There does seem to be a worrying trend from people who should know better to attack the proposals in the Community Empowerment draft bill as not being of great relevance to an apathetic public. This was the case made by David Walker of Guardian Public Magazine writing in Guardian Society today.
Sometimes you expect to come across a poverty of aspiration within poorer communities but it's depressing to hear it from the editor of a journal read by many public sector professionals.
The argument seems to go: "If people claim to be generally satisfied with their public services just let sleeping dogs lie".
Just as modernisation is occurring in specific services such as health and education, the community empowerment bill is promising similar modernisation in public engagement. This will create a new "balanced scorecard" for public services that doesn't just measure public satisfaction, but also measures public involvement.
Of course we also need more emotional intelligence from public servants in dealing with the public - that requires additional training programmes as well as feeding back to staff the views of the public in real time . However that still doesn't far go enough. And we shouldn't be satisfied with a 33% turnout at local elections. But there is a clue in the fact that during the Poll Tax era it reached nearly 50% and that in the recent Boris v Ken contest there was a significantly increased turnout of in the mid forty per cent mark in London. We know people will engage if the issues are important and the choices are clear.
David Walker compares "cold" local election voting and "X Factor" reality shows. But he draws the wrong conclusions. Why is reality show voting (when it is done properly and not rigged!) popular? It's because people actually feel empowered in the context of what they are taking part in. They are not just passively watching but collectively creating programme content and in effect "writing the script for the following week" by determining who comes back. How often does that happen in local government? Just as important as the immediacy, is that the results of their voting appears in the popular magazines they read and also provokes a conversation the next day around the water cooler. Where is the equivalent infrastructure in the public services that encourages this debate around a decision? You can't simply do it with a glossy leaflet!
He also confuses antagonism for creative tension over the issue of "personalisation v collectivism". I think he is far too pessimistic. This creative tension dates back to when humanity first created societies of towns and cities which allowed both public spaces but also individual endeavour.Of course there will be political choices that need to be made over resources for places like sport centres. But why is there a contradiction between this and allowing local communities to build up a wide range of locally owned community assets? Why should such choice be restricted to an existing building or facility? It could also include land for development too where the debate could be what they use it for. More affordable eco-housing v a new community centre? If local democracy is just seen as a remote Council making decisions for people, of course voter turnout will stay at 33% but we know that regeneration and stock transfer ballots are far higher so the potential is there to help people feel they have a much greater stake in their community.
The Community Empowerment Bill gives us an opportunity to build on the current relatively rare three-party consensus that exists to do something quite exciting in the coming year. Whilst we need to be realistic, we should not start off pessimistic.
Comments