The Congestion Charge Project: Designing an Engagement Project That Engages
Amira is an HL Global Politics student in a city of 2.1 million. The council has proposed a £6 daily congestion charge for the central zone, subject to a referendum of 180,000 registered voters in five months. Her engagement project must total 20 hours, including at least eight hours of political action, and must address a political issue with evidence of engagement, not just research. Her family runs a delivery van business, so she has a personal stake. Options include: (A) an online petition on a national platform that triggers a council debate at 10,000 signatures; (B) canvassing for the existing No Charge campaign in three wards, which needs teacher supervision off site; (C) three deliberative workshops with 60 randomly selected residents, costing £150 and requiring a venue, with recommendations submitted to the council consultation that closes in six weeks; (D) a survey of 200 classmates. The council has said it will consider consultation responses but is not bound by them.
1. Formulate a focused research question for Amira's engagement project and justify why it qualifies as political engagement rather than a survey.
Read the worked answer
Research question: To what extent does a youth-led deliberative workshop series influence the city council's consultation response on the proposed congestion charge, compared with an online petition?
Why it qualifies as political engagement:
- It involves an intervention: workshops and a submission, not just measurement.
- It has a theory of change: evidence plus citizen deliberation leads to council legitimacy and potential policy influence.
- It addresses a political issue: taxation, redistribution and the referendum.
- It requires reflection on power: who is heard, who decides, and whether consultation is binding.
Why not a survey: A survey of 200 classmates measures opinion. It does not attempt to influence a decision. The IA requires evidence of engagement, so the project must include an action with a target.
Feasibility: 20 hours is tight. Three workshops of 20 participants (60 total) is realistic; a petition can run in parallel. The six-week consultation deadline sets the timeline. The £150 budget covers a venue and refreshments.
Refinement: The question should specify the comparison, workshop participants versus petition signatories, and the outcome, the council response. A weaker version would be What do residents think about the charge? That is research, not engagement.
2. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of options A to D for achieving genuine political engagement.
Read the worked answer
A. Online petition.
- Strengths: low cost, scalable, public, and the 10,000 threshold is a clear target. It creates a public record.
- Weaknesses: slacktivism; signatures may be from outside the city; no deliberation; the council can debate and ignore it. It measures salience, not policy influence.
B. Canvassing for No Charge.
- Strengths: direct contact, mobilisation and coalition-building. It teaches persuasion.
- Weaknesses: it is not Amira's campaign; she is a foot soldier. It is partisan, and safeguarding requires supervision. It consumes 12 of 20 hours.
C. Deliberative workshops.
- Strengths: genuine engagement; produces reasoned recommendations; gives voice to residents; can influence the consultation. It is the strongest evidence of political engagement.
- Weaknesses: resource-intensive; 60 people is not representative; the council is not bound; recruitment bias.
D. Classmate survey.
- Weaknesses: research, not engagement; classmates are not voters; low external validity. It may still be useful as a baseline.
Judgement: A combination of A and C is strongest: use the petition to demonstrate public salience and recruit participants; use three workshops to deliberate and produce a submission. B is a fallback if the campaign invites her. D is a supporting method, not the project. The key criterion is whether the action attempts to influence a decision, not whether it produces data.
3. Explain how the project could demonstrate the syllabus concept of power in political engagement.
Read the worked answer
Three faces of power (Lukes):
- Decision-making power: The council has legal authority to set the charge and the referendum. Amira's project can influence, not decide.
- Non-decision-making: The council's consultation may be designed to legitimise a decision already taken. The fact that it is not bound is evidence. Amira can test this by asking whether the consultation includes the option of no charge, and whether the council has published its criteria.
- Agenda-setting: The framing of the issue as fairness for drivers versus clean air determines who participates. Amira's workshops can reframe the issue by including delivery workers and low-income residents.
Productive power: The discourse of a war on motorists can mobilise opposition; the discourse of public health can mobilise support. Amira's family van gives her a positionality that she must disclose: she is not neutral.
How the project demonstrates power:
- It exercises voice through petition and workshops.
- It tests access: does the council meet with the group?
- It documents non-decision-making: does the council ignore the submission?
- It reflects on legitimacy: who has the right to decide?
Judgement: The project is a study of power as much as an exercise of it. The best IA reflection would ask: did we change the decision, or did we change the terms of the debate? Both are forms of political engagement, but they are not the same.