Double devolution, asset transfer, big society. The language may be difference but the aim of these policies, across political parties, remains the same. The passing of ‘power’ and ‘responsibilities’ back to communities.
In this environment the question, posed by an elderly activist, is timely. ‘Who will come after us when we die?’ Are there younger generations ready, willing and able to engage in voluntary activity? The way the question is posed may seem alarmist, but it is not a lone voice. The 2007 Citizenship Survey, for example, suggests that overall levels of volunteering have remained static since 2001, with a decrease in ‘informal’ volunteering and only ‘3 per cent engaged in civic participation at least once a month’. Community activists, the ‘active citizens’ or ‘community organisers’ referred to in policy documents who have been interviewed as part of the Third Sector Research Centre’s ‘below the radar’ work with community groups have also expressed a shared concern, if not scepticism, about the political agenda of returning power and responsibility to communities:
· ‘It is not that people don’t help out. But they don’t want to manage and organise.’
· ‘I have a stressful job. So why would I want the added stress, in my own time, of managing our community centre?’
· ‘I do lots of things round here, but for fun and to meet people’
· ‘Running this place (a village hall) is a thankless task and it is all voluntary. Sometimes I ask myself why? Why do we do it?’
Perhaps the most important word from these, fairly typical, quotes is ‘fun’. Government policies, whether under New Labour or the current Coalition, assume motivations for community engagement which are rooted in altruism, a sense of duty and ‘being a good citizen’. Participation is ‘good for the soul’ – though how damaging it can be to actual health and well-being is sadly neglected. But is this why people become active in their neighbourhood? Is achieving Government policy goals really at the forefront of people’s minds when they participate in voluntary action within their communities?
Possibly not. This is not to deny that activism can be rooted in a desire to ‘give something back to my community’, faith, senses of duty and political belief. But there may be other, more powerful, factors:
· Social: simply to meet people, share a common interest and do something together
· Anger: something that is happening to my community is wrong, is unjust and we are going to do something about it. We will take direct, and oppositional, action.
These are not necessarily the motivators which sit comfortably with, often narrowly defined, concepts of community engagement or the good and active citizen.
All of which raises some important questions about the role that community groups and activities play in policy and in practice. Is there a gap between the rhetoric of community empowerment and realities at a grass roots level? With the ongoing debate on democratic deficit in Britain, do we need more awkward rather than active citizens? More people questioning agendas rather than delivering statutory policy objectives? If there is to be a ‘big society’ who in reality is out there to achieve this aspiration? And whose ‘big society are we talking about – that of political party manifestos or that of communities themselves.
How and why communities come together to take action and how this can be effectively supported are emerging work themes for the Third Sector Research Centre. Thoughts welcome both on this discussion piece and how best we take that work forward.