A new Wales Centre for Public Policy report commissioned by the Welsh Government and produced in partnership with the University of Southampton highlights the need to think about more than just elections when it comes to the health of our democracy, and what data is required to measure it. Local authorities are well-placed to make strides in improving democracy and we need to learn from successes and failures from around the world.
At a national level, there are worries about democratic ‘backsliding’ where democratic standards are gradually declining over time. Critics point to recent legislation which restricts civil liberties, as well as the increasing toxicity and polarisation of political debate. At the local level, there are worrying levels of electoral turnout and a lack of people standing for election. In Wales, for example, turnout in the 2022 local elections was only 38%, and 72candidates were elected unopposed. Based on this evidence alone, you might argue that we need radical and wholesale changes to how local democracy works and functions.
To get a true picture of the health of our local democracy, we need to consider more than just electoral participation and the number of candidates. Our new report defines six criteria which comprise a healthy democracy, including:
1. Free and fair elections, and strong civil rights
2. Widespread citizen engagement, awareness, and participation
3. Reasoned and constructive political deliberation
4. Political, social, and economic equality, including balanced representation
5. Responsive government, reflecting citizens’ wants and needs
6. Open access to accurate information, through transparent government and a strong, independent media.
These criteria highlight a range of aspects of a healthy local democracy which councils could consider. For instance, in what ways can councils be more representative of their population? Are the public aware of what is going on at a local level and do councils provide sufficient information? How trusting and satisfied are citizens of their council and elected members and what could be done to improve this?
While democracies should strive to meet all six criteria, changes aimed at strengthening democracy may come with unintended consequences. For example, focusing solely on increasing participation in elections might result in greater imbalances in representation and reduced equality if we do not work to lower barriers for some people to put themselves forward to stand. Before we set about making widespread changes to strengthen local democracy, we need to accurately assess its health across a wide range of other dimensions.
While we can conceptualise what a healthy local democracy looks like, it is not clear whether we have the right tools to measure it. Official statistics can capture electoral measures, but we largely rely on big-picture survey data for other important facets of democracy. Some organisations, like Carnegie UK, have attempted to measure democratic wellbeing, and this can provide a broad picture of public attitudes towards local democracy as a whole.
We do not currently have the data required to look at attitudes in different local areas, but there is no doubt councils would like to invest in efforts to get more people engaged in local democratic processes – currently there is a lack of resource to make that happen.
Citizen science can offer one potential solution to the lack of opinion data. This could involve members of the public taking the role of assessors, engaging them regularly to follow a clear set of instructions to record evidence of a healthy democracy in their local area. It is likely, however, that these volunteer assessors, and the networks they engage with, are those already actively engaging with local democracy. And whatever happened to the idea of Eric Pickle’s ‘armchair auditors’ who were meant to scrutinise local government performance?
While there is no obvious solution to the lack of reliable data on perceptions of local democracy, councils are well-placed to innovate to strengthen our democratic health. There is evidence, for example, that participatory budgeting projects, where citizens decide how to spend a set amount of money in their local area, can have transformational positive outcomes. First started in local governments in Brazil, they have gained in popularity elsewhere including in the UK.
We must remember, however, that democratic innovations aimed at improving democratic health can often fail to realise their goals by engaging only a small number of citizens, or not being able to manage the demands that arise. We need to learn from failure as well as successful case studies from across the world.
There are no easy fixes to measure and improve local democracy. We need to think about more than just bolstering electoral participation by gaining a better understanding of attitudes towards local government, and what is most important to local people. Councils are best placed to try and improve democratic health, but it needs to be a joint endeavour involving political parties, interested stakeholders, and the public.
Local actors could start by looking at how they currently collect information across the range of criteria we outline in the report, and monitor and benchmark engagement over time.
Greg Notman is a research officer at the Wales Centre for Public Policy (WCPP) and James Downe is a professor in public policy and management and director of research at WCPP
With special credit to:
Associate professor in governance and public policy and UKRI future leader fellow at the University of Southampton Dr Matt Ryan; Leverhulme early career fellow at the University of Southampton Dr Viktor Valgardsson; Associate dean of research at the Faculty of Social Science and professor of politics at the University of Southampton Will Jennings
WCPP at Cardiff University is part of the International Public Policy Observatory and a member of the UK’s What Works network. info@wcpp.org.uk
