Challenging Disengagement

The UK government has a challenge on its hands. Public trust, knowledge and efficacy in British political institutions have been consistently depressed in recent years. Whilst few would question that Britain is a democracy, it has been criticised for its lack of democratic vitality. Its citizens have been described as ‘noisy spectators’ rather than active participants, and its politicians and government accused of retreating into a ‘bunker mentality’ rather than facing the problem.

There are various measures of political disengagement. Concerns in recent years have been brought to the fore by low turnouts at elections. At the 2001 general election, the overall turnout was 59% – the lowest it had been since 1918. In 2005, overall turnout rose to 61%, but amongst the youngest voters it was down from 39% in 2001 to 37% – mooting the potential for a sustained slump in political awareness and participation.

Disengagement from the electoral process is not a result of unconvincing campaigns, or of laziness, or contentment amongst citizens. Significant factors behind poor turnouts are the absence of engagement opportunities between elections, low efficacy and a lack of political knowledge and civic skills.

An annual Audit of Political Engagement – carried out since 2004 by the Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society – takes the ‘political pulse’ of the British public. It has demonstrated a latent interest on the part of citizens to be more engaged by political institutions and representatives. However, it has also shown a failure on the part of political institutions to take advantage of opportunities to engage the public, often by failing to address what motivates awareness and participation.

In the 2007 Audit, 69% of people claimed to be interested in getting involved in political and policy processes between elections. However, only 39% of people believed that they had sufficient knowledge and skills to be able to do so effectively; and only 33% believed that when ‘people like them’ got involved, it made any impact.

People in the UK often look to petitions and boycotts in order to have their say on the issues of the day. Whilst legitimate, these are blunt and informal forms of participation. There are established ‘formal’ routes through which the public can engage more directly with the government’s policy-making processes. For example, since the Audit of Political Engagement first reported in 2003, the government has carried out an average of 609 consultations per year [Better Regulation Executive: 2003, 2004 and 2005]. In the Audit, people were asked if they would consider participating in a (local or national) government consultation – 14% replied in the affirmative, but only 4% had actually done so in the previous three years.

In addition to its consultation exercises, a range of initiatives has been launched by the government since 1997 to address falling political engagement. In 2002, Citizenship Education was introduced as a statutory requirement in English schools (with variations in place in the other home nations), and in 2005 the ‘Together We Can’ initiative was established to coordinate public engagement initiatives across central government. Pilots and policies like these have been high-profile and designed to be sustained over the long-term. Government has not been idle; questions remain, however, about how successful its policies and initiatives have been.

Debates abound about ways of balancing the expectations and requirements of the government and citizens in a society that is shifting under global pressures and significant demographic change. Is it possible to improve people’s understanding of issues and priorities whilst ensuring that the concerns of the people are heard and acted upon? Are there emerging methods and structures that can enhance the relationship between the people, elected representatives and the institutions efficiently, effectively and sustainably?

Whether the problem of political disengagement is viewed from the root up or the top down, through the media lens or statistical analysis, the ongoing damage to the credibility of the UK polity is clear. It is not, however, unassailable.