Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research Highlights and Abstract

We utilise different theories on representation to develop a framework to understand the role played by public engagement in the 21st-century context. We then employ this perspective to analyse the aims and characteristics of public engagement activity in the UK Parliament.

Besides a normative reflection on representation and engagement, our article is based on qualitative research which included elite in-depth interviews with parliamentary officials complemented by documentary analysis.

Our research shows that public engagement planning in the UK Parliament aims to develop among the public a sense of connectivity that relies on more collective and symbolic forms of representation, which seek to present the institution detached from its actors and politics.

The UK Parliament’s activity in public engagement has recently expanded considerably. Faced with declining levels of trust, it has invested considerable time and resources to new activities focusing specifically on engagement: educational resources and cultural events among many others. This embodies a new role for parliament of increasing importance particularly in the context of the 21st-century parliament. This article analyses the aims of public engagement and its consequences for representation. We explore the potential representative role of public engagement, identifying key changes that have affected the relationship between public and parliament. We utilise evidence from documentary analysis and elite in-depth interviews with parliamentary officials to show that public engagement planning aims to develop among the public a sense of connectivity that relies on more collective and symbolic forms of representation, which seek to present the institution detached from its actors and politics. We utilise constructivist representation theories to support our analysis.

Keywords

constructivist turn parliament parliamentary officials public engagement representation symbolic representation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Birch

(1971) Representation. London: Pall Mall Press Ltd.

Bochel

(2013) Petition systems: Contributing to representative democracy? Parliamentary Affairs 66: 798–815.

Brito Vieira

Runciman

(2008) Representation. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Cain

Dalton

Scarrow

(2003) Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Carman

(2009) Engaging the Public in the Scottish Parliament’s Petitions Process. Edinburgh: Ipsos/Mori, on behalf of the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee. Available at: http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/petitions/inquiries/petitionsProcess/Engagingthepublicinthepetitionsprocess.pdf.pdf (accessed 20 October 2014).

Carman

(2010) The process is the reality: Perceptions of procedural fairness and participatory democracy. Political Studies 58: 731–751.

Celis

Childs

(eds) (2008) Special issue on The Descriptive and Substantive Representation of Women. Parliamentary Affairs 61(3): 419–557.

Clark

Wilford

(2012) Political institutions, engagement and outreach: The case of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Parliamentary Affairs 65: 380–403.

Cowan

(2012) How parliamentary libraries can empower citizens: Lessons from the development of the Outreach Service, Houses of Parliament, UK. Available at: http://conference.ifla.org/past-wlic/2012/106-cowan-en.pdf (accessed 06 February 2015).

10.

Dalton

(2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Dalton

(2008) Citizen Politics—Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 5th edn. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

12.

Disch

(2011) Toward a mobilization conception of democratic representation. American Political Science Review 105(1): 100–114.

13.

Easton

(1975) A re-assessment of the concept of political support. British Journal of Political Science 5: 435–457.

14.

Eulau

Wahlke

Buchanan

. (1978) The role of the representative: Some empirical observations on the theory of Edmund Burke. In: Eulau

Wahlke

(eds) The Politics of Representation—Continuities in Theory and Research. Beverley Hills: CA: SAGE, pp. 111–126.

15.

Fox

(2009) Engagement and participation: What the public want and how our politicians need to respond. Parliamentary Affairs 62: 673–685.

16.

Fung

Wright

(eds) (2003) Deepening Democracy—Institutional Innovations in Empowered Participatory Democracy. London: Verso.

17.

Geissel

Joas

(eds) (2013) Participatory Democratic Innovations in Europe: Improving the Quality of Democracy? Toronto, ON, Canada: Barbara Budrich Publishers.

18.

Hansard Society (2004–2014) Audits of Political Engagement—1 to 11. London: Hansard Society. Available at: http://www.auditofpoliticalengagement.org/ (accessed 8 July 2015).

19.

Hansard Society (2005) Members only? Parliament in the public eye. Available at: http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Members-Only-Parliament-in-the-Public-Eye-2005.pdf (accessed 20 November 2014)

20.

Hansard Society (2008) Parliament and Public. London: Hansard Society. Available at: http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Parliament-and-the-Public-Knowledge-Interest-Perceptions-2008.pdf (accessed 8 July 2015).

21.

Hansard Society (2011) Parliaments and Public Engagement: Innovation and Good Practice around the World. London: Hansard Society. Available at: http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/press_releases/archive/2012/01/27/parliamentary-public-engagement-how-s-westminster-doing.aspx (accessed 12 June 2014).

22.

Hansard Society (2015) Audit of Political Engagement 12. London: Hansard Society. Available at: http://www.auditofpoliticalengagement.org/media/reports/Audit-of-Political-Engagement-12-2015.pdf (accessed 8 July 2015).

23.

Hay

(2007) Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity.

24.

Hough

(2012) Do legislative petitions systems enhance the relationship between parliament and citizen? The Journal of Legislative Studies 18: 479–495.

25.

House of Commons (2000) Twenty-second Annual Report of the House of Commons Commission, 1999–00. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmcomm/808/808-00.htm (accessed 12 June 2014).

26.

House of Commons (2007) Twenty-ninth annual report of the House of Commons Commission—Financial year 2006/07. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcomm/708/708.pdf (accessed 12 June 2014).

27.

House of Commons (2008) Thirtieth annual report of the House of Commons Commission—Financial year 2007/08. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmcomm/710/710.pdf (accessed 12 June 2014).

28.

House of Commons (2014) Thirty-sixth annual report of the House of Commons Commission—Financial year 2013/14. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-commission/36-report-HC-596.pdf (accessed 20 January 2015).

29.

Inglehart

(1990) Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

30.

Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) (2012) Global Parliamentary Report—The Changing Nature of Representation. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union. Available at: http://www.ipu.org/dem-e/gpr.htm (accessed 19 June 2014).

31.

Ipsos-Mori (2011a) Knowledge of Parliament 1991–2010, 30 March. Available at: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2758/Knowledge-of-Parliament-19912010.aspx?view=wide (accessed 8 July 2015).

32.

Ipsos-Mori (2011b) Satisfaction with The Way Parliament Works 1991–2010, 30 March. Available at: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2453/Satisfaction-with-the-way-Parliament-works-19952010.aspx?view=wide (accessed 8 July 2015).

33.

Ipsos-Mori (2014) Views of Westminster, 11 November. Available at: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3458/Views-of-Westminster.aspx (accessed 8 July 2015).

34.

Judge

(1999) Representation in Westminster in the 1990s: The Ghost of Edmund Burke. The Journal of Legislative Studies 5(1): 12–34.

35.

Judge

(2014) Democratic Incongruities—Representative Democracy in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

36.

Kelso

(2007) Parliament and political disengagement: Neither waving nor drowning. The Political Quarterly 78: 364–373.

37.

Leston-Bandeira

(ed.) (2013) Parliaments and Citizens. London: Routledge.

38.

Lindner

Riehm

(2009) Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. Je-Dem 1: 1–11.

39.

Loewenberg

(2011) On Legislatures: The Puzzle of Representation. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.

40.

Miller

(2009) e-petitions at Westminster: The way forward for democracy? Parliamentary Affairs 62: 162–177.

41.

Modernisation Committee (2004) Connecting parliament with the public. HC 368 2003–04, 16 June. Available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmmodern/368/368.pdf (accessed 21 November 2015).

42.

Müller

Bergman

Strøm

(2003) Parliament democracy: Promise and problems. In: Strøm

Müller

Bergman

(eds) Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University press, pp. 3–32.

43.

Norris

(2011) Democratic Deficit—Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.

Phillips

(1995) The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

45.

Pitkin

(1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

46.

Pullinger

Hallam Smith

(2010) The public engagement strategy in the UK Parliament since 2006. In: World Library and Information Congress: 76th IFLA General Conference and Assembly, Gothenburg. Available at: http://conference.ifla.org/past-wlic/2010/141-pullinger-en.pdf (accessed 10 June 2014).

47.

Rai

(2015) Political performance: A framework for analysing democratic politics. Political Studies 63: 1179–1197.

48.

Riehm

Böhle

Lindner

(2014) Electronic petitioning and modernization of petitioning systems in Europe. Berlin: TAB—Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag. Available at: http://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/en/pdf/publications/books/riehm-etal-2013-146.pdf (accessed September 2014).

49.

Rosenberg

(ed.) (2007) Can the People Govern? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

50.

Saward

(2001) Making democratic connections: Political equality, deliberation and direct democracy. Acta Politica 36(4): 361–379.

51.

Saward

(2006) The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory 5(3): 297–318.

52.

Saward

(2010) The Representative Claim. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

53.

Smith

(2009) Democratic Innovations—Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

54.

Stoker

(2006) Why Politics Matters. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

55.

Thomassen

(1994) Empirical research into political representation: Failing democracy or failing models? In: Jennings

Mann

(eds) Elections at Home and Abroad. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 237–264.

56.

Walker

(2012) A people’s parliament? Parliamentary Affairs 65: 270–280.

57.

Walker

(2014) Parliament and the Public: Public Information/Engagement Services in the House of Commons. Evidence to the Digital Democracy Commission. Available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/speaker/digital-democracy/Digi094AileenWalker.pdf (accessed 13 February 2015).

58.

Webb

(2013) Who is willing to participate? Dissatisfied democrats, stealth democrats and populists in the UK’. European Journal of Political Research 52(6): 747–772.

59.

Whiteley

(2012) Political Participation in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

60.

Young

(2000) Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Why symbolic representation frames parliamentary public engagement

Abstract

Research Highlights and Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References