Our next meeting is about civil society, and I think Simon Jenkins made an excellent point in his Hinton Lecture back in November (sorry I’ve only just around to reading it).
Namely that whilst we all may think a more active voluntary/third sector is a good thing, it undermines local democracy and takes power accountabilty.
I’m interested by the assertion above Olly, that having a more active voluntary and community sector undermines local democracy. How does it do this?
To me local democracy is about being able to take part in the decisions that affect you, your locality, and the community in which you live. Your locality also involves the places where you spend your day, whether that be at work, where your children go to school, where you go shopping; it is the places that make up your personal geography.
In today’s world, I also think local democracy has a wider application than voting in local elections. Although the word democracy originally means government by the people or by those they have elected, it has come to have wider implications of being able to participate in many decisions; planning applications, how services are designed and run, and so on.
As Dhara has pointed out, even the government asserts that part of democracy is about being able to take part in debates and decisions, and to take up civic roles.
A major aim of many organisations within the VCS is to empower the individuals they support, with a specfic aim of many organisations to enable people to take part in the debates and decisions that affect and effect their lives. I would therefore argue that a more active VCS should in fact support local democracy in its purest sense; by allowing debate and consensus amongst ALL the people that are involved in the locality, not just those people who are voting.
I agree with Caroline – democracy is a deeper process than simply the act of voting. I say this not to undermine in any way the necessity and value of the ballot box, and the (often hard fought for) right to cast your vote and make your preference known, but in fact to strengthen democracy and, as Caroline says, enable all voices to be heard. In my view, representative and participative processes are both key components of a healthy local democracy.
How do young people who cannot vote make their voice heard? How can non-British citizens (many of whom pay into the system through taxation) make their voice heard? How about those who do vote (or those who choose not to) but want to continue to influence and shape the agenda long before and after elections? And without the participation of individuals in civil society, without strong collective action, who will speak truth to power?
Participative democracy is by its nature messy but crucial – and representative democracy is, as Simon Jenkins argues, essential. But neither can really be successful without the other. Often people prefer to be involved in voluntary action, for whatever reason (the independent POWER Inquiry , and its final report, Power to the People looked at this in great detail) But above everything it is vital that elected representatives, politicians at all levels, must seek to hear all voices in society and make informed and balanced decisions. Further to this, it is vital that the decisions they make – and the rationale for those decisions – is communicated to the people.
Elected politicians are faced with the extremely difficult task of having to meet and, where necessary, reconcile the needs of an increasingly diverse citizenry. They have to make difficult decisions with scarce resources and sometimes convey unpopular messages. Decisions, taken for the greater public good, will inevitably result in both winners and losers. Elected politicians are the ones with the mandate to make these decisions, taking on board the relevant pros and cons and, importantly, communicating back to local communities the reasons for the decisions they take. Voluntary and community organisations can and do strengthen this role: bringing different perspectives and enabling a range of different voices to be heard; providing knowledge, experience and expertise regarding local issues; and offering vital additional links into and out of parts of the community.
The assumption you make is that by their very nature, third/voluntary sector organisations promote participation and whilst many of them do there is no actual requirement for them to do so, and no penalty if they don’t. And that I think is the crux of Simon’s point: that we can do great things to engage local communites but we are not mandated to do so.
I sometimes think that there is a bit of an emperor’s new clothes mentality about the third sector… no-one wants to admit that our sector is not all sweetness and perfection. Adam @ IntelligentGiving repeatedly makes the point that we allow the assumption that “charity” = “good organisation” and yet there are plenty of charities who are far from reputable.
Want some proof? Look how many charities don’t file their annual accounts with the Charity Commission. It’s the only thing that a charity is legally required to do each year, and countless charities don’t seem to have the ability to do it. And not just small charities. Now compare that with the furore over MPs trying to hide their expenses. It seems that whilst national and local politicians have to account for every penny they spend, charities can use other people’s money (often tax exempt) without bothering to file even the most basic of records.
Simon’s argument is that charities must not replace local civic representation because there is little accountability within the charity sector. Trustee boards are generally the “great and the good” and even when there is an active campaign to bring a wider set of people into the goverance of a charity it still relies on individuals who are selected and have no statutory accountability to anyone else.
It seems to me that one of the issues you’re touching on is what we mean by the third/voluntary sector. Many people working within organisations that fall into this bracket are becoming increasingly ‘professional’ – much of the time this is no bad thing, and often it is essential for them to stand any chance of achieving their goals.
But of course, there is a big difference between people being paid to do the work, and people volunteering to do this. People don’t get paid to vote, and taking this thought further, much of what I find admirable about the third/voluntary sector is what gets done by people who are not paid to it.
That’s not to say that I agree with the aims of every charity or the motivations of every volunteer, just as I don’t agree with every voter!
Perhaps one of the reasons that charities do attract more support than political parties is because they tend to be more focused on a particular cause or issue. It’s easier to feel enthusiastic about an organisation that helps children in need than an organisation that is all about having to make compromises (politics being the art of the possible). This links to a range of interesting drivers, such as engagement in formal politics
On a personal note, I got interested in politics when I started volunteering (and then working for!) a local charity. And again, looking at my life outside of work, I’ve had virtually no ‘invitation to engage’ from local political parties. Finally, there’s also a debate to be had about how representative and accountable politicians are (or indeed can be)!
I agree with a number of points that have been made here – no, not all voluntary and community/third sector organisations are “good” – but then many would argue that the very definition of what is “good” is incredibly subjective!- and personal. How we choose the charities and voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) that we give to and support in other ways is often a very personal decision.
Not all VCOs choose to do anything relating to promoting engagement or participation in local decision making, and nor should they feel they have to! We are not mandated to do so, and nor do I think we ought to be. The independence of the VCS is crucial.
There are very many VCOs who have nothing to do with government, but are crucial for thriving vibrant local communities – for example local history groups or sports groups. But independent VCOs are also important as part of a healthy democracy –indeed, the crux of my argument is that VCOs can support and enhance democracy – operating as a challenge or balance to the interests of government and the market, providing a voice and support for individuals and communities who might not otherwise be heard, and providing services.
I think that we should never presume that the sector is an alternative for electoral democracy, nor do I think that VCOs can provide an alternative to civic representation and accountability through the ballot box. Of course charities and other community groups cannot, and should not replace local government or other representative civic structure – but they certainly are able to complement it.
Dal’s point about his personal interest in politics growing from an association with the VCS in an area is something that you often hear– NCVOs rural research A Broader Parish found that community activism, both elected and representative, is often undertaken by a limited pool of individuals.
Dal also suggests we need to think about ‘what we mean by the third/voluntary sector’ I think we should think about what we mean when we say democracy too – is democracy about more then just voting? Is there space for the VCS in a vibrant democracy? And what role for VCOs within democracy?
I have found this whole discussion really fascinating.
I was particularly interested in Dal’s comment about his own engagement. It’s really relevant to a research project that NCVO
along with IVR and Involve will be working called Pathways through Participation which aims to explore people’s pathways into participation and of the factors that shape this over time.
We will be looking at participation in a very broad sense, to consider the act of taking part in a wide range of social or civic activities, such as volunteering, being a member of a local community group, purchasing fair-trade goods, attending a PTA meeting, acting as a representative on a local strategic partnership, responding to a consultation and voting. Rather than just focus on one of these forms of participation, we will explore how people get involved in all these different ways over their life times.
The research will focus on the following four questions:
• How and why does participation begin, and continue?
• Can trends and patterns of participation be identified over time?
• What connections, if any, are there between participation in different forms of activism and what triggers movement between them?
• How can policy-makers and practitioners enable and encourage different individuals and communities to participate in activism?
The project, funded by BLF, is due to start beginning of April. Each organisation is currently recruiting a researcher to work on the project. Recruitment details are on the organisations’ websites.
Olly
Our next meeting is about civil society, and I think Simon Jenkins made an excellent point in his Hinton Lecture back in November (sorry I’ve only just around to reading it).
Namely that whilst we all may think a more active voluntary/third sector is a good thing, it undermines local democracy and takes power accountabilty.
How can we address that issue?
Caroline
Third Sector ForesightI’m interested by the assertion above Olly, that having a more active voluntary and community sector undermines local democracy. How does it do this?
To me local democracy is about being able to take part in the decisions that affect you, your locality, and the community in which you live. Your locality also involves the places where you spend your day, whether that be at work, where your children go to school, where you go shopping; it is the places that make up your personal geography.
In today’s world, I also think local democracy has a wider application than voting in local elections. Although the word democracy originally means government by the people or by those they have elected, it has come to have wider implications of being able to participate in many decisions; planning applications, how services are designed and run, and so on.
As Dhara has pointed out, even the government asserts that part of democracy is about being able to take part in debates and decisions, and to take up civic roles.
A major aim of many organisations within the VCS is to empower the individuals they support, with a specfic aim of many organisations to enable people to take part in the debates and decisions that affect and effect their lives. I would therefore argue that a more active VCS should in fact support local democracy in its purest sense; by allowing debate and consensus amongst ALL the people that are involved in the locality, not just those people who are voting.
I’ll be interested to hear other people’s views.
Dhara
Written as Policy Officer at NCVO
I agree with Caroline – democracy is a deeper process than simply the act of voting. I say this not to undermine in any way the necessity and value of the ballot box, and the (often hard fought for) right to cast your vote and make your preference known, but in fact to strengthen democracy and, as Caroline says, enable all voices to be heard. In my view, representative and participative processes are both key components of a healthy local democracy.
How do young people who cannot vote make their voice heard? How can non-British citizens (many of whom pay into the system through taxation) make their voice heard? How about those who do vote (or those who choose not to) but want to continue to influence and shape the agenda long before and after elections? And without the participation of individuals in civil society, without strong collective action, who will speak truth to power?
Participative democracy is by its nature messy but crucial – and representative democracy is, as Simon Jenkins argues, essential. But neither can really be successful without the other. Often people prefer to be involved in voluntary action, for whatever reason (the independent POWER Inquiry , and its final report, Power to the People looked at this in great detail) But above everything it is vital that elected representatives, politicians at all levels, must seek to hear all voices in society and make informed and balanced decisions. Further to this, it is vital that the decisions they make – and the rationale for those decisions – is communicated to the people.
The following passage is taken from a recent LGA and NCVO publication – Votes and Voices: the complementary nature of representative and participative democracy – and is, I think, particularly relevant to this debate:
Elected politicians are faced with the extremely difficult task of having to meet and, where necessary, reconcile the needs of an increasingly diverse citizenry. They have to make difficult decisions with scarce resources and sometimes convey unpopular messages. Decisions, taken for the greater public good, will inevitably result in both winners and losers. Elected politicians are the ones with the mandate to make these decisions, taking on board the relevant pros and cons and, importantly, communicating back to local communities the reasons for the decisions they take. Voluntary and community organisations can and do strengthen this role: bringing different perspectives and enabling a range of different voices to be heard; providing knowledge, experience and expertise regarding local issues; and offering vital additional links into and out of parts of the community.
What do other people think?
Olly
The assumption you make is that by their very nature, third/voluntary sector organisations promote participation and whilst many of them do there is no actual requirement for them to do so, and no penalty if they don’t. And that I think is the crux of Simon’s point: that we can do great things to engage local communites but we are not mandated to do so.
I sometimes think that there is a bit of an emperor’s new clothes mentality about the third sector… no-one wants to admit that our sector is not all sweetness and perfection. Adam @ IntelligentGiving repeatedly makes the point that we allow the assumption that “charity” = “good organisation” and yet there are plenty of charities who are far from reputable.
Want some proof? Look how many charities don’t file their annual accounts with the Charity Commission. It’s the only thing that a charity is legally required to do each year, and countless charities don’t seem to have the ability to do it. And not just small charities. Now compare that with the furore over MPs trying to hide their expenses. It seems that whilst national and local politicians have to account for every penny they spend, charities can use other people’s money (often tax exempt) without bothering to file even the most basic of records.
Simon’s argument is that charities must not replace local civic representation because there is little accountability within the charity sector. Trustee boards are generally the “great and the good” and even when there is an active campaign to bring a wider set of people into the goverance of a charity it still relies on individuals who are selected and have no statutory accountability to anyone else.
Dal
It seems to me that one of the issues you’re touching on is what we mean by the third/voluntary sector. Many people working within organisations that fall into this bracket are becoming increasingly ‘professional’ – much of the time this is no bad thing, and often it is essential for them to stand any chance of achieving their goals.
But of course, there is a big difference between people being paid to do the work, and people volunteering to do this. People don’t get paid to vote, and taking this thought further, much of what I find admirable about the third/voluntary sector is what gets done by people who are not paid to it.
That’s not to say that I agree with the aims of every charity or the motivations of every volunteer, just as I don’t agree with every voter!
Perhaps one of the reasons that charities do attract more support than political parties is because they tend to be more focused on a particular cause or issue. It’s easier to feel enthusiastic about an organisation that helps children in need than an organisation that is all about having to make compromises (politics being the art of the possible). This links to a range of interesting drivers, such as engagement in formal politics
On a personal note, I got interested in politics when I started volunteering (and then working for!) a local charity. And again, looking at my life outside of work, I’ve had virtually no ‘invitation to engage’ from local political parties. Finally, there’s also a debate to be had about how representative and accountable politicians are (or indeed can be)!
Dhara
Written as Policy Officer at NCVO
I agree with a number of points that have been made here – no, not all voluntary and community/third sector organisations are “good” – but then many would argue that the very definition of what is “good” is incredibly subjective!- and personal. How we choose the charities and voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) that we give to and support in other ways is often a very personal decision.
Not all VCOs choose to do anything relating to promoting engagement or participation in local decision making, and nor should they feel they have to! We are not mandated to do so, and nor do I think we ought to be. The independence of the VCS is crucial.
There are very many VCOs who have nothing to do with government, but are crucial for thriving vibrant local communities – for example local history groups or sports groups. But independent VCOs are also important as part of a healthy democracy –indeed, the crux of my argument is that VCOs can support and enhance democracy – operating as a challenge or balance to the interests of government and the market, providing a voice and support for individuals and communities who might not otherwise be heard, and providing services.
I think that we should never presume that the sector is an alternative for electoral democracy, nor do I think that VCOs can provide an alternative to civic representation and accountability through the ballot box. Of course charities and other community groups cannot, and should not replace local government or other representative civic structure – but they certainly are able to complement it.
Dal’s point about his personal interest in politics growing from an association with the VCS in an area is something that you often hear– NCVOs rural research A Broader Parish found that community activism, both elected and representative, is often undertaken by a limited pool of individuals.
Dal also suggests we need to think about ‘what we mean by the third/voluntary sector’ I think we should think about what we mean when we say democracy too – is democracy about more then just voting? Is there space for the VCS in a vibrant democracy? And what role for VCOs within democracy?
Véronique
Third Sector ForesightI have found this whole discussion really fascinating.
I was particularly interested in Dal’s comment about his own engagement. It’s really relevant to a research project that NCVO
along with IVR and Involve will be working called Pathways through Participation which aims to explore people’s pathways into participation and of the factors that shape this over time.
We will be looking at participation in a very broad sense, to consider the act of taking part in a wide range of social or civic activities, such as volunteering, being a member of a local community group, purchasing fair-trade goods, attending a PTA meeting, acting as a representative on a local strategic partnership, responding to a consultation and voting. Rather than just focus on one of these forms of participation, we will explore how people get involved in all these different ways over their life times.
The research will focus on the following four questions:
• How and why does participation begin, and continue?
• Can trends and patterns of participation be identified over time?
• What connections, if any, are there between participation in different forms of activism and what triggers movement between them?
• How can policy-makers and practitioners enable and encourage different individuals and communities to participate in activism?
The project, funded by BLF, is due to start beginning of April. Each organisation is currently recruiting a researcher to work on the project. Recruitment details are on the organisations’ websites.