Power: have your say
Pam Giddy director of Power inquiry
The Power inquiry published its report on democracy in the UK on 27 February 2006.
When the Power inquiry began its independent investigation into the condition of democracy in Britain, in 2004, we were unsure of the reception we would get. We travelled around the country, invited organisations and individuals to give us their thoughts, and to our surprise we were inundated. As the inquiry progressed it became clear why this was the case. Our evidence has revealed a nation that is far from apathetic. In a whole range of areas, both political and non-political, large sections of the British public are active and generous in time and support.
The problem, it seems, lies in engagement with, and trust in, formal politics. We began our journey by looking at the life and experience of the citizen which led us to look hard at where power lay and how it could be dispersed and exercised differently. Our thirty recommendations directly address this concern. They look at the concentration of power at the centre and offer ideas for how that could change; how power at a local level could be better achieved and then protected from a power-hungry centre; and crucially, how we can download power to the citizen more effectively how we might give the citizen democratic footholds back into the democratic system.
Also in openDemocracy on the Power inquiry:
Ferdinand Mount, "The Power inquiry: making politics breathe" (February 2006)
John Jackson, "A democracy in trouble" (March 2006)
Roger Scruton, "Power inquiry, public debate" (March 2006)
We now want to discuss these ideas with you. If we are to make them a reality we must find spaces for this debate to continue. Sign up for our 26 March conference if you would like to keep in touch.
Make us sweat!
Adam Lent Research director, the Power inquiry
The Power inquiry has discovered a wide and deep alienation from formal politics in the UK and in most of the established democracies. Our political system risks rotting from the inside if our leaders only look to external threats and ignore anger and frustration at home.
The inquiry's analysis and recommendations received widespread media coverage last week but as Jonathan Freedland wrote in a perceptive response: "Good reports have been written before, only to climb onto the shelf to gather dust until the next one comes along. The challenge for the Power report is to break that losing streak."
One way to "spurn the dust" is to keep talking about the report not just to ensure its concerns stay in the public eye but also to test its ideas. Ferdinand Mount, John Jackson and Roger Scruton have begun this essential work in their articles on openDemocracy.
Add your thoughts on the Power inquiry's recommendations to combat disengagement at the Comment on Power website in partnership with mysociety.org and openDemocracy.
Now your response is needed. Because the severity of disengagement is only just coming to light, our response needs to be truly fit for the unforeseen problems of the twenty-first century. So feel free to give the analysis and proposals a good workout make them sweat.
You might find it helpful to refer to the full report rather than just the executive summary. Our detailed considerations may or may not answer your points. I'll check the comment site regularly and drop in the odd reply of my own.
From our London office, openDemocracy thinks about democracy worldwide as well as close to home. The Power inquiry sees disengagement afflicting "many established democracies" it reports that systems set up in the industrial era no longer satisfy the political demands of the "new citizen". So how does democracy look from where you are - from within a democracy, or from the outside? We would like to know. Post your perspective in our forum discussion, or email readerseditor@opendemocracy.net .
