A quest to ensure your voices are heard in Holyrood
YThere has been a shift in how political institutions have an ongoing conversation with the people they serve
OU’LL have experienced this recently. Before local and national elections there is a flurry of information about prospective candidates and political parties and what their stance is on mainstream issues that matter to people – from health to education. Then afterwards the analysis of who has done well in the polls and what issues have resonated with certain sections of the country follows.
But how much involvement should people have in issues that affect them after the election furore is long past? Once their elected representative gets their feet under the table, what ongoing involvement should there be with people directly over national and local issues? What about the views of people who feel their needs are not met through mainstream politics?
The Scottish Parliament, being a relatively young and modern institution, has led the way from its inception, putting people’s voices at the core of its activity – it wanted a formal way to hear the issues that mattered to people using our public petitions system.
Whilst a petition is one outlet to hear from people directly, more recently public participation in politics has been changing. From citizens’ panels, juries and assemblies, there has been a shift in how political institutions have an ongoing conversation with the people they serve. Its aim is to bring them closer to the policy and the laws that affect them. Making sure it’s not just voices that shout the loudest that can be heard.
To reflect this, after last year’s election the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee had its remit changed to include citizen participation. Today this committee is launching a far-reaching inquiry into public participation in the Parliament – a comprehensive look at who we are – and are not speaking to. If certain communities or groups are not involved in our work – why not?
Let me be clear this is about asking what the Parliament can do differently, not what more groups or communities can do differently.
This is about changing the nature of the conversation – our long-term aim is to make sure that a diverse range of voices can articulate their perspective in a way that works for them. Recognising that every group is different and respecting and celebrating those differences. It will mean us letting go of traditional forms of consultation and finding new ways to work.
That is a big ambition. But without it we will only ever hear part of the story. We want meaningful engagement with everyone across Scotland.
Just like an election is important for determining the balance of power in our political institutions, I believe this work will be an important part in the process of determining the conversation between Parliament and the people – as important now as it was back in 1999.