Strategic Discussion paper - Local Democracy

Key principles

• Local democracy is not the same as local government. Local representative democracy and participative democracy, where people associate directly to make change happen, act in concert to check and balance each other. Elected representatives need to nourish and support the role of these community organisations – not see them as a rival.
• Community empowerment is not the same as community engagement. Genuine community empowerment is about supporting people to make the changes they want to see to their agenda. In practice this must be part of a more open, accountable, inclusive and participatory Scotland.
• Genuine subsidiarity must devolve power directly to people and their communities where possible – even if that means a loss of power for local authorities and public bodies. Public authorities should work proactively with people and their communities to foster more participative approaches to budgeting and decision making.
• There must be real support for communities to help them take on increased decision-making and power over the changes they want to make for themselves and their environment. This must include nurturing and supporting community-based organisations and advocacy groups, and providing access to expertise as necessary.
• Public services are better and more engaging when they are jointly designed and delivered with the people and communities they directly affect.

Introduction

The third sector in many ways, in many forms and at many levels is an expression of communities in action. For the third sector, those people that come together to work on a shared cause for the benefit of others are the lifeblood of a modern participative democracy. Thus this 'civil society' is one of the key foundation pillars of a modern civilised fully functioning democracy. By far the biggest share of this activity takes place at a geographically local level. Therefore participative life is a core element of any local democracy. It is essential therefore that the other pillar of a modern democracy, the electoral system, plays a supportive role in protecting, nurturing and fostering this participative life. This is not about engaging communities in the agendas of the politicians. It is about creating the right conditions within which community action and the participative democracy that goes along with it can flourish. In Scotland, this also means that our representative democracy, particularly at the local level, needs to organise itself in a way which best supports this participative element. In this discussion paper, we explore some propositions that build in the principles above to strengthen our local democracy:

1. Investigate a community-based approach to public services to improve outcomes for Scotland’s communities

The Christie Commission outlined the need for ‘services built around people and communities’. The recommendations in the Christie Commission were supportive of the key role played by empowered communities through personalisation, prevention and asset-based approaches to achieve better public services. Unfortunately those recommendations have not yet translated to effective adoption and implementation across the public sector.

• A community-led approach to public services is widely recognised as an effective way to produce successful public services. As the Local Government and Regeneration Committee's report into public service reform states, “We are clear that community-led changes are generally more successful than top-down initiatives. We conclude public bodies must change their approach to those to whom they supply services. At an individual level they must treat them as customers, endeavour to meet their needs and above all respect and listen to them. At a community level we see a need for a major effort to achieve the Christie Commission‘s aspiration of real community engagement”.[i]
• Approaches such as Personalisation and Co-production are vital to shift the emphasis from doing things to people to doing services for people – empowering them to take control of the services provided to them. Personalisation aims to give service users more direct control over the services they use, by devolving budgetary and decision-making powers to plan and decide who provides them the services they need. Co-production ensures service users are at the heart of the design of the services they receive. It enables users to work with professionals to develop better services that meet their needs and deliver better outcomes.
• Giving communities more control over the setting of outcomes will mean they should better reflect the things that matter most to people. This will ensure that the priorities identified are based around community needs and aspirations. Approaches such as Co-production and Personalisation give people influence over the services they receive and the decisions that affect them, and will deliver better public services tailored to local priorities. An empowering Council should be comfortable giving power and budgets away so that citizens can exercise control over their own lives where they choose to do so. However, it is important that this empowering agenda does not operate as a mask for cuts. This has been the case with Self-Directed Support, where cuts are being made to social care budgets as services are transferred to direct payments. This does not mean that the principle of Self-Directed Support is not sound; and in future, Self-Directed Support should make changes in budgets more transparent.
• Furthermore, digital access to services must mean more than just shunting people to online services. Digital can help people to connect with each other, build mutual support and form collectives for negotiation with their service providers as they take control of personal budgets. This is local democracy in action – people who are informed and able to make choices about how they interact with services – and we must make this available and accessible to communities and individuals.

2. Consider the current landscape of democracy in Scotland and how this could be strengthened to build a mutually supportive relationship between representation and participation

A key component of any healthy democracy is involved citizens, taking an active part in society and successfully influencing the decisions that affect them. ‘Apathy is a myth. People are interested in local-based and community politics, but do not find their concerns addressed in ‘high level’ political discussions on often narrow terms set by current institutions’^[ii] – Electoral Reform Society: Democracy Max

• The low turnouts of recent by-elections in Shettleston and Govan (20.06%^[iii] &17.55%^[iv]) show how disconnected people have become from representative democracy, particularly at the local authority level. This is creating a desperate cycle where people don’t vote because they don’t feel it makes a difference and politicians neglect parts of society because they don’t vote. This is driving inequality and marginalising many communities.
• Low turnouts also lead one to question the accountability of those elected, and ask whether they truly represent their communities. The British National Attitudes Survey ^[v]showed that in 2012, 59% of people felt they had no say in what government does. Although these levels have improved slightly in the last twenty years, it is still a hugely concerning statistic which demonstrates the need for reforms which give people more control over the decisions that affect them. Moreover, the proportion who "just about always" or "most of the time" trust government has almost halved (18 per cent in 2012, down from 38 per cent in 1986), demonstrating there exists a serious deficit of trust in British politics.
• Community empowerment is not the same as community engagement. Many people have been left disillusioned by poor engagement practices that didn’t take their views into account, wasted their time and left them feeling disempowered. Often people feel they have no say in or no trust in statutory services and decision-making, and this can have a knock-on effect on democracy. Conversely, evidence shows that if there is a likelihood that engagement in local politics will impact on how funds are spent, then participation in democracy is likely to improve.
• If we are to have a stronger and better participative democracy, it is essential that we improve the system of representative democracy. Subsidiarity – the principle of any matter being handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively – whilst a good principle, is not enough on its own to lead to effective local democracy. Also important is that all policy decisions made are done so transparently, openly and accountably, whatever level they are made at. This will ensure that everyone has access to understand and influence decisions that affect them. They can then build on this to make the changes they need to their environment through participation and community action.

Our questions

Exploring the connect and disconnect between local government, participation and local democracy poses important questions that we believe merit further discussion and review by all those who want to improve local democracy. As a starter, we have identified the following questions:

1. What kinds of organised activities should public authorities invest in to enhance local democracy and community action? E.g. community hubs and anchors, advocacy groups, community-based support, meeting places.
2. How do we ensure people in marginalised communities get equal access to decision-making, power and control over their lives to more vocal, better resourced communities?
3. What should the purpose of representative democracy be, and what does this mean for the scale at which we organise our local government systems?
4. What can we learn from those examples in Scotland, where we have got the balance right between representative and participative approaches to democracy?
5. What can we learn from other countries where we think they have a better, more balanced approach to local democracy? (See a selection of examples provided in the Appendix below)

Contact

Ruchir Shah Policy Manager   Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, Mansfield Traquair Centre, 15 Mansfield Place, Edinburgh EH3 6BB   Email: Ruchir.shah@scvo.scot Tel: 0131 474 8001 Web: www.scvo.scot

About us

The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) is the national body representing the third sector. There are over 45,000 voluntary organisations in Scotland involving around 137,000 paid staff and approximately 1.2 million volunteers. The sector manages an income of £4.4 billion. SCVO works in partnership with the third sector in Scotland to advance our shared values and interests. We have over 1500 members who range from individuals and grassroots groups, to Scotland-wide organisations and intermediary bodies. As the only inclusive representative umbrella organisation for the sector SCVO:

• has the largest Scotland-wide membership from the sector – our 1500 members include charities, community groups, social enterprises and voluntary organisations of all shapes and sizes
• our governance and membership structures are democratic and accountable - with an elected board and policy committee from the sector, we are managed by the sector, for the sector
• brings together organisations and networks connecting across the whole of Scotland

SCVO works to support people to take voluntary action to help themselves and others, and to bring about social change. Our policy is determined by a policy committee elected by our members. Further details about SCVO can be found at www.scvo.scot.

Appendix – Examples from other countries

To more fully illustrate the benefits of moving to a community empowerment and participatory model of democracy, below are two examples of public service delivery and participatory democracy from other countries.

Community Empowerment, Rwanda

The Ubudehe programme is a strong commitment to the belief that communities are capable of identifying their own problems and have the capacity to develop solutions to these problems if they have the space and the resources to do so. The Ubudehe programme is supported by those at the highest political level – crucial to the success of the model. The process of Ubudehe focuses on cellules, an administrative unit of around one hundred households. Each cellule identifies and defines the nature of poverty in their cellule, before picking the area where they wish to devote the most time, resources and money. The community then develops solutions to the problem and develops an action plan, signed by the community and other stakeholders. This signed agreement is made public, allowing the community and local government to monitor the implementation of the agreement^[vi]. Community engagement is facilitated through training and support provided by the state through the use of cascade training, in which people at each level train those at the next. Once the priorities have been decided by the cellule, a representative for the community is elected and the funds to put the plan into place are passed to this representative. Accounting and reporting mechanisms are in place and subsequent funding is conditional upon satisfactory performance and reporting.

What are the benefits?

Evaluations of Ubudehe demonstrate that the policy has been a success. 1.4million people have benefitted directly from the Ubudehe programme. In research, 95% of those sampled confirmed that Ubudehe had improved their income whilst 89% regarded Ubudehe as having a great or very great impact on social cohesion^[vii]. The programme also won the prestigious UN Public Service Award. As of 2012, the training concept of Ubudehe had resulted in around 50,000 people being trained, greatly improving the skills available in the local community and developing the capacity of the community to engage with government structures.

Lessons learnt

Community representatives must be elected and local institutions should be directly linked into the system of government. In the Rwandan model every cellule elects two representatives from that cellule to represent them throughout the process. A commitment to improving the visibility and standing of Scottish community councils and having elected councillors at that level sitting on CPPs and other local authority/public services groupings may be a way to strengthen the mandate of these organisations to speak for the community. The use of training right down to community level is essential One of the key issues when discussing community empowerment involves the necessity of building the capacity of the community in influencing decisions. Research shows that citizen participation can be blocked by a lack of knowledge and ability to organise effectively in the community.^[viii] It is therefore crucial that community empowerment must up-skill communities that are to be empowered. The cascade model of training in the Ubudehe model allows for adaptation to local and regional differences. A core team at national level provides training to those at regional level who provide training at local level who in turn provide training to those in community councils therefore developing their capacity to represent their community – perhaps a model that should be replicated here in Scotland. The programme must be clearly linked to national planning and budgeting, with the community receiving the funds it needs to put into place their action plan Consultative exercises that have very little influence over how budgets are spent can damage community empowerment: power is not truly transferred to citizens, and while it allows claims that citizens have been considered, in actuality the status quo remains the same^[ix]. It is therefore essential that community structures are given more influence in national planning and budgeting as is the case in the Ubudehe model. Furthermore, financial decentralisation is central to the Ubudehe model. A central focus on strengthening and supporting communities throughout Scotland, alongside training, will help to support their ability to cope with the financial responsibilities.

Participatory budgeting, Porto Alegre

In Porto Alegre, about 9 – 21% of the municipal budget is decided using participatory budgeting^[x]. Each year, district level assemblies are held in each of the 16 districts of Porto Alegre. These meetings are open to any city resident. Time is spent on deliberative discussion which allows a wide range of issues to be considered^[xi]. The purpose of these meetings is to enable residents to voice their concerns with the municipal government and deliberate over the most pressing needs. To conclude the process, these assemblies rank the top three needs and elect delegates to represent the region at the citywide level in the Participatory Budgeting council. The delegates elected from the preliminary meetings meet weekly or biweekly to debate on the proposals^[xii]. The delegates receive training from independent NGOs^[xiii]. Representatives from the City council also attend these meetings according to their area of expertise to offer help on technical issues^[xiv]. At a second regional plenary the delegates picked from the district assemblies prioritise district demands and elect councillors to serve on the Municipal Council of the Budget^[xv]. The council is presented with the top three priorities from each delegate and decides how to distribute funds to the districts. This occurs through central, transparent and publicly discussed indicators for the allocation of resources, which are renegotiated each year, demonstrating flexibility in adapting to changing needs^[xvi]. As projects are implemented, street committees monitor their progress and on the basis of the evaluation the rules of the process are redrawn by the district assemblies in order to improve the process for next year^[xvii].

What are the benefits?

Porto Alegre’s expenditures in areas such as health and housing are much higher than the national average in Brazil but the administration costs and overheads of the municipality have been reduced^[xviii]. There has also been a reorientation of public investments towards the most disadvantaged districts and overall public services and infrastructure have been greatly improved^[xix]. The rate of participation in participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre is impressive. By 2004 some 20,000 people were attending the first round of meetings at the district level^[xx].

Lessons learnt

Participatory budgeting is not exclusionary Often, critics of participatory budgeting question whether it will exclude those from lower socio-economic classes. But this has not been the experience of participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre, and social groups normally excluded from public life have largely benefitted from the process, particularly those who are poorer and women^[xxi]. The state must play its role in facilitating local democracy One argument that could be given against the introduction of participatory budgeting is that the drive for it does not exist and that the capacity for citizens to engage on such a level is not present. However, in Porto Alegre, even in an area in which there was little civic organisation previous to the introduction of participatory budgeting, research found that it flourished. Division of local authority into districts is crucial to managing the process In order to foster community involvement, small communities must be allowed to deal with specific local concerns. Porto Alegre is a city of 1,509,939 inhabitants, and participatory budgeting takes place in each of the city’s 16 districts, each of which elects representatives to be involved in the budgetary decisions, and holds their own meetings. One could argue that local authority areas in Scotland are just too large for real community interaction and participatory budgeting to take place. A decent percentage of overall budget can be decided by participatory budgeting Whilst in Scotland there have been some examples of participatory budgeting, these have tended to focus on community grants already allocated to local communities. In contrast, in Porto Alegre, about 9 – 21% of the municipal budget is successfully decided using participatory budgeting. There is no reason why such a commitment could not also be made in Scotland.