Scottish Office: Involving Civil Society in the Work of Parliaments

Non-Graphical version

Involving Civil Society in the Work of Parliaments

Executive Summary

The Project

This project was undertaken on the basis of the brief issued by the Consultative Steering Group on the Scottish Parliament. The project lasted five weeks over July and August 1998.
The report is divided into 3 main parts. The first part is concerned with methods by which individual citizens may influence policy decision-making, the second with social partnership arrangements in Europe and finally we Summarise some mechanisms used to involve non-members in the work of parliaments.

Part A: Civic Participation in Policy Decision-Making

Although the referendum and citizen's initiative are the most widely used forms of direct democratic control at a national level their use still remains fairly limited. Nonetheless, interest in referendums, particularly as a means to enhance democratic legitimacy, remains intense.
Referendums should be from 'initiatives' which are popular votes promoted by petitions signed by a number of voters. These popular votes can be further classified according to whether they are 'decision-controlling' or 'decision-promoting'.
Within Europe a wide range of popular votes have been experienced. Only Italy and Switzerland use referendums and initiatives with any great frequency and these are the only places where electors have the right to demand a country-wide popular vote.
Referendums appear to suit a more individualistic citizenry that is no longer as permanently mobilised in collective organisations but that still follows politics and is willing to become active on an ad hoc basis around specific issues. However, although direct popular votes can be used to strengthen democracy they can upset the balance if used too frequently. A trade off has to be made between the impact of elections and the influence of referendums.
A number of innovative forms of citizen participation, such as consensus conferences, citizens juries, deliberative opinion polls and citizens panels aim at giving citizens access to information and a chance to discuss the issues prior to asking their opinion.
ln a consensus conference a forum of lay people question experts about a controversial scientific or technological subject, assess the experts' responses, reach a consensus about the subject and report the conclusions at a press conference.
Citizens' juries brings together a group of randomly chosen citizens to deliberate on a particular issue, they examine witnesses, deliberate, and then produce a decision or provide recommendations. The Sponsoring body (a government department, a local authority or other agency) is usually required to respond, either by acting on the report or explaining why it disagrees with it.
Deliberative opinion polling takes a national random sample of between 250-600 citizens is to discuss and debate a particular issue. Briefing material is provided and the citizens can question competing experts and politicians. At the end of the process the citizens are polled in detail. The resulting survey offers a representation of the considered judgements of the wider population.
Citizens' panels are made up of a stable sample of citizens statistically representative of an area's population. The panel meets regularly to assess local services and develop views about future needs and goals. Standing panels can be used to test specific policy options or proposals or to scrutinise policy implementation.
When assessing the appropriateness of a civic participation mechanism the following factors need to be considered: representativeness, cost, legitimacy, political impact, topic choice, flexibility, empowerment of citizens, selection of experts, the role of the media, evaluation procedures and consensus-building.
Efforts to involve citizens in the consultative, if not the decision-making, process have tended to occur at a local rather than at a national level. However effective local consultation and participation is an essential foundation for nationwide citizen involvement.

Part B: Social Partnerships

'Social partnership' can be interpreted in a number of different ways: from a loose sense of co-operation between a wide variety of societal groups to a highly specific institutional structure which brings together government, business and labour.
Traditional corporatist structures are only really applicable to those groups that are highly organised and that have established mechanisms for ensuring representativeness, most significantly trade unions and employers' federations.
The 'European social model' is generally seen as one characterised by social partner-ship and civic inclusiveness, where the trade unions and employers' organisations are routinely involved in decision-making. Austria provides the 'classic' example of Strong corporatist policy-making.
The nature of social partnership arrangements between state, capital and labour are influenced by a range of factors beyond institutional arrangements, such as culture, the dominance of particular political parties and the economic and social climate.
'Corporatist' structures, whilst they formalise and make more open the process of group participation in government, have also tended to be rather exclusive. Most partnerships, for example, do not have formal equal opportunities policies.
There have been sustained efforts at a global, European and local level to promote the inclusion of more diverse groups within the process of government: from prelegislative consultations to service delivery.
Increasingly, attention is being drawn to the importance of voluntary groups, community groups, non-governmental organisations and non-profit organisations in contributing to the 'social economy' and in co-operating in local partnership arrangements with governmental agencies.
Fostering an active sense of citizenship requires social policy makers to become more aware of and supportive towards the community and voluntary sectors. By building up their capacity individually and through networks, these organisations can provide opportunities for participation at many different levels.
The scope for including the third sector as a partner in policy implementation is the subject of extensive discussion within the European Union, particularly within the context of schemes for regeneration and prograrnmes for combating social exclusion.
Institutional arrangements need to find mechanisms that can widen the influence of social partners in the pre-legislative process. For example in the use of sectoral forums, civic assemblies, task forces and round tables.
The following issues need to be addressed in relation to social partnerships: the power balance between different partners, equality of representation, commitment to compromise and negotiation, compatibility of objectives and accountability.
Careful consideration needs to be given to who is involved in the policy process, how they are involved and what the objective is. Different groups and subject matter will require appropriate methods and institutional.

Part C: Involving Non-Members in the Work of Parliaments

Non-members representing particular interest groups tend to be consulted on legislation before the first reading through the relevant Ministry.
Much involvement of non-members is purely informal, particularly through lobbying and through the political parties. Austria does, however, have a more extensive system of involving interest groups in the legislative process.
Following the first reading committees tend to engage in a full consultation procedure. ThIs may include holding special hearings.
At a local level in the UK women's representatives have been co-opted onto parliamentary women's committees.
The co option of 'ordinary' people or representatives of equity groups onto commit-tees can be seen as a democratic measure which allows people who are usually excluded from the policy process to have a voice. Conversely, co-option may be challenged on the grounds that community representatives are unaccountable and unrepresentative.
Guidelines detailing the whole procedure for submitting views to and appearing as a witness at a parliamentary committee help to demystify the process and provide improved access for citizens' wishing to become involved in the work of the legislature.
The 'rapporteur' system provides a focus for interest groups to intervene in the work of committees. Sometimes experts are seconded to act as advisors to rapporteurs.

Conclusions

The full requirements of representative democracy are not met by elections alone but demand a continuous process of exchange between those who delegate power and those who exercise it.
A number of issues need to be continually addressed and monitored throughout any participatory process. In particular we would highlight the need to consider the representativeness of those involved and the necessity for accountability.
Successful examples of partnership and participation draw upon pre-existing networks whose meaningfulness to those involved is already demonstrable. From this starting point participatory processes can be further encouraged and developed.