Take a look at the loaded term “community participation”, among other semantics, and ask: “Have you ever heard of ‘government participation’?”
The relationship between the government and the community should be productive for both the community and the government, while residing within a framework of mutuality.
The participatory process engaged in by the government is commonly referred to as “community participation”. This expression implies that participation is a process applicable to the community and places obligations on the community. There is no element of mutuality in the term. For the engagement process to deliver its full potential, both parties must actively desire to be in a genuine two-way relationship with an overall neutral power balance.
There also needs to be recognition that participation is not consultation. The two have entirely different characteristics and should never be regarded as interchangeable.
NSW’s Department of Housing, for example, embraced the concept of social capital in 1984 at the direction of its Minister, the late Frank Walker. The “bridging social capital” concept – overlapping of social networks – was included in the guiding principles underpinning the department’s tenant participation activities.
Social capital comprises participation, trust, reciprocity, and relational networks. It’s an almost intangible concept, underpinning the social fabric that holds the community together.
One description of social capital is the ideology used by governments to place responsibility for social problems in the hands of the community, that is, avoidance of government responsibility for problems caused by injustice and inequalities within society.
This has been the government’s demonstrated approach to community participation – the community is responsible for identifying and then healing the problems caused by the actions of the government.
Today the government has succeeded in denying itself the benefits of forming a functional two-way relationship with their electorate. The government has isolated itself from those it is meant to be serving and the very cause of its existence – the community of NSW.
Whether the rejection of the community arises from fear on the government’s part of losing absolute control is yet to be explored.
The imposition of rigid government programs that reflect the priorities of politicians and bureaucrats – rather than those of the local communities they represent and serve – creates barriers to achieving a productive mutually beneficial relationship between the community and their government.
The government has yet to answer the question of whether they want such a functional two-way relationship. Perhaps the reason for the delay is tied up in the government’s reluctance to be accountable and transparent in their dealings with the community.
