Involve has just completed a study on how public participation in local government affects community relations. Karin Gavelin analyses the findings and discusses how the urge to develop communities should not become just another target.
The government’s recent announcement of a white paper on empowerment, due this summer, marks another step forward for those who believe that engaging citizens in decision making is key to solving the political and social challenges of the 21st century. In the past few years, citizen participation has moved up the list of priorities in central and local government. Public dialogue now forms a prominent part of the policy agendas for topics as diverse as pension reform, stem cell research, health care, nuclear power and local planning. At the same time, the rationale for involving citizens have broadened. Today, participation is not just seen as a more inclusive way of making decisions, but as a panacea for any number of social ills – be they political disengagement, community tension or antisocial behaviour.
This commitment to involving citizens in the institutions that serve them is positive. However, as with any strategy that becomes seen as a cure-all solution, there is a danger that it will fail to live up to its hype and backfire.
Involve is devoted to helping public institutions engage with citizens and service users. Part of this role is to ensure that the opportunities for participation offered to the public are of highest quality. This means that rather than promoting participation as a good in its own right, care is taken to ensure that the activities that take place offer the best possible experiences for the people and institutions involved, as well as maximum benefit for wider society.
Involve has just completed a study on how public participation in local government affects community relations.Local level public participation is now seen by government as a key part of the answer to building community cohesion and integration, and the aim of this small study was to explore the evidence behind this assumption. The research involved talking to community practitioners and local government officials about their experiences of trying to build community cohesion in their local areas.
Many of the people we spoke to welcomed the significant investments that government is now making to support cohesion and integration, as set out in the government’s response to the Commission on Integration and Cohesion. However, they also raised concerns about the ability of national government to succeed with an agenda that is ultimately about building relationships at the neighbourhood level. They spoke of the spontaneous ways in which people interact with each other locally; meeting at the school gates, in the post office or walking the dog. They argued that for many people it is these casual interactions with other locals, perhaps not more than a nod and a smile on the way to work, that makes them feel connected to the place where they live. In contrast, a local authority initiative to build community cohesion through public participation can come across as contrived. The idea that community cohesion can be built through public debates about citizenship or moral values was met with particular scepticism from the people in our study. Many felt that such exercises are just too far removed from the real-life problems and inequalities that are at the root of the divides and tensions in Britain’s communities. As one community development worker commented: “Trying to achieve cohesion is a tall order when people are living in deprivation and perceive the authorities to treat them unfairly.” Other times, an activity will fall flat simply because the local authority has yet to learn that just opening the doors to the town hall will not be enough to draw in the crowds, or indeed make much difference for wider community relations. Many people will not take the time to attend events run by the local council, but they may have plenty to say if the council comes to them.
Again and again, the people we spoke to stressed that social relationships are unlikely to flourish in a formal political setting. If local authorities want to improve community relations they need to tap into and learn from the ways that people interact organically within communities, rather than solely add more opportunities for participation in council activities. Moreover, for any participation activity to have resonance with local residents, it needs to build on issues that they care about, rather than the visions and rhetoric of civil servants and elected members.
For local authorities, this means that before they embark on any activity involving the local community, they need to stop and take stock. The research shows that it pays to take the time to find out what is already going on in the area: who lives there, what motivates people, what connects and divides them? In practice, this means going to where people are, whether at the school gates, in sport centres, the corner shop or a local pub, rather than expect people to show up at the town hall. It means talking to local residents to find out what they care about, and then bring them together around real-life issues that connect them.
The government’s commitment to public participation in local decision making is welcome. There is plenty of evidence that bringing residents together around a shared cause can create a sense of unity in a local area and help overcome prejudice and tension between groups. However, it is important that this does not just translate into new targets for local authorities and more demands on the public’s time. Public participation is not a magic bullet for curing society’s ills. Social relationships are not built by simply increasing the number of area forums; participation exercises need to have meaning both to decision makers and to the people who are expected to take part if they are to have any role in improving community relations. The research shows that there are benefits to allowing participation activities to be defined from the bottom up, to ensure that they reflect the characters and needs of the community in question. When using participation to build community cohesion, it pays to work directly with the people on the ground.
'To order a copy of the report or download a free pdf, click here'