The following factors highlight the relevance and significance of the research
reported in this analysis and the recommendations made.
The ‘democratic deficit’
There is extensive and growing evidence that democracy is breaking down or
broken in the UK and in a number of democratic societies as evidenced by the
following.
Declining voter turnouts – After falling to its lowest level since WWII in
2001 (59.4%), the percentage of eligible voters who voted in the 2015
national UK election was only slightly higher at 66.1%. In some parts of the
UK, voter turnout could be described as in crisis. For instance, in a 2012 byelection,
only 12% of the constituents of Manchester Central in north-west
England voted – the lowest voter turn-out since 1945. Under a headline
‘Apathy central: where people see no point in casting a vote’, The Guardian
commented: “Either the people of Manchester Central have given up on
Westminster politics or it has given up on them”.14
The decline of major political parties – Membership of major political
parties is falling in most developed Western countries. In the UK,
membership of the three main political parties (Conservatives, Labour, and
Liberal Democrat) reached an historic low of just 0.83% of eligible voters
in the UK in 2013 and, despite some increases in the run-up to the 2015
national election and 2016 EU Referendum, remained at just 1.6% of eligible
voters in 2016.15
Declining trust in government – The OECD reported in 2014 that only 40%
of UK citizens trust the national government and that this has declined
since 2007. This reflects findings in a number of developed democracies
such as the USA where only slightly more than one-third of citizens trust the
national government, and France where less than 30% of citizens trust the
national government.16 Young people, in particular, do not trust government.
For example, a recent Harvard University study found that only 14 per cent
of 18–29 year old Americans trust the US Congress and only 20 per cent
trust the federal government (civil service).17 Factors such as the largelyexpected
findings of the Chilcot Inquiry into the UK’s entry to the 2003 Iraq
War only serve to further undermine public trust in government.
14 Booth, R. (2015, April 24). Apathy central: Where young see no point in casting a vote.
The Guardian Weekly, p. 15.
15 Keen & Audickas (2016), see footnote 7.
16 OECD. (2014). Trust in government [Web site]. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/
gov/trust-in-government.htm
17 Harvard University. (2015). Trust in institutions and the political process.
Boston, MA: Institute of Politics. Retrieved from http://www.iop.harvard.edu/
trust-institutions-and-political-process
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 15
Citizen disillusionment and disengagement – A number of studies have
identified citizen disillusionment in and disengagement from democratic
politics in the UK as well as elsewhere. For example, a 2013 study of How
Voters Feel in Britain by Professor Stephen Coleman at the University of
Leeds says “moments of voting are remarkably fleeting” and “inflected
by the weight of thwarted experience”18. Coleman says that “the rules of
the political game seem too much like imposed rules and someone else’s
game” and concluded that democratic practice has deteriorated for most
citizens to “a discourse of arid proceduralism”.19
Radicalisation and extremism – At its extreme, citizen disengagement is
leading to radicalisation and extremism, ranging from the rise of Far Right
political parties in a number of countries to ‘foreign fighters’ from Western
countries joining organisations such as ISIS20.
Fundamentals of democracy
Democracy is fundamentally based on the concept of the will of the demos
(citizens) influencing and shaping the krátos (the institutions of power and
the policies and decisions of government), with that will and influence being
expressed and communicated through vox populi – the voice of the people.
However, to be realised and effective, democracy must not only provide
opportunities for citizens to freely express their voice, but those elected or
appointed to govern them must pay attention and give consideration to what
citizens say. Much emphasis is placed on voice, but democracy is about
listening, not only speaking.
Nick Couldry has identified the importance of what he calls “voice that matters”21
in society and politics and defined ‘voice that matters’ as “the implicitly linked
practices of speaking and listening”22. Similarly, eminent communication studies
scholar Robert Craig describes communication as “speaking and listening”23.
Throughout the large body of communication studies scholarship and research,
communication is defined as a two-way process.
Pippa Norris says of political communication: “The process operates downwards
from governing institutions towards citizens, horizontally in linkages among
political actors, and also upwards from public opinion towards authorities”.24
18 Coleman, S. (2013). How voters feel. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 3–4.
19 Coleman, S. (2013), p. 192.
20 ISIS is an acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and simply as the Islamic State (IS). Western leaders
also refer to the Islamic State as Daesh.
21 Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters: Culture and politics after neoliberalism.
London, UK and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22 Couldry, N. (2009). Commentary: Rethinking the politics of voice. Continuum: Journal
of Media & Cultural Studies, 23(4), 579–582, p. 580.
23 Craig, R. (2006). Communication as a practice. In G. Shepherd, G. St John, &
T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as … Perspectives on Theory (pp. 38–49).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 39.
24 Norris, P. (2001). Political communication. In N. Smelser & P. Baltes (Eds.),
International Encyclopaedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 11631–11640).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier, p. 11631.
16 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
The Context – Why Governments Must Act
If what flows upwards from citizens is not listened to, then the voice of citizens
has no value. It does not matter in Couldry’s terms.
To paraphrase Harold Lasswell’s famous description of communication25,
democratic communication and engagement are about who gets to speak and
who listens, to whom, how well, with what effect.
Despite wide understanding of the fundamental principles of democracy and
an emphasis in contemporary communication on audience understanding
and dialogue, studies have revealed that little attention is paid to listening in
much government and political communication. For example, in 2014 Professor
Andrew Dobson from Keele University concluded in his book Listening for
Democracy that “honourable exceptions aside, virtually no attention has been
paid to listening in mainstream political science”. He added that efforts to
improve democracy have mainly focussed on “getting more people to speak”26
and critically observed that “much less attention has been paid to the way in
which speech is received and processed”27.
Recently, a number of democratic countries have committed to open democracy
and open government. This seeks to extend the basic concept and principles
of democracy to provide citizens with ready access to all information that they
require and enable them to have a say in all matters that significantly affect
their lives, rights, and responsibilities.
Political and social scientists emphasise the importance of communication
between governments and citizens and for that communication to be meaningful
and effective, as evidenced in the following:
“… meaningful communication between government and the people is not
merely a management practicality. It is a political, albeit moral, obligation
that originates from the basic covenant that exists between the government
and the people”.28
25 Harold Lasswell described what was termed ‘mass communication’ at the time
as “Who says what, in which channel, to whom, with what effect” (Lasswell, H.
[1948]. The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.),
The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Harper, p. 12.
26 Dobson, A. (2014), Listening for democracy: Recognition, representation, reconciliation.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, p. 36.
27 Dobson, p. 17.
28 Graber, D. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public
sector organizations. Washington, DC: CQ Press, p. 226 quoting, Viteritti, J. (1997).
The environmental context of communication: Public sector organizations.
In J. Garnett & A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of administrative communication
(pp.79–100). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, p. 82.
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 17
The Context – Why Governments Must Act
Open Government
18 CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’
“… members of the public have equal rights to access comprehensive
information about government policies, programs and services which
affect their entitlements, rights and obligations”.29
“Fundamental to … policymaking and the design of public services is the
recognition that the citizens in a democracy have both rights and duties,
and that democratic governance provides opportunities for citizens to
participate actively in shaping their world”.30
The Organisational Listening Project reported here supports and extends other
studies such as those of Stephen Coleman and Andrew Dobson by examining
the channels and methods through which governments and political institutions
listen as well as speak to stakeholders and citizens. It presents incontrovertible
evidence of a lack of listening and makes recommendations for actions that are
essential for increasing trust, democratic participation, and social equity.
Why focus on UK government communication and
citizen engagement?
While Stage 1 of the research informing this analysis was conducted in the USA,
UK, and Australia, the second stage of intensive research was conducted in the
UK for three reasons.
29 Department of Finance. (2014). Guidelines on information and advertising campaigns
by non-corporate Commonwealth entities. Canberra, ACT: Author, Clause 8a, p. 3.
Retrieved from http://www.finance.gov.au/advertising/campaign-advertising/
guidelines
30 Holmes, B. (2011, July). Citizens’ engagement in policymaking and the design of
public services. Research Paper No. 1, Parliamentary Library Information, Analysis,
Advice. Canberra, ACT: Department of Parliamentary Services, p. 1. Retrieved
from http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/
Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1112/12rp01
The Context – Why Governments Must Act
CREATING A ‘DEMOCRACY FOR EVERYONE’ 19
First, the UK Government Communication Service (GCS) responded positively to
Stage 1 of this research by inviting a presentation of the findings in the Cabinet
Office, Whitehall, and offering support for Stage 2 of the research. As noted
under ‘Methodology’, GCS agreed to support the research in partnership with
the UK Department of Health as a primary site for investigation, in addition to
facilitating access to other UK government departments and agencies.
Second, Stage 1 of The Organisational Listening Project found public
communication by the UK GCS and a number of UK government departments
and agencies to be equal to or better than practice in other public and private
sector organisations studied in terms of commitment to evaluation, listening,
and engagement. As the aim of this research was to focus on common practice
and best practice, rather than selective negative exemplars, the purposive
sample selected for further detailed study was deemed appropriate.
Third, as also noted under ‘Methodology’, the political environment in the UK in
the period 2014 to 2016 was characterised by increasing and unprecedented
signs of citizen discontent with the national government and major political
institutions, as evidenced in the Scotland Referendum in 2014, which narrowly
maintained UK unity, and particularly in the 2016 EU Referendum referred to as
Brexit in which citizens made an historic decision to leave the European Union
after 40 years of membership against the policies of the government.
The surprise and shock that greeted the Brexit decision was a clear indication
that UK politicians and some sections of the Government were out of touch
with the views and wishes of citizens – a concerning and dangerous situation
acknowledged by the incoming Prime Minister Theresa May in a speech to
launch her campaign for the leadership in July 2016 in which she said “there is a
gaping chasm between wealthy London and the rest of the country”.31
The post THE CONTEXT – WHY GOVERNMENTS appeared first on My Assignment Online.