Who and how and why
In the UK, the 2009 Audit of Political Engagement, produced by the Hansard Society, found that 52 per cent of the public said they are 'very' or 'fairly' interested in politics, while 47 per cent said they are 'not very' or 'not at all' interested.
Some 51 per cent claimed to know 'not very much' or 'nothing at all' about politics, but 48 per cent said they know 'a great deal' or 'a fair amount'.
So from this it appears that the population of the UK is largely split down the middle between those with interest and knowledge of politics and those without. But there is a question over how participants interpret the word 'politics' in this polling. Most likely they take it to mean the arguments between politicians. If instead it was suggested that this includes whether their local school does well and their street is clean, it might be expected that more people would claim an interest in, and knowledge of, political issues.
How does this compare with the proportions of people interested in specific political parties? The audit found that only three per cent of the population said they had donated money or paid a membership fee to a party in the last two or three years, continuing a downward trend. In contrast, donations to a charity or campaigning organisation remained stable at 37 per cent.
Providing funds for a party is, of course, a higher standard than merely supporting a political party in principal. But joining a political party is considered an important component of good citizenship by 34 per cent of the population.
In other findings, 73 per cent felt they have 'not very much influence' or 'no influence at all' over local decision-making and 85 per cent took the same view for the national level.
Asked to explain why they felt this way, 29 per cent said 'nobody listens to what I have to say' and 20 per cent said that 'decisions are made without talking to the people'. Nineteen per cent said 'the system doesn't allow for me to have an influence' and 17 per cent though that 'politicians are just out for themselves'.
Again, this suggests that creating the direct links between citizens and policies is crucial to engagement and legitimacy.
The audit also found links between a person's declared propensity to vote and their interest in politics, and a "considerable degree of correspondence" between satisfaction with the system of government and a belief in the efficacy of political action.
This suggest two points of relevance for a system of microgovernance. First, if 48 per cent say they have at least some knowledge about politics, this could form the basis for a large base of people willing to become active participants in the system if it is simplified.
And second, if people believe their views matter then their satisfaction with the system of government increases. So creating a direct link between their actions and policy delivery could genuinely form a new basis for the legitimacy of a state.
Some 48 per cent of the population want to be 'very' or 'fairly' involved in decision-making in their local area, while 43 per cent express the same interest nationally. But again, indicating that split down the middle, exactly half wish to be 'not very' or 'not at all' involved in decisions in their community, and 55 per cent take the same view nationally.
Of those who said they do not currently feel that they have an influence in decision-making but who would like to be involved, 40 per cent said a lack of time is the main reason holding them back.
The only other responses to make it into double figures were 'I am disillusioned/cynical/feel politicians are untrustworthy' (12 per cent), I'm not given the opportunity to get involved' (11 per cent) and 'There is no point, my opinion won't be listened to anyway' (10 per cent).
With time being the single biggest factor in preventing higher rates of engagement, the potential impact of online technologies should be clear. They allow people to take part in the discussions and make their choices at times which are convenient to them, and do not require physical travel to possibly remote locations to attend meetings at which the rules of procedure can be highly complex. It also points to the fact that simple, easy-to-use interfaces for choosing policy frameworks would be hugely important.
The polling also provides further evidence to indicate that simplicity of engagement is a key factor.
In a question about forms of political activism over the last two or three years some 36 per cent had signed a petition, 18 per cent had boycotted certain products for political, ethical or environmental reasons, 17 per cent had presented their views to an elected representative and 12 per cent had urged someone to contact a representative. These are forms of engagement which can be undertaken on a citizen's own terms at points that are convenient to them, or integrated into other everyday actions such as shopping.
The activities which do not fit around the citizen or have a specific cost attached registered significantly less participation. Four per cent said they had been to a political meeting, while three per cent had taken part in a demonstration, picket or march, donated or paid money to a political party, or played an active part in a political campaign.
Of these eight forms of political participation, 11 per cent of adults had been involved in at least three over the last three years, meeting the Hansard Society's definition of being 'political activists'.
Parvin and McHugh (2005) argue that this relatively low number of activists shows that "the claim that direct democracy would automatically empower the 'silent majority' to contribute to political debates is therefore at best questionable" [i].
But this argument is in itself questionable. The 11 per cent figure applies to use of existing mechanisms for political engagement.
Steps to create new forms of engagement, particularly if they can be used at times which suit citizens and have a direct link to service delivery, could be expected to lift this figure substantially.
Another interesting point to note from the audit was that while the public "has a clear view about the theory of being a good citizen – for example, voting and making charitable donations – they do not actually make the leap from good intention to positive action" [ii]. Partly a result of the barriers to turning intention into action, this also appears to be the logic of the 'free rider', with many people thinking that 'as long as someone else is participating, I don't need to'.
While not completely solving this dilemma, microgovernment could be expected to reduce it providing that the message is effectively conveyed to citizens that they are choosing services for themselves and therefore relying on others to make the choices for them may result in them getting a service that is less likely to meet their needs.
Other polling by Ipsos-MORI in 2007 also chimed with the ethos of microgovernment, with citizens wanting "more empowerment, if not actual control" [iii] over public services.
Some 74 per cent of the participants in a forum said they 'agree' or 'strongly agree' that "to make sure people know about the services available to them (e.g. which hospital or school provides a good service), users should be able to write uncensored reviews of the service that anyone can read".
And there were also other signs of support for more participative democracy. Some 63 per cent agreed with "regular nationwide consultation between elections over key issues to explain the issues which the government faces, setting out the choices, listening to the results and then ensuring policy reflects these views".
In contrast, just 33 per cent said they favoured "regular elections every four to five years to set the broad direction of policy, ensuring election campaigns give people the opportunity to clearly express their view, listening to all of the choices available, but once they have voted, let the politicians get on with things until the next election when their performance can be judged".
Asked which was closer to their own view, 51 per cent said that "the experts who provide and manage public services know best – they should find out what we think but then get on with it", while 49 per cent said that "the general public should be much more actively involved in shaping public services, through for example local people deciding on priorities".
The lesson from this polling evidence is much as Parvin and McHugh noted in 2005; that people are less inclined to engage with existing political structures but do want to be empowered:
"The repeated desire among many members of the British public to march in mass protests against aspects of government policy suggests something very significant about how they perceive their role as democratic citizens. It suggests that they are not apathetic or indifferent to political issues, but rather they simply do not see formal political institutions as able, or willing, to represent their views. It suggests that they increasingly see voting in elections or lobbying MPs or joining political parties as a less effective means of getting things done than taking matters into their own hands and hitting the streets. In sum, this is not a polity in disintegration but one undergoing real and significant change." [iv]
While these comments came in their defence of the role played by traditional political parties, coupled with calls for reform to address this disengagement, they also reinforce the point that lack of interest in existing structures is not the same as apathy.
"The way in which people participate in the democratic process has changed: many tend not to vote, as they see the commitments and actions of political institutions and politicians as divorced from the issues which affect them in their lives. Instead they sign petitions, attend meetings, boycott products, and hold demonstrations: political actions which are real, visible and borne out of genuine political commitment, but which circumvent traditional mechanisms and structures. Hence, critics who argue that civic disengagement is the consequence of a wider erosion of 'social capital' – or social trust – among the public are only half right.
"They are correct that traditional structures and networks – trade unions, working clubs, church groups and so on – that used to act as facilitators of political debate and organisation have declined and that this has caused a shift in the way people understand themselves and their place in the political community. But it is simply not the case that this has caused the kind of generalised disengagement with political issues or the death of political debate in Britain that certain commentators fear. The problem is not widespread political apathy, but rather that a vital link that connected citizens to the state and the formal democratic process has been broken." [v]
While Parvin and McHugh might disagree, the starting point for these essays is that the 'vital link' of political parties cannot be restored.
They also make another point about participation which highlights a major structural change in economics, politics and society.
"In a political era characterised by a broad consensus on economic principle, the vacuum created by the absence of debates between Capitalists and Socialists, or Hayekians and Marxists, or Keynesians and Monetarists on matters of deep economic planning is largely filled by other issues less likely to represent the basis of a holistic world view or movement. At a time when both Labour and the Conservatives are roughly agreed on the big questions of the economy, choice in health care and education, curbs on immigration, and law and order, they are forced to find their differences by centre-staging those issues which at any other time would remain on the periphery of political debates. Issues such as hunting with dogs have acquired a central political significance at a time when more fundamental questions about the structure of society and the distribution of wealth have been all but settled – or at least no longer debated.
"The problem, as we have suggested, is not so much that everyone agrees on all these issues now, but that political parties are no longer able to appeal to settled, collectivist political identities in the way they once did." [vi]
This does point to ways in which heated debate and ideological difference can drive engagement. But it would be taking this a step too far to yearn for the days when societies were more divided.
Instead, the lack of fundamental political differences and promotion of what might previously have been second-order policies points to the need for new ways to engage people. What impact can the internet have on this participation?
Footnotes:
[i] Parvin, P. and McHugh, D. (2005), p. 645.
[ii] Hansard Society (2009), p. 6.
[iii] Page, B. (2007), 'Public Services Policy Review: The Public View', p. 11. Available at http://www.policy-network.org/uploadedFiles/Articles/psrg2007.pdf [January 17, 2010].
[iv] Parvin, P. and McHugh, D. (2005), p. 636.
Recent comments