Devolution done wrong risks a democratic black hole

Devolution has huge potential. It has the potential to drive economic growth, empowering local leaders to develop strategies that are right for their local areas and their economies and encouraging the economies of coordination needed to unlock opportunity and tackle the NEETs crisis. It has the potential to revitalise our public services, enabling local areas to deliver joined up, preventative, people-centered services.

But what if it doesn’t? Then what for the devolution revolution?

The truth is, the benefits of devolution are not guaranteed, they will depend on the wider policy and economic context, and the choices made by both national and local leaders. Empowering different parts of the country to make different choices will lead to stories of success – strong local leaders taking innovative approaches to deliver for their local areas, just like Manchester – but it will also lead to failures and some regions will inevitably underperform.

The case for devolution can’t just be about the instrumental benefits it brings; if it is, then that case is vulnerable to collapse. Decades of local government re-organisation in England underlines the harsh reality that this government’s efforts could be undone by a future government. If the Prime Minister wants a devolution that stands the test of time, he must also make the democratic case for it – and deliver it in a way that builds trust, public legitimacy and community in this moment of national fragility. He can’t create a democratic blackhole in a new devolved state.

Devolution must go beyond the mayor’s office or town hall, reaching right into communities

The devolution conversation so far has centred mainly on the regional tier of government, and for good reason – strategic authorities have the potential for the scale, capacity and capability needed to take on significant new powers. But there is a risk that if done without democracy in mind, the process of devolution could inadvertently be a centralising force, taking powers away from local councils and communities to give to mayors.

The government’s devolution agenda must also include plans to strengthen local communities. It must help rebuild the civil infrastructure that is essential to strong, resilient and cohesive communities, through endorsing initiatives that aim to create sustainable funding settlements for civil life like the Marshall Plan.

Polling by Demos shows that pride in our national institutions has fallen dramatically in the last 15 years – pride in Parliament fell from 23% to -11% – but pride in community has bucked the trend, pride in one’s local community jumped from 29% to 40% over the past 15 years, accompanied by a slight rise in neighborhood trust. The government’s Pride in Place programme has shown the role local neighbourhood governance can play in improving their local areas. This needs to be built into the model of devolution, ensuring that mayoral authorities are using their new powers and funding in partnership with local communities.

Government must also embed participation in local decision making

Devolution must be about deepening democracy rather than just relocating power, this means giving people the opportunity to participate in the decisions that directly affect their lives. It’s welcome that the government committed to “replace the current model of consultation by default with new and modern forms of public participation” when setting out its vision for devolution. But more thinking is needed on what this looks like in practice and how it can be embedded into local government.

Demos has been trialling new ways to involve people in policy making through Waves; a new model for participatory local democracy that integrates digital tools and AI to enable participation both at scale and in depth. The government needs to think about how it can draw upon innovations like this, and build them into new models for devolution so that devolution means doing democracy differently, not just business as usual.

With greater power, must come greater accountability

If they are to endure, building legitimacy around new devolved institutions is essential. To build legitimacy the government must build trust, understanding and local accountability. But the mechanisms for accountability at a local level are weak. Scrutiny functions in combined authorities are underdeveloped, local news networks and their relationships with councils are weak, making local information ecosystems vulnerable to misinformation. Council communication and engagement functions remain under-funded and ill-equipped for the digital age. Changes to the structure of local government mean that many people are confused as to who is responsible for what, and 63% of people say they know not very much or nothing about how decisions in local government are made. Devolution risks compounding this confusion.

With new powers and financial responsibilities devolved, if the accountability mechanisms are not strengthened, we risk more opaque decision making, political bargaining and a greater risk of corruption or malpractice. This could further erode the already fragile trust the public have in local institutions, and undermine the whole devolution agenda.

Local accountability must be at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s mind. This must be built into the set up of new strategic authorities. Central government should have an ongoing role in helping to develop mature systems for political scrutiny and accountability frameworks that assess performance while still allowing room for innovation and experimentation. We must also take steps to build local information infrastructure in order to counter the spread of mis and disinformation.

Devolution should mean power and policymaking happening closer to people, with more influence and agency for communities over political decisions. That’s how to future proof devolution and ensure it doesn’t end up in a democratic deficit.