Tasmania Can Use Scotland’s Blueprint to Renew

From Top-Down to Bottom-Up – A Blueprint for Tasmanian Democratic Renewal Drawing on the Scottish Experience

In a healthy democracy, the fundamental source of legitimacy is the consent of the governed. Yet, a persistent and corrosive model of governance endures – the top-down approach, where policy is designed in isolation by a centralised authority and imposed upon communities as a finished product.

This paradigm creates a vicious cycle of alienation; public dissent is dismissed as mere obstructionism and governments become entrenched, viewing their citizens as problems to be managed rather than partners in progress. The result is a profound democratic deficit, characterised by plummeting trust and political stagnation. The antidote is a genuine commitment to bottom-up community development—an approach that is not only more ethical but, as evidenced by international examples, a strategic imperative for political stability. For a politically fragile Tasmania, the Scottish experience provides a powerful, practical blueprint. By fusing Scotland’s empowering legislative model with the consensus-building power of citizen assemblies, Tasmania can embark on a transformative path toward democratic renewal.

The Scottish Blueprint – From Philosophy to Enforceable Right

Scotland’s transformation from a top-down to a community-powered polity offers critical lessons. This journey was catalysed by the seminal 2011 Christie Commission Report, established to address the twin crises of rising public service demand and diminishing resources. The report diagnosed systemic failure, concluding that the prevailing model was often “failing the people and communities it is meant to serve.” Its framework is built upon a set of social justice principles rooted in a commitment to reducing inequity:

· Empowerment: This moves beyond mere consultation to giving individuals and communities direct control over the design and delivery of the public services they use. It recognises that local knowledge is essential for creating effective, relevant solutions.
· Prevention: The report advocated for a fundamental shift in public spending towards “upstream” interventions that prevent negative outcomes, such as poor health or unemployment, rather than the far more costly “downstream” remediation. This is not just an efficiency measure but a more humane approach.
· Integration and Partnership: Christie highlighted the inefficiency and frustration caused by fragmented services. The principle demands collaboration between public, private and third-sector organisations to integrate service provision, reduce duplication and create seamless support systems for citizens.
· Performance: A focus on measurable outcomes, transparency and innovation ensures accountability. Success is redefined not by budgetary spend but by tangible improvements in community well-being.

Crucially, this philosophy was not left as a theoretical ideal.

It was given robust legislative teeth through the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

This Act is a practical toolkit for democratic renewal. It grants communities tangible rights, such as the ability to initiate ‘participation requests’ to influence local services, take control of neglected public assets through community asset transfers and shape local planning decisions. This legislation legally mandates the shift in power that Christie called for, transforming the state’s role from a director of services to a facilitator of community action. For example, communities have used these powers to revitalise abandoned buildings into community hubs, giving them direct agency over their local economy and social fabric.

The Tasmanian Paradox – Entrenchment Amidst Fragility

The structured, empowering approach learned from the Scottish experience stands in stark contrast to the political reality in Tasmania, where governance has become a case study in top-down failure. The handling of divisive issues such as salmon farming and the proposed AFL stadium in Hobart exemplifies this disconnect. Both projects have been characterised by a profound lack of transparency and accountability, with decisions perceived as being made behind closed doors, favouring corporate or political interests over community welfare and long-term sustainability.

This opacity has not quelled dissent but has actively eroded public trust. This erosion is compounded by a crisis of political choice.

The two major parties, once ideologically distinct, now often appear to share a similar commitment to neoliberal policies that prioritise narrow economic growth metrics over social and environmental well-being.

This convergence leaves voters perplexed and alienated, feeling the electoral system offers no genuine alternative for a different future. The government’s response to community pushback has typically been deeper entrenchment, exacerbating political divisions in a state already defined by its fragility—a reality underscored by three elections in five years and a perpetually unstable minority government.

Yet, this very fragility reveals a critical opportunity. The inherent weakness of a minority government—its lack of a guaranteed majority—can be its greatest strength if it chooses a different path. A government that cannot govern by decree is forced to build consensus. The traditional top-down approach is a direct route to gridlock and collapse, but a commitment to collaborative governance, inspired by international examples, is the key to survival and success.

A Strategic Synthesis – Augmenting the Scottish Model with Citizen Assemblies

Drawing on the Scottish experience, Tasmania’s path to renewal can be powerfully augmented by the democratic innovation of citizen assemblies. For a government in a precarious position, such bodies are not a concession but a strategic necessity. They serve three vital functions:

1. Legitimacy Beyond Partisanship – A minority government can use a citizen assembly’s recommendations to build a mandate that transcends party lines. By adopting a proposal shaped by a representative microcosm of the population, the government can frame parliamentary opposition as opposition to the public’s will, thereby de-risking contentious but necessary legislation.

2. Consensus-Building and De-risking – On ethically charged issues like natural resource management or major infrastructure spending, outsourcing the problem to a citizens’ assembly depoliticises the debate. It creates a protected space for evidence-based deliberation, free from the day-to-day media cycle and partisan point-scoring. The assembly’s final report provides a blueprint for cross-party compromise, allowing all sides to support a solution without losing face to direct rivals.

3. A Direct Channel to the Public – Bypassing a hostile parliament and a cynical media, a citizen assembly allows a government to demonstrate it is listening directly to the people. This builds public trust—a minority government’s most valuable currency—and strengthens its hand against parliamentary opponents by showcasing a commitment to genuine democracy.

This is not a theoretical concept. Nations like Denmark, with a long tradition of successful minority governments, have pioneered such mechanisms.

Its Borgerforslag (Citizen Proposal Portal) institutionalises public input; any proposal that gathers 50,000 signatures must be debated in parliament. This forces lawmakers to engage directly with popular sentiment, a crucial feedback loop for a government that must stay attuned to the public mood to survive.

Conclusion – Renewing Tasmanian Democracy by Drawing on the Scottish Experience

Tasmania stands at a crossroads. It can continue down the destructive path of top-down imposition, guaranteeing further political instability, community alienation and policy failure. Or, it can draw on the Scottish experience to embrace a new model of governance built on the powerful fusion of empowering legislation and the consensus-building power of citizen engagement.

This synthesis offers a way to break the Tasmanian Paradox.

By embedding the Christie principles of empowerment, prevention and partnership into a local context and by using citizen assemblies to navigate the state’s most divisive issues, the government can transform its fragility into a source of strength. The values needed for this shift—to Make a Difference, Act with Kindness, and Connect with People—are not just aspirational; they are strategic imperatives for survival and renewal. By choosing to listen, empower, and share power, Tasmania’s government would not be showing weakness.

It would be demonstrating the ultimate political strength – the confidence to trust the people it serves, thereby forging a future that is not only more stable and just, but truly democratic.

Image courtesy Philip-Bohle.

Steve Loring was a recent Legislative Council election candidate for the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and is a keen observer of the Tasmanian political scene. 

Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse presentation of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.

Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians. 

 New initiatives on the way include … what our contributors and readers suggest! Please get in touch with your suggestions.