EMPOWERMENT VS. (DIS)EMPOWERMENT OF CITIZENS

Source: WEF Global Risks Report 2016

The global risk of social instability is heightened by uncertainty about whether existing structures will be able to constructively resolve pressures when (dis)empowered citizens’ demands threaten to undermine a country’s political stability. The term “(dis)empowered citizen” describes the dynamic that is emerging from the interplay of two trends: one empowering, one disempowering. Individuals feel empowered by changes in technology that make it easier for them to gather information, communicate and organize. At the same time, individuals, civil society groups, social movements and local communities feel increasingly excluded from meaningful participation in traditional decision-making processes and disempowered in terms of their ability to influence and be heard by institutions and sources of power.

With more (dis)empowered citizens organizing and mobilizing, governments and businesses alike need to come to terms with the ways in which they may be exacerbating the root causes of citizen discontent. They must understand the risks and work out how to adjust to a changing operating environment and a new societal landscape. Beyond economic uncertainty, the risks for countries include:

1. undermined legitimacy of the government mandate;
2. increased social polarization;
3. political impasse and the impossibility of actuating reforms, where relevant; and – under more severe circumstances –
4. possible disintegration of a country’s governmental system and other cascading risks that might easily emerge in a truly globalized, interconnected and complex world.

An inclusive society with empowered societal actors who are aligned behind a joint vision for the country is a strong signal that a state is stable and confident, with greater transparency, lower corruption and a stronger rule of law – all important factors for doing business. From an economic perspective, businesses benefit from a stable social and political environment for running their operations. They operate according to forecasts and scenarios that factor in socio-political risks, and instability increases their operational costs, reduces margins on investments and undermines local networks. Social and political unrest can cause losses in revenue, property damage, roadblocks, bureaucratic delays, overall economic slowdown and an unconducive business environment. For businesses, more specific risks include:

1. reputational risk and other dangers to brands;
2. potential loss of market share;
3. product boycotts; and
4. disruption of established business models.

Particular risks to businesses may arise when local contexts and relationships change when people feel unable to effect change as citizens and look for ways to do so as consumers.

Business models consequently need to adapt to new demands and expectations. Increasingly customers want to know not only about a business’s own performance in areas such as child labour and environmental impact, but also about the operations of its entire supply chain. They expect to have a voice in all aspects of its operations, from how production processes are set up to how distribution operations are developed and investment decisions around community initiatives are taken.

Drivers of (Dis)Empowerment

Social structures around the world are being transformed on three levels. First, at the individual level there are changes in how people feel and how they perceive the world and identify with particular values; this is combined with people’s increased ability to express and transmit their views, which in turn influences behaviour. Second, at a collective level, rapid changes in how social groups form and solidify have taken place, and in how these groups debate and develop common values and viewpoints and how they interact with other stakeholders. Third, often driven by and in response to the individual and collective levels, formal institutions such as governments, businesses, religious institutions, the media and civil society organizations are also changing the way they relate to and interact with both groups and individuals. These evolving structural forces create new patterns of communication, relationships, collaboration and expectations, which in turn – in combination with emerging technological, economic, political and environmental drivers – create new structures of empowerment and disempowerment.

Economic Drivers

Many countries have recently seen mobilizations against inequality, persistent unemployment and deteriorating economic environments. From the Arab Spring to the anti-austerity protests in Europe, people have vocally rejected the consequences of what they perceive as a distorted and non-inclusive economic and political system. Demands for reforms to tackle corruption, in both politics and business, are being heard across the globe. Policies that neglect or deepen inequality can exacerbate the combination of less sustainable economic growth, weakened social cohesion, and citizens feeling disenfranchised from democratic processes.

Environmental Drivers

Changes in society, regulatory policies and business practices are crucial to address our changing climate. In recent years a “climate justice” movement has emerged from frustration with a lack of leadership, evident in international negotiations characterized by long talks, vested interests and the ultimate incapacity to curb the effects of global warming, despite progress at the COP21. Continued sluggish progress or a lack of any progress at all will increasingly fuel protests, especially as extreme weather patterns make a progressively greater impact.

Political Drivers

The last three years have seen more elections and government collapses in major market economies than in all of the previous decade.  Approval ratings of political leaders are sagging, and established political parties across Europe are facing declines in membership and a need to reconsider how they engage with the electorate. Labour unions are not doing any better: although increasing in Asia and South America, membership has been declining in Europe and North America, particularly in the United States, where the unionized workforce hit a 97-year low in 2013. A proliferation of alternative political parties – some of them extremist or nationalist – has challenged established governance systems without necessarily delivering the outcomes hoped for by citizens in terms of improved transparency and equality. Indeed, a high turnover of governments or strong separatist movements can end up making policymaking less stable and worsen distrust in governance structures. The perceived inability of governments to respond to major global challenges – from climate change and internet governance to food security – is eroding confidence in authorities. Combined with a sense of diminishing separation between the private and public sectors, governments are perceived to be either unable or unwilling to regulate the activities of large corporations, for example by closing tax loopholes. Political leadership is seen to be colluding with, or even interchangeable with, business leadership, as “revolving door” practices shape the relationship between business and government. Citizens’ view that their own voices are being ignored by political leaders is exacerbated – even apparently validated – by the perception that the wealthy enjoy privileged access to decision-makers.

Technological Drivers

Technology amplifies dissatisfaction caused by other drivers. Social movements are facilitated by digital tools that allow the individual citizen to be heard and also allow rapid mass mobilization, cyber-activism and globally connected social movements that span traditional geographic and political boundaries . While voter participation rates are steadily declining, especially among the young, digital technology is providing new ways for people to mobilize and challenge existing power structures to articulate an alternative. This was most visible in the 2011 wave of youth-led revolts from North Africa to South America, but there is general evidence of an increase of citizens’ movements worldwide in the past couple of decades. Studies of online content dating from 2010 and 2012 indicate a positive relationship between political content and youth who were previously politically disengaged. Online protests, strikes, cyber activism, and online petitioning and boycott campaigns are increasing. Although some cynicism exists around “clicktivism”, which can be seen as merely a form of virtue signalling, such web-based activist organizations have often complemented online activism with offline activities, thereby amplifying their impact. As the world becomes more connected, mobile and networked, protests that might once have been geographically limited can spread ever more widely and quickly.

Repressive Reactions Fuel Social Repressive Reactions

Clear arguments can be made for governments to oppose some citizen movements, such as those that disregard human rights. In most cases, however, many different perspectives on what constitutes the social good can be valid. To establish trust and ensure broadly sustainable development, a country’s businesses, citizens and government need jointly to elaborate a common viable national vision. Rather than looking for ways to win back public trust, however, many governments have eroded that trust further by responding harshly to protests: closing down space for civil society, demonizing protestors and harassing activists. In recent years, the space available for citizens’ actions has shrunk in many countries. Technology is empowering governments as much as citizens, notably to employ surveillance tools on their own populations – and sometimes those of other countries. Just as protestors are learning tactics from one another, anti- protest legislation is often inspired by experiences in other countries. A growing number of governments have implemented  measures imposing limits on peaceful assembly and protest, narrowing the definition of what is considered permissible civil society and media activity, banning civil society organizations from receiving foreign funds for certain activities, and making new registration inordinately complex.

What Can Be Done?

New Approaches and Risk-Resilience Strategies

A range of innovative responses by governments, businesses and civil society organizations can build resilience to the risk of social instability. Just as new technologies are playing a role in driving the risk, so can they also be used to mitigate it, minimizing the frustration of individuals and groups by creating a transparent and inclusive enabling environment with responsive forms of governance.  First, governments have the opportunity to re-empower citizens politically, opening up space for dialogue and participation, embracing transparency and accountability, and looking to enlist citizens as collaborators in public service. Bland “participation washing” approaches – described as the attitude of listening to requests but not actively addressing them – are not enough to truly contribute to more stable societies. Technology-based innovations could offer options to modernize public service management and delivery. Equally importantly, the creation of a trust based space for multi stakeholder partnerships represents a building block for effectively managing risks and successfully achieving good governance and inclusive development. The effectiveness of such approaches depends on successfully tackling e-exclusion . Second, businesses have opportunities to win trust, build resilience and minimize the risk of disruption by committing to transparency, responsibility and higher standards along their supply chains in areas such as worker rights and environmental sustainability, and by collaborating with citizens in new ways.

Under pressure to deliver more proactively and effectively on corporate social responsibility (CSR), businesses are going beyond traditional and often-criticized CSR models to look for economic opportunities in socially and environmentally conscious business models based on innovative and people-centred partnership approaches . A source of inspiration for engaging and empowering citizens could be the “citizen science” movement, in which scientists have found ways to use digital technologies to engage citizens in scientific research activity.

Conclusion

Fundamental demands are being expressed by people around the world, both as citizens and as consumers. Their hopes and expectations can potentially lead to improvements in governance and corporate systems, creating momentum to adapt new practices, norms and government policy. When other stakeholders listen, citizens can be enlisted to co-create the future they desire. That is the promise of the empowered citizen – but it is a promise that can be met only when the rate of transformation and innovation in government, business and civil society structures matches the rate of transformation in society itself.