PPP – ‘Populism, Polarisation & Post-Truth’?

Why co-creating the conditions for good local governance are essential in any local Neighbourhood keen to co-shape better places for everyone.

I’m currently on ‘Gardening leave’ (having failed, according to our HR department, to take enough holidays before moving jobs). This is a very strange experience for a self-confessed workaholic. (That’s not something I’m proud of by the way, but I am ‘working on it’...;-)?

In and amongst watering, planting and relocating slugs this week, I’ve been listening to a few of Alastair Campell and Rory Stewart’s discussions in their ‘Beyond Politics’ podcast.?A recurring theme is PPP.

No, not ‘Perth People Place’ – the sustainable transport and active travel programme I’ve been working on with colleagues for the last two years, rather:

·????????Populism,

·????????Polarisation; and

·????????Post-truth.?

So, what CAN we do (to borrow from a recent book title), towards co-creating a brighter future? And how do we differentiate that, from slipping back into post pandemic ‘business as usual’ – but with a new set of ‘Branding’?

Well, for a start, to stop using corporate language like ‘re-branding’ might be helpful (as designers and facilitators, we’re not here to sell.?We’re here to help solve everyday problems in complex situations).?And if our Neighbours can’t understand us, and vice versa, then how can we nurture trust and mutual understanding? Or indeed, break down the risk associated with silos of specialism? For these are certainly prerequisites for better quality place-making.?If we can’t walk our talk, then we risk fueling more cynicism. And that helps no one achieve positive futures at a time where there is urgent need to pull together to address wider challenges such as the climate emergency or the risks to democracy.

That’s what was so heartening about yesterday evening’s neighbourhood advisory group meeting in Perth.?Together, we achieved a small room of dedicated local folks, from a broad range of diverse local communities, all with the same neighbourhood interests in common.?Think ‘Global - Act local’.?Because that’s what we CAN do, if we choose to.

So, what are we (in this case communities working collaboratively in North Perth) actually doing in response to the urgent need for better ways of working together, and shaping that brighter future??And does that begin with creating mutually respectful conditions for neighbours to meet, to cultivate good relationships, and to collaborate over the proverbial (and actual), garden fence? And is this the kind of local positive politics we need more of? Less heat and more light might just lead the way to less polarised and more constructive deliberation.

Yesterday evening was sadly my final North Perth Neighborhood Advisory Group meeting (for now), The forum was created to help to support various communities in North Perth, including surrounding rural communities.?As always, it’s never easy to assess how such co-design meetings will go before the event. But here are a few of the very positive observations after the meeting:

1.??????The room was a blend of local experts as well as specialist technical experts with a clear and transparent agenda;

2.??????There were clear concise Terms of Reference (or the group’s co-created coordinating guidelines developed at the request of local representatives) re-circulated before each meeting; and

3.??????We continued to communicate, including visually, how we have ‘walked our talk’ so far and what the programme of next steps might look like – with the communities' continued help, support and local knowledge.

There were useful introductions and early discussion with concerns about some of the details of the work-to-date being aired, and responses being shared openly and transparently – including our highlighting that we never promised a perfect process.?Rather a ‘different’ process to 'business as usual':

?‘Here’s the answer, now remind us, what was the problem we are now ‘consulting' you on’.

We can do better than that, by having the confidence to reach out and engage with a spectrum of folks informed by a steering group of elected community representatives, and delivered via targeted, meaningful engagement from a representative cross section of local groups. All this, before, not after the ideas and potential solutions are sketched, re-imagined, consulted on and then developed in due course, for delivery.

That matters where we are serious about a better way forward than that of the past. And it matters if we are to help restore trust in how we all work together.?Fortunately for these communities and for those co-dependent relationships (no Neighborhood is an island) National Planning Framework 4 – our nationally agreed development plan for the country is designing policy aimed to support local neighbourhoods, empowering them to be more closely involved in decisions which directly and indirectly affect them. ?

Trust and mutual respect are key to creating a collaborative creative environment. It encourages a better quality of process and by direct consequence an increased likelihood of improved decision-making which is more locally responsive. And that means local representatives from various backgrounds (which should be the normal profiles for our elected representatives) being more closely involved with advising on how places are changed and improved with local inputs.

Neighbourhood advisory groups or local steering groups can bring together representatives from various communities – not to agree on everything (which, let’s face it, would be down right boring as well as oxymoronic), but to work together on those shared assets, (streets and paths in this case), or shared interests for the wider good. ?But without good local governance – clearly stated, with transparent processes, elected representatives and progress clearly communicated in plain language and relatable graphics, worts and all, we are risking a steady drift towards private companies, indicative only of their own membership/shareholders – albeit with very worthy ‘community’ aspirations, empowering some, at the potential expense or exclusion of others. That’s a huge risk if we seek places for everyone.

The truth in our Neighbourhood Pilot work, is that by blending existing elected representative democracy and sharing more of the workings which have traditionally gone on in design studios and offices behind the scenes, a brighter form of participative and deliberative democracy can offer an alternative path towards a healthier, more sustainable and brighter future for all.

I’m proud to have been a small part of shaping and facilitating this process and I look forward to seeing how this collaboration progresses towards a local place-based delivery.

Now, where are those secateurs…

PPP- Engagement Process results here

Note on the author: Jonathan Clarkson is an interdisciplinary designer, teacher, gardener and urbanist practitioner with over 27 years experience using design as a tool for; analysis, collaboration, solving problems and adding value.?Jonathan has published a number of design articles and is a visiting lecturer and tutor at both Edinburgh School of Art and the Mackintosh School of Art in Glasgow.

Note on the author: Jonathan Clarkson is an interdisciplinary designer, teacher and urbanist practitioner with over 27 years of experience using design as a tool for, analysis, collaboration, solving problems and adding value.?Jonathan has publish a number of design articles and is a visiting lecturer and tutor at both Edinburgh School of Art and the Mackintosh school of art in Glasgow.