How and why deliberative democracy enables co-intelligence and brings wisdom to governance

Over the past decade, state and local governments throughout Australia have focused on how to improve community consultation. Government consultation processes, regulated with the best of intentions to involve the public, have come under heavy criticism as being DEAD (Decide, Educate, Announce and Defend). It has become apparent that the problem community consultation was supposed to fix – including the voice of the community in developing policy and plans – has remained problematic. Worse, the fix has often backfired. Rather than achieving community engagement, consultation has frequently resulted in the unintended consequence of community frustration and anger at tokenism and increased citizen disaffection. Traditional community consultation has become a “fix that failed”, resulting in a “vicious cycle” of ever-decreasing social capital1 (Hartz-Karp 2002). Ordinary citizens are less and less interested in participating, evidenced by the generally low turn-out at government community consultation initiatives. When the community does attend in larger numbers, it is most often because the issue has already sparked community outrage, inspiring those with local interests to attend and protest. In their endeavour to change this situation, government agencies have created and disseminated ‘how to’ community consultation manuals, conducted conferences and run training sessions for staff. Issues of focus have included project planning, risk analysis, stakeholder mapping, economic analysis, value assurance, standardisation and so forth. Implementation models have illustrated a desired shift from informing, educating and gaining input from citizens, to collaboration, empowerment and delegated decision-making. Although new engagement techniques have been outlined, it has not been clarified how agencies can achieve such a radical change from eliciting community input to collaborative decision-making. Regardless, to reassure the public that improvements have been made, community consultation has been ‘re-badged’ to ‘community engagement’. A new vocabulary has developed around this nomenclature. However, the community has remained unconvinced that anything much has changed. The question is: Why hasn’t the community accepted these efforts with enthusiasm? The most optimistic response is that there will be a lag time between the announcement of improvements and actual improvements, and an even longer time lag between seeing the results and a resumption of the community’s trust in government. The more pessimistic response (one that also has resonance with many public sector staff) is that in essence, not a lot has changed. The ‘re-badging’ and management improvements have not resulted in the public feeling more engaged or empowered

Collaboration and the Ecology of Democracy

This Kettering Foundation report explores the features and implications of citizen-driven, multi-party collaboration. Kettering has called the spaces and opportunities where this type of collaboration takes place the "political wetlands." Kemmis and McKinney embrace this ecological metaphor, seeing the emergence of democracy as similar to the self-organizing phenomena that arise in the natural realm. As democracy has evolved and matured over the millennia, it has become more bureaucratic and structured. Toward the end of the 20th century, citizens' desire for a more authentically engaged and constructive kind of involvement has produced new, less structured forms of deliberative and collaborative democracy.Several case studies of collaboration revolving around natural resources and governing public land are provided. In Idaho, for example, the Henry's Fork Watershed Council brings together competing interests -- farmers, ranchers, anglers, outfitters, guides, and environmentalists -- and provides a forum where they can address challenges that arise along the watershed. For nearly two decades, this group of people, who often stand on opposite sides of the political divide, has resolved problems by tapping into the collective intelligence of its members.The authors suggest that such place-based, collaborative initiatives may evolve into new forms of democratic governance

Use of Civil Society Organisations to Raise the Voice of the Poor in Agricultural Policy

This working paper examines how civil society organisations (CSOs) -- particularly those representing poor and marginalised rural people -- can inform and influence the processes of agricultural policy formulation and implementation. We summarise the role of different interest groups in shaping 'pro-poor' agricultural development and explain how poor people can gain 'voice' to express their views and shape policy processes in a meaningful way

Helping people to help themselves : policy lessons from a study of deprived urban neighbourhoods in Southampton

The aim of this paper is draw out some policy lessons from a study of self-help activity amongst 200 households in deprived urban neighbourhoods of Southampton. Commencing with a critique of the popular prejudice that promoting self-help should be opposed in case it leads to a demise of formal welfare provision, the paper then interrogates the empirical evidence to understand and explain the nature and extent of such work in deprived neighbourhoods. Finding that self-help is a crucial component of household coping practices, but that no-earner households are unable to benefit from this work to the same extent as employed households, the paper proposes both bottom-up and top-down solutions to tackle the barriers to participation in self-help amongst unemployed households. In particular, it calls for a modification to Working Families Tax Credit and the creation of Community Enterprise so as to recognise and value much of the self-help activity that currently takes place but remains unrecognised and unvalued

Blue and purple Labour challenges to the welfare state: How should 'statist' social democrats respond?

This article explores two influential strands of thinking about the welfare state, Blue Labour and Purple Labour, that have emerged following New Labour's defeat at the 2010 General Election. It is argued that although both of these new approaches raise some important issues about the relational and associational dimensions of social welfare as well as diversity and pluralism, those committed to universal and egalitarian goals should not abandon the ‘statist’ social democratic approach to the welfare state

Engage, participate, empower: modelling power transfer in disadvantaged rural communities

Abstract This article explores a process meant to empower disadvantaged communities that have not previously engaged in government-instigated civic projects. Drawing on a large exploratory study of an empowerment project in seven Scottish rural communities, findings include that empowering communities should harness community development techniques that use both external actors and sources of support (i.e. exogenous practices), and those that utilise assets from within the community (i.e. endogenous practices). The paper presents the Engagement-Participation-Empowerment Model showing stages in transferring power from external actors to local communities. The paper highlights that the process of community empowerment starts with engagement and follows with participation – both representing a precondition of community empowerment. The paper indicates that there are limits to which community members are capable of embracing current community empowerment policies and showing that even targeted ‘well-tailored’ community empowerment programmes might fail. Implications of the study for further research and policy are identified. </jats:p

Terms of Engagement: Consensus or Control in Remote Australian Resource Management?

Community based natural resource management (NRM) has seen a shift in the discourse from participation to engagement, reflecting a focus on increasingly active citizen involvement in management and action. This paper considers this shift in relation to two contrasting theoretical perspectives. The first is deliberative democracy, drawing on Habermas, which emphasises the importance of discussing and rationalising values and actions. The second is governmentality, or ‘governing through community’ which draws on Foucault, emphasising neo-liberal management styles and ‘self-help’. In considering the empirical relevance of these theoretical perspectives, this paper draws on a case study of public engagement in NRM in the Lake Eyre Basin, a remote, inland region of Australia. This research yielded a practical set of “factors for success” for public engagement in remote areas. The findings support the view that, especially in remote regions, public engagement in NRM reflects contrasting goals. We make two conclusions. First, that these contrasting objectives emphasise the tension between deliberative and neo-liberal conceptualisations of engagement; and second, the evidence for neo-liberal interpretations of engagement are stronger than for deliberative interpretations of engagement in the case study region.participation, decentralisation, governmentality, deliberation