As part of SPICe’s academic fellowship scheme, Dr Ruth Lightbody from Glasgow Caledonian University was asked to explore how the Scottish Parliament can use key guiding principles and a practice framework to support it on its journey towards increasing citizen participation in its work through deliberative approaches.
This blog shares some key learnings from the project work; more detail can be found in Dr Lightbody’s full research briefing.
Relevant background detail to this work, which connects to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee’s inquiry into Public Participation in the Scottish Parliament, is also linked at the end of this blog.
As with all guest blogs, what follows are the views of the author and not those of SPICe, or of the Scottish Parliament.
Background
Citizen engagement and participatory practices are gaining traction in Scotland. Much attention has been paid within the last decade to how, and where, citizens should be supported to have their say on issues that affect them (see Scotland’s Climate Assembly, Citizens’ Panels on Health), to scrutinise budgets, legislation and contribute to committee inquiries (see the Citizens’ Panel on pre-budget scrutiny for the 2024-25 budget, People-Led Policy Panel) and to prioritise what is important for them on the political agenda (see Scotland Parliament Petitions, Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland).
In response to recommendations from the Citizens’ Panel commissioned by the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee in 2022 and the Committee’s own subsequent recommendations, the project team (consisting of Dr Lightbody and Parliament staff from SPICe and the Participation and Communities Team) identified key principles and developed a framework for evaluating deliberative practice in the Scottish Parliament. According to this framework, the key principles underpinning deliberative processes in Parliament should include political buy-in, citizen input, effective scrutiny of proceedings or evidence, inclusiveness, transparency, legitimacy, policy impact and citizen empowerment (see section 4 of the research report).
Why is it important to evaluate participatory processes?
For deliberative and participatory democracy to be impactful, it is important to examine how these principles are being operationalised throughout the policy-making process. The Scottish Parliament regularly uses engagement processes in order to hear from, and speak with, communities, third sector organisations, and individuals. Evaluation methods are vital to ensure these principles are being upheld to a high standard. But evaluation also improves outputs and outcomes by increasing legitimacy and understanding, helping organisers to learn and develop best practice, and increasing public trust in parliament. Evaluation, like the recent SPICe Fellowship work undertaken by Dr Adam Chalmers, helps the Parliament to map how effective these processes are and how much influence they afford the public. Evaluation also reassures those that are participating that they are valued and their contributions taken seriously.
But as Fiona Garven from Scottish Community Development Centre says, participation must be built into the bones of Scotland. In order to do this, the Scottish Parliament needs to be mapping participatory and deliberative work both in the Parliament, and outwith.
The importance of connecting processes
The Parliament’s internal Participation and Communities Team (PACT) is doing some incredible work, working closely with communities, engaging, emboldening, learning from, and creating partnerships.
The Parliament, and those involved in engaging the public, need a better sense of how these engagement processes inform and link with one another. No engagement process should, or does, work in isolation. Better links with those working with, and within, communities will help to connect those working in similar areas or facilitate learning between sectors. Mapping out this systems approach will determine where the gaps are and highlight good practice. This will support politics in Scotland to be inclusive, effectual, fairer and more equitable.
Using multiple methods and processes for engaging the public
Using Roberts et al.’s (2023) framework (see below), which cleverly combines Arnstein’s (1969) ladder with other participation evaluation methods, it’s possible to see that participating with the community can be divided into three key areas: doing ‘to’, doing ‘for’, and doing ‘with’.
Doing ‘to’
In participatory processes, academics and practitioners have often considered the lowest rung doing ‘to’ as tokenistic, one-sided, having decisions imposed on communities from a top-down political elite. Yet, different types of processes have a role to play in embedding participation in Scotland’s politics. For instance, doing ‘to’, instead of being a one-way conversation, if done well, can refer to information sharing, informing, sharing of evidence, transparency, and openness, ensuring that citizens, and those living in Scotland, are well aware of processes, policies, issues and actions. Individuals cannot be critical scrutinisers of political practice, who effectively engage with Parliament, without information and access to evidence, further information and signposting of processes and procedure.
Doing ‘for’
Doing ‘for’ is also a necessary aspect of an involved citizenry. Involving the public in the decision-making process without giving them responsibility over key decisions can include consultation, asking for feedback, or suggestions through workshops, focus groups, surveys, public meetings and so on. All of which have a place in a vibrant democracy. Although this is traditionally thought of as a shallow level of engagement, it allows for a wider variety of participants – not everyone is able or willing to be involved in co-production, co-creation or collaboration. Similarly, where deliberative processes, such as citizens’ assemblies, are often held in held in high esteem, realistically, only a small number of people can be engaged in them at a time. But, by using multiple means of engaging the public, the chances are that a wider demographic is able to be involved.
Doing ‘with’
Finally, doing ‘with’ is ideal but time consuming. Approaches in this area can include community and grassroots led decisions, co-production, co-design – all of which facilitates ‘slow’ politics, for which deliberation is so important. Slowing the process allows for meaningful, rational, informed discussion which is representative of people’s diverse needs. This sort of process includes Citizen Advisory Boards, Citizens’ Panels and Assemblies, Legislative Theatre, and other processes which facilitate conversation between communities and policy makers. This sort of work supports communities to become co-creators – something they are very capable of doing, are already doing, but it also depends on processes being in place, and on politicians and representatives being willing to engage.
Conclusion
There is no one way to engage the public. Using a myriad of participatory and deliberative practices, identifying deliberation, reflection, slow politics, and co-creation where it happens, and being open to the idea that it may take place outwith the Parliament will open Scottish politics up to an engaged and lively discourse. A discourse which is linked between sectors and levels of governance, and across institutions.
If you are interested in finding out more about the Parliament’s work on participation, SPICe has published several blogs exploring the topic:
- Turning the lens inwards – the Citizen Participation and Petitions Committee’s Public Participation Inquiry
- Recommending a more participatory future – the Citizen Participation and Petitions Committee’s Public Participation Inquiry
- A shopping list for Scottish Parliament citizens’ assemblies? – the Citizen Participation and Petitions Committee’s Public Participation Inquiry
- Embedding Deliberative Democracy in a Participatory Parliament
- Guest blog: Tracking public engagement through the parliamentary process
Dr Ruth Lightbody, Glasgow Caledonian University, and Ailsa Burn-Murdoch, SPICe