I thought I would add to the debate on political engagement. It picks up on some of my previous comments. It is important that Parliament recognises that there are different types of ‘public’ with which it has to engage.
One is what may be described as ‘attentive publics’, in essence organised interests (pressure groups, firms, organisations). The contact with such bodies has expanded significantly since the 1970s. The creation of specialised select committees provides a particular focus and there is considerable inter-action. The organised interests not only feed in their views to committees but are also the main consumers of committee reports. As a result, committees can engage in a dialogue with different groups in society.
It is the other categories that create the particular problem. There are those who are interested in political issues but who do not engage with parliamentarians or nowadays the mainstream political process (political parties, voting in elections). The problem is not that Parliament does not consider the issues that concern people outside but rather that these people are unaware of what is being considered or are put off by the means of engaging with politicians. This may be structural or, as some have suggested, behavioural in that the public dislike how politicians behave. Parliament is addressing some of the structural issues, enhancing means of communication (online consultation for example, and use of e-petitioning), but some aspects of communication may be part of the problem (people disliking what they see on the television screens at Prime Minister’s Question Time). There is also the conflict that MPs face: party self-interest fuels partisan behaviour even though that may undermine public confidence in the institution of which they are members. How, then, do we ensure that politicians behave in such a way as to engender public confidence and engagement? MPs tend to achieve this at the constituency level (they are seen more as service-providers than partisan politicians) but not at the national level.
The third category comprises those members of the public who simply have no interest in politics. Politics affects everyone. Acts of Parliament determine much of what we can and cannot do: they shape our lives and, indeed, our livelihood. (Look at some of the current issues facing the country.) For many, though, the ‘politicians don’t listen to us’ line is a self-fulfilling prophesy – they make no effort to make their views known and, consequently, their views are not taken into account. This category has always existed, but the core question remains. What, if anything, can parliamentarians do to engage with those who exhibit no interest in influencing the outcomes of public policy?
Is citizenship education the answer? Does the answer lie with politicians in terms of behaviour? Is there something fundamental that we are neglecting? Is there a growing divide between deliberative parliamentary discourse and a population increasingly prone to the ten-second message? As I have argued before, focusing on changes such as compulsory voting actually detracts from getting to grips with the root of the problem. Does the solution come from the bottom up, or from the top down, or both?
I think a teaching of the institutions in schools as part of the curriculum is essential. To many leave school with no idea how their local council functions let alone Parliament.
I think one way of increasing public engagement – though incredibly unlikely – would be for politicians to demonstrate that they actually listen by putting their constituencies first when debating and voting.
If MPs began standing up in debate and saying “My constituency is opposed to this proposal, and though the party supports it, I will not,” the people would notice. After a few acts were approved or rejected based on what the people wanted, rather than what the parties told their members to do, people would begin thinking “That’s odd, our representatives are actually representing us!”
Would it cause MPs tension with their parties? Of course it would. However, if they were accurately representing their constituents’ views, it would take an uncommon gall to take them to task. “How dare you do what the people elected you to do!” isn’t really the sound bite a politician wants on the evening news. It would likely go a long way to better secure the MP’s seat as well; why should the people turn away from the one who puts their views first?
Part of the valor of statesmanship – a valor seriously lacking these days – is a dedication to putting the good and the will of the people before ones own, ones party, and even ones reelection. If that were more evident – indeed the case to begin with – of the people’s representatives, then the people would take the political process, and their own role within it, a great deal more seriously.
In response to J. Walker:
Which constituents do you listen to? Everybody? (how do you know what everybody wants on every issue?) A lot of people think the majority are people who think like them…well sometimes they are not. Even if a ‘majority’ could be identified as wanting policy ‘x’, it might be that on reflection ‘x’ is misguided. The public are busy with their own jobs, why should we ask or even expect them to get things right all the time. We elect politicians, and yes they make mistakes, but at least they have time to deliberate and consult before, during and post-legislation. Ideally, between the parties and interested groups and citizens the House and the Lords policies can be fine-tuned. yes, party is dominant, but party and leadership tends to be more important than candidates when we vote. We live in a representative democracy – if you want direct democracy what would be the point of having a Parliament? if we had direct democracy, chances are Jade Goody would have had a stint as Head of State. Our current system has its faults, but I’d rather have that than tyranny of the uniformed majority.
I don’t know why we worry so much about public engagement. The public will engage when things go wrong. Low turnout, and low contact might actually be indicative that on the whole things are ok. That said, I am strongly in favour of educating people so that they can make the most of their opportunities, including engaging with the political system when things need attention.
Apologies for all my typos, typing quickly… While there might not be much difference if some current practices in regimes around the world are to be considered, I did mean uninformed majority and not uniformed majority!
I looked at the site for those who wish to become British citizens and freely admit I couldn’t answer some of the preparatory questions. They tended to be on matters that have changed significantly over the years since I needed to know, or on welfare benefits, or were so badly worded that I could easily produce a 2000+ word essay on the subject. Try it out – it’s obviously been complied by committee:
http://www.lifeintheuktest.gov.uk/htmlsite/self_10.html
In the Navigation Tutorial I found this doozy:
Which of these statements is correct?
Option 1 Scottish bank notes are valid in all parts of the UK.
Option 2 Scottish bank notes are valid only in Scotland.
Since this was a matter of great concern to Alex Salmond this year, I hope you have fun with this one.
But yes, citizenship education for all would go a long way in helping, once we can get all 11yo’s able to read.
NHackett, ladytizzy and Mark Shephard: I am a great supporter of citizenship education. The need for it has been conceded. The problem is ensuring that there are the resources, and the commitment on the part of schools, to ensure that it is delivered effectively rather than half-heartedly.
J. Walker: I would offer a somewhat different response to that offered by Mark Shephard. MPs do tend to listen to and act on behalf of constituents. If there is a perceived threat to the constituency from Government action (for example, the closure of a dockyard or the siting of a nuclear-waste site), then even MPs on the Government benches will go against the party line. Voting against the party in such circumstances is accepted as a perfectly valid action. The problem in terms of outcome is that the constituencies involved are so few in number that the actions of the MPs representing them do not usually affect the outcome of a vote. Nonetheless, pressure from constituency MPs can in certain circumstances affect how the Government proceeds. Ond of the most notable impacts of MPs acting in response to constituency pressure in recent times was the abolition of the poll tax. Demonstrations and riots grabbed the headlines, but it was pressure from Conservative MPs – prompted by all the representations made to them by constituents – that forced the Government to act.
Lord Norton contends that ‘even MPs on the Government benches will go against the party line. Voting against the party in such circumstances is accepted as a perfectly valid action’. In theory yes, but in practice this is not quite as neat as it seems as it very much depends on whether you are a backbencher or not. To provide an example from Scotland – Mike Watson, for example, could not vote to save a hospital from closure in his constituency and hold onto his job in the then Scottish Executive. To do so would contravene the ministerial code and collective responsibility. So, while I concur with the Lord in some cases, there are complications that make it a tad more tricky than first appears in theory. Moreover, this not only applies to quite a number on the government side (@ a third), but also those who wish for promotion from the backbenches.
Minister cannot vote against the party line but they can go against it, and variously do so. The example I touched upon – finding sites for the dumping of low-level nuclear waste – was an actual case, where as I recall five of the six sites identified were in constituencies represented by Government ministers. Though they could not publicly dissent, they did so in private and used MPs from neighbouring constituencies to express dissent publicly. The only back-bench MP involved threatened to resign his seat if the site in his constituency was selected.
On occasion, of ocurse, ministers seek to square the circle, for example supporting the Government’s policy on hospital or post office closures but opposing its implementation in their constituencies.
Not many people know that they may write to any lord about an issue that concerns them. I did this recently and my reward was a full debate arising from my letter. I was able to go and hear it and sit at the bar of the house. This was thrilling and a wonderful example of democracy. It was all without party point-scoring and therefore much more convincing than the sort of speeches and responses usually made by politicians and which cause them to lose credibility and respect.