Local Deliberation and Citizenship

Making Local Democracy Work, a new report from the National League of Cities, focuses on deliberation and citizenship, key themes of our textbook. The data come from a 2009 survey of elected and managerial officials regarding “proactive efforts to involve people in deliberating public issues and in helping to solve public problems.”

A few highlights:

• Municipal officials report that their municipalities use public engagement processes often (60 percent) or sometimes (21 percent).
• They report use of a range and variety of local practices. Some of the venues include town hall meetings, neighborhood councils, online forums and community surveys.
• Virtually all the respondents (95 percent) report that public officials in their city value public engagement processes. They see important benefits such as developing a stronger sense of community, building trust between the public and city hall and finding better solutions to local problems.
• The report observes that it takes the efforts of the whole community to create and sustain effective democratic governance. Many municipal officials say that important players (including citizens, the media, community and special interest groups and their own city halls) are not stepping up to their proper roles.

The study confirms that deliberation depends on information:

In a separate question asking which three of this same list of factors are considered

most important to the effectiveness of a deliberative public engagement process, by far the most frequently selected item was “public receives useful, balanced information about the subject.” This factor was identified as most important by 78 percent of municipal officials; the next closest response (“People who can answer questions are in the room”) was selected by just 35 percent and would seem to reflect a similar concern about information.

The survey asked about barriers to public engagement in deliberation:

Far and away, the most frequently selected item was “public apathy and/or ambivalence,” chosen by 69 percent of municipal officials. No other item was chosen by more than 40 percent of respondents. What’s more, when asked to identify three of the 17 obstacles that are the most difficult to overcome, public apathy and/or ambivalence topped the rest of the list. It was selected by 58 percent of respondents; the next closest response was selected by 20 percent. The second and third most frequently selected obstacles to and risks of public engagement were: “media are not paying attention and/or is not fair and balanced” (chosen by 39 percent of officials); and “youth and other segments of the community are hard to reach” (36 percent).

More detail on criticism of the media:

Respondents’ negative opinions of the media’s role in public engagement showed up in their answers to other questions in the survey. For example, only one in four municipal officials (25 percent) rated the media as being good at informing people and local public affairs with fair and balanced reporting; 30 percent rated the media as poor in this area. (See Figure 19). In addition, more than half (53 percent) said the media does a poor job of involving people in deliberation and problem solving, and 47 percent said the media does a poor job of contributing to constructive debate.