Page updated:
Friday, 7 September 2007

SOCIETY - fresh ideas...

Four ways to promote citizen participation

The drift to executive decision-making in the community sector is typical of the rise of 'managerialism' in modern society. Managerialism, an import from the world of corporate business, is a process by which the unelected make decisions for the unrepresented. Expedient it might be, it has contributed to the decline of participatory democracy in civil society.

Managerialism persists because our educational institutions, themselves hierarchical and increasingly business-oriented organisations, do little to train students in democratic or participatory techniques. With constant exposure to top-down decision making in school, university, the workplace and government it is no wonder that people reflect what they get.

The risk - apathy replaces civic participation

Citizen participation is the theoretical lifeblood of democracy. Where it is not encouraged the public reverts to apathy and dependency. That might suit the autocratically-minded and power-hungry but it will do little to enhance Australia's future as a democratic nation state.

Public disengagement is already evident. In part it is due to disenchantment with the major political parties, itself resulting from perceptions of betrayal, factionalism and internal skullduggery as well as their misleading the public through, for example, the children overboard and Iraq intelligence affairs. People are uncertain of the future; they feel helpless in the face of contemporary trends; they are fearful of the impact of economic globalisation on their jobs and feel unable to effectively address such things. In these circumstances the public accepts the move from civic participation to managerialism by government, corporation and assorted powerbrokers.

Mistaking consultation for participation

There is confusion over terminology and process when it comes to citizen involvement in decision-making.

In many cases, decision-makers and planners simply ask the public for their preferences from a selection of solutions that the experts have devised. This, however, is not participation. It is consultation and is a top-down process. It does have a place, but not all of the time. At best, consultation produces acceptable choices; at worst, community preferences are ignored because they do not fit some pre-conceived model that exists in the minds of bureaucrats, politicians and professional experts.

Participation is more difficult. It is time consuming. It is messy. It requires that those leading the process have a commitment to public participation and possess the techniques to enact it. Participation involves setting up structures within which professionals become facilitators of a broad-based deliberative process. Skills in working with groups and in preventing vociferous individuals and the representatives of lobby groups dominating and unduly influencing proceedings are needed.

When the public is told that it is 'participating', but when all that is being done is consultation, it is being duped. For many so-called 'professionals' and bureaucrats it is an innocent dupe because they know no better. They do not possess a knowledge of participatory processes and their education has failed them by not providing it.

A brief flowering withers

For awhile, in the 1970s, there was interest in extending the concept of democracy beyond the three-year vote. Why, it was asked, should not the concept of democracy and participation be extended into the workplace and other institutions in society?

The idea was an artifact of the times and it gained some credence in Australia among leftist groups disenchanted with both capitalism and socialism as practiced in the Eastern Bloc, and by leftist parties elsewhere in the West. Its home was the UK where it was popularised by a section of the Left that promoted the notion of workplace democracy. Why, when society claims to be democratic, should the workplace remain feudal and authoritarian in structure, they asked?

Lucas Aerospace was where the idea gained greatest traction. There, the staff took a role not only in organisational management but in the types of products the company made - the preference was for 'social utility' in products. By the end of the decade, however, the idea of workplace democracy had lost momentum. Little has been heard since. Perhaps one explanation is that the Left itself came to accept managerialism and heirarchy. It always had, of course, but for awhile there was an ideological countercurrent pushing the idea of organisational democracy.

Whether such things are even possible in the era of shiftless capital, when corporations can simply move to another country willing to accept their terms rather than concern themselves with the political aspirations of the workforce, is doubtul. The workplace remains feudal in structure and workers are fearful of losing their jobs in a turbulent international market.

The media should encourage participation, not passivity

The media has a critical role to play in boosting civic participation. Through the media flows the information that integrates society and provides a sense of inclusiveness and commonality. But to encourage participation, journalists, editors and media proprietors will have to bypass existing media attitudes and practices and try new approaches.

For example, the attitude that the products of the news media are simply a 'record of events' calls for a more sophisticated understanding of the media's role. To suggest that the media is simply a passive mirror reflecting society back to itself is to ignore the role of influential people and organisations - those frequently consulted for comment and who initiate 'news' .

A media supportive of civic participation would educate readers, listeners and viewers that particular types of individuals and organisations are instrumental in the creation of news. It would admit that the news media, in giving prominence to the priorities of government, business, think tanks and influential lobby groups, largely establishes the public discourse - what is talked about in society. Having admitted this, the media might then set up its own processes to garner public opinion and to lead the public in taking a more active and influential civic role.

A growing number of people want to hear more diverse voices than only the politically and economically powerful. The accelerating move to consult online sources of news and information, including an escalating number of weblogs, is evidence that the public is actively seeking alternative sources of information. This is occcuring at the cost of newspaper readerships, viewing and listening audiences and is a new phenomenon that marks the end of dominance of the big newspapers as the authoritative voice in social affairs. The introduction of RSS - Really Simple Syndication - a web-based technology that offers a time-saving alternative to visiting websites individually by automating the process of gathering new information - speeds access to online sources of news, analysis and comment and allows the compilation of a personalised news service drawn from a diversity of sources. A RSS-like service known as Podcasting - so named because it delivers sound files in MP3 format that can be downloaded on to Apple iPod and similar players - adds play-on-demand versatility to online sources of audio news and information.

Reporting the point of view of ordinary citizens and not falling prey to the unrepresentative, the crackpot, the excessively-vocal and the lobbyist would be a challenge for journalists and editors. The opinions and agendas of lobby groups and think-tanks get more media exposure than warranted because they are characteristically small, agenda-driven groups trying to influence public policy in ways other than thorough elections. Although their ideas should be reported, where they fit into some current orthodoxy or world view they are reported all-too uncritically - usually in the opinion pages of the major newspapers - even though their ideas may be impractical and have more to do with forcing reality to comply with an ideology rather than with the way the world is. The Institute for Public Affairs and Centre for Independent Studies, for example, have achieved a sometimes disproportionate influence in public affairs. Ordinary people and many civil society, community-based organisations, though they may be representative of wider opinion, do not get a look-in because editors and producers do not regard them as being as credible as the think-tanks.

A better journalism

There is a solution to greater media democracy that would be worth trying by media organisations wanting a fresh approach to news gathering. It is called 'civic journalism' and, like other elements of democracy, it is messy to implement.

Put simply, civic journalism brings citizens together around a particular issue by setting up structures within which they can deliberate without domination by lobby groups, vociferous individuals or bureaucrats that would otherwise seek to dominate or substantially influence the conversation. It is a learning experience for all but it relies on media organizations being willing to meet the costs of setting-up the process and making available space to fully report the deliberations.

For media organisations, there is nothing to lose but their preconceived notions of newsworthiness. At best, the outcome would be increased circulation and audience. The press and electronic media would be seen as more credible by citizens and journalists less remote and 'elite' - itself a charge used to discredit certain writers and commentators and their ideas by an even-more-elite group of ideologically-driven commentators pushing their own agenda or that of the think-tanks they represent.

Regional and local media are particularly well placed to conduct civic journalism because of their closeness to their readership or audience.

Four proposals for a participatory society

1. Create niches for participation: business, government and community-based organizations can identify high-yield niches in which stakeholders could participate in the life of the institution and influence it for the benefit of all.
2. Professionals and bureaucrats should assume the role of 'advisors' in participatory processes. If they really want citizens to have a say in local isssues, those in local and state government must set aside time and resources to make this happen.
3. Make an informed choice between consultation and participation and do not mistake one for the other. Both have a valid role in civil society and government. The wisdom comes in deciding which is appropriate.
4. A proactive and socially-positive role for media: civic journalism is an approach in need of trialing in Australia. It offers a sense of influence and belonging to citizens and an innovative, new role for media organizations at a time during which the readership of newspapers is stagnant or increasingly only marginally. For journalists and editors, civic journalism brings the development of new skills.

Civil democracy is needed more than anywhere in the decision-making that affects personal freedom, democratic process, the quality of life and the liveability of the places we inhabit. Used poorly, it will be dominated by the socially adept and manipulative. Used creatively and supported by civic journalism, civic democracy can be restored.