Bridging the democracy gap = trusting the next generation
Recent elections and referenda across the UK have suggested that there is a generation gap when it comes to democracy. But how can we close this gap? Or how can we bridge it at least?
Recent studies into this issue have thrown up lots of great ideas but, for me, the answer has a lot to do with the attitudes we all hold and, in particular, the way that older generations think about the young.
This is one of the key issues raised by the Kirklees Democracy Commission (I’ve written about this fine piece of work here). The Commission is a great example of a project with a real focus on, and engagement with, young people. This is from their report:
In our group discussion with Kirklees Youth Council, our young participants highlighted a strong concern that young people are often stereotyped and they feel that young people’s views are not valued as a consequence of this. They commented that young people are seen as a social problem rather than as citizens who have something to contribute.
I think we can all be better at trusting each other when it comes to democracy. If fact, telling positive stories about how young, old and everyone else can contribute, is the one thing that we can all do.
That’s not to say that everyone holds negative attitudes — not at all. I know many older people who are super positive about the young and visa versa. But there is scope to move in a more positive direction and challenge the many negative that are out there, particularly in the ‘democratic arena’ — the kind of stereotypes we hear about young people during debates about votes at 16 for example.
And hey, you might not agree, but this is a discussion piece after all — you don’t have to.
I’ll say more about all of this below but first let me highlight a couple of studies that have looked at the democratic generation gap and what they suggest might be done about it.
By the way, I’m writing this ahead of our fourth Notwestminster local democracy event in February (If you have not heard of it before you can find out more here). The theme of this year’s event is ‘We are Generation D’. The strap-line is; ‘if we want a stronger local democracy, we all need to be part of the generation that makes it happen’. Hence this piece.
The democratic generation gap
In the UK, as in the rest of Europe, an ageing population means that the average citizen is older than they ever have been before. This, coupled with the fact that older people are more likely to vote and get involved with democratic opportunities, means that younger people have less and less influence on politics.
As Craig Berry, in this report for the Intergenerational Foundation, argues:
The ageing of the electorate means that there is emerging an intergenerational democratic deficit whereby young cohorts are marginalised within the democratic process — this obviously has negative implications for young people, but also the legitimacy of representative democracy more generally. .. it is clear that today’s young people have become relatively disenfranchised, both by the ageing of the electorate and wider features of the democratic process that appear to favour older cohorts.
And for Berry this is something that is only going to become more pronounced if current trends continue.
Thomas Deželan, exploring the same issues at the EU level, in this report for the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, reaches similar conclusions. In addition he highlights the poverty and social isolation that affect many older people and can exclude them from politics. This analysis shows that it is the middle aged who wield the most political influence.
Deželan points to a further problem. This is the ‘serious breakdown of interactions among generations’, particularly in social spaces. The lack of dialogue between the old and the young makes it less easy for common ground to found and makes it more likely for the generations to be in conflict over policy issues — particularly where resources are scarce.
One consequence of all of this is that politicians, seeking to maximise support, will propose policies that benefit those most likely to participate in politics and in elections in particular. They may even seek to exploit intergenerational conflict in order to mobilise their support even further. Furthermore, it becomes beneficial for politicians to work to ensure high levels of participation among their supporters alone where they can. Hence a very un-virtuous circle is created.
This all sounds very negative — so what can be done about it?
Suggested solutions
Measures have been proposed by both of these authors to address the democratic generation gap.
Craig Berry suggests a range of policy solutions aimed at boosting the involvement of young people in political life. These include; lowering the voting age to 16, political training for young people, forums of young people in legislatures, designated seats for young people in legislatures, greater support for young election candidates, stronger rules for ensuring that the impacts of policy decisions on young people are calculated and an independent commission for future generations.
The Deželan report for the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance focusses more on improving the dialogue between young and old both through formal measures to improve the democratic system and through informal approaches at the grassroots. It proposes three sets of ideas:
(1) strengthening the ties between generations by integrating intergenerational principles into public policy processes at all levels; (2) promoting an intergenerational vision by educating society about the message, rationale and importance of the intergenerational perspective and (3) encouraging citizen participation in communities by developing the infrastructure for intergenerational activities.
The Kirklees Democracy Commission also made a number of very interesting suggestions. These include:
Delivery of an Active Citizens Strategy, designing local democracy resources for schools, strengthening the links between local councillors and the schools in their wards through “school surgeries”, developing a young councillors apprenticeship scheme, developing a mentoring scheme between Councillors and Youth Councillors and developing a democratic digital literacy pilot as part of a wider civic education programme for young citizens.
What is noticeable about these proposals is that they are all ‘supply side’ rather than ‘demand side’. In other words they suggest it is our democratic institutions that need fixing and enhancing — not people’s behaviours that need to change. Or at least that the former needs to happen before the latter can.
These arguments reflect those found in Colin Hay’s book Why We Hate Politics and Gerry Stoker’s book Why Politics Matters. Both explore the need to rethink our political institutions if we want our politics to work. This is very much in the spirit of our Notwestminster events where we are keen to redesign local democracy.
Another point is that all the suggestions above are underpinned by the assumption that young people and older people really do have something to bring to the democracy party. Well, you would hope that they would and you don’t have to look very far to see that this is true.
The power of social construction
All of which brings me back round to the point I made at the start: The importance of challenging attitudes in the context of the democratic generation gap.
People involved in the democratic process make, naturally enough, snap judgements about those who might participate in that process. These assumptions combine into ‘stories’ that set out a short-hand set of expectations about how people are likely to behave.
In the policy making literature this process is known as the Social Construction of Target Groups — a phrase coined by Schneider, Ingram and deLeon (Paul Cairney covers it on his site here in one of his excellent summaries of policy concepts).
So, for example, we might assume that a certain group of people are uninformed or not really interested or unwilling to take the democratic process seriously. Why bother making a big effort to involve them in something if we aren’t going to get much back? Why not concentrate on a different ‘more responsible’ group who are more likely to participate?
As Schneider, Ingram and deLeon point out, those groups who are more organised and articulate can and will challenge negative stereotypes about them. Those with less power, however, may find negative stereotypes being sustained and accepted as common sense. Furthermore, these negative expectations can find their way into policy and become a self fulfilling prophesy.
In the context of the democratic generation gap these stereotypes are further engrained by the negative stereotypes found in society at large. As Thomas Deželan suggests:
People’s daily lives are infused with age prejudice, which stigmatizes both the old and young with negative stereotypes and facilitates ageist attitudes.
Noticing how powerful social the social construction of different groups can be is useful in itself. Especially if we start to think about our own judgements as a result.
Mediators and gatekeepers
I think it’s worth mentioning at this point that there are two groups of people whose assumptions about others are particularly important when it comes to the democratic process.
The first are those who perform mediation roles. They might be organising forums and public meetings or running elections and consultation exercises. They could be a youth worker, a democratic services officer, a tenant participation officer or a community organiser. They might be working for a local council or they might be employed by a voluntary body or even working as a volunteer. Eitherway these are the people who make the day to day decisions about how the mechanics of local democracy operate.
As Barnes, Newman and Sullivan highlight in their book Power, Participation and Political Renewal, people in mediation roles operate at the points of tension between official bodies and the public. The choices they make and the assumptions they hold go a long way to shaping, not only how people are involved, but also how people are perceived and even how they perceive themselves.
A second group of particular importance are the gatekeepers in the policy process. By which I mean those councillors and senior officers who decide what feeds into the policy process.
A good example of this can be found in The Politics of Policy in Local Government, John Dearlove’s study of Kensington and Chelsea in the 1960s. He found that councillors, when considering representations from outside bodies, were able to distinguish between those who were ‘helpful’ and went about things the right way and those who were not and did not. While proposals received from the first set of groups where considered legitimate, those from the second set were more likely to be disregarded.
So, if you are a mediator or a gatekeeper in the democratic process it really matters that you pay close attention to the assumptions you hold about different sections of the public.
I’m sure you do.
Trusting the next generation
As Schneider, Ingram and deLeon suggest, policy makers justify their social constructions through selective use of evidence. In other words, and whether consciously or not, there is a tendency to notice the things that support assumptions about different groups and pay less attention to those things that don’t fit.
So, the first thing we can do is work a bit harder at noticing the positive things that people do - and there are plenty of them if we really look.
This might also mean taking some extra steps. So, for example, you could attend a youth forum, speak to your local youth workers or find out what’s happening in local schools.
Meeting people face to face, on their own ground, always works best I think.
We have been really lucky at Notwestminster to have had some fantastic input from Kirklees Youth Council for example. Both as speakers and participants they have made a really useful and inspiring contribution.
Noticing the positives might also help us do something that’s a bit harder — being able to trust everyone as a default.
This is one of the central assumptions of solution focussed approaches to therapy. The idea is that the client is the expert in their own life and only they know the best way to move forward (they may not yet know they know — but they know!).
This idea of putting 100% trust in the client seems to me exactly the right way to think about anyone involved (or not yet involved) in the democratic process. Sure, not everything will work out when we trust people in this way but we can at least believe that everyone is doing their best. I think it’s much better than assuming the worst as a starting point.
And trusting people means both trusting them to participate constructively but also to design the best ways for them to participate.
Of course this does apply to everyone - but particularly to the young. There are two reasons:
First, as we saw from the research reports I highlighted earlier, it is the young who experience the worst of the democratic generation gap and second, they are the ones who have the future in their hands.
So, in conclusion, democracy is not just about the institutions and formal processes we create but the assumptions and the attitudes that we bring into those institutions and processes.
I’ll leave the last words to Colin Hay who, in his book Why We Hate Politics, argues:
Politics is a social activity and, like most social activities, it works best in situations of co-operation and trust. If we assume that others cannot be trusted, or we assume … that they must first demonstrate themselves trustworthy before we will reciprocate, then we foreclose the very possibility of deliberation, co-operation and the provision of public goods. In short, we disavow politics.
Photo credit: Kirklees Youth Council
