Entryism and single-issue politics in community bodies

[Dadaist]

[seanie]

The statutory function of Community Councils is "to ascertain, co-ordinate and express to the Local Authorities for its area and to public authorities the views of the community which it represents, in relation to matters for which those authorities are responsible."

Local interest groups are inevitably going to seek to have their views represented on those Councils. There's the danger that community councils end up a hotbed of political activists that don't truly represent the wider community, but if there's a plurality of views I don't see it mattering too much.

Community Councils don't actually wield much power. Given the general lack of a democratic mandatethat's no bad thing.

[Dadaist]

I have no problem with the groups represented on the CC where that has been made clear - say when Jo Bloggs is the member who represents the Fried Egg Action Front.

The thing I question is that, especially when these groups already have representation, it would appear that people are getting themselves elected to punt a single agenda.

[seanie]

There's not usually much electing going on.

[Dadaist]

[seanie]

You should also ask yourself why people put themselves forward for the community council, be they interested in a single issue or not.

Obviously people do it with the best of intentions. Out of genuine concern and interest in local matters (and beyond). That's laudable, but since Community Councils are meant to represent their community there's an inherent self-selection toards people who think they are particularly able to represent their communities. That in itself can be a problem. It's not a particular flaw in those individuals. It's a flaw in most of us.

We pretty much all think we're a pretty good judge of things.

Peoples' responses to particular issues are far more influenced by their own preconceptions than their knowledge of those issues themselves. That's true for just about all of us.

And peoples views are self-confirming. Lefty liberals don't read the Daily Mail. Right-wing reactionaries don't read the Guardian. People generally prefer to socialise with others of similar outlook. PPAG people go to PPAG meetings and emerge with a self-affirming glow because everyone there agrees with them. PFANS people go to PFANS meetings and emerge with a self-affirming glow because everyone there agrees with them. How that relates to the wider public I doubt either group know.

People are exposed to differing views but over a narrow range. And even the views they're exposed to are innaccurate.

The journalists and columnists they choose to read for affirmation rarely know much more than they do. If you're a leading columnist the subjects you have to opine on change constantly. It could be fox-hunting, gay marriage, Iraq, education reform, the future of the EU, Iran.

An atomic bomb goes off and suddenly every single high paid columnist, whatever their political persuasion, is instantly able to offer sage advice on what's to be done about North Korea. Most of 'em couldn't find it on a map. Journalists, as a proffession, suffer the same curse as politicians. They have to know a little about a lot of subjects. Just enough to appear convincing to us because we know even less.

We don't know much and we don't have the time to research things properly. But that doesn't stop us holding opinions.

We proceed in a self-affirming bubble of inaccuracy.

"Hey I know nothing about this subject, but this highly paid commentator has just confirmed my gut reaction. Gee, I guess I'm pretty good at this."

We develop an over-confidence about expounding on subjects we don't know much about. Subjects we haven't bothered to research. Or the research extends to the first quote that confirms our pre-conception regardless of its provenance. Therein lies a problem of representative democracy. Because the person chosen as a representative, at least within a democratic environment, is being judged by a highly opinionated electorate that, for the most part, doesn't know what the hell it's talking about. Do you stand for what you think is right? Or do you pander to what your constituents want even though you think it's wrong? Lose a few battles to win the war?

It depends in part on the model of representation; trustee, party, or delegate. Our system works on a fudge of all three. But at least we do have democratic accountability (albeit imperfect). Every few years people have the opportunity to judge their political representatives.

But whilst we can have the opportunity to vote for Community Councils it's rarely exercised. Most CC's operate in the area of having just enough interest to survive but not quite enough to be genuinely democratic bodies. They don't have votes because the only people voting would be friends and families. (Or people on the payroll if you're in Craigmillar).

And so, in a peverse way, Community Councils that are supposed to be a conduit between a community and the Council can actually be less attuned to the wishes of their community than the elected politicians. Because elected politicians, by the very nature of their position have to have an antenna to public feeling. Otherwise they don't get re-elected.

Since Community Councils are largely ignored by the communities they serve, those well intentioned individuals who serve on them can lose sight of a differentiation between their own opinions and those of the community they serve.

That their community shows no interest in unseating them is not necessarily a sign of approval. It may just as likely be indifference, or even ignorance, of their very existence.

[gilo]

[Dadaist]

[seanie]