“Weather the storm” and “batten down the hatches” are common terms used in recession survival language. Here’s a quote from my local Chambers of Commerce:

“The package offers practical help and solutions to a range of businesses and sectors in the city, aiming to help them survive the economic downturn.”

Clearly there are times when companies need focus on surviving and this kind of advice is especially useful in a recession. But I’d ask business owners to think carefully before they subscribe to a survival mentality within their businesses.

An event I went to run by Shirlaws (I’m a client) focussed on how to “thrive” in a recession. To boil the jist down into a couple of sentences, a recession is largely caused by how the market feels at a particular time; when it lacks confidence. This happens when a significant proportion of businesses lack confidence, fund managers sense this and investors pull out. A confident business in a recession can take advantage of the opportunities a recession provides.

How individuals feel at the micro-level (owners and staff) has an impact right the way up the chain through businesses and sectors to the markets.

So when it comes down to it as a business owner it’s my job to maintain confident energy in the business whatever the economic climate; recession or boom. If the company feels confident (and the underlying business is solid) then it stands a much better chance when the market and other businesses are depressed and should naturally make full use of the boom when it comes along.

It also highlighted some interesting issues about the engagement of UK (and European) citizens with the process of e-Democracy. There was a general consensus from the people I spoke to that although there has been a lot of implementation of various e-Democracy tools i.e. consultation sites, forums, petitions, blogs et al, that when it comes to the more formal consultation processes there is a lack of public engagement across the UK. In short though the tools are often in place, people are not getting involved.

One obvious reason is that although the tools are there, people (citizens in .gov speak) do not know about them. You could answer that by saying, well there wasn’t enough marketing, but I think that’s missing the underlying cause. This tells me that in the public sector, central government and parliament there is a lack of understanding of the philosophy of e-Democracy; the tools exist to create a more transparent and democratic form of governance, however, the implications of their use are not properly understood and maybe even feared.

For example, if one were to ask the question, “When a public consultation is published and available to respond online how are the results of that consultation communicated back to those who have responded?” I’m certain there would be no standard answer, at best I imagine that a PDF of the ensuing policy gets posted to the consultation website and perhaps an email is sent to me.

Which brings me onto my second point. To spend time and engage with government online, as a member of the public I need to trust that my voice will be heard. I want to know how consultations are conducted. How the results of those consultations are compiled and analysed. How decisions are then made. And finally, to know how my contribution has helped and been valued.

If there was a clear process across-government and the public sector about how public consultation worked it would then be much easier to communicate to the public about how to engage with government, how to have their say outside of elections.

The new tools available to us that can help government engage with members of the public are doing little more than throw into sharp contrast what has for a long time been the case: the process of governance is not clear to people, including those in power.

I think the challenge to the government and the civil service therefore is to reengage with the processes of democracy; the technologies can only add value if these are better understood.