Download Date 28/09/2021 13:47:22
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A Sovereign People? Lessons from Participatory Budgeting Experiences in the UK. A study of egalitarian and elitist democratic narratives animating the practice of citizenship, and their role in determining appropriate responses to the UK democratic deficit. Item Type Thesis Authors Blakey, Heather Rights <a rel="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-nc-nd/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by- nc-nd/3.0/88x31.png" /></a><br />The University of Bradford theses are licenced under a <a rel="license" href="http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/">Creative Commons Licence</a>. Download date 28/09/2021 13:47:22 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10454/14252 University of Bradford eThesis This thesis is hosted in Bradford Scholars – The University of Bradford Open Access repository. Visit the repository for full metadata or to contact the repository team © University of Bradford. This work is licenced for reuse under a Creative Commons Licence. A Sovereign People? Lessons from Participatory Budgeting Experiences in the UK A study of egalitarian and elitist democratic narratives animating the practice of citizenship, and their role in determining appropriate responses to the UK democratic deficit. Heather BLAKEY Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Social and International Studies Department of Peace Studies University of Bradford 2015 ABSTRACT Heather Blakey A Sovereign People? Lessons from Participatory Budgeting Experiences in the UK A study of egalitarian and elitist democratic narratives animating the practice of citizenship, and their role in determining appropriate responses to the UK democratic deficit. Key words: Participatory budgeting; UK local governance; democratic deficit; sovereignty; participatory democracy; political participation. This study explores the UK ‘democratic deficit’ through the question of citizen democratic appetite, taking the varying degrees of citizen mobilisation in different contexts as a point of departure. The ongoing struggles between (broadly) elitist and egalitarian democratic narratives provide an analytical framework. These narratives’ underlying values and principles are illustrated through the US constitutional debates. Through this lens, the UK democratic deficit can be understood (at least partially), not as a failure of the system but as a measure of its success in containing citizen participation. The Porto Alegrean participatory budgeting experience provides a contrasting example of the egalitarian tradition which has inspired similar innovations around the world (in some cases, precisely in hopes of reinvigorating Western democracies). This study presents evidence from two such UK cases (gathered through participant observation and in-depth interviews). Newcastle’s U-Decide programme and Bradford’s ‘Decision Day’ both represent an encounter between the two narratives, and enable the values and assumptions held by citizens, elected representatives and state officials to be explored. In sum, they offer a compelling case that citizen engagement is stimulated by a more egalitarian democratic experience. However, such experiments are also shown to reflect deeply embedded ‘representative habits of mind’, which are revealed by a direct challenge to the democratic status quo. The study emphasises the value of a ‘citizen-eye’ perspective which focuses on democratic experience over outcomes, and the need for ‘democratic activists’ as well as active democrats, in order to create and defend the ideological space for democratic alternatives. i APPRECIATION I have had a lot of love and support along this sometimes inspiring, sometimes frustrating, journey. Thankyou, first, to my supervisors: Jenny Pearce, for getting me started, Betts Fetherston, for truly believing that learning is what matters, Davina Miller, for your sanity and sense of proportion, Ute Kelly, for your support and very helpful suggestions, but most of all to Graeme Chesters, for all the listening and discussing and connecting ideas and challenging my thinking – and being alongside me and generally getting me through to the end! You have been fantastic. Thankyou as well, to lovely librarian Ellie, and to Michele who has kept so many Peace Studies PhD students afloat. Next, I want to thank the amazing people who have shared your thoughts, ideas and passion for change with me – in Bradford and Newcastle, and the UK PB activists. Thankyou for letting me share in your story. Thankyou, too, to my friends and my family, for believing in me, and for reminding me that it matters – and also for reassuring me that it doesn’t matter too much. Thankyou to Rachel, Suzy, Anika, Joe, Karen, Ann, Chris, Anna and all of you, but especially to my Mum, Jo (who is owed special thanks for reading it twice!) and my Dad, Ray – you have encouraged in all the right places, and held back in the right places too, and for both those things, I am very grateful. To my wonderful son, Jack Blakey – thankyou for being interested! For all our conversations, and for thinking that this stuff matters. And finally, to my compañero, Sam Jackson. Thankyou for all the talking and ideas and practical support and happiness – and for believing so deeply that a better world matters. I’m not sure I would have got here without you. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................ i Appreciation ........................................................................................................ ii Table of Contents ............................................................................................... iii 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 2. Doing democratic research (methodological reflections) .............................. 12 3. Democratic ‘truths’ in the making .................................................................. 35 4. Citizens or subjects: identifying the democratic deficit in the UK .................. 72 5. Another democracy is possible: lessons from Porto Alegre ........................ 110 6. Journey of an idea: Participatory Budgeting travels to the UK .................... 141 7. Democracy in practice: sharing power in Newcastle ................................... 164 8. Democratic assumptions and values in Newcastle ..................................... 192 9. Democracy in practice: challenging the status quo in Bradford................... 224 10. Conclusion ................................................................................................ 258 Appendix 1: Overview of Interview Data ......................................................... 267 Appendix 2: Publications related to this study ................................................. 269 Bibliography .................................................................................................... 270 iii 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ‘When participation meets the expectations of today’s citizens, they will get involved.’ (Power Inquiry, 2006:96) This study is an enquiry into democratic appetite, the question of how and why we learn to want to be democratically active. The impetus stems from a profound sense of democratic failure in the UK, a sense not only that the system we call democracy falls far short of that ideal but that we, citizens of a country which has been proud to call itself a democracy, indeed, to refer to our legislative system as the ‘mother of parliaments’, are not ourselves active democrats. As an activist and as a democrat, I see a lot that needs doing, and I see many people who care – but I also see political movements for justice or social transformation struggling to inspire action for change. I see unjust and often undemocratic laws pass which don’t appear to have a mandate – yet they pass, not because we want them, it seems, but because not enough of us stand up for an alternative. Too often, we do not enact the sovereignty of a democratic people governing ourselves. This has been called apathy, and yet throughout our own history and across the world there are countless examples of people taking control, fighting for democracy, for the right to self-determination, so together they can build the society they want to live in. Why not here? The question arises, how do citizens acquire that appetite for democracy, that belief in democracy – and, crucially, that belief in ourselves as democrats, a belief not only that democracy is worth fighting for, but that we are ‘the people’ who must fight for it? 1 Image widely available on the internet; source unknown. 1 The disengagement I am describing is generally known as the ‘democratic deficit’, being associated with a decline in voter turnout and loss of trust and interest in formal political institutions. Recognised as a phenomenon across the established Western democracies, it is understood to threaten their legitimacy (Norris, 2011; Pharr & Putnam, 2000). Explanations divide into ‘demand-side’ and ‘supply-side’ theories, the former focusing on a loss of civic interest on the part of citizens (most influentially, Putnam, 2000), while the latter highlight systemic deficiencies within the democratic state (for example, Hay, 2007). Where ‘demand-side’ accounts have been critiqued as tending towards tautology (for example, explaining disengagement by describing it, op.cit.:40), ‘supply-side’ approaches explore problems