Deliberative Engagement: evolving the relationship between governments and communities

Deliberative engagement is increasingly being embraced as the gold-standard approach for undertaking inclusive and meaningful community engagement for our cities. The Victorian State Government, for example, has stated that ‘as the level of government closest to the community, councils have both the opportunity and the responsibility to enable participatory democracy' [1]. In line with this, in March 2020 it passed a new Local Government Act which requires councils to implement ‘deliberative engagement’ practices for all major strategic planning. It suggested that this change had ‘at its core, the aim of ensuring all Victorians have the opportunity to engage with council on local priorities and the future of their community’ [1].

It is reasonable to assume this new legislation was intended as a catalyst to strengthen the relationship between local government and its communities, one where residents are more engaged and have more influence over the decision-making of council. However, the degree to which the new requirements will actually broaden this influence will ultimately depend on how each council is able, or inclined, to respond to the legislation.

This new legislation could indeed be the beginning of a new relationship between councils and their communities. However, simply changing engagement methods will not be sufficient. To truly enable participatory practice and strengthen community influence in council decision-making the shifts required will also need to consider organisational cultures, operational capacity, and authorising environments.

What is deliberative engagement?

To begin, it is useful consider what ‘deliberative engagement’ actually implies. Deliberative democracy is a form of political participation that has generated a great deal of interest over the past few decades.

The premise of much of this work is often centred around the concept that democracy is broken or ‘in crisis’, and that the general public has lost trust in elected representatives or government institutions to make decisions for the common good.

Deliberative democracy theory is based on a belief that when ‘ordinary people’ are provided the opportunity to fully consider policy issues, they are unhindered by bias or political persuasion and therefore more likely to make recommendations in the best interests of their fellow citizens.

Approaches to deliberative democracy are varied and sometimes contested. For example there are those who advocate for removing elected representatives all together [2]. However, most practice centres around a representative group of community members (i.e. not your usual suspects), participating in processes that considers issues deeply and extensively, which ultimately influences government decision-making to a degree not previously afforded in consultative processes [3].

Deliberative engagement therefore is more than another way to ‘do’ community engagement, it implies a more empowered role for community in government decision making. Consequently, a shift to ‘deliberative engagement’ practices requires consideration of not just the method of engagement but factors such as:

• How representative is the community included in the deliberation?
• How are elected representatives involved in the deliberative process?
• How are these new processes reconciled within existing operational cultures, capacities, and constraints?

Who will participate in the deliberative process?

Added to this, it is generally accepted that deliberative or participatory engagement processes ‘demand unrealistically high levels of popular commitment especially in contemporary climates of civic and political disengagement’ [4].

Councils will therefore not only be expected to engage more broadly, but communities will be asked to invest more of their time in engagement processes. To address this, deliberative engagement activities commonly use strategies such as random selection and/or offer some form of remuneration for participants’ time which can be effective [5].

These can be effective strategies, however, irrespective of how they are recruited, community members will only participate if they feel that their input will be valued and they trust the process. This requires both a clear commitment from council to the engagement outcomes, but more than this, it requires and approach which is truly inclusive and relational.

How are elected representatives involved in the deliberative process?

Councillors must give the process legitimacy for it to influence their decisions. Some councillors will see deliberative engagement as an opportunity to engage with community more effectively, as an opportunity to hear from different community members and have more robust consideration of key issues. But others who are more sceptical will need to be convinced of its benefits.

In designing deliberative engagement processes, each council will need to consider not only strategies for engaging their distinctive communities, but also how their councillor cohort will participate.

Council staff responsible for implementing the engagement processes will need to plan this aspect of the engagement strategically in order to strike a balance between engaging councillors enough so they trust and are invested in the outcomes of the process, but not so much so that it can lead to criticisms of co-option.

How will deliberative engagement work within organisational constraints?

One of the key concerns expressed by the local government sector regarding deliberative engagement practices is that they can be relatively costly [6] (for example, the Melbourne Peoples’ Panel had a budget of $180,000) [7].

This concern is understandable given many high-profile deliberative engagement projects had a level of resource that is not going to be feasible for the vast majority of councils in Victoria. However, there are also many examples from across the world that show smaller scale interventions can be just as effective [8].

Rather than look to the well-publicised projects, councils would be better served by starting with the principles of deliberative engagement (i.e. a broader and more empowered approach to including community in decision-making) and finding ways to enact them within their own organisational constraints.

This will of course look different for each council depending on a variety of factors, not only available budget, but also aspects such as their existing connections with community and organisational capacity. The legislation in fact allows for different interpretations by not prescribing what ‘deliberative engagement’ is and asks each council to define it for itself.

The new Local Government Act can be an opportunity for councils to strengthen their relationship with local communities, to develop policies and programs more aligned to community aspirations, and build greater mutual trust and collaboration.

However, this type of change doesn’t occur through the implementation of one large-scale engagement process every four or so years. It requires a commitment to connect with communities in new and inclusive ways, the ability to facilitate processes that acknowledge both community input and that of elected representatives, and a certain amount of resourcefulness.

As with all relationships, it requires commitment and an openness to adapting. This can be an exciting new time for local government in Victoria, I certainly hope so.