CONTROLLED ONE WAY
Information Persuasion
Consensus-building Dialogue
TWO WAY
(van Ruler 2004, 139)
The public sector (inc. local government) today is clearly seeking to emphasis the two way model and wants to place itself in the dialogue box where information is just not provided by the authorities but is being handled in dialogue with the stakeholders (here the citizens). All kinds of citizens forums are organised (see for example in Jyväskylä) and discussion areas are created in the cities' internet site. Citizens are invited to discuss with decision-makers.
Sometimes I feel a bit sick and tired of this fuss about citizen participation. Do we as citizens always care? Do we have the time? As van Ruler notes, the two way communication model needs an aware as well as committed public because without, we are back in the information box.
As citizens, are we the active discussants, eager to interact with the authorities? Or would we just rather let our representatives (the councillors) do their job? Whose job is it to try to activate people - the PR's? Is that not too big of a task for PR?
Source:
van Ruler, Betteke. 2004. The communication grid: an introduction of a model of four communication strategies. Public Relations Review 30. 123-143.
This is a inspiring post and I totally share your thought, or rather doubt about necessity of citizen participation. Well, if we talk about the main principles of a legitimate state and of many tools to achieve better regulation which is kind of ideal state where public decisionmaking and governing should be aiming to (http://www.betterregulation.ie/eng/), then theoretically the more transparent it is, the better it is, the more you add stakeholders to the process of governing (and decisionmaking), the better it is. But what is pretty in theory, might not be in reality.
VastaaPoistaAnd there are really many principles, which should support better decisions and everything better, most of them envolving different versions of participation, communication and information flows. I do not have the source around, but I remember adding some questions in a survey and getting answers about how much people actually are interested in taking part of the decisionmaking process (in a ministry). And although expectation was, that people are interested in what will be decided, reality differed slightly and surprisingly many people stated, that participation is not so important. There are a few more articles I bounced into while googling before writing here (but these are in estonian, so I do not link). Those also mention, among many other things, that citizens are passive, they are not interested. What also caught my attention was an opinion, that citizens thought, that they do not have the knowledge needed for participation - they do not know about those things.
But in my opinion we need answer to question WHY! It can aswell be, that passivness of citizens and hopelessness in the results (and quality) of participation is caused by the local government - maybe people just have noticed, that there are no results in participation and therefore they have become passive and have started to think that they also lack knowledge to take part?
so, there are some hints on the internet, which support your doubt about the necessity of participation, citizens themselves have stated, that they are not interested in participation. And governments have stated, that citizens are passive.
But can it be caused by the style of communicating? If the local government tries to involve citizens in their work, it should happen in dialogue form. And as soon as it turns into monologue or delegating or just giving facts, it kills the interest and without dialogue there is also no participation. Or?
just recently I read a publication by Praxis (www.praxis.ee; 2009/2 - again in estonian), which was about delegating. And there also was mentioned (results of a survey), that if local governments are delegating their duties to NGO-s and target groups, they tend to forget that it should be dialogue. And this creates a gap between target and the sender.
I think, that it all goes back to motivators. And this is what you also asked in your post. People are just not motivated to do so. People want to know, that they are needed, that they are useful, that their opinions/deeds have some results. If participation is just monologue, giving information and putting people to face the facts, any kind of interest to participate will be gone pretty fast.
maybe people do not want to participate, because this is pointless? It is a closed circle - people do not want to participate and are passive, because it is useless and they are not motivated. And then local government is not interested in adding citizens to processes, because they see, that people are passive :) who would open up the circle?
this kind of late evening /maybe a little difficult to understan/ thoughts brought to you by
UKU TAMPERE
/http://stuffero.wordpress.com/
ups, sorry about bad language and many typos - unfortunately I am not able to edit my post. But I hope the point is understandable! :)
VastaaPoistacheers,
Uku
P.S this survey in your blog is cool, should do one to mine aswell! There could maybe also be an choice option "I do not have information about it" ... because if one does not seek actively, this information does not exist until decision is made and one sees the results - so I would have picked that one.
VastaaPoistaP.S.S your blog clock is wrong; although I posted it 1:53 AM, it shows 15:53 (not that I would care)
=)
Hi Uku
VastaaPoistaYour point is completely understandable (despite the late hour you wrote them) and it is interesting to hear that the same kind of things are going on in Estonia. I guess this is an international phenomenon. It sometimes feels that participation is just a slogan that the local governments repeat to be trendy or because they have to, with no real substance. Yet it really is very concrete thing and interaction between people and cannot be realised if communication processes and expertise is not included as an integral part of government.
Your observation " if local governments are delegating their duties to NGO-s and target groups, they tend to forget that it should be dialogue" is on the point. Local governments are to an increasing extent shifting their duties outside the municipal organisation (private sector, NGO's etc) which may create different kinds of problems (regarding democracy as well as communication, an I find these two are interconnected). I haven't seen studies done about how communication is realised in these cases which is a lack that someone should cover (maybe Kaja knows some studies?).
Ps. I noticed the clock but haven't yet found where I can change the settings. It bothered me as well :) Maybe I'll try to fight with it this weekend...