Citizens should be asked to do more in British politics

Unlock Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, editor-in-chief of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The UK has a new government, with a huge majority. But only just over a third of voters voted for it. What’s more, it has won power in a country that has lost faith in democratic politics: recent polls for the independent think tank Demos showed that “76 per cent of people have little or no confidence that politicians will make decisions in the best interests of the people of the UK”. This is a crisis for democratic politics, not just for politicians. It is in such seas of mistrust that demagogues trade in scapegoats and lies.

Sir Keir Starmer will find it hard to stem the tide of discontent. The promises he made unwisely on his way to power will, I have argued, make it even harder to build the much-needed combination of performance and reliability. Many things need to change, including the way the country governs itself. A centralised government dependent on a professional civil service will not be good enough. Citizens must be asked to participate more deeply. That could improve not only the way the country is governed, but also the way it is seen to be governed.

In an excellent “Citizens’ White Paper,” Demos describes the revolution needed this way: “We don’t just need new policies for these challenging times. We need new ways of addressing the policy challenges we face—from national missions to day-to-day policymaking. We need new ways of understanding and negotiating what the public will tolerate. We need new ways of rebuilding trust in politicians.” In short, it argues, “if government is to be trusted by the people, it must start trusting the people.”

The fundamental goal is to change the perception of government from something that politicians and bureaucrats do to us to an activity that does not concern everyone, which is impossible, but ordinary people selected by lot. This would be, as I have noted, the principle of the jury imported into public life.

How might this work? The idea is to select representative groups of ordinary people affected by policy for a formal discussion of problems and solutions. This could be at the level of central, decentralised or local government. Participants would not only be asked for opinions but would also be actively involved in considering issues and shaping (but not taking) decisions about them. The article describes a number of different approaches: panels, meetings, juries, workshops and wider community conversations. Which would be appropriate depends on the task.

What could be done to make this a reality in the UK? The document ambitiously outlines six steps for the next 100 days: announce flagship panels to provide input to the government’s five mission boards (for growth, clean energy, crime, opportunity and the NHS); create a permanent pool of citizens from which mission boards and departments can draw; create a centre of expertise on participation in government; announce a programme of flagship citizens’ assemblies; create levers for participatory policymaking within government, such as training and support; and involve citizens in hearings by parliamentary committees.

In the longer term, the report suggests three other steps could be taken: creating a duty to consider participation; involving citizens in the review of previous legislation; and creating an independent mechanism to govern how all this would work.

This would clearly be a major change in the way government works. It would also cost money, although less than £31m a year in the first year, according to the article, which is insignificant in the total expenditure of £1.2tn. Processes would take longer and be more complex. So the question is whether they would be better than they are today.

We can’t know without trying. But there are powerful reasons why they might, all of which are set out in the paper. First, ordinary people have experience that ministers, civil servants and the usual range of experts will lack. By taking part, they can bring this knowledge to the heart of decision-making. Second, by debating complex issues and questioning expert witnesses, civil society organisations can build a degree of consensus on hugely controversial issues such as planning controls, ‘net zero’, prisons, immigration and euthanasia. This could then help government to steer such issues.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the involvement of ordinary people can give the public the feeling that governance is no longer just done by distant figures, but that it is something that people like themselves are also involved in.

If we could feel credibly that today’s representative democracy is a great success, then we wouldn’t have to think about it at all. But it isn’t. So it should be now.

[email protected]

Follow Martin Wolf with myFT and further Twitter