Universities should be central to rebuilding communities

In polling published over the summer by Power to Change, half of Britons said that governments almost never put the country above party interests, and close to sixty per cent do not trust politicians to tell the truth, and more than seventy per cent felt they have little or no control over decisions affecting their communities.

Their report Closing the Void argues that the figures reflect not just policy failures – but the erosion of the social infrastructure that once connected citizens to politics.

It notes that for most of the twentieth century, parties drew strength from trade unions, clubs, faith groups and other local associations. But those institutions have waned, and parties have retreated from civic life into the machinery of the state.

The result is a “void” between politics and everyday life – citizens have become spectators rather than participants, and parties increasingly define themselves by delivery from government rather than rootedness in society.

Polling for the report suggests there is a way back. Involvement in associational organisations – from book clubs to unions, parent-teacher associations to community businesses – is consistently linked with higher levels of trust in government and political parties.

Members of at least one organisation are 16–17 points more likely to trust governments than non-members, and the effect strengthens with each additional membership. And those who organise or lead groups are nearly twice as trusting as the average Briton.

Size matters. Smaller, participatory groups like PTAs, community businesses and working men’s clubs generate the largest boosts in democratic satisfaction – while larger, more passive memberships like sports clubs or the National Trust have a weaker impact.

Crucially, it is not simply belonging but feeling part of a genuine community that makes the difference. Membership without a sense of connection delivers little trust dividend.

Out on the Labour Conference fringe, a new collection of essays published by Power to Change and the UCL Policy Lab argues that communitarianism should give communities the power to shape their own lives and institutions – reframing democracy as something rooted in everyday relationships and participation, not just voting every five years – and improving social cohesion (and tackling the rise of grievance politics and populism) as a result.

Universities ought to be all over this agenda – but here in Liverpool the UK HE sector seems to me much more concerned with proving its chops on economic growth than it does the role it might play in social cohesion.

The essays argue that Labour needs to revive institutions that are neither fully public nor private (clubs, co-ops, local associations). But if students are to be tomorrow’s community builders, the reality right now is that many have less time than ever to participate in clubs and societies. Long hours in part-time jobs to plug maintenance shortfalls, soaring housing costs, and the pressure to treat university as an individual investment mean that the social infrastructures on campus that once built solidarity and civic capacity are themselves under strain.

We shouldn’t see student participation in associational life as some kind of luxury. In Doing better, getting better: Getting a grip on the full-time student experience I argue that students should have the right to connect and contribute in civic and community life – where structured opportunities for social connection, volunteering, and peer leadership are recognised as integral to higher education rather than incidental.

Instead of reducing student participation to CV-building, I argue for statutory protections for student leaders at multiple levels, credit-bearing community engagement, and institutional investment in students’ unions and cultural life. At scale, students’ collective civic contribution could be transformative – worth millions of hours annually to communities, but only if universities reimagine their and their courses’ role as civic institutions as central to the education on offer.

If every full-time student undertook 5 ECTS credits worth a year learning from the contribution they can make to other students and their local communities, we’d be looking at a downpayment of 300m hours a year in effort and action – good for them, good for their communities, good for their universities

At the same time, university governance has travelled in the opposite direction of the communitarian turn. Rather than participative forums where students and staff have meaningful influence, we see increasingly technocratic governance obsessed with risk registers and commercial strategy. What gets squeezed out is precisely the sort of democratic practice – listening, bridging differences, building trust – that the essay collection identifies as essential to repairing Britain’s democratic fabric.

The broader challenge is that universities, like government, too often fall back on doing things for people. Their SUs increasingly have that tendency too. Occasionally they manage to do things with people – through partnerships, consultations or community projects – but far less attention is paid to enabling students and citizens to do things for themselves. The evidence suggests that the biggest trust dividends come when institutions create the space, time and power for active participation rather than passive receipt.

If universities want to claim they are producing active citizens, they will need to model associational life themselves – embedding democratic accountability in their governance, resourcing SUs and societies as genuine civic infrastructure, and recognising that the route to legitimacy runs not through glossy strategies but through meaningful everyday participation. Otherwise, they risk becoming part of society’s problems rather than part of the solutions.