Don Lenihan is Vice President, Engagement at the Public Policy Forum in Ottawa, Canada. He is an internationally recognized expert on democracy and public engagement, accountability and service delivery, with over 25 years of experience in the field. He is the author of numerous articles, studies and books. Don’s latest book, Rescuing Policy: The Case for Public Engagement, is published by the Public Policy Forum.

Do you think you’re a progressive? You can test yourself by answering these three questions:

Should progressive politics respect individual freedom? Does progressive politics require strong government leadership and action? Should progressive policies be the main goal of the progressive movement?

Done yet? Okay, now let’s take a closer look at each one and see how progressive you really are.

Basically, progressives believe that society advances over time — or at least that it can — and that politics should be at the vanguard of this movement. The idea dates back to the rise of modern science in the 16th and 17th centuries and may have found its full political expression in the French Revolution’s Liberté, égalité, fraternité. These three values also define the three main periods in the evolution of progressive politics.

In the first stage (the 17th and 18th centuries), progressives were busy battling feudalism. Their main challenge was to secure individual liberty by establishing basic rights, such as the freedoms of speech, association and religion. Today, pretty much all Canadians believe in these rights and would likely answer yes to Question 1.

However, history didn’t end with liberty. The ravages of 19th century capitalism gave rise to new issues and a second stage of progressive politics based on equality. Thinkers like John Stuart Mill argued that freedom of association or speech were essentially meaningless to someone living in a workhouse. For such a person to enjoy their freedom, claimed Mill, at least their basic needs must be met. Today progressives believe all citizens should have a fair chance to participate fully in society. This requires access to a range of social programs, from kindergarten to old age security, and progressives think government is responsible for this. Hence they will answer yes to Question 2).

Now we are entering a third stage of progressive politics, based on community (fraternité). Over the last few decades, the world has gotten smaller, faster and more interconnected. At the same time, policy makers have realized that issues such as poverty, climate change, healthcare or economic stability are much more complex than previously thought. Their roots spread out through society.

Thus, a good poverty reduction plan may deal with housing, food security and health care, but it may also need to address issues around social and economic inclusion, family support or self-esteem. This, in turn, means simple, one-size-fits-all solutions will fail. Today, progress requires a comprehensive plan, carried out by a range of organizations and citizens working together with government. And this is where community comes in.

To see why, let’s consider the Government of Nunavut. It recently concluded an innovative, year-long process on poverty reduction that engaged 22 of the Territory’s 25 communities. The result is enlightening. Rather than shrugging, people seized the opportunity to discuss how they could work together to reinvent their communities, and to consider how existing resources might be used differently. Their ideas were practical, innovative and promising. They demonstrated an intimate knowledge of their community’s issues and the resources and opportunities available within it to solve problems.

From the participants’ perspective, the process was a breath of fresh air. They said it allowed them to have such a discussion without being judged, contradicted or criticized by the “experts.” On matters of their own well-being, their future, and their hopes, the process made them feel that they were the experts. And, as experts, they suddenly had a lot to say.

There are two important lessons here for progressives. First, it is a mistake to assume, as many people do, that citizens don’t want to be involved in governance. If they seem disengaged, it is not because they are indifferent to the decisions governments make about them, but because the top-down, paternalistic way in which these decisions are made leaves them feeling powerless and irrelevant.

Second, communities are deep reservoirs of experience and knowledge, attachment and commitment. From a policy perspective, the bonds that link community members together are a relatively untapped source of motivation, resources and ideas. In an increasingly complex world where real solutions must match the needs and circumstances of the people affected, progressive policy needs to tap these wellsprings.

And so the answer to Question 3) is: No, progressive policy is not enough to ensure progress. This must be supported by a new progressive relationship with communities that leverages their social and human capital. (The term “communities” includes geographical, cultural and lingistic communities, as well as communities-of-interest.) In a nutshell, complex issues such as poverty or environmental protection call for a different kind of governance, one that is more bottom-up and less top-down.

This puts progressive politics in a new light. For the last two centuries, it has been defined by the tension between freedom and equality. While the Right focused on protecting individual freedoms, the Left struggled to balance liberty and equality. As we move into this third stage, a new governance dimension is emerging that cuts across the old Left-Right spectrum. It is defined by the tension between top-down and bottom-up governance, as follows:

We can conclude by saying that, in this third stage, the most progressive governments, organizations and people will be those whose centre of gravity is somewhere in the bottom, left-hand quadrant of the diagram. They are the ones seeking to engage communities of all sorts–geographcial, linguistic, cultural and communities-of-interest–in order to leverage the social captial within them.

Unfortunately, as things stand, many people, organizations and governments who call themselves progressive belong in the upper left-hand quadrant. From the community viewpoint, these “progressives” are really reactionaries who, whether they realize it or not, are resisting the kind of social and political change needed to move society forward. And that makes them part of the problem, rather than the solution.

Where are you?

To view other columns by Don Lenihan, click here.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.