Political Alienation in “Strengthening Citizen Participation in Public Policy-Making: A Canadian Perspective” by Michael R. Woodford and Susan Preston

In “Strengthening Citizen Participation in Public Policy-Making: A Canadian Perspective” by Michael R. Woodford and Susan Preston asses how citizen participation and government accountability in policy-making are often at odds. It is not often that Canadians have been begrudged the opportunity to participate in public hearings, citizen polls and other consultative methods; however, the degree to which their voices have been taken into account often falls short.

Policy-makers are not bound by citizen’s opinions ¬– unless it is a binding referenda – and yet public participation is said to help “reverse the growing democratic deficit, foster citizenship and community capacity, and promote responsive and effective policy decisions” (Woodford and Preston 346). These “improvements,” in practice, raises a larger question: should Members of Parliament be voting in accordance with party politics or those of their constituents? Since the effective inclusion of citizens opinions “requires that public administrators and policy makers be committed to genuinely considering [this] input in policy analysis and decision-making” (347). Without a commitment to the collective voice, citizens may not be any better off. This calls into question whether a decrease in voter turn out is associated with the lack of influence citizens feel they really have in policy-making and the larger Canadian picture.

In Canada, the participatory role of citizens in policy-making is made possible through consultative methods that seem to have far more negatives than positives. Woodford and Preston note that according to various Canadian scholars, consultative means include: “one way communication, infrequent feedback, limited involvement, poor representativeness,...

... middle of paper ...

...tion remained a top-down process (354), with the government at the helm.

Some would say that it presents as an absence of commitment to the influence of citizen’s although it becomes difficult to conceptualize the engagement of citizens as the basis for new or changing policy. Is the average citizen equipped with the knowledge to assess any and all governmental issues equally? Is personal opinion, without grounded bearings of evidence, enough? Can contingencies be placed upon the desire to strengthen citizen participation in public policy-making? The questions are endless, and even yet the Woodford and Preston note “statutory requirements for citizens input ‘would not necessarily mean that citizen engagement is accessible and done particularly well’” (356). The inclusion and weight of citizen input is necessary, although to what degree remains un-established.