The British “Minnesota Nice” Approach to Civil Society
The British are a curious bunch when it comes to Civil Society. Not only does the Charity Commission exercise general oversight of Civil Society, that agency gets way down into the weeds of individual charity governance and operations. Even religious organizations. Last week, for example, the Commission scolded a mosque for an allegedly inadequate social media policy:
The charity’s failure to use or complete its draft social media policy contributed to the issuing of multiple inappropriate social media posts by trustees and staff which resulted in the charity receiving negative media attention. The Commission considered this as part of its inquiry and determined the trustees’ failure to have oversight or appropriately manage risks amounted to misconduct and/or mismanagement. The posts have since been deleted and an apology was issued at the time.
“Inappropriate social media and negative media attention?” I can’t imagine what the social media posts said, but they must not have exhibited the dry taciturn way we saw on Downton Abby or Foyle’s War. Can you imagine what would happen if the IRS told the First Church of Christ the Redeemer it ought to have a better social media policy, that its social media posts were “inappropriate,” and that the church should submit its revised social media polity to the Service for prior approval? And when the Charity Commission thought the mosque wasn’t moving fast enough, it even appointed an interim manager. The British aren’t impeded by no stinking First Amendment notions, I’ll tell you that much.
But overall, the relationship between Government and British Civil Society seems an admirably collaborative one. My impression is purely anecdotal, by the way. The closest stateside analog I’ve seen is the Minnesota AG, whose charity section collaborates with and gently corrects Civil Society more often than it sanctions or commands. That’s as it should be. Even when it opposes government policy, Civil Society is nevertheless an ally and should be recognized as such.
I think that is what happens most of the time in the UK. In 1998, for example, the Cameron Government entered into what’s called “The Compact” with UK Civil Society.
The Compact plays a crucial part in improving the partnership between the Government and civil society organisations, for the benefit of citizens and communities. Looking forward, the role of this sector has never been more important. Building the Big Society and getting citizens more engaged, involved and responsible for the communities around them will only be possible in partnership with the sector; improving and delivering better, more responsive public services can only be done with the help of the sector; and empowering communities can only work where the skills, enthusiasm and commitment of the sector is harnessed.
/s/ The Rt. Hon. David Cameron MP
The Compact is an actual, though hardly enforceable, agreement between the Government and Civil Society to achieve five outcomes: “(1) a strong, diverse and independent civil society, (2) effective and transparent policies, programs and public services, (3) responsive and high-quality programs and services, (4) clarity in managing programs and services, and (5) an equal and fair society. It’s all very high minded, vague and aspirational – in the manner of a strategic plan — but it still seems remarkable that such an explicit compact even exists.”
The big news in this regard last week is that the Keir Starmer Government is now embarking on an effort to craft the next generation partnership agreement with Civil Society. Here is part of a press release from the Department of Culture, Media, and Sports:
The Prime Minister has made it a priority to reset the relationship with civil society and build a new partnership that can harness civil society’s full potential to rebuild our country and deliver against the government’s 5 missions. A relationship that recognises all that civil society does for us – at home and abroad – and aims to realise the enormous potential that exists in organisations like our charities and community groups. DCMS is committed to delivering this vision, ensuring that civil society is viewed by government as an equal partner that is fully valued and heard.
On 17 October 2024 DCMS published a Covenant Framework to catalyse a wider conversation across civil society and government alongside a civil society reception hosted by the Prime Minister. The framework will build momentum and kickstart a period of intensive engagement throughout autumn to develop the final Covenant in the new year. This final Covenant is intended to act as a principles-based foundation for this new relationship and will symbolise the UK government’s recognition of the sector as a trusted and independent partner.
The Department is accepting public comments regarding the content of the new agreement. It has identified four “principles” that should be expressed in the forthcoming agreement:
We intend for the Covenant to be based around 4 high level principles of recognition, partnership, participation and transparency. These principles provide the starting point for developing the Covenant through a process of engagement across civil society and government.
1. Recognition: to ensure a strong and independent civil society.
2. Partnership: to ensure effective service delivery and policy making, and shared learning of best practices.
3. Participation: to ensure people and communities can be heard and make a difference.
4. Transparency: to ensure civil society and government have the information needed to best serve people and communities.
It’s almost like a nationwide referendum on what Civil Society should strive to be. If nothing else, I suspect the exercise builds cohesion even in a Civil Society comprising broadly diverse and disparate organizations. More importantly the exercise reaffirms Civil Society’s equal place amongst business and government sectors. We ought to try something like this.
darryll k. jones