There
have been a number of issues that appear to have dominated the
news in recent weeks. The debates about terrorism, the French
riots, Anti Social Behaviour Orders, the change in the licensing
laws and even Lord Rogers’s expressed concerns about the
Government’s planning policies all seem to have an underlying
theme, which is how we want our communities to develop and what
say the people that actually live in these communities should
have in their development.
In
thinking about these issues in the last few weeks I came across
a report written for the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit,
with the title Personal Responsibility and Changing Behaviour:
the state of knowledge and its implications for public policy
(1).
As the title suggests, this report looks at the issue of personal
responsibility and highlights three key factors that have encouraged
the growing interest in this social policy area:
1.
The achievement of major policy outcomes requires greater engagement
and participation from citizens than traditional ways of delivering
public services.
2. There are strong moral and political arguments for protecting
and enhancing personal responsibility.
3. Behaviourally-based interventions can be significantly more
cost-effective than traditional service delivery.
I
was struck by some of the language in this report and its tone,
particularly the notion of ‘moral and political arguments’
which made me wonder who will lead these discussions and drive
the change. If it is an imposition from above, it will not work
and is likely to be dismissed by people as part of the nanny state.
However, it could offer a potential debate that may have profound
long term effects on society.
In
looking at its relevance to children there are a number of issues
that I think are important. In the arena of juvenile justice we
have seen increasing concern being expressed about Anti Social
Behaviour Orders, in particular about the number of younger and
younger children being sucked into the criminal justice system.
If you look at the origins of this anti-social behaviour initiative,
it was about community and a policy that was supposed to help
communities address their own problems.
Another
area that is causing concern is alcohol consumption particularly
amongst the young. In looking at this area I am concerned that
merely increasing Police powers to arrest is not going to address
the issue. What must be remembered is that the vast majority of
young people make rational decisions based on their own understanding
of risk. What needs to happen in this area is attitudinal change.
Not an easy matter I would agree, but I am not sure that merely
presenting a young person with yet another court order will solve
the problem. Nor for that matter will increased hours of drinking.
The
French riots of recent weeks graphically showed us what can happen
if people feel that they are disenfranchised and do not have a
stake in their communities. Trevor Phillips, Lord Rogers and others
have been warning us that unless we look at our own communities
they will suffer the same fate as those of the French. Unless
the ‘moral and political arguments’ take place in
our communities and not just in the corridors of power, we will
not engender community cohesion as desired by New Labour.
Success
in this policy arena will only be achieved if the people it is
supposed to be helping feel that they have ownership of the strategy
and that is not just yet another Government initiative that is
imposed from above.
This
is not some new idea. It has been around for thousands of years.
As Lao Tsu writing in China around 2800 years ago said:
Go to the people.
Live with them.
Learn from them.
Love them.
Start with what they know.
Build with what they have.
But
with the best leaders,
When the work is done,
The task accomplished,
The people will say
“We have done this ourselves”.(2)
