Building Capacity for Participatory Democracy @OliverEscobar What Works Scotland’s remit is: Using evidence to transform public services for all of Scotland’s communities to flourish Our work is guided by the key principles from the Christie Commission

Outline Participatory Democracy What’s the point? Challenges Examples in democratic innovation Crowdsourcing Mini-publics Participatory Budgeting Myths about citizen participation Building capacity for participatory democracy At institutional, professional and community level This will be an overview of key ideas and challenges re PD –no time for digging deep into the large banks of evidence on the matter, but hopefully this will serve as a hook for future sessions in which we can discuss existing evidence in more detail and what it means for your field of practice.

Policy context in Scotland Community Empowerment (Scotland) Bill Integration of Health and Social Care Services Christie Commission on Future Delivery of Public Services Audits of Community Planning Partnerships (2011, 2013), Review of Community Planning (2012), National Community Planning Group (2012- ) National Planning Framework 3 Parliamentary Local Government Committee (2013, 2014) COSLA’s Commission on Strengthening Local Democracy (2014) Community Councils Short Life Working Group (2011) Community engagement and citizen participation integral to the Scottish Approach to policy making and public service delivery

In participatory democracy… “…citizens govern themselves directly, not necessarily at every level and in every instance, but frequently enough and in particular when basic policies are being decided and when significant power is being deployed. This is carried out through institutions designed to facilitate ongoing civic participation in agenda-setting, deliberation, legislation, and policy implementation…” Benjamin R. Barber, Strong democracy, 1984 To be clear, PD can work in tandem with Representative Democracy, and actually many argue that they can strengthen each other

What is the point? Addressing complex problems drawing on local knowledge, experience and perspectives Making better policies and ensuring effective implementation Improving public service design and delivery Building legitimacy and trust in public institutions Developing citizens’ skills, confidence and ambition Enabling more active citizens and communities

Key challenges in organising participatory processes Inclusion and diversity Quality of dialogue and deliberation Impact: clear link to policy and decision making

The growing field of Democratic Innovation: Building institutions for participatory democracy There are hundreds of democratic innovations developed in the last 3 decades around the world. See www.participedia.org Here I use 2 examples focussed on face-to-face participation, although there are also numerous innovations in digital participation. 7

Mini-publics A mini-public brings together a group of citizens selected by lot, and remunerated, to deliberate on a policy issue E.g. setting policy priorities, designing services, reviewing policies + services Learning phase - participants are exposed to information and range of views From ‘witnesses’ selected for their expertise or because they represent affected interests The mini-public then produces decisions or recommendations that the relevant authority must respond to – by implementing them or explaining why that is not possible.

Participatory Budgeting (definition by PB Unit UK) PB directly involves local people in making decisions on the spending and priorities for a defined public budget. Process defined by geographical area (e.g. ward, town, city) or by theme (e.g. health, education, transport). It involves residents and community groups representative of all parts of the community to deliberate and decide spending priorities make spending proposals and vote on them. Local people also involved in the scrutiny and monitoring of the process and results to inform subsequent PB decisions.

Crowdsourcing Using online platforms that enable large-scale participation to Map priorities, problems and solutions Make and scrutinise proposals Engage in collective dialogue and deliberation about policies and services Mobilise and organise for community action Best used in tandem with face-to-face processes –balancing the strengths and weaknesses of both

Myths about citizen participation Are citizens… Ignorant / misinformed? Incapable? Apathetic? Scottish Public Opinion Survey (Ipsos Mori, 2013) 77% ‘would get more involved in my community if it was easier to participate in decisions that affect it’ 82% ‘would like more say in how local services are provided in my area’ 61% do NOT ‘feel part of how decisions affecting my community are made’ Incentives to become informed? Evidence from mini-publics show that citizens can grasp complex issues when they are supported through a learning phase, and thus capable of informed and considered judgements Public apathy? A myth if we look at indicators such as the level of voluntary work across Scotland, the prolifereation of civic networks and social movements or the 84% turnout in the referendum

The question at the heart of participatory democracy … What kind of citizen are citizens invited to be? In participatory democracy citizens are invited to be decision makers. Arguably, that is partly what made the Referendum so engaging –but that was a period of EXTRA-ordinary democracy. Now that we are back to the everyday business of ORDINARY democracy, too often the role that citizens are invited to play is that of occasional voters, complainers, consultees, or spectators. Are our institutions ready to accommodate civic aspirations for extra-ordinary/participatory democracy?

At 3 levels: Institutional Professional Community What capacity needs to be built to enable participatory democracy? At 3 levels: Institutional Professional Community

At institutional level Redesigning institutions to bring together representative and participatory democracy Developing new types of ‘facilitative leadership’ fit for open policy making Flexibility to unlock resources to support participation Capacity for online and offline participation (synergy) Considering national policies that give citizens time to participate (e.g. X days of annual leave for civic work)

At community level Support for community organising and problem solving –targeted to areas that need it most Rethinking the role of ‘intermediaries’ –from a ‘community representative’ mindset to a ‘community delegate’ logic Training for ‘community delegates’: process design, recruitment, communication, facilitation, mediation, mobilisation Digital literacy programs –particularly about participation platforms (e.g. AgoraVoting, Loomio, etc)

At professional level In-depth local and political knowledge that enables effective backstage and frontstage work strategising, negotiating, nudging, persuading, mobilising, enticing, enthusing, connecting … Capacity to assemble legitimate publics (e.g. inclusive, representative) in innovative ways Capacity to organise and perform participation processes that are clearly connected to decision making Ability to act as a conflict mediator and facilitate dialogue and/or deliberation (e.g. creative consensus, productive disensus) Ability to build relational capital and strike alliances across boundaries –becoming brokers and enablers

Concluding thoughts Changing the conversation: from ‘community engagement’ as a service management tool, to ‘citizen participation’ as central to democracy Reclaiming the idea of politics Funding: resource-intensive, but High-stakes policy and decision making Quality over quantity Power: the status quo often benefits the gatekeepers, but there is a window of opportunity in post-referendum Scotland

Thank you! What Works Scotland http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk Get in touch: oliver.escobar@ed.ac.uk