TY - CHAP
T1 - Mind the Gap
T2 - The Ideals of Public Input and the Mucky Reality of Government
AU - Lees-Marshment, Jennifer
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - There are many arguments for why public input should be integrated into government and leadership decisions. But, sadly, piece after piece of research reports problems in the way such input is collected, processed and responded to by political elites. As Figure 3.1 indicates, there is a big gap between the ideals of input and the realities of government and politics. Not surprisingly, most academic literature points the finger at politicians as being to blame, even though the literature has not sought to understand public input from the politicians’ perspectives. And, despite the evidence of deliberative polling before and after showing citizens will be more open to alternative and unpopular policies, the reality is (as the quote from Nicholas Reece in Figure 3.1 suggests) that the general public will not take that time and, thus, the potential positives of deliberation are not realisable in the normal nature of politics and government. There is a big gap between deliberative polls and actual votes: Hansen and Andersen (2004, 283) reported how in Denmark in 2000, whilst a deliberative poll showed a majority for Denmark’s joining the single currency, the actual referendum revealed a majority against Denmark’s participation. Using existing academic literature, this chapter will therefore briefly review the theoretical ideals of public input and then summarise the main problems with previous and current practise.
AB - There are many arguments for why public input should be integrated into government and leadership decisions. But, sadly, piece after piece of research reports problems in the way such input is collected, processed and responded to by political elites. As Figure 3.1 indicates, there is a big gap between the ideals of input and the realities of government and politics. Not surprisingly, most academic literature points the finger at politicians as being to blame, even though the literature has not sought to understand public input from the politicians’ perspectives. And, despite the evidence of deliberative polling before and after showing citizens will be more open to alternative and unpopular policies, the reality is (as the quote from Nicholas Reece in Figure 3.1 suggests) that the general public will not take that time and, thus, the potential positives of deliberation are not realisable in the normal nature of politics and government. There is a big gap between deliberative polls and actual votes: Hansen and Andersen (2004, 283) reported how in Denmark in 2000, whilst a deliberative poll showed a majority for Denmark’s joining the single currency, the actual referendum revealed a majority against Denmark’s participation. Using existing academic literature, this chapter will therefore briefly review the theoretical ideals of public input and then summarise the main problems with previous and current practise.
U2 - 10.1057/9781137017789_3
DO - 10.1057/9781137017789_3
M3 - Chapter
SN - 9781349437191
T3 - Palgrave Studies in Political Leadership
SP - 62
EP - 86
BT - The Ministry of Public Input
PB - Palgrave Macmillan
ER -