The Route Map for Community Participation in the Recovery Phase paper was prepared and launched in the latter part of 2020 and has been well received and circulated. I am keen that it really reaches decision makers which can provoke some real discussion around how this approach can be realised.

It is widely agreed and accepted that the ethos of Community Empowerment, its facets and community led activity can enable people to participate meaningfully to shape services and improve our communities. But 10 years on from the Christie Commission Report (2011), whilst there are some great examples of collaboration, we are still not seeing those transformational approaches as common place.

There are inherent barriers which have to be overcome if we are to foster real transformational activity and approaches.

Perhaps not educated in philosophy myself but with a keen interest, I welcomed the introduction to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (1651) by a good friend and colleague who is indeed learned in this area.

Historically, the distribution of power has followed the principles outlined by Hobbes where he rigorously argues that civil peace and social unity are best achieved by the establishment of a commonwealth through social contract. Hobbes’s ideal commonwealth is ruled by a sovereign power responsible for protecting the security of the commonwealth and granted absolute authority to ensure the common defence. Ergo power is largely given to a government to act on our behalf, legitimacy through consent given at democratic elections and others forms of consultation, and the belief that individuals are selfish and need controlling.

However, there is a paradigm shift occurring and a new model approach is emerging. That is that communities have power to do things for themselves, legitimacy guaranteed through communities actively participating in decision making process and the belief that individuals are basically good and can work together.

That shift in power is needed if we are to be open to these transformational approaches.

But the nature of power is to reassert itself. The structures of power run deep.

To support processes of empowerment we have to look at power dynamics across politics, economics, society, and culture, and consider the actors, institutions, spaces and levels where it operates. Understanding the identities and relationships that create socio-cultural hierarchies – including age, gender, class, etc. – can provide vital insights for shaping more effective and realistic development strategies and identifying obstacles or sources of resistance to change.

We often focus on just visible power and become unstuck when we miss what is known as Hidden Power that which sets the agenda and Invisible Power which shapes meaning, values and social norms.

Shifting power and power dynamics requires a real “Leap of Faith” and for those holding power to be prepared to take some element of risk. There are great examples of different approaches, co-design and co-production in action and working but there needs more trust that this is the way forward.

Does the shift in power to encourage Community Participation have to suggest abdication? I do not believe this to be the case.

I recall facilitating an exercise of “The Tragedy of the Commons” at a Community empowerment event in 2018. The results of this exercise were really interesting:

We looked at this using a scenario often used by philosophers, economists and environmentalists to model what happens when people are left free to do what they like with common resources. We asked the groups to consider the scenario from the private sector, public sector and community perspectives looking at the values, differences and how knowing this can help us work better together.

What we learned…

The general feeling of a Private Sector approach was a focus on maximising profit to benefit the few. Often the model would be selective and exclusive, leaving behind weaker or poorer members of society. Historical experiences of the impact on Rainforests, The Highland Clearances and Deforestation were sited as a reminders of high risk strategies which long term end in resource depletion. There were positives and a feeling that much could be learned from the Private Sector in terms of efficiencies and organisation which could feed into Social Enterprise models where profit can be made but reinvested back into the community for the greater good. In some cases, communities have benefited from philanthropy where land or funds are gifted.

A Public Sector approach solicited responses of lengthy processes, bureaucracy and a “top down” approach. Value, however, was recognised in their role in offering guidance and support, policing and enforcement. There was the view that there was more listening to and more effective communication with communities needed so that decisions were made in line with community needs and wants to be truly enabling. Also, comments included the point that expertise can come from within communities and the importance of working in partnership as equals.

Language such as inclusiveness, cooperation, consensus and working together filtered through many of the Community Sector solutions. However, there was an appreciation that this would not be the utopia it might promise to be. There was still a need for decision making bodies and an acknowledgement of the challenges of a purely egalitarian approach. Cooperative and Social Enterprise models were favoured as efficient but with more civic minded aims.

We should be looking for more of a meet in the middle. Instead of the expectation that community empowerment hands over power to communities, how can Public Sector bodies fulfil the role of enablers? Mitigate risks so be prepared to take calculated risks because Anchor Organisations, for example, are adequately funded to provide valuable support to communities helping them develop robust organisations and plans, lever in external funding and employ and train staff and volunteers to provide credible and efficient service delivery.

Better communication and understanding between sectors needs to be developed to really comprehend what this shift in the balance of power should look like if we are to realise the vision of a civil society.

Power dynamics is just one area to consider when we are asking how to bridge the gap. I will explore two more inherent hurdles in future blogs