Back to the future? The Civil Society Covenant: a new era of civic values or business as usual?

On the 17th July 2025 the UK Government announced their policy for a ‘Civil Society Covenant’, setting out a ‘new principles-based arrangement for re-setting the relationship between UK Government and civil society’. This centres on a commitment to value a range of inputs made on a voluntary basis, whether this be in terms of time, money or knowledge. Such announcements relating to active citizens and the role of voluntarism are often presented by government to position civil society actors as “part of the fabric of our nation” and included in this embrace are a wide range of volunteers, groups, charities, faith organisations, co-operatives, trade unions, philanthropists, social enterprises and social investors. A very large chunk of society overall.

The ‘Covenant’ states that government will “promote participation and inclusion by involving people in decisions that affect their lives, ensuring their voices are heard and removing barriers to democratic participation”. This sets up a strong position, which appears to promote greater democratic engagement. Cutting to the chase then, the concern is that this type of political rhetoric can mask the reality of the main policy goals and agendas being pursued by administrations. The present government have made it clear that they intend to pursue a growth agenda – so how does this dovetail? The policy agenda of the David Cameron Conservative-led coalition government in 2010 brought us ‘Big Society’ and the Localism Act 2011 but this was accompanied by a wide and deep public sector austerity agenda and push to drive growth.

The Starmer-led Labour government – and its overall mission to deliver economic growth and 1.5 million homes by the end of the Parliament, and now this Covenant, is in many ways a continuation. If we take local environment and development as a focal point here, then we can see the ongoing discrepancy. The recent Planning and Infrastructure Bill has focussed on speed and delivery to unlock growth, and includes several measures that seek to actively reduce opportunities for public consultation and inputs (such as for large infrastructure projects and housing schemes), as well as limiting representative democracy, for instance by reducing the role of elected councillors. Something isn’t adding up somehow.
We can also note the recent withdrawal of funding for statutory neighbourhood planning – an important plank of the 2011 Localism Act. This has been a means for local people to have some control over development in their local area (but only where this supported additional development). A debate was held on the practical demise of this policy in Westminster just last week.​​While the Covenant contains a welcome message from government about the value of active civic engagement, the use of ‘community empowerment’ rhetoric and policy can be a cynical salve to avoid criticism for other more ‘important’ government objectives. The virtues of civic society are extolled by many politicians, these appear contingent and are typically channelled via pre-determined activities. And so, it is important to keep in view the broader system-wide policy agenda being pursued by the present UK government. While the recently published Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill will provide more opportunities for local representation through mayors, the reintroduction of strategic planning and local government reorganisation raises further questions around how ‘effective neighbourhood governance’ and ‘democratic participation’ will fit; more work for the ongoing Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods to consider.
​
​Beyond questions of the relative importance placed on active citizenship and community engagement, we might also be concerned about the increase of unpaid labour among the population in the face of growing economic insecurity and inequality. There is a clear ethical and moral dimension here – the encouragement of voluntarism appear benign but unfulfilled claims regarded democratic engagement and exploitation of volunteer time will only further serve to undermine public trust. Rather than ‘resetting’ the relationship between people and government this can deepen a worrying divide. Following sustained government promises that have often fallen short of the mark over the past half century we would advise a very cautious scepticism here and simultaneously encourage civil society actors to voice about the need to keep government accountable across policy fields given such offerings.