| Conclusions |
| |
| This project has attempted to
bring together some preliminary information on the areas of civic participation
and social partnership. Given the time-frame of the project, and its timing
during parliamentary recesses and the major holiday period, this report
should not be viewed as an exhaustive study of the mechanisms for civic
participation or the arrangements for social partnership in Europe. The
direct involvement of non-members within the work of parliaments, in particular,
is not a subject that can be fully covered through desk-based research.
In conclusion to this report we would like to suggest some key areas for
further research and provide a brief overview of the information provided
by the report. |
| |
| 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 Some
theorists of democracy, such as Schumpeter, would argue against any extension
of representative democracy and claim that the citizenry are an 'unworkable
committee' unable, and unwilling, to expend any effort on political issues.
This, however, appears to be contradicted by the huge range of citizen Involvement
in voluntary and community based initiatives included within a broad definition
of political activity. |
| |
| The rationales for popular participation
are diverse. It can be characterised as a self-Interested activity: motivated
by specific instrumental concerns or, on a wider level, by the belief -
particularly by excluded groups - that only through their 'presence' will
their needs be met and understood. The communitarian perspective would see
participation as a demonstration of concern for collective values and an
educational experience in itself. This pursuit of participation for its
own sake is criticised by those who feel that the benefits of participation
should be measured by the degree to which they deliver institutions that
ensure political equality and proper policy deliberation. These rationales
and the intensity of individual participation they involve are summarised
by Stoker in |
| |
| Figure 21. 53 |
| |
|
|
| |
| The evidence outlined above demonstrates
there are a number of issues that 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. |
| |
| Nonetheless we would argue that
the examples discussed above demonstrate that the wider Involvement of civic
society and social partners are worthwhile, and achievable, goals. Successful
examples of partnership and participation draw upon pre-existing net-works
whose meaningfulness to those involved is already demonstrable. From this
starting point participatory processes can be further encouraged and developed.
In this way representative democracy can be strengthened by the direct input
of the citizens. |
| |
| Suggestions for further research |
| |
| Given the limitations of this
project we indicate below some further avenues of research that may be of
Interest should the CSG require any more detailed information |
| |
There is a growing body of literature
on civic participation methods but there is still a need for:
- Further collation and evaluation of examples
of good practice.
- In-depth study of parliamentary level,
government regulated initiatives for involving the citizenry throughout
the world.
|
| |
Although there is a significant
body of academic literature that deals with 'traditional' corporatist arrangements,
i.e. those between state, capital and labour, much of this is now rather
dated. It is also predominantly theoretical literature concerned with the
delineation of particular political models. There is substantially less
information readily available on the specifics of institutional arrangements.
In this report these details were most frequently gleaned from a variety
of web-based sources and direct inquiries. We would therefore suggest
- In-depth study of the specific institutional
arrangements available to social partners in comparable nations.
|
| |
In Part B we also indicate the
necessity for taking a wider view of social partnership to include groups
that have often been left outside traditional corporatist arrangements.
This area is particularly under researched with regard to the specific role
of national parliaments and the executive. Further research may be considered
in the following areas:
- Identify and research in detail examples
of wider social partnerships in action. For example, the use of sectoral
forums.
- Research focused on particular policy
areas in order to determine specifically what partners need to be included
and the most appropriate institutional arrangements.
- Further research to draw upon and apply
local models to regional and devolved parliamentary levels.
|
| |
Given the compelling nature of
the equal opportunities critique of many social partnership arrangements
we would particularly recommend that the Scottish Parliament considers the
representativeness of its social partner organisations. This is already
an important requirement in European Structural Funds and Initiatives such
as Agenda 21. Although some valuable gender disaggregated statistics are
available around unions, public bodies and the voluntary sector (see for
example the Scottish Gender Audit, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997).
There is still a need for a great deal further research in these areas,
particularly with regard to peak business organisations and the role of
women in economic decision-making. We would suggest:
- Detailed mapping of the gender balance
within Scottish social partner organisations.
|
| |
As indicated previously, very
little in-depth material exists on the inclusion of nonmembers within the
work of parliaments. In order to compile a full picture of the arrangements
that currently exist in comparable institutions around the world we would
suggest:
- A systematic survey of the experience
and range of mechanisms used to involve non-members in the work of parliament.
This information could then be collated and evaluated.
|
| |
| It should be borne in mind that
many of the institutional arrangements currently under consideration by
the Scottish Parliament are at the cutting edge of constitutional affairs.
The lack of comparative material and practical examples in existence elsewhere
is not then particularly surprising. This is not an argument against experimentation,
it merely suggests that the material that is available should be carefully
considered and that particular attention should to be paid to creating mechanisms
that will allow regular monitoring and evaluation against the agreed objectives. |
| |
