Scotland’s first Citizens’ Assembly, a deliberative body made up of 100 citizens reflecting the country’s demographics, concluded in January and published its visions for the future of Scotland.

Citizens’ Assemblies which aim to create ‘mini-publics’ are increasingly being utilised across the world; part of a rise in deliberative and participative tools aimed to innovate democratic processes to include citizens’ in decision-making processes.

The report comprised of 60 recommendations, responding to the remit set by the Government in May 2019. It lays out ambitious objectives for the Scottish Government, Parliament, Local Authorities and civil society to work towards, together, in the wake of Covid-19.

The members, from all ends of the political spectrum, have delivered a wide range of recommendations – from tax and the economy to health, wellbeing and sustainability, as well as actions to tackle poverty and inequality, such as rent controls and an end to Zero-Hour contracts.

The first seven recommendations speak to how citizens are involved in decision-making as well as further powers for the Scottish Parliament; proposing a second citizens’ chamber as well as more local assemblies to support people and communities to rebuild from the pandemic.

These are important ideas for further democratic innovation which ERS Scotland is playing a part in campaigning for at the national and local level. The methods and processes employed by the assembly have delivered not only great solutions but trust and understanding between citizens and a knowledge of the trade-off required.  The experience of the assembly, alongside the Covid-19 crisis, has served to underline and strengthen the case ERS Scotland and Our Democracy coalition has long been making for a revamped local democracy.

Moving online and completing the assembly virtually due to the pandemic shows that we don’t have to wait for restrictions to ease to legislate and begin to implement reforms. Scotland hosts a wealth of expertise in participative and deliberative practice, and the recent experience has provided institutional learning of online deliberation which can be carried over into future projects.

The launch of the report was rightly celebrated and momentous; however, it is worth bearing in mind that this is not the end of the process. A key question for Citizens’ Assemblies is how their recommendations are integrated and actually acted on by political institutions.

On this front, the early signs are encouraging. Five Scottish ministers met with the members (online) to listen to their experience and have taken the report and recommendations to discuss at the full weekly cabinet meeting. Michael Russell, Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, Europe and External Affairs has praised the members, pledging to advocate the Assembly, and the report, with key stakeholders. Scotland’s Assembly has made a strong case for institutionalising citizens’ centred processes in national and local decision making.

Yet there is still a way to go. The Scottish Government’s action plan and parliamentary debate in response to the report will be instructive. Experience of Citizens’ Assemblies around the world teaches us that the process requires strong political will, continuous scrutiny and holding politicians to account.

But the process has shown people want democracy on the agenda and should be a core topic for the May elections. This is a prime opportunity for parties to listen to the people of Scotland by including the suggestions and the continuation of processes like it, in their manifestos.

Without a doubt, by placing citizens front and centre, the Assembly marks an important chapter in Scotland’s political history, as well as putting it at the forefront of democratic innovation globally.

The Assembly’s aim to ‘do politics differently’ raises the vital matter of evolving our democratic structures and institutions to make them fit for purpose in a period of advanced technological and societal change. While the argument that people don’t want political transformation or power doesn’t hold up anymore, meaningful reform also takes time, commitment and calibration.

The effects of Covid-19 also demonstrate how now more than ever we need ordinary citizens involved in rebuilding thriving, empowered communities that can develop the foundations for long-term security and prosperity. Through their hard work, the members of Scotland’s Citizens’ Assembly have provided a blueprint for true citizens’ participation, showing what can be achieved when ordinary people are given the time and space to deliberate on important issues.

In order to rise to the fundamental challenges of our time, politicians should look to the Assembly – and listen.

Sign our petition for a House of Citizens in Scotland

It’s hard to think of a more troubling year in living memory. But the public health crisis has, perhaps counter-intuitively, put issues of democracy at the forefront.

The election may feel like a distant memory, but its ramifications are being keenly felt. Single party majorities are used to command and control, pushing buttons and pulling levers. But during a health emergency, it is countries with more cooperative forms of government which appear to have performed best.

Going back to last December, the government secured an 80 seat majority – with just over a one percent increase in vote share. That election saw a surge in tactical voting and all the usual flaws of winner-takes-all politics. But really it was a crisis of representation.

Over 70 percent of people’s votes did not contribute to the result, ERS research showed. That’s a shocking indictment of Westminster’s warped voting system. It’s no wonder trust in politics is at rock bottom and people feel fundamentally locked out of decision-making.

The winner-takes-all mentality has been precisely the wrong mindset for trying to lay out policy and conduct communications with the whole country in a crisis.

I’m proud of our work this year shining a light on the failings of this zero-sum political system.

Early on in the crisis, we realised it was important to continue to campaign for political reform, but be sensitive to what was going on. We played a constructive role. Amid fears voters could be effectively silenced without their MPs being able to contribute, we led the calls for virtual proceedings.

We noted that emergency legislation vested huge powers in ministers – at a time when there appeared to be less parliamentary activity. Our warnings of a vacuum in scrutiny led to real change, with the UK’s virtual proceedings offering an excellent example to the world.

It was a sign that, when pushed, parliament can move reluctantly into the 21st century. 

But we know that we need lasting change to open up government decision-making. To ensure ministers have to listen to all voters – not just those in swing seats. That requires
a shift to proportional representation
across parliament.

For the unelected House of Lords, this was the year that for most people their patience totally ran out.

We know that through our polling work, and the media work we did, with the ERS’ calls for a fully and fairly elected second chamber chiming with the way many voters were thinking.

It is a point of near-consensus now that the ‘private members’ club’ style of politics has got to go. This year saw the PM pack the second chamber with yet more donors and party cronies, and ERS concerns dominated the headlines on this. But 2020 also highlighted that the nations and regions were simply being ignored in our patchwork constitutional set-up. That’s why our calls for a PR-elected Senate of the Nations and Regions are more vital than ever.

We’ve seen real success across Britain. In Wales, ERS Cymru’s campaigning has been instrumental in ensuring that councils will soon be able to use the Single Transferable Vote. Automatic voter registration could soon be a reality there, and we are leading coalitions to secure visible wins on a range of vital democratic issues. Fairer elections – and a different way of doing democracy involving citizens directly – are firmly on the agenda. In Scotland, the ERS has been closely involved in the government-backed Citizens’ Assembly, as well as pressing ministers on the need for stronger lobbying rules.

All this is a living example of ERS strategy in action: pushing for real democracy at all levels. I’m proud of how the ERS has moved quickly to respond to the pressing issues this year – and to raise the voice of voters in the debate.

I’d like to say a huge thanks to the new ERS Council for their support in the governance of the organisation, and a heartfelt thank you to the staff of the ERS who have soldiered on through a difficult year – while continuing to produce excellent work. And to the members who are making this all possible. Together we are leading the fight for the democratic change the UK so desperately needs.

Read this year’s annual report

On Saturday 26^th and Sunday 27^th October, The Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland kicked off at the Grosvenor Hotel in Edinburgh, with one hundred people from across the country meeting for the first time.

The Assembly has been selected by an independent third-party to create a ‘mini-public’ reflecting Scotland’s population based on age, long term life limiting condition, ethnicity, political belief, voting intention for the Scottish Parliament, attitudes to UK membership of the European Union, attitudes to Scottish independence, education and geography. The breakdown of Scotland’s demographic and recruitment methodology can be found on the official website.

Until they were recruited, many of the participants had never heard of a Citizens’ Assembly, yet Professor David Farrell, lead researcher of the Irish Citizens Assembly, remarked on the “incredible (and so familiar) buzz in the room during the first period of small table deliberation”.

Focusing on outcomes can overlook the importance of the process of a citizens’ assembly. During the introduction, co-conveners David Martin and Kate Wimpress spoke of the importance of the Assembly for Scotland’s democratic future and the value of each person’s experience in order for it to become a rich and potentially transformative journey for everyone involved.

The Assembly was introduced to the independent research team, which will be analysing how their views and attitudes develop over the next six months in response to high quality, balanced information and deliberation. The outcome of the research will be presented as a report alongside open access to the data, putting Scotland’s experience on the international stage and support the development of best practice.

Over the weekend the Assembly was given the remit that it is setting out to address:

• What kind of country are we seeking to build?
• How best can we overcome the challenges Scotland and the world face in the 21^st century, including those arising from Brexit?
• What further information will Scottish citizens need in order to make informed decisions.

This was followed by a presentation from Professor Nicola McEwan, an independent researcher of Scottish and UK constitutions at The University of Edinburgh, covering three themes:

1. The way decisions are made and the processes that lead to this.
2. The powers of the Scottish Parliament, its relationship to Westminster and how it has evolved.
3. Different constitutional options for the future

The Assembly is designed around constant input from the participants. An example being that the assembly has asked for more information on how UK tax structure operates. While the Assembly retains sovereignty, the guidelines state that members will avoid discussing general merits of constitution outcomes, nor be a substitute for elections or referendums.

In the next meeting on the 30^th Nov and 1^st December the Assembly will be asked to draw upon their own experiences and hear from their fellow members what a ‘good life’ means. This will be supplemented by official research on happiness and well-being. This will be the starting point from where it will decide what social policy issues it wishes to explore and their relationship to the constitution.

Scotland’s Citizen’s Assembly represents the opportunity to advance Scotland’s participatory journey and move towards institutionalising these processes.

According to David Martin, the participative and deliberative process sets out “new standards for the quality of the information provided with and new standards on how the discussion on contentious issues are concluded”. In an effort to bridge the potential polarisation of constitutional issues such as Independence and Brexit, the Assembly’s conveners believe the recommendations will be critical to ensure the country can take informed decisions to move forward by agreement.

One certain output of the Assembly will be report given to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament in May 2020 and then debated in parliament. The Scottish Government has committed to taking forward the Assembly’s recommendations and acting on conclusions.

Meanwhile, an ongoing conversation continues around how communities and voices outside the room engage with the Assembly’s process and the issues raised about the future of Scotland. How it relates to wider society will enrichen the vision and support actualising it; by both compelling political commitments, and incentivising practical actions inside and outside traditional institutions.

Whatever happens over the next 6 months, hopefully, this is just the start of Scotland’s journey towards a more active democracy.

The next meeting of the Assembly will take place in Glasgow on Saturday 30^th and Sunday 1^st December. The Electoral Reform Society and The University of Aberdeen will be hosting a public discussion with co-convener David Martin and Dr Clodagh Harris from Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly on 5^TH December in Aberdeen.

Attend our Aberdeen event

How do you ensure the recently-announced Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland is open and transparent while protecting the participants from hostility and excess lobbying? How do you ensure it is independent of government – but also that it has the profile and impact that being linked to government gives? These are some of the questions being discussed ahead of the assembly’s planned launch this October.  

Attendees to an Electoral Reform Society roundtable discussion on the plans this week heard examples the Irish citizens’ assembly in 2016. That assembly sought openness and transparency, through publishing all the documentation and briefings both received and produced by the participants. The process was live-streamed, but the ‘small table’ discussions were mostly kept free from camera intrusion. It was seen as important not to have too much ‘glare’ on the participants – instead giving a flavour of what the process looked like.

There is also the question of trust. The Irish process had a respected chair and respected experts  – much like in Scotland, with the involvement of David Martin and Dr Oliver Escobar. Of course, it was not perfect – participants were not paid, meaning there was a relatively high drop-out rate (73 of the 99 participants turned up to first Irish citizens’ assembly meeting, and those who dropped out were replaced).

“The expenses regime is so important for people on low incomes who will be getting there from distant parts of Scotland,” one speaker noted: “You need carrots.” One member said being part of the assembly itself felt like ‘winning the lottery’. In Canada’s citizens’ assembly, turnout was reportedly around 97% throughout, a similar figure to the (non-government backed) Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit in the UK, showing that if you treat people well, they show up.

Issues of representation will come up, too. The Scottish citizens’ assembly is taking account of several ‘protected’ characteristics under the Equality Act, but it can be tricky to ensure representation of all groups within a small group of people. At the same time, it will be important to consider diversity not just in the recruitment process but also during the assembly: ensuring all voices are heard through good facilitation and moderation. This is all part of the duty of care we’ll discuss later.

With any unique approach to democracy, getting the wider public and media to understand it outside of the lens of party politics is always going to be a struggle: as one noted: “Those not in the room don’t know what an assembly is like, all those in the room think it’s fantastic.” There is however growing interest in the idea of citizens’ assemblies here in the UK. Key to its success may be showing the stories, through broadcast media. Having a spokesperson who is different to the chair and facilitators could give a strong voice to the process as a confident champion of ‘deliberative’ democracy.

Also vital will be engaging the wider public through actual participation. Some citizens’ assemblies have allowed digital engagement, including the one in Ireland, which allowed public submissions on different topics.

There may be a lot of topics to cover. How do you assess a wide range of issues (as the Scottish assembly may have to grapple with), while ensuring deep and informed discussion? In Canada, assembly members had a long time to engage with each topic, while in Ireland, the abortion debate took up the majority of the assembly’s time. It will be up to the co-chairs and members themselves in Scotland to decide what to prioritise.

As a project that is in the public eye, organisers will have a duty of care to assembly members: how do you protect them from abuse on polarised issues? In Ireland, participants were asked not to talk about it on social media, which may have helped reduce that risk. Members’ names were published, and perhaps surprisingly, no one opted out of this. In the end, little abuse was reported.

In Ireland, it is worth noting that lobby groups who targeted individual assembly members were told they’d be excluded from public engagement efforts. If the process is government-backed (as it was in Ireland and Scotland) there is arguably an incentive for lobbying. But there is also an opportunity for a more prominent, vibrant public debate.

Another balance to be struck is how to engage the media without members being focused on as individuals. Outlets may be tempted to portray assemblies through the ‘old binaries’ of party politics. One participant noted that: “The media will come and go, but we have to stick to our own integrity” – pointing out that this is about the democratic process, not personalities.

Finally, there’s the question of ensuring a fair spread of opinions among members, particularly on constitutional questions. How do you achieve that without quizzing potential members on their views? And doesn’t that approach fall into the trap of seeing politics as fixed and ‘black and white’. Members in Ireland weren’t polled on their views at the start – even on the topic of abortion: it was viewed that this could have undermined the process from the get-go. Instead, we can recognise that voters’ views are often nuanced, changing or uncertain – and that’s no bad thing.

There are many ways of holding a citizens’ assembly. Thankfully, there’s plenty of experience and evidence already on good practice, which the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland can and will draw on.

This piece was first published on CommonSpace.

Read about our major public debate on the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland

Next Monday, the firing gun will be started on the Scottish Government’s plans for a ‘Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland’. Hundreds will gather to discuss what this might look like, what it might involve, and how it could improve how democracy works in Scotland.
Over 200 people signed up in a matter of days to attend the (now sold-out) debate, meaning it had to be moved to a larger venue at the University of Edinburgh.

ERS Scotland – who have run ‘deliberative’ community events (Act As if You Own the Place) involving thousands of people over the past few years – have welcomed the government’s plans but say that getting the process right is essential.

It comes amid growing support for new models of democratic engagement, particularly in a time of polarisation. Six select committees in Westminster have just announced plans to hold a Citizens’ Assembly on combatting climate change and achieving the pathway to net zero carbon emissions.

Ahead of Monday’s debate, it’s worth looking at some opportunities and pitfalls for Citizens’ Assemblies.

Ireland’s 2016 citizens’ assembly is the most relevant assembly to look at here – it was nation-wide and government-backed (and led to real constitutional change, through the referendum on abortion and more). Yet Emmanuel Macron played with citizens’ assemblies in France, but couldn’t let go of the process – meaning it was too politicised.

Scotland is at the forefront on this – and it’s good to see government looking closely at the Irish example. But it’s up to the whole establishment – politicians, media and civil society – to understand that this a whole different approach, beyond party politics. How they react will have a big effect on whether the assembly can do the job it’s required to do: being a trusted proxy for the citizens.

All the binary ways of thinking and focus on personalities – who’s up, who’s down – that has to be put aside. Everyone will be on a learning curve, and they can’t bring the old ways of working to it. Citizens’ Assemblies don’t fit into the narrow box or viewpoints of the past.
Our media will play a big role in this – as in Ireland, a concerted efforts must be made to report this fairly and focus on the issues, not the Kremlinology of it all or simply the Great and the Good.

A concerted efforts must be made to report this fairly and focus on the issues, not the Kremlinology of it all or simply the Great and the Good. Click To Tweet

And if parties really want to be on board with giving citizens a say on taking democracy to the next level they have to be open to learning. Parties need to pledge to accept the results of the assembly even if it doesn’t fit their agenda: the government must commit to listening and taking this forward.

Politicians’ involvement needs to be in the background, but they must still feel part of it. So their involvement needs to be well designed. In Ireland, there was animosity between citizens and politicians at the beginning but they worked through that – by the end politicians were viewed as citizens with particular expertise.
For this assembly to work it needs status. There needs to be national awareness of this – it needs to be fully in the public eye and at the heart of public debate.

Our event needs to be built upon, with mechanisms for everyone to feel part of a national conversation.

Looking at Ireland, there was extensive communication of the assembly of all kinds, and fair media coverage of the issues, not the personalities.

The meeting on 8th could be first of many educational exercises on this.

First published in The Scotsman

Find out more about our event

Can you remember a time you were talking with someone and the response you got back meant that it was blatantly obvious that they hadn’t understood what you were saying? You try again, but again they just tell you what they think without reference or consideration for what you have tried to explain. It’s not that you need them to agree with you, you just want them to understand you. Maybe then they can explain why that won’t work or why they might have a better answer, but being bypassed with no real attempt to listen and effort to understand rubs a bit of you out, as a social being, as a human being.

It seems to me that is the way millions of Scots feel about their governance and probably billions of other people across the world. Sure it’s better here than lots of places, but by finding a way to overcome separation and disconnection from each other and from our institutions, we could transform our communities and possibly be a good example to others.

This all might seem a long way from reform of local government, but it really isn’t. If this could be our intention for changing our local governance, for our politics to leap out of the 20th century and into a better one.

In 2013 ERS started an 18-month process called Democracy Max, with a citizens’ assembly, public meetings and expert roundtables. We concluded that A Good Scottish Democracy was one that was built on towns, villages and communities being able to, as far as possible, run themselves and to work together on things that were better done together.

We then took from then until now in a project called Act As If You Own the Place to go into towns and villages in Scotland, to explore where people where ‘acting as if they owned the place’ and experiment with new ways of collective decision making so that people felt they were listened to and understood. Not everyone can get their way, but most people’s point of view can be understood.

Some parts of the Scottish Government feel open to this leap. Democracy Matters was the most comprehensive and engaged pre-legislation consultation I think there has ever been in the UK. In response to this, ERS Scotland has tried to explain all we have learned from this listening, experimentation and attempts to understand Scottish communities.

In summary, we have suggested that our current councils are too big and distant and that any communities that want and feel able to run its own affairs should be able to elect its own council using STV, called a development council. Each development council would arrange annual citizens’ assembly for their community. The development council’s job is to deliver the local vision, as set by their local citizens’ assembly. They can work with other development councils to help accomplish this.

The assembly’s first session will design a local vision for the next 3 years. The subsequent gatherings will hold development council to account on their progress delivering on the vision. Existing local authorities would then become bodies with a statutorily defined remit to provide infrastructure and services to the new local units of governance.

If our intention is to understand each other better, then we need to create institutions that are shaped as if they understand how important that intention is.

Full details of the proposals

Citizens’ Assemblies are often in the news, from the assemblies that led to the referendums on equal marriage and abortion in Ireland, to the Citizens’ Assembly of Scotland and local council climate assemblies.

While the Electoral Reform Society has helped run two citizens’ assemblies, and political scientists have been studying them for years, for most of us the phrase ‘Citizens’ Assembly’ means little.

Isn’t Parliament a Citizens’ Assembly?

Firstly, Parliament is not a citizens’ assembly. Rather than elections, the members of a citizens’ assembly are typically put together like a jury, where we all have an equal chance of joining. It is still up to elected politicians whether or not to follow the assembly’s recommendations.

The aim is to secure a group of people who are broadly representative of the electorate across characteristics such as their gender, ethnicity, social class and the area where they live.  The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit that the ERS helped run also selected participants on the basis of whether they voted to leave or to remain in the EU referendum.

Citizens’ Assemblies can come in any size, but the larger they are the more representative of the electorate they will be.

Are Citizens’ Assemblies just focus groups or consultations?

These aren’t just focus groups or consultations though. The goal isn’t to just hear what people already think – but for the members to engage in serious, informed reflection on important policy matters with people they may never normally meet.

Assemblies are generally set a clear task. The Irish Convention on the Constitution of 2012–14, for example, was asked to deliberate on a set list of eight constitutional proposals, including allowing same-sex marriage and removing the offence of blasphemy from the constitution. In British Columbia, the mandate of the Citizens’ Assembly was to “assess models for electing Members of the [province’s] Legislative Assembly”.

Participants will typically have a set time to complete this. They may meet for one weekend a month for a year, or every weekend for a few months – or just a few times. The Irish Convention on the Constitution met for 10 weekends from December 2012 to March 2014. The Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit ran for two weekends in late 2017.

In order to ensure that people from as wide a range of backgrounds as possible can attend (e.g. those with dependent children or relatives, or just people who wouldn’t usually get involved can attend), participants are typically paid for their time.

What happens at a Citizens’ Assembly

A citizens’ assembly will typically go through three phases: learning; consultation; deliberation and discussion.

Firstly, a learning phase where participants get to know each other and how the assembly works and what its aims are. In this phase, relevant facts about the issue at hand are presented to the participants, who get to ask questions of experts and access background and contextual information.

Secondly, during the consultation phase, campaigners from each side get to present their arguments, and be questioned on them. Sometimes, the assembly might run a public consultation during this phase to understand what the broader public thinks about an issue.

Thirdly, the participants deliberate amongst themselves – discussing which arguments they found convincing and which they saw straight through. Generally, assembly members will make recommendations at the end of this phase.

Deliberative processes emphasise the importance of reflection and informed discussion in decision-making. This allows people to adopt more nuanced positions on the issues at hand, with a better understanding of the trade-offs inherent in a given decision.

It is essential for a Citizens’ Assembly to be balanced in terms of the information presented to participants.

Generally, the organisers will build an Advisory Board comprising of independent experts and campaigners from both sides of the issue to vet the information given to the participants. The assembly’s speakers will be carefully chosen to give equal representation to all sides of the debates. Participants will be carefully seated to ensure a balance of views and perspectives on each table. The table discussions will also be facilitated to ensure that everyone’s views are heard, but the facilitators are barred from discussing the issues raised.

What is the point of Citizens’ Assemblies?

One of the problems with popular self-government, is that we are all far too busy leading our lives to also govern. The only way the ancient Athenians managed it was by excluding all the women and the massive slave population from the process. While the men informed themselves on the issues of the day, the women and slaves did all the work.

We could have rule by direct democracy with regular referendums, but only a small percentage of the population can or want to spend all their spare time learning about fishing quotas one month, then social security rules the next.

Representative democracy is a way around this problem. We vote for a small group of people to work full time on getting themselves informed on important issues, and then let them get on with it – throwing them out if they do anything too wrong. But, this can lead to the formation of a political class with interests of their own.

Citizens’ Assemblies are a way around this problem. By assembling a representative group and giving them the tools and time, you can create a proxy for what it would be like if everyone had the tools and time to discuss and debate the important issues.

Around the world, people are innovating with new forms of democracy. Drawing from traditional juries and modern institutions such as citizens’ juries, more deliberative and participatory forms of democracy are taking shape. With our long democratic heritage, it is an area where Britain can take the lead.

Follow @UKassemblies for updates on Citizens’ Assemblies

This is a time of high political anxiety. No one seems to be very sure of much anymore. Not that long ago it all seemed so different. The twentieth century was a time of tremendous shocks and risks; Stalinism, Fascism, the Cold War and nuclear stand-offs. Yet, as that century ended democracy seemed to have weathered it all and become an inevitable, unstoppable order. Now that system that was so linked to stability, peace and prosperity across the western world seems shaky and uncertain.

Democracy is a simple idea – that people can govern themselves. How that is achieved is unfortunately not so simple. Because democracy and elections are so closely linked they have at times become interchangeable words and interchangeable ideas. There is reason to caution against that, we have more elections and referendums than ever but on very many indicators of democracy, things are going backwards. To such an extent that the US is now reclassified from a full democracy to a flawed democracy by organisations that measure such things.

While a majority of people voted for Brexit across the UK (we all know that Scotland voted to remain yet seems we are still leaving) there is a big Union Jack-coloured question mark over whether it was a legitimate majority at a UK level. The leave campaign broke the laws on referendums by spending around £600k more on the campaign than they were allowed to.

Most of that money was spent on highly targeted Facebook ads some considered to be extremely misleading. These ads were what is called “micro-targeted”. If Facebook algorithms knew you cared strongly about polar bears (which they do because their whole business model is about getting to know you, probably better than you know yourself) then ads telling you about how the EU stops us from protecting polar bears would be shown on your timeline. Some of these messages were so finely tailored to particular interests, personality types or psychological traits that they were shown to only a few hundred people.

Who pays for such ads and in whose interest they shape our view of the world is murky and confusing. Was it just very rich, interested businessmen? Was it the Russians? Was it the CIA? No one really knows.

In the US, Donald Trump seems to be trying to turn the clock back on hard-won rights of minorities and woman and upending ideas of fairness and justice. Any criticism of him is “fake news” while he seems to be able to claim that the US air force now flies invisible planes. In a subversion of the Emperor’s new clothes apparently only smart people cannot see them.

This should draw our attention to the problem of only thinking of democracy as elections. To do so does not say enough about the role of information and how humans choose one thing over another. This interplay between people, data and technology is a key question of our time and holds big threats to our democracy. Or enough about the shape and values of the institutions of the state and government. Is power awarded every few years at elections then handed down on high from an exalted centre, be it Holyrood or Westminster?

It is now reasonable to worry that human beings via their connection into worldwide networks such as Facebook can themselves be ‘hacked’. Maybe we are making decisions against our own interests but in the benefit of those rich or powerful enough to buy or collect enough data to know us better than we know ourselves. It could be an easy move to get away with, no one likes to think they are being tricked into making bad decisions for themselves. This could mean that informed choice in elections or referendums becomes a questionable idea.

All of this might suggest something good going bad but it is much more than that. It is more like an awakening to a fuller reality of our politics, which has been better but was never that good. This awakening could be seen to happen in several stages, although in reality, it is much messier than that.

The underlying issues with our democracy are about institutions and process that were built in a different age being far too slow to change to keep up with a time that is so remarkably different from what has gone before. When we designed parliaments and council and civil services in the last century or often long before, they were inevitably designed from the top down. That might have worked when it fitted the shape of our society. But, in a horizontal, peer-to-peer, networked world is it any wonder our governments and councils find it increasingly difficult to govern?

In a horizontal, peer-to-peer, networked world is it any wonder our governments and councils find it increasingly difficult to govern? Click To Tweet

Scotland’s own political institutions are youthful when compared with those at Westminster but they were largely inspired by them. That fact that a majority of Scots in a recent BBC survey thought their best days were ahead as a nation while in England most people feel they are in the past, is a good outcome of that partial modernisation that came from devolution.

Westminster political culture and its institutions are stuck in a time of black bakelite phones when the world is driven by smartphones. This means large parts of England are held behind by a centralised state and economy, by an electoral system that gives them little representation and by a culture that is best symbolised by a second chamber made up of Lords, Barons and Baronesses, most appointed by the Prime minister and some inheriting the role from their ancestors. Blocked from moving forward, stuck in nowhere land, is it any wonder that some hark back to that mythical time of Churchill and empire?

For many Scots the solution is independence and you can understand why. Yet, we are always going to be part of the same island and closely connected as people as well as adversely affected by Westminster, that crazy uncle in an old building slowly sinking into decrepitude. While we are represented there by Scottish parties they have a duty to try to make things better.

It is not only our institutions of government that are outdated. A centralised media, reporting things from only a narrow range of perspectives and seeing balance as putting a case for and against even within a once accepted status quo, is being left behind. As other sources of news and information grew online and became shareable peer to peer, traditional narrow versions of the truth became challengeable. This seemed to make obvious to many more people that certain versions of events served one set of interests over another. A good example of this was that the BBC was ousted from its position as an overwhelmingly trusted source of information in Scotland, when it was felt it viewed the world through the establishment eyes of the United Kingdom and at times against the interests of those who wanted an independent Scotland. The same happened in England and Wales with those who supported Brexit.

More recent events are adding to lots of personal internal acknowledgements that, because voters can be targeted and manipulated with such scientific accuracy and high impact via Facebook, this was what was going on all along in a more clumsy and scattergun approach through more traditional media.

The upshot of this is that people are unsure what to believe anymore. To have to admit that you can no longer be certain about both the content and the motives of those once trusted sources is deeply unsettling to the point of frightening. You might wish to double down on the certainty of the past and hark back to that time when things seemed more stable. You might look to new sources of authority with simple straightforward answers, certain of their views and aligned with base human instincts of protecting the insiders and blaming the outsiders. We see these effects here in Scotland as well as elsewhere.

Fake news is not new. Powerful people have always sought to control the shared stories of a society. That is the very source of power. Shape and control information and more importantly what the information means and you can affect a population’s values, what is important to them and so ultimately who they follow as leaders. The great religions knew this, as did the great politicians and the not-so-great media moguls. To try to understand what is different now requires a full admission that the effect of digital technologies on ourselves and our society are very deep and very powerful. Despite things being radically different now we tend to hang on to the things that are similar, it is how we stay comfortable. It means that when we check in with our memory of the past we are unable to acknowledge the full scale of the change. If we continue to try to treat the present like the past then the upheavals and ruptures that come with these changes will be amplified and magnified to be more dangerous and frightening than they need to be.

Democracy and good governance should be the way to dampen and manage the future shocks of the technological revolution, the upheaval of climate change and the dangers of growing geopolitical tensions. One of the many things that took root during fertile period in the lead up to independence referendum was the Electoral Reform Society’s Democracy Max project, an investigation into what would make a good Scottish democracy.

It was an 18-month process of a representative ‘peoples’ gatherings’ in deliberative forums, public meetings and expert round-tables, all arriving at a detailed report recommending everything from media regulation to a citizens’ second chamber.

Six years on, we are still pushing forward on the main insight from that process and the subsequent campaigns and actions. That idea that structures of democracy will always be limited if they are built from the top down. The actual method by which the institutions are designed and made will always result in forms of elite rule if they are elite-driven.

New institutions will always result in forms of elite rule if the method by which they are designed are elite-driven. Click To Tweet

Political intention, ideology, the personality and party of our representatives all matter, but there is something inbuilt now in the way that our democracy has evolved that has made it operate much more in the interests of some than of others. The reactions to this have been a mix of positive in a rise in political activism and worrying in that populists have sought to exploit those who feel left behind.

It is vital that some of these symptoms are addressed by better regulation, policing and enforcement of the mechanics of elections, parties and campaigns, and by radical reform of our institution so they can catch up with our society. A large conclusion of all of our work in Scotland is that making politics local and deliberative – i.e. allowing space and time to think and talk with other members of your community about problems and solutions – is an important way to inoculate our society against anti-democratic forces that are on manoeuvres as existing institutions flounder.

A more deliberative politics is a way to grow and develop more of us into informed, critical and active citizens. Some powerful people might not like this and might say people just want us to make decisions on their behalf – this is infantilising and insulting to people because there are many examples of Scots across the country collectively doing things for themselves too often hindered by the authorities and institutions when they need to be helped to flourish.

These activities have been the inspiration for the most recent phase of a campaign for democracy to be built from the ground up, ‘Act as if you own the place’. The Our Democracy coalition has been experimenting with and learning from deliberative forums in small communities across Scotland asking them to plan their futures then vote on budgets for community projects to help make the plans happen.

This has shown that these sorts of new institutions and processes can be created within the shell of the old. People are already trying to do it. It’s not a case of the state getting out the way but of reshaping to support the growth of this work.

This is why we are cautiously optimistic that parts of the Scottish Government and Scottish councils are responding to these pressures for change with the Democracy Matters consultation which will feed into a bill on Scottish local governance – a bill we hope will help our local institutions of governance transform themselves into “the new within the shell of the old”.

The consultation itself is being done in a new way, they are trying hard to really involve people. That means if you want to say something the door is more open than it has ever been in the past. As always there will be resistance to any calls for those with power to give up any of it, that is why it is vital that pressure is felt from the communities to be allowed to exercise their own power.

The Our Democracy coalition has created a Declaration on Local Democracy. We wanted to summarise the principles for transformation that we think have become obvious after six years of countless discussions and deliberations with communities across Scotland. Please take time to read that declaration and make a response to the Democracy Matters consultation. The history of state and institution building makes one thing very clear – if it’s not built by us then it won’t be for us.

This long read was originally published in the Sunday Herald.

The Declaration on Local Democracy

“Democracy is the right for people to decide how the place where they live is run. For a hundred years this right has built our communities, our society and our sense of justice. But too few people now believe that this right is being honoured, too few believe that they decide and too many believe they are powerless and voiceless. So we call for a new democracy which is ready to help us build for a hundred years to come.

“First, decisions must be made for each place, in that place by the people who live there. Our towns and villages must decide for themselves just as our nation must decide for itself. Power must exist at the scale of the community which is affected. We need our democracy much closer.

“Second, the right to decide should not disappear each time the brief flicker of an election is over. Delegating our right to decide is not, in itself, enough. We must create a democracy that involves us all the time, where citizens do not just choose rulers but shape the rules.

“Third, democracy must be powerful. The right to choose must be matched by the power to do – and the power to do must be matched with the resource to do it. Democracy is not gifted from above but from below, so power and resource must rest in the places where people live.

“This is our simple vision for our future; a truly local democracy, a truly participatory democracy and a truly powerful democracy.

“We have learned the lesson of our last hundred years; it is not enough that the future is built, it must be built for us. We must now learn a lesson for our next hundred years; it is not enough that the future is built for us, it must be built by us.”

This blog was first posted on Engender

As the date of the referendum draws ever nearer, and the gender gap in the polls shows no sign of closing, there seem to be more events targeting women and their opinions. Which is great: women’s voices should be heard in the referendum debate.

One such event held last week was organised by ACOSVO and the ESRC-funded ‘Future of UK and Scotland’ programme.

It began with four short presentations from Kirsten Rummery, Audrey Birt, Ann Henderson and Nicola McEwen, each addressing gender issues in the debate about Scotland’s constitutional future. Thus inspired, we were then invited to talk between ourselves at our tables.

The women at my table were pretty evenly split between Yes, No and Don’t Know. The founders of Pink Ladies First, an amazing mental health facility for women in Midlothian were firmly in the Yes camp. They thought it was a chance for change that they couldn’t see being offered by staying in the union. “It has to start somewhere.”

Another woman, who worked in the private sector, was concerned that her job would be at risk as most of her clients were based in London, but her company’s head office is in Edinburgh. And if they moved their business, that would also be a loss of income to Scotland. Others felt the debate was failing to offer answers, and whilst accepting of the fact that more answers would come with subsequent elections, it was felt both campaigns are being less than open about the facts of the matter.

After the table discussions, Nicola Sturgeon MSP and Sarah Boyack MSP joined us to answer some of the questions raised during the evening. Unsurprisingly, they both agreed improvements must be made in gender equality.

But I was much more interested in the thoughts of the women at my table. Perhaps what was most exciting for me, as a representative of the Electoral Reform Society, was that everyone would have welcomed appropriate decision making being devolved to the local level, and involving more citizen voices.

Which is encouraging, as the results of both our Democracy Max inquiry and our From Centre to Community deliberative discussion event have led us to the conclusion that community participation in decision making, with the financial resource to back up those decisions, is key to reinvigorating democracy.

And if we are developing new ways of decision making, then we can grasp the opportunity to ensure all Scotland’s voices are represented, starting with 50/50. And empowering local communities, giving them more democratic power, doesn’t need a referendum; it just needs political will from our elected representatives. And now, when politics in Scotland is more energised than it has ever been, is the ideal opportunity to make our voices heard.

Find out about Democracy Max