
system pays lip service to public engagement without any real commitment to it • Perception that there is also a lack of trust on the part
of politicians towards the public
“Because however much you protest about and champion a cause, it falls into the hands of a dodgy MP”
“People are disenchanted with poli=cs. They feel like their vote won’t affect anything. Government needs to show people that they are listening otherwise people will feel like they have no voice.”
Participants were aware of some of the mechanisms for engagement but did not feel that their views really counted • Apathy is seen as a rational reaction to a
system which doesn’t listen
• Examples of successful engagement measures abroad often greeted with resignation: ‘that wouldn’t work here’
• The perceived most effective forms of engagement are those that bypass MPs, and so are perceived to be ‘outside’ the system
• Petitions and social media enable fast, direct action
• The perceived least effective forms of engagement are those that have failed in the past- either publicly or privately
• Demonstrations of large public opposition that have not resulted in policy change
• Personal experiences of writing to an MP and receiving a standardised response
“It is about geEng your views heard but then there’s the ac=ons required aGerwards which are just as important. You get your views heard but then oGen you just see them dissipated. We want to be able to see that our efforts have results.”
“Those of us who have had to contact their local MP and go through any of those processes know how little help you actually do get. Maybe in numbers we are stronger but I really doubt it.”
Local politics offers the most tangible opportunity for engagement, but there is a perceived disconnect between Westminster and local government
“At local/neighbourhood level I've made some effec=ve contribu=ons -‐ but feel the na=onal, central poli=cal machinery is quite remote and inaccessible.”
• Local level engagement is the most familiar and feels like the most feasible
• Those participants who had engaged in the past had often done so through local routes
• It’s the arena where people feel most confident voicing an opinion
• The process feels less intimidating
• But local engagement is meaningless if it is ignored by central government
• Little sense that local level engagement is a doorway to national engagement
“This should all be about local government. Personalised problems can be answered by local government who don’t just give you template answers. It’s the strength of local government that’s really important.”
Technology is a tool for change – but it’s not a solution in itself • Technology is recognised as having huge
empowering potential
• Social media allows direct contact and fast mobilisation of large numbers
• Online polls and voting systems increase feasibility of wider canvassing of public opinion
• But for this potential to be fulfilled the expression of views must be more than ‘hot air’
• Concern that higher volume of communication will drown out voices of individuals
• Needs to be built into the system with obvious processes for monitoring, filtering and responding
• Despite an appetite for increased digital interaction, there is a strong sense that this should not replace face to face contact
“You can use technology to get your voice heard but then once it’s there does anything happen? Is there going to be an actual change so people can see that it was worth doing?”
“As we’ve all said it’s easy enough to jot off a letter or an email but if someone is in your face and you’ve got the passion of what you’re discussing then that stays with you”
Key criteria for engagement
We asked participants to devise a set of key guidelines for how the public should engage with politics
• When participants fed back these conversations to everyone in the room there was a striking degree of consistency in their responses
• Two key themes emerged:
i) Empowerment of citizens: giving people the right mechanisms for engagement 2) People are listened to: ensuring engagement is a two way dialogue that feels open and profitable for both sides
Key criteria for engagement 1. Tangible outcomes - current biggest deterrent to public engagement is
the sense that nothing will ever come of it
2. Clear and fair process - complexity of language/processes and perception of elitism undermines confidence that contribution will be valued and creates barriers to accessibility
3. Strong local engagement feeding into national policy – the public are most confident engaging with local issues that are directly relevant to their lives but this is perceived as pointless if there are not clear links to central government
4. Transparent system so outcomes can be monitored and individuals can be held to account - politicians held to account for what actions they have taken in response to public voice, and public accepting their responsibility for actions
5. A drive for innovation - prove commitment to greater public engagement
by constantly searching for new ways to deliver these outcomes
Stretch and Build
Making MPs more accountable Improving Parliament’s current work Alternative ways for Parliament to listen
Participants considered each of the three areas in turn through a series of 40 minute rotations • Each table spent 40 minutes on each topic area
• Moderators moved with their topic area to ensure that previous discussions were built upon during subsequent rotations
• Each rotation began with one participant briefing the next table on what had been covered in the previous discussion
• Participants were provided with an information sheet for each topic area
• For each topic area participants considered a number of pre-prepared ideas and were encouraged to generate their own
• The ideas presented in the following section were those that
proved most popular over the course of the day
Making MPs more accountable
Prime Minister’s Question Time Accountability in the constituency: People’s Question Time
Participants did not rate PMQs highly in its current form but thought it had potential to be an effective form of engagement
PMQs does not address issues that matter to the public
• More about political point scoring than real debate
PMQs does not result in any tangible outcomes
• Promises to ‘look into’ an issue are rarely followed up
• No way of monitoring results of PMQs or evaluating its effectiveness
Make PMQs more akin to Question Time format
• Ask ‘the questions that matter’
• Involve public figures to make it feel more accessible
Measure impact of PMQs • Mechanism for the
public to give their views on PMQs through live feedback or online vote
• PMQs to be followed by analysis which provides guided explanation of main points
“It’s a waste of time with some of the questions that are asked. MPs ask questions just to show off and put themselves forward.”
“Presumably you could have a website showing the questions that have been asked and the answers that have been given so you could see if any are ignored”
Most popular ideas for reform were those that offered radical change to the current format
“If we could see that just an ordinary person on the street was asking some very pertinent questions and those questions were being taken on board then that would make us want to get involved.”
“Submitting questions online is not as good because you don’t have that passion you get from saying it directly.”
Public to ask questions to the PM directly • This was the most popular idea as it was perceived to
most radically change the format of PMQs • Make PMQs more likely to reflect public interests • Direct interaction means PM can’t prepare answers • Direct interaction sends an important symbolic message
• Participants saw accessibility as the main weakness but
thought there were solutions to this • Electing community leaders to represent views • PMQs goes on tour around the country
Public to choose questions to be asked directly to the PM
• In some ways this idea was perceived to be fairer as more people were given the chance to be involved
• But this was not seen to offer real change to the current
format and was therefore treated with some scepticism • How to ensure questions aren’t cherry picked? • How to ensure PM gives a direct answer and doesn’t dodge the
main thrust of the question?
“The PM shouldn’t know the questions beforehand. How do we know they haven’t chosen the questions that suit them?”
Participants felt strongly that there should be more mechanisms for holding MPs to account
The public feel they have little oversight over the activities of their MPs
• Sense that MPs are not visible enough in their constituency
The public often find contacting their MP an unsatisfactory process
• Standardised response makes engagement feel ‘tick box’ and pointless
MPs should do more to publicise their activities
• Annual report outlining failures as well as successes
• Regular emails • Slots on local
television and columns in local newspaper
Put resources into processing MPs’ communications
• MPs should be monitoring and filtering correspondence to identify key trends and responding accordingly
“They are only too happy to tell you what they’ve achieved but it’s their failures we need to know about.”
“They get so many tweets and so many emails that it can’t just be one MP dealing with all of it. You’ve got to have enough people that every single one gets looked at so none are overlooked.”
People’s Question Time concept was very popular as a high profile, direct way for MPs to engage with constituents
“You need a Dimbleby type figure to moderate - someone impartial. It would need to be a respected local figure like a priest or an imam. A member of the community chosen by the community.”
“It depends on our engagement as well. If it was about issues that I really cared about then I would go.”
• The idea was welcomed as a key way of linking local engagement to national engagement
• Participants renamed these ‘Super Surgeries’ • Ensure advertising creates high level of interest • Events held four times a year • Increase appeal by creating networking/socialising opportunities
between people with similar interests
• A good moderator would be key to success
• This should be an respected community figure chosen by the community
• Suggestions included local priest, imam or head teacher
• Technology could be used to focus the debate around the issues people care most about
• Questions/issues could be submitted online • Likely to increase levels of public participation
• For it to have appeal it must be able to demonstrate impact
• Issues/questions must be followed up from one session to the next
“It would be good to sit down and have tea and talk to other people because then you can find out if other people think like you do.”
Engaging with MPs over social media and email is good as ‘an extra’ but must be backed by other forms of engagement
“Skype interviews could be used as part of MPs surgeries for people who find travel difficult.”
“If it’s done via the internet then it’s going to favour certain people. There’s some people who don’t use the internet who won’t be able to get involved.”
MPs engaging with constituents over social media/ email • Social media an easy way to reach lots of people
and engage directly
• People can engage at their own convenience • Enables filtering of a lot of information • A good way of engaging with young people
• For it to be effective and fair, there must be personalised response to all communications which poses clear practical challenges
• Sheer volume makes it difficult for MPs to handle all correspondence alone
• Not everyone has access to internet
• There was concern that digital interaction should not replace face to face contact
“MPs should filter their emails and see what the big trends are but they should reply to each one.”
Improving Parliament’s current work E-petitions system Giving evidence to Select Committees
The e-petitions system is popular but without a guaranteed outcome, the process risks losing credibility
Participants were surprised to hear that the 100,000 signatures rule does not guarantee a debate • And even a debate was not
necessarily considered a satisfactory outcome
• Concern that e-petitions lose momentum once they are submitted and that the time/energy is wasted
Public expectation is that there is already a guaranteed outcome
• Need a tracker which monitors responses to and outcomes of e-petitions
“With petitions you go to all that effort - 100,000 signatures - and then they may consider it. That’s encouraging apathy. It’s got to be brought to someone’s attention to do something about it.”
“They could keep an eye on the process and provide some checks and balances. We would trust them because they are informed experts.”
The role of the MP within the e-petitions process has a negative impact on how the system is viewed • Participants were surprised to
hear of the importance of MPs in promoting e-petitions
• This often prompted reaction that MPs serve their own interests and can’t be trusted
To reassure the public on integrity, need some kind of trusted guardian overseeing the process
• CAB, Which, Liberty suggested as independent intermediaries
• Concerns that this would be just another layer of ineffectual bureaucracy
E-petitions are widely regarded as an easy and effective way to get the public’s voice heard, but quality control is an important issue
The ease and speed of the e-petitions system creates concerns around quality • No way of knowing if
people have thoroughly read what they have signed
• High volume of petitions and ‘e-petition fatigue’ leads to petitions being treated too lightly
Should be a Committee to co-ordinate responses and judge e-petitions by more than just the number of signatures received
• Committee could include civic representatives and members of the public as well as MPs
• At a local level this could be a committee of councillors who use petitions as a way of gauging important local issues
“People signing petitions don’t really know what they are signing. Back when they knocked on the door they would really explain it but now I think people don’t really look at it before signing.”
“What would be good is if you categorised them by issue and how many people signed it and the conclusions they came to. A site where you could look and see all the issues and search for the one that interests you.”
The most popular ideas for reform were those that ensured the e-petitions system is a two way dialogue
“The good thing is that you’re presenting something to someone and can expect a response back. The bad thing is that anyone could present anything and it could get out of hand. There would need to be some criteria.”
“I can’t believe there’s no contact. It would be hard to give everyone everything they wanted but they should give feedback to people.”
Better communication between petitioners and MPs • Participants were clear that petitions should create a
connection between the public and Parliament • Important that people feel listened to • Show respect for the time and effort that goes into making and
promoting a petition
• Participants identified few practical barriers to making this happen and were surprised that it was not already in place
Petitioners making their case in person
• This was the most popular idea as it was perceived to offer the greatest chance of tangible results • Face to face contact perceived to be crucial to conveying full
depth of argument • Direct conversation means a guaranteed response
• But participants were mindful of practical problems • Time constraints and selection process pose serious challenges
Ideas to make the system less rigid were also very popular but participants were mindful of practical considerations
“I very much prefer the option of an enquiry by a Committee rather than a debate in the House of Commons which is just a shouting match anyway. It’s people talking to themselves and then where does all that talk go?”
“People put in silly ideas and because it’s on the internet it would just be too easy”
Range of responses to be provided at different signature thresholds • Fairer and ensures that important ideas are not lost
• Less populist ideas have a chance of attracting attention • Avoids discrimination against minority groups who may not
be able to muster such high levels of support
Public right of initiation • For the most part participants did not think this idea
was workable • It was thought this would generate a large number of poorly
thought out ideas
A variety of responses other than a debate • Seen to increase chance that petitions will generate
results • Lack of faith that debates result in change means alternative
options such as Select Committee investigation often preferred
“There are lots of good ideas that never get looked at. There should be a lower threshold.”
Select Committees were poorly understood and viewed with some suspicion
Committee members being elected by fellow MPs sparked concerns over cronyism
• Participants felt lack of external oversight detracted from credibility of Committees as an accountability mechanism
External oversight or involvement would boost credibility
• This could either come from an independent body or increased public involvement
“I feel like if someone committed a crime and got to choose their own jury then that’s a bit weird.”
“Nowadays it’s about information coming to you. That’s where social media becomes very powerful and it being personalised as well so you can get information about issues in your communities.”
Greater education of the public about the work of Select Committees, through social media
• Social media is a key tool for reaching out to more disengaged members of the public
• Effectiveness can be increased by tailoring information to the interests of different communities
Low profile of Select Committees can feed misconceptions
• Work of Select Committees feels secretive and hidden
• Participants were surprised that all outputs of Select Committees are publicly available
The role of the public in relation to Select Committees feels inconsequential
Greater integration of Select Committees with other forms of engagement
• Link Select Committees to petitions or to Citizens’ Juries to give the public greater sense of ownership over the work of Committees
• Encourage MPs to link their work in their constituency more closely to their work on Select Committees
“There needs to be a relationship between these different things. Like linking it in to stuff your MP does in the borough.”
Participants did not feel that the public plays an important role in Select Committees – this would deter willingness to engage with them (e.g. though consultations) • Participants were less
interested in Select Committees despite recognising their important role
• Select Committees do not give same sense of empowerment as e-petitions / Citizens’ Juries
• The idea of giving evidence seen as intimidating and off putting
“They need to make the process clearer. Do petitions lead to Select Committees?”
“I would feel less intimidated taking part in a Citizens’ Jury than a Select Committee.”
The most popular ideas were those that emphasised that the public has an important role to play in Select Committees
“It’s about people feeling they are involved. It becomes something people can learn to adjust to and become more involved with.”
“Select Committees should be linked to Citizens’ Juries. When a Select Committee decides to look into an issue they should have a process that will inform that debate.”
Public to be able to suggest topics for future Committee inquiries • This was a very popular idea as it was felt this would
give the public a greater sense of ownership over Select Committees • Could be achieved through Citizens’ Juries or petitions
Create new avenues for Select Committees to gather views • This would show proof of commitment to public
involvement in Select Committees • Effort made to engage members of the public on their own terms
rather than on the terms of the Committee • Social media and online polls potentially useful tools • Linking Committees to petitions and Citizens’ Juries a key way of
gauging public opinion
Participants also felt a lot more could be done to make Select Committees work better in their current form
“Social media pages we thought was good because it could go viral. People do get really into things really fast.”
Better advertising of opportunities to give views to committees • Participants emphasised that members of the public
expect information to come to them rather than having to seek it out • Social media a key way of reaching large numbers, and
particularly popular among the younger participants • Place information in popular public places such as libraries, GP
surgeries etc. • MPs to take more active role educating the public and publicising
their role on Select Committees to their constituents
Support and guidance for members of the public who want to give evidence • Participants felt this was a necessary measure to take
to counter the intimidation many would feel in giving evidence • But participants wanted clearer information about the level
and nature of the support that would be given
“You could put notices in libraries and doctor’s surgeries. MPs could link it into reports and meetings.”
“I like this idea but how would you be guided and to what extent?”
Alternative ways for Parliament to listen Citizens’ Juries Referendums
Citizens’ Juries are popular as a concept but there is concern that they will not result in tangible outcomes
Concern that Citizens’ Juries would be a tick box consultation exercise with no real results
• Sense that the government doesn’t trust the public enough to give it any real power
• Confusion over how the results of Citizens’ Juries would feed into other parts of the system
Juries could be set up for specific purposes and given real powers within that remit
• A popular idea was to appoint a Citizens’ Jury to monitor the extent to which the government is fulfilling its manifesto promises
• Citizens’ Jury used as an external audit alongside an MPs annual report
Citizens’ Juries should be ‘hard-wired’ into the system
• A clearly defined role within consultations
• If results are not acted upon then a clear explanation needs to be given why not
• Juries to be linked to local community groups
“It looks to me like an initiative that could easily just be lost or disregarded. What strikes me is that this will be just another failed initiative unless people can see it will actually do something.”
“When it’s election time they promise so much but once in power it’s hard to know if they are fulfilling those promises. A citizens’ jury could be used to monitor that.”
The language of ‘Citizens’ Jury’ can be off-putting prompting participants to spontaneously search for alternatives
Participants did not always grasp the concept of a ‘Citizens’ Jury’ immediately
• Prompts associations with law rather than politics
• Language is dry and unfamiliar
Use ‘People’s Parliament’ to clarify the purpose of the enterprise and underline its political nature
• Participants responded well to this concept as it drew an obvious parallel between them and politicians
Use exciting language e.g. ‘People’s Power Pod’ to capture the imagination
• Participants suggested ‘pop up’ discussion groups in public areas which people could spontaneously join
• Although a similar concept to a ‘Citizens’ Jury’ this idea had added appeal because it was seen to place more ‘power’ with the people and be local
“I’m not sure about the word jury. Juries pass judgement on a case. Is that accurate here? I don’t know if it reflects what’s going on here.”
“People’s Power Pod- people are invited in by someone who is chairing a discussion. It’s fun but it gets voices expressed and it’s measurable. It’s face to face and local.”
Citizens’ Juries were thought to have huge potential for engaging the public in politics in a meaningful and considered way
“I would expect them to look at the broader picture. A lot of these things are very short-sighted and don’t take the long term ramifications into account - not just the financial impacts but how it affects families.”
Expand use of Citizens’ Juries in the UK • Participants saw many benefits to Citizens’ Juries
• They could take a long term view on difficult issues • They could allow the people most directly affected to have a
say on policy changes
• Concerns around accessibility could be countered through technology • Danger that a jury would only reflect a few dominant voices • Technology would allow involvement of greater number of
people over a wider geographical area
• Potential for the process to become overly cumbersome
• Danger that big juries spread over a wide area would not result in high level of engagement or clear conclusions
“Technology would allow you to involve more people and you could gather information from a greater geographical area.”
Citizens’ Juries are most popular when they are perceived to have a co-creative element
“It’s not just about listening to the people. You have to feel what people go through to know the real problem, not just theory but practical”
Create a ‘Community Committee’ which brings together members of the public, MPs and local councillors
• Participants saw great value in mixing individuals from different backgrounds and with different points of view
• MPs would gain greater understanding of the non-financial consequences of a policy
• Members of the public would gain greater understanding of how a particular policy would affect the wider community
• Perception that wider involvement will increase ‘buy in’ as outcomes have been agreed by all parties
• This was seen to be a particularly good formula for interaction at a local level
• Create a bridge between local and national engagement
“The jury could meet with local residents who would feedback the impact of local laws.”
There is an appetite for increased use of referendums, but they must be used judiciously
Referendums are not without risks
• Too many referendums risk increasing apathy
• Referendums can cause schisms between different parts of the country
Hold regular referendums to give people a say on a specific issue
• Increases fairness as public given chance to vote on particular policies rather on entire manifesto
• Using e-voting technology likely to increase turnout, particularly among young people
• Participants undecided about how regularly they should be used
“I might have voted for Labour but I won’t have agreed with all of their policies so I want to be able to vote specifically on this issue.”
“The papers want you to vote a certain way so it can be really difficult to know how to vote. Something not politically motivated that just gives the facts and making it clear for people.”
Concern that people do not always cast an informed vote
• Media seen to be biased and partisan
Make ‘fact sheets’ available in public places
• These should be independent and non-partisan
• Laid out in bullet point form and in clear, accessible language
Consultative, non-binding referendums risk increasing apathy and undermining the role of the MP
“Given the present state of disenchantment, people will think ‘they’re just pretending to ask questions’.”
Nationwide advisory/consultative votes prompt cynicism
• Want certainty of action guaranteed by referendum
• Concern that results could easily be ignored
• MPs should be performing this role
MPs should ‘own’ a particular issue and co-ordinate Constituency Consultations
• Way to gather public views on an issue without raising expectation of a conclusive output based on voting
• Ownership over a particular issue means MPs can be held accountable for good consultation
• MP could tie this in with past work to reinforce the legitimacy of the consultation
• However some concern that this returns the power to MPs who might then be able to use it to their advantage
“MPs could be put in charge of a particular consultation and then do that across the country and then that would shame other MPs into doing consultations as well.”
Participants were cautious about giving the public power to instigate referendums
“But there is a limit on what should be decided by referendum. Like what if capital punishment was voted back in? What would be the mechanism for stopping certain things coming in if the majority said yes?|
“If it’s done via the internet it’s going to favour certain people. There’s some people who don’t use the internet who won’t be able to get involved.”
Subjects of referendums chosen by public rather than politicians • Participants assumed this would operate as an ‘e-
referendum’ system • As with e-petitions there would be trigger thresholds
• There were serious concerns about allowing the public
the freedom to propose any topic for referendum • Concern about the quality of ideas that would be put
forward • Concern about ‘tyranny of the majority’ and possible
discrimination against minority groups • Concern about possible discrimination against those
without internet access
Overview
At the end of the day we asked each table to select their top ideas across the three topic areas • Citizens’ Jury was the most popular idea overall
• Connect Citizens’ Juries to Select Committees • Make Citizens’ Juries less structured and more mobile e.g. People’s Power
Pod • Give Citizens’ Juries a co-creative element e.g. Community Committees
• Followed by closer integration between forms of engagement
• Create a chain of engagement running from members of the public to Parliament
• Connect e-petitions, Citizens’ Juries and Select Committees together
• Ideas to hold MPs more accountable were also popular
• People’s Question Time • Public to ask questions directly to the Prime Minister during PMQs
Citizens’ Juries held strong appeal because of their ability to bring together a mix of different groups
• Across the three topic areas, participants favoured ideas with a ‘co-creative’ emphasis
• Participants felt that engagement was most productive when it enabled parties to gain real insight into someone else’s point of view
• It was felt that this was an effective way to reach tangible outcomes, especially at local level
• One of the most popular ideas of the day was that of the ‘Community Committee’ where members of the public come together with MPs and local councillors
“MPs are often accused of having no experience of real life. Involving lay people brings in a whole spectrum of experience. It’s a range of skills and it would make some laws more relevant, more real.”
“It’s all fair and good the hierarchy making decisions on behalf of the community but if you’re not actually in it then you’re looking from the outside and not actually affected by the change. The wider community can trust what’s being said when it involves the people who are actually being affected.”
Participants wanted to feel that each form of engagement is part of a joined up process rather than an isolated action • Across the three tables participants consistently
sought ways to link the topic areas together
• In fact participants found it difficult to think of the topic areas in isolation
• Ideas were seen to be most effective when they were linked to other forms of engagement
• One of the most popular ideas of the day was to link Citizens’ Juries to Select Committees
• Participants tended to visualise engagement as a
‘snow-ball’ process
• Participants imagined that a good and/or popular idea would trigger a series of mechanisms that would eventually lead it to Parliament
• Participants at one table created a ‘Circle of Engagement’ diagram to illustrate this chain reaction
“It needs to be joined up. Select Committees, Citizens’ Juries, petitions. Needs to be a clear process where it’s all joined up.”
“It would be wonderful to have a process in place where you know this is what’s happened and this is what’s going to happen e.g. this Committee has looked at these petitions and then there’s been a debate which has reached the following conclusions.”
Circle of Engagement
PARLIAMENT
Diagram created by participants
INNER CIRCLE
OUTER CIRCLE
PMQs Select Committees
People’s Question
Time Citizens’
Juries
Petitions MPs reports
Circle of Engagement
INNER CIRCLE: Outer circle engagement feeds into and acts as a trigger for inner circle engagement (Select Cmtts, PMQs, Citizens Juries, People’s Question Time
OUTER CIRCLE: Petitions and MPs reports act as a way of identifying and monitoring broad trends in public concerns
PARLIAMENT: Inner circle engagement feeds into and acts as a trigger for consideration of an issue by Parliament Feedback loops ensure engagement is a two way dialogue
Participants often supported ideas more strongly once they had been re-formulated in their own words • Consistently spoke of language as a barrier to
engaging with politics
• Ideas which veered into jargon such as ‘Citizens’ Juries’ and ‘public right of initiation’ tended to be met with less initial interest
• Ideas worked best when their formulation communicated a familiar concept
• Community Committees • Constituency Consultations • People’s Parliament • Super Surgeries
• Linking ideas to trends such as ‘pop ups’ to suggest new, dynamic forms of engagement also worked effectively
• People’s Power Pods
“It’s the image that’s the key. It’s how you present it and how you engage with people that will help to reach the ones who never engage. You’ve got make sure it doesn’t sound as dull as ditchwater.”
“Essentially if you keep a shop you know what draws people in and what repels people. You have to make it feel dynamic and get people interested.”
Technology is a tool for change but not the solution in itself
• Technology recognised as having great empowering potential
• But for potential to be fulfilled, expression of views must be more than ‘hot air’
• Put resources into processing MPs’ communications - monitoring and filtering correspondence/social media to identify key trends and respond accordingly
• Key way to demonstrate commitment to innovation – and real commitment to engagement
• Despite an appetite for increased digital interaction, there is a strong sense that this should not replace face to face contact (which is how emotion/concern/depth of feeling is conveyed)
Part 2: Deliberative democracy: what works
Deliberative models
• Choosing the right deliberative model: e.g.
• citizens’ jury • consensus conferences • deliberation days • deliberative polls • national issues forums • participatory budgeting • planning cells (Germany) • town hall meetings
Clear rules of engagement / fair process • “People prefer to play games when the rules are explicit rather than
when they have to be guessed”*
• Process has to be: • Trusted • Efficacious • Legitimate • Responsive • Accountable
• Choice of location & stakeholders – desirable to avoid reinforcing forms of elite politics
• Who funds it - issues of independence/control. If Parliament or Government funds it, this may constrain/control what it does. Threat of withdrawal of funds?
*Professor Stephen Coleman, A Tale of Two Houses (Hansard Society, 2003)
Clear path to impact • What’s the purpose à advising or deciding? Deliberation or representation?
• …So what happens to the recommendations? • Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform in British Columbia – idea put directly to
province-wide referendum • Irish Constitutional Convention – ideas needed parliamentary approval to go
forward to a referendum
• Pre-jury contract – to be agreed between jurors, commissioning body, facilitating organisation – helps build legitimacy
• Sequencing – need to be clear about where the deliberation fits in the wider political/parliamentary process
• Hybridity - is it supplementing or duplicating parliamentary activity?
• Failure to fuse political reform to the participatory process means entrenched interests remain
• Crisis management? There will be a loss of faith if deliberation is used to obscure challenging problems
• Sustainability? Deliberation is easy to start, but harder to keep going
• How will any proposition that emerges from the deliberative process be promoted? Who will advocate for it (mobilise/organise)?
Gatekeepers: the role of politicians in the process?
• There is often a mismatch between deliberative ideals and the unreceptive political setting in which the deliberation is taking place
• Parliament/government has got to be prepared to accept the transformative implications of what is said/agreed
• Politicians need to be willing participants and act in a reciprocal manner
• Deliberative mechanisms tend to work better where they are a ‘middleman’ between public and politicians rather than replacing representative function
• MPs tend to frame participation in a way consistent with their narrow interpretation of the concept of representation – i.e. individual access through the elected representative – this doesn’t work in a deliberative setting
• What incentives (non-pecuniary) would persuade politicians to behave differently – to change the unequal relationship between them and the public? (e.g. participatory budgeting in Brazil = better collection of taxes… = electoral benefits)
Should politicians take part? • Canadian/Dutch citizens’ assemblies – politicians did not take part –
made it more difficult for process to have political purchase
• Irish constitutional convention – politicians were part of the sample – but the issues still had to go to Parliament
• Risk that politicians dominate proceedings/don’t conform to the rules (although in Ireland that didn’t prove to be the case – they were encouraging fellow non-political participants to take part/contribute)
• Broadcasting vs listening – less of the former, more of the latter • Risk that politicians/parties seek to co-opt civil society
representatives through the deliberative process – create vacuum at community level (has happened in some areas of Brazil)
Expert facilitation • Moderator constructs the environment for considered judgement –
they are key to building confidence in the process
• Need to agree ground rules for the process at the start – ‘rules of conduct’ – e.g. need for respect/listen to arguments of others etc – work with the participants to generate their own rules/boundaries of behaviour
• Challenge of balancing experts vs general public • How are witnesses/presenters selected? • How to avoid manipulation?
• Political significance of ‘anonymous speech’ or ‘silent voices’ – facilitator has to manage this in the public space • silence does not = acquiesence or affirmation
Selection & weighting of participants • Boundary of consent – who is included/excluded?
• Representativeness or inclusivity?
• Difficulty of engaging hard-to reach groups – incentives?
• Risk of reinforcing existing engagement by self-selected community groups - e.g. participatory budgeting often undertaken by long-term civil society activists rather than reaching new citizens.
• Potential participant selection models:* • Self-selection • Non-random • Random sample • Everyone
* See J. Fishkin, How to make delibera,ve democracy prac,cal: consul,ng the public thoughPully, 2010, Bri,sh Academy lecture.
Selection of issues • Participation works best around issues of interest not party
programmes
• Highly partisan/polarised issues à likely to result in deadlock
• Ethical issues à some may opt out/choose not to participate (e.g. abortion/euthanasia)
• Successful deliberative models often tend to focus on less controversial matters: • Those issues that are not likely to provoke great conflict between
groups with antagonistic interests • Those issues that relate to daily life à where there is some degree of
familiarity
• Jurors may reject options/recommend answers not originally discussed – e.g. America Speaker 21st Century Town Meetings considered redevelopment of World Trade Centre and rejected all six of the initial options presented
Design & integration of technology • Online deliberation is very difficult – no one has cracked it
• Australian Citizens’ Parliament: online deliberation connected to offline process. Participants offline contributed more to the online discussion than those who were purely online
• Technology can create the space for engagement/participation – but can’t make it meaningful – that’s a matter of wider politics/process (Latin American online legislative initiatives – technologically successful but have limited impact on actual legislative process)
• Does it amplify citizen voice? Often just reinforces participation of existing, already engaged tech savvy users/groups
• Technology on its own can’t change political responsiveness/accountability
• Opportunities to participate still need to be heavily promoted/marketed – legislature needs to build virtual community
Design & integration of technology • Portal/interface
• Develop own platform or customise existing technology? • Difficult to design well for one-off or irregular engagement • “Minimum viable product” – how to strip it down to simplest version of what is
required? (GDS Agile approach) • Legislatures don’t have the expertise/resources to spend on designing a top of
the range portal (Facebook/Apple etc spend millions on delivering simplicity/user friendly interface)
• Legislatures struggle to keep pace with rapid pace of innovation – but shouldn’t tie themselves into expensive proprietory technology that may become quickly obsolete
• Should legislatures run deliberation on other sites? • Cost-effective/access to established user groups BUT • Significant risk of perceived corporate influence • Who is accountable? • Concerns re net neutrality in the future
• Privacy vs voice • Security/privacy arrangements must be assured
Features of online/offline deliberation • Politics alone is not enough – doesn't engage – needs to be blended with
cultural and offline/face to face activity • E.g. Occupy movement à mix of face to face and digital initiatives – deliberate on key
issues; debate with peers & political representatives; challenge decision-making structures/hierarchies
• Flow of news and information - must be shaped by the online community not elite decision-makers
• Dialogue – crucial to maintaining a community of interest & providing feedback
• Co-creation of original content & verification of other information sources à nourishes the community - drives news agenda outside traditional news sources/institutions
• Information foraging – use IT tools to share/disseminate data & to tell a story/advocate (e.g. using Big Data)
• Mobilisation – essential to reach out and rally others, online and offline to the cause
