In September 2023, the Home Office confirmed that fewer than one in four Windrush compensation claims had been fully processed, leaving many families waiting years for redress (Home Office, 2023). That same year, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry entered its sixth year, with survivors and bereaved families still struggling for accountability (Grenfell Inquiry, 2023). These examples demonstrate that the failures of British institutions are not isolated mistakes but structural patterns. Asking what decolonising politics mean in the UK means confronting why justice is so delayed and why trust is so low. The urgency is rooted in real human costs.
Decolonisation cannot be reduced to a branding exercise or a new diversity initiative. It must be understood as a project of redesign, not reform. Reform tweaks the system, while redesign rebuilds it from its foundations. This involves asking who makes decisions, under what authority, and with whose consent. Decolonising British politics requires these questions to be answered in radically different ways.
British democracy was never a neutral framework. It grew alongside the empire and was shaped by the logics of exclusion and hierarchy. Property law emerged from enclosure, criminalising people who had once depended on common land. Immigration rules continue to rank people’s worthiness based on their birthplace and wealth. These structures demonstrate that colonial hierarchies remain embedded in the present.
One stark example is policing. According to the Office for National Statistics, Black people in England and Wales are over seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than White people (ONS, 2022). Such disparities are not aberrations but legacies of racialised control that reach back to colonial policing practices. They reveal how systemic bias is maintained within supposedly neutral institutions. To decolonise is to dismantle these mechanisms rather than obscure them.
Decolonisation is not access—it is redesign. Representation alone does not suffice. Electing more diverse candidates or renaming streets in honour of marginalised figures can make visible gestures, but these actions do not restructure power. Decolonisation means shifting decision-making processes to centre reciprocity, care, and accountability. It calls for changing not only who sits at the table but how the table itself is built.
Public trust in political institutions continues to decline. The Hansard Society’s 2022 Audit of Political Engagement found that only 35% of Britons trust parliament to act in the public interest. This crisis of legitimacy cannot be solved by cosmetic reforms. It demands a deeper shift toward inclusive and participatory governance. Decolonisation offers the framework to rebuild faith in democracy through practices rooted in accountability and care.
The stakes become clearer when we connect historical injustices to present crises. The Windrush scandal, Grenfell Tower, and the “hostile environment” policy are not separate episodes. They are symptoms of a political culture that privileges efficiency and profit over dignity and justice. They highlight why Britain needs more than reform—it needs decolonisation. The continuity between past and present is the problem to be confronted.
Indigenous traditions offer examples of what such redesign could look like. From Māori practices of kaitiakitanga (guardianship) to Haudenosaunee consensus decision-making, these models show how governance can prioritise responsibility and reciprocity. The lesson for Britain is that democracy does not require being adversarial or extractive. It can be built around stewardship and shared responsibility. Decolonisation invites us to learn from these frameworks with humility.
Critics may argue that such ideas are unrealistic or incompatible with Britain’s institutions. They might point to the complexity of consensus or the difficulty of applying principles like Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) within existing planning law. Yet these critiques underestimate the adaptability of governance models. Indigenous systems have survived centuries of colonial suppression and still thrive today. They prove that alternative frameworks can endure and succeed.
Grounding this discussion in the UK makes the stakes more visible. The Climate Assembly UK (2020) demonstrated that citizens can engage deeply with policy when given the chance. Participants produced over 50 recommendations on reaching net zero, many of which the government has yet to act upon. This shows both the promise and the limits of participatory models within current structures. Decolonisation would expand and institutionalise such practices rather than treat them as experiments.
Decolonisation also requires confronting narratives of neutrality. Institutions often claim impartiality while producing unequal outcomes. A system that punishes some communities disproportionately while protecting others is not neutral. To decolonise is to expose these myths and replace them with transparency and accountability. It is about recognising harm and embedding repair.
To summarise, what decolonising politics means in the UK is a question of survival as well as justice. Climate collapse, inequality, and democratic disillusionment cannot be solved with the same frameworks that produced them. Indigenous political thought in the UK offers both critique and blueprint. It provides tested models of consensus, stewardship, and intergenerational responsibility. The question is not whether these lessons are relevant, but whether Britain dares to listen.
Lessons from indigenous political thought
Indigenous political traditions around the world have survived despite centuries of suppression, and they offer a living archive of alternatives to extractive governance. These systems emphasise reciprocity, care, and responsibility rather than competition and control. For a Britain in crisis, such traditions are not abstract curiosities but practical models. They demonstrate how politics can function differently while sustaining legitimacy. Decolonising British politics means learning from these frameworks without appropriating them.
One foundational principle is land stewardship. Māori traditions speak of kaitiakitanga—a responsibility to act as guardians of rivers, forests, and mountains, treating them as kin (Te Arawhiti, 2020). This is mirrored in Britain by campaigns in Wales and Scotland to grant rights to rivers such as the Frome and the Dee. These efforts show how indigenous ideas resonate in UK contexts grappling with the ecological crisis. They challenge the British assumption that land is merely an asset.
Justice provides another crucial lesson. In many indigenous societies, accountability is relational and restorative rather than punitive. Haudenosaunee governance emphasises balance, encouraging wrongdoers to repair harm instead of being cast out. In Britain, restorative justice pilots in schools and youth courts reflect these same principles. Early evaluations suggest reoffending rates drop when justice focuses on repair rather than punishment (Ministry of Justice, 2016).
Consensus-based decision-making is equally transformative. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy is often cited for its requirement that leaders deliberate until all voices are heard. Their maxim — “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation” — anchors decision-making in long-term responsibility. British democracy, by contrast, often rewards short-term wins and polarisation. Consensus models show that patience can produce more durable legitimacy.
Collective decision-making models also find echoes in Britain’s recent history. The Climate Assembly UK in 2020 brought together over 100 citizens to deliberate on climate policy. Participants reflected the country’s diversity and produced thoughtful recommendations, many more ambitious than party manifestos. The process built trust among participants and showed that consensus is possible at scale. Indigenous traditions help explain why such assemblies resonate: they align with collective rather than adversarial governance.
Another key contribution is the intergenerational horizon. Indigenous philosophies often frame political responsibility around those yet to be born. Decisions are weighed not only by immediate needs but by their impact on future generations. Wales’ Future Generations Act (2015) shows how this principle can be codified in UK law. The Act requires policymakers to consider long-term sustainability, echoing indigenous wisdom that democracy is not only for the living but for the unborn.
The integration of spirituality and politics also challenges British assumptions. Indigenous traditions often refuse the sharp divide between sacred and civic life. Rituals, stories, and ceremonies are part of governance because they embody values and responsibilities. In Britain, movements like Extinction Rebellion borrow from this approach, using art and ritual to frame political demands. These practices remind us that politics is always value-laden, even when it claims neutrality.
The role of elders and women in indigenous governance systems provides another lesson. Many traditions place elders as keepers of memory and women as central decision-makers. This disrupts patriarchal assumptions about authority. In Britain, where politics remains dominated by elite men, recognising different forms of wisdom would broaden legitimacy. Indigenous practices show how authority can be relational, not hierarchical.
Storytelling is also central to indigenous governance. Oral traditions preserve law, ethics, and history, ensuring that political values are remembered and renewed. Stories are not entertainment but living archives that guide behaviour. Britain has a growing movement of community history projects and public art initiatives that echo this role. Embedding cultural narratives into politics expands participation beyond technical expertise.
Importantly, indigenous traditions are not static or romanticised relics. They evolve in response to modern challenges. Sámi communities in Scandinavia have adapted governance structures to resist mining and climate change. First Nations in Canada use digital tools to embed traditional decision-making in contemporary contexts. These examples prove that resilience comes from adaptability, not nostalgia.
The plurality of indigenous traditions also matters. There is no single “indigenous” model, just as there is no single Western system. The value lies in the diversity of practices: consensus here, stewardship there, intergenerational responsibility elsewhere. Britain’s challenge is not to copy these systems wholesale but to learn principles that can be adapted ethically. Humility and reciprocity are essential to this process.
Ultimately, indigenous political thought UK is not about importing foreign traditions but about listening to voices already present. Britain is home to diasporic and indigenous communities who carry these philosophies in lived practice. Decolonisation means recognising their knowledge as theory, not merely as “testimony”. It requires placing these traditions alongside, not beneath, Western political theory. Doing so would open space for a democracy rooted in care, responsibility, and long-term sustainability.
From philosophy to action: applying indigenous lessons in Britain
Indigenous political traditions are not abstract theories; they are systems designed to guide everyday governance. To decolonise British politics, these philosophies must move from conceptual admiration to practical application. The question is how principles like stewardship, reciprocity, and consensus can be embedded in institutions that have long operated on extractive logics. Moving from philosophy to action requires both imagination and pragmatism. It also requires a willingness to challenge entrenched norms.
Land stewardship provides a clear starting point. Across the UK, community land trusts (CLTs) are showing how land can be managed collectively. East London CLT, founded in 2007, has delivered permanently affordable homes by pegging prices to local incomes rather than market rates (East London CLT, 2021). In Bristol, the CLT ensures rents remain no more than a third of median local earnings. These examples demonstrate how land stewardship and politics can reframe housing from commodity to common good.
Environmental governance is another area ripe for transformation. Indigenous movements and climate action remind us that care for land and water is a political responsibility, not charity. The UK’s Climate Assembly in 2020 reflected this, as citizens prioritised renewable energy, improved public transport, and dietary changes. Many of these recommendations were more ambitious than government policy, yet only partially implemented (Climate Assembly UK, 2020). Decolonising politics would require embedding such collective priorities into law.
Justice is also a domain where indigenous insights can be applied. Restorative justice pilots in Britain already show promising outcomes. The Ministry of Justice found that victims who took part in restorative programmes reported 85% satisfaction, while reoffending rates fell by 14% (MoJ, 2016). Indigenous justice models reinforce these findings by treating harm as relational rather than individual. Scaling such programmes nationally could embed healing justice at the heart of British democracy.
Decision-making processes must also change. Collective decision-making models for UK politics can be seen in participatory budgeting schemes. Glasgow’s 2019 programme engaged more than 70,000 residents in deciding how funds were allocated to local projects (PB Scotland, 2019). In Newham, London, residents in 2021 allocated £1.6m to community priorities through a participatory process. These initiatives show how indigenous principles of consensus and shared responsibility can work in practice.
Critics argue that consensus is too slow for modern politics. Yet evidence from citizens’ assemblies suggests otherwise. While the Climate Assembly UK took months to deliberate, its recommendations enjoyed broad legitimacy and durability among participants. By contrast, rapid parliamentary decisions—such as those around Brexit—have led to years of instability. Speed is not always strength; durability matters more in crises.
A feasibility challenge arises around Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC). Enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, FPIC requires that communities give genuine consent before projects affecting their land proceed. In Britain, planning law currently emphasises consultation, which often amounts to token engagement. Integrating FPIC would require reform, but pilot schemes could be tested in local councils to gauge effectiveness. This shift would anchor decisions in consent, not consultation.
Cultural practice is another domain of application. Indigenous systems often embed art, ritual, and storytelling into governance. Britain could follow suit by using public art and performance as democratic tools. Murals that tell local histories, theatre that stages political debate, and community archives can strengthen participation. This widens the scope of what democracy looks like in everyday life.
Education must also carry this work forward. British schools and universities could embed anti-colonial political theory and decolonial philosophy in UK curricula. Lessons on indigenous governance models would equip students with critical frameworks beyond Westminster traditions. Such education would prepare young people to govern with sustainability and reciprocity in mind. It would also challenge the myth that Western systems are the only models of democracy.
Public health can benefit from these applications. Indigenous healing models emphasise community well-being and collective responsibility. In Britain, austerity has weakened the NHS, leaving communities vulnerable. Embedding preventive care and mental health support through collective approaches would reflect indigenous wisdom. It would also reduce long-term costs by addressing root causes rather than symptoms.
The digital sphere requires decolonial application as well. Data, like land, must be stewarded responsibly. Community data trusts—already being piloted in the UK—offer a way for citizens to govern their digital footprints collectively. This aligns with indigenous understandings of stewardship as care for shared resources. Embedding consent and accountability in data governance would bring digital life into line with democratic values.
Ultimately, moving from philosophy to action is about political courage. Britain already has examples—CLTs, participatory budgeting, restorative justice—that demonstrate feasibility. What remains is the will to embed these models nationally and treat them as central, not peripheral. Indigenous political thought in the UK provides a tested blueprint for this transformation. The question is not whether Britain can act, but whether it will choose to.
Reclaiming democracy: a blueprint for decolonised politics
Decolonisation is often mistaken for a cultural project, but it is fundamentally political. It asks whether Britain’s democracy, as it currently stands, is legitimate or sustainable. The failures of Windrush, Grenfell, and hostile environment policies suggest otherwise. To rebuild trust, Britain needs more than incremental reform. It needs a blueprint rooted in care, reciprocity, and accountability.
Decolonisation and democracy together imply transformation, not patchwork repair. Reform fixes surface cracks, while transformation rebuilds foundations. A decolonised democracy questions who holds authority, how consent is secured, and what values underpin decisions. This involves reshaping not only policies but also political culture. The blueprint is not utopian but practical.
Land stewardship stands as one of its pillars. In East London, a community land trust has delivered permanently affordable homes tied to median incomes rather than volatile market rates (East London CLT, 2021). This model reframes housing as a right and community asset. It echoes indigenous philosophies that land is relation, not commodity. Scaling such models could transform housing justice across the UK.
Justice reform forms another essential element. Restorative justice pilots in Britain show that addressing harm relationally works. The Ministry of Justice reported a 14% reduction in reoffending among participants and 85% victim satisfaction (MoJ, 2016). Embedding indigenous justice models would repair, not punish, the system’s guiding principle. This blueprint redefines justice as community care.
Decision-making must also be redesigned. The Climate Assembly UK (2020) demonstrated how citizens, given time and resources, could reach ambitious climate recommendations. Glasgow’s participatory budgeting engaged 70,000 residents to allocate resources in line with community priorities (PB Scotland, 2019). These examples prove that collective decision-making models are not theoretical but feasible. A decolonised democracy would institutionalise them nationally.
A blueprint for democracy also requires new measures of prosperity. GDP, long treated as the standard, fails to reflect inequality, ecological harm, or well-being. Indigenous philosophies measure wealth in balance, reciprocity, and the health of the community. Wales’ Well-being of Future Generations Act (2015) reflects this principle, mandating that policy decisions consider long-term sustainability. This law is a concrete UK precedent for intergenerational responsibility.
Climate justice must be embedded in the heart of this blueprint. Britain continues to license new oil and gas projects in the North Sea, despite climate science warnings. A decolonised democracy would legislate a moratorium on new fossil fuel licences and redirect subsidies to renewables. It would treat biodiversity restoration and flood prevention as democratic obligations. Indigenous movements and climate action remind us that survival depends on stewardship.
Legal frameworks must also evolve. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, requires that communities give meaningful consent before projects affect their land. In Britain, planning law currently offers consultation without binding power. Integrating FPIC would mean shifting to consent as a legal standard. This principle could be piloted in local planning schemes to build precedent.
Cultural life belongs firmly within the blueprint. Indigenous governance often embeds storytelling, ritual, and art in decision-making. In Britain, cultural practices like community murals, public storytelling events, and participatory theatre could enrich democratic life. Politics would not be confined to Westminster debates but would live in shared spaces. Culture becomes a democratic practice, not a luxury.
Representation must also be rethought. Reserved seats for historically excluded communities, rotating leadership, and formal recognition of elders’ knowledge are possible tools. These disrupt entrenched privilege and broaden legitimacy. They remind us that representation is not symbolic but structural. Authority becomes distributed rather than concentrated. This aligns with decolonial principles of shared responsibility.
Digital democracy is another frontier. Data can be understood as a collective resource, much like land. Community data trusts, piloted in parts of the UK, allow citizens to govern their digital identities collectively. This reframes technology as a tool of accountability rather than exploitation. It ensures that digital governance aligns with democratic values of consent and transparency.
Ultimately, reclaiming democracy requires courage to imagine beyond tradition. The blueprint combines land stewardship, healing justice, collective decision-making, cultural renewal, and digital accountability. It is ambitious but grounded in existing UK practices and indigenous wisdom. By centring care over control, it offers resilience against crises of legitimacy and climate collapse. Consent, not consultation, must anchor public decisions.
Land stewardship and politics in practice
In Britain, land has long been treated as property to be bought, sold, and speculated on. This approach originates in the enclosures of the 18th and 19th centuries, which stripped communities of access to common resources. Today, speculative markets keep homes empty while families face housing precarity. Land stewardship and politics offer an alternative that reframes land as a relation, not a commodity. Decolonisation insists that land is cared for collectively rather than hoarded.
Community land trusts (CLTs) demonstrate what stewardship looks like in practice. The East London CLT was the first of its kind in the UK, delivering permanently affordable homes pegged to local wages rather than volatile market rates (East London CLT, 2021). In Bristol, the CLT model ensures that residents pay no more than a third of their household income in rent. These initiatives challenge the logic of profit-driven development. They root affordability in community, not speculation.
For residents, the impact is deeply personal. One Bristol CLT tenant explained that moving into a secure, affordable home “meant stability for the first time in years” and allowed their family to stay in their neighbourhood. Such stories illustrate how stewardship translates policy into lived security. Housing is no longer a speculative asset but a foundation for community resilience. These vignettes reveal the human dimension of political redesign.
Stewardship also reshapes rural landscapes. Britain’s industrial agriculture has depleted soils and damaged biodiversity. Rewilding projects, such as those at the Knepp Estate in West Sussex, show another path. Since the estate shifted to ecological restoration, nightingales, turtle doves, and purple emperor butterflies have returned in significant numbers (Knepp Wildland, 2020). These gains reveal how stewardship restores both ecosystems and cultural heritage.
The principle of stewardship also challenges the concentration of land ownership. In Britain, less than 1% of the population owns more than half the land (Shrubsole, 2019). This imbalance entrenches power in aristocratic estates and private corporations. A decolonised politics would use taxation, redistribution, and regulation to challenge this privilege. Such reforms shift land from inherited wealth to collective responsibility.
Urban planning is another site of application. Cities often prioritise commercial development over human needs. A stewardship approach would foreground green spaces, accessible housing, and shared infrastructure. It would also make climate adaptation central to planning. In practice, this could mean designing flood-resilient housing and community gardens as civic priorities.
Stewardship connects directly to climate justice. Indigenous movements and climate action stress that ecosystems are not resources to exploit but living partners. In Britain, floods, heatwaves, and biodiversity loss make this lesson urgent. Embedding stewardship into climate policy would align adaptation with democratic accountability. This approach insists that survival is a collective responsibility, not a private choice.
Education is essential for embedding stewardship across generations. Schools could teach ecological responsibility as a civic duty, not lifestyle branding. Curricula could integrate indigenous political thought in the UK to show how governance systems have long linked care for land with justice. Fieldwork in rewilding projects or CLTs could make these lessons tangible. Education would ensure stewardship is normalised as part of democracy.
Stewardship also opens possibilities for cultural renewal. Land in indigenous traditions often carries stories, songs, and rituals that encode law. In Britain, community arts projects are beginning to revive similar practices, linking culture with place. Public murals, storytelling festivals, and oral histories can anchor land in collective memory. This cultural dimension ensures stewardship is more than technical—it is lived.
Policy tools already exist to support stewardship. Land value taxation, zoning laws, and cooperative ownership models can shift incentives from speculation to care. Some councils are already experimenting with such tools. The challenge is scaling them nationally with political will. Indigenous frameworks offer both ethical grounding and practical strategies for doing so.
Critics may argue that stewardship is incompatible with Britain’s legal system. Yet the very existence of CLTs, rewilding projects, and progressive planning schemes proves otherwise. The question is not feasibility but expansion. Decolonising politics would take these small-scale successes and embed them into national frameworks. Stewardship would move from the margins to the mainstream.
Ultimately, land stewardship and politics demonstrate that democracy is ecological as well as social. By treating land as a collective relation, Britain can make housing fairer, restore biodiversity, and confront climate collapse. The shift is both moral and material, reshaping daily life as much as institutions. Communities gain security, ecosystems regain resilience, and politics regain legitimacy. Decolonisation here is not theory but practice.
Healing justice and indigenous models of accountability
British politics has long equated justice with punishment. From overfilled prisons to the expansion of surveillance, the system invests heavily in control rather than repair. Yet these investments have not reduced harm or built safer communities. Overcrowding, reoffending, and distrust reveal the limits of punitive models. Indigenous justice models offer an alternative rooted in healing and accountability.
Healing justice begins with the recognition that harm is relational. Rather than isolating individuals, it asks how communities themselves can be repaired. Accountability becomes an active process where those responsible for harm must make amends. This requires dialogue, restitution, and reintegration rather than exclusion. The goal is restoration, not retribution.
A restorative justice circle in a London secondary school illustrates the power of this approach. After a fight between two pupils escalated, both were brought together with their families and a facilitator. Instead of suspension, the circle produced an agreement: an apology, peer mentoring, and support from staff. Teachers reported improved behaviour and relationships in the months that followed. This vignette shows how relational justice strengthens community bonds.
Indigenous traditions formalise this principle. Haudenosaunee governance, for example, prioritises balance, ensuring that conflicts are resolved through collective processes. Māori communities also practice whakatika, a concept of putting things right through acknowledgement and repair. These examples emphasise that justice is not a courtroom procedure but a community responsibility. Indigenous perspectives on democracy and justice remind us that fairness must be relational.
The Ministry of Justice has piloted restorative justice in parts of England and Wales. Its 2016 evaluation found that reoffending rates dropped by 14% for those who participated, while victim satisfaction reached 85% (MoJ, 2016). These outcomes reveal that relational models are not only ethical but effective. By comparison, the punitive system continues to generate high reoffending rates. Evidence makes the case for scaling restorative practices nationally.
Britain’s current system reproduces racial inequalities. Black and migrant communities are disproportionately policed, prosecuted, and incarcerated. This pattern reflects colonial logics of control rather than justice. Healing justice disrupts these cycles by decentralising authority and empowering communities to lead. Decolonisation requires dismantling structures that perpetuate racialised harm.
Critics often argue that restorative justice is too lenient. Yet indigenous justice models show that facing those harmed can be more difficult than serving a sentence. Offenders must acknowledge harm, apologise, and commit to concrete repair. This process demands courage and accountability, not avoidance. Far from being “soft,” healing justice is rigorous.
Applying these lessons in Britain would require a reallocation of resources. Money currently directed to prisons could fund community-led restorative programmes, mental health care, and housing support. Such investments address the root causes of harm instead of its symptoms. Indigenous frameworks insist that justice is inseparable from well-being. A decolonised politics would embed this principle into law and policy.
The idea of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) also belongs here. Recognised under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, FPIC requires communities’ genuine agreement before decisions affecting them are made. While often discussed in relation to land, FPIC can also guide justice reform. Communities should consent to how harm is addressed and how resources are deployed. This shifts justice from imposed solutions to shared responsibility.
Healing justice also extends to environmental harm. Indigenous movements frame climate action frame ecological destruction as violence against communities and future generations. Accountability here means restoring rivers, forests, and soils, not just punishing corporations with fines. In the UK, this could mean legally mandating polluters to fund ecological repair projects. Justice becomes inseparable from ecological stewardship.
Education is vital for embedding these values. Schools can integrate restorative practices into conflict resolution and civic education. Universities can teach decolonial philosophy and indigenous justice theories as part of legal studies. Such curricula prepare future generations to value repair over punishment. They also normalise relational approaches from an early age.
Ultimately, healing justice reframes what it means to be safe. Safety is not the absence of crime but the presence of care. Accountability is no longer a top-down imposition but a community-driven process. Community becomes the unit of justice, not the individual offender or victim alone. This vision, rooted in indigenous thought, offers Britain a path out of cycles of harm.
Collective decision-making models for UK politics
British politics has long relied on adversarial traditions. Parliamentary debates are staged as contests, with parties competing to dominate rather than collaborate. This model often alienates citizens who feel their voices are absent from the process. Collective decision-making models offer an alternative grounded in consensus and shared responsibility. They show how politics can be less about winning and more about building agreement.
Consensus is at the heart of many indigenous governance systems. The Haudenosaunee Confederacy is one of the most cited examples, requiring leaders to deliberate until agreement is reached. Their principle — “In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation” — highlights long-term responsibility. This approach contrasts sharply with Britain’s short-term electoral cycles. Indigenous traditions prove that patience in decision-making can strengthen legitimacy.
Britain has already experimented with collective models. The Climate Assembly UK in 2020 brought together 108 randomly selected citizens to deliberate on climate policy. Participants represented diverse backgrounds and produced over 50 recommendations, including strong support for renewable energy and improved public transport (Climate Assembly UK, 2020). Many recommendations were more ambitious than party platforms. The process demonstrated the potential of consensus-driven politics.
Participatory budgeting is another example. Glasgow’s 2019 programme engaged more than 70,000 residents in deciding how public funds should be allocated to local projects (PB Scotland, 2019). In Newham, London, residents distributed £1.6 million in community budgets during 2021. These initiatives gave citizens direct control over decisions that affect their daily lives. They embody collective decision-making models for UK politics in action.
For participants, the impact is transformative. One Newham resident described participatory budgeting as “the first time my voice really mattered in local government.” Such experiences counter feelings of disillusionment with politics. They show that citizens’ assemblies and budgeting schemes can renew trust. They also prove that ordinary people are capable of handling complex political questions.
Critics argue that consensus is too slow or impractical for modern governance. Yet the speed of adversarial politics often produces fragile outcomes. Brexit negotiations, for example, were rushed through partisan conflict and remain politically unstable. Consensus processes, while slower, create durable agreements that withstand challenges. In crises, durability is often more valuable than speed.
Digital tools can support consensus-based approaches. Online platforms now allow citizens to deliberate, vote, and map policy proposals transparently. These tools, if designed ethically, can expand participation and accountability. Indigenous philosophies remind us, however, that technology must serve community rather than erode it. Digital democracy must prioritise accessibility, transparency, and collective consent.
Education also plays a vital role in embedding these practices. Schools could integrate consensus-building exercises and conflict resolution training into civic curricula. Young people would then see democracy as a lived skill, not an abstract idea. Youth councils could model collective decision-making in practice. Such preparation ensures the next generation values inclusivity and cooperation.
Institutional culture must also shift. Britain’s political tradition prizes competition, but decolonising politics requires valuing cooperation. Rotating leadership, another practice common in indigenous systems, prevents concentration of authority. Applying this to councils or committees would distribute responsibility more evenly. It would challenge the entrenchment of elite political careers.
Legal frameworks could support these changes. Citizens’ assemblies could be embedded into parliamentary procedure with binding authority on specific issues. Participatory budgeting could be mandated for a fixed percentage of local council budgets. These reforms would transform consultation into consent-based governance. They would institutionalise practices that currently exist only as pilots.
The plurality of voices in collective decision-making strengthens democracy. By including marginalised communities, assemblies, and budgeting ensure policies reflect diverse realities. This directly addresses the disconnection many feel from Westminster politics. Indigenous traditions show that legitimacy comes from shared responsibility, not from dominance. Britain can learn to make inclusivity its strength.
Ultimately, collective decision-making reframes politics itself. It becomes less about managing conflict and more about nurturing relationships. Consensus strengthens community while preserving difference. Citizens’ assemblies and participatory budgeting prove these models are possible in the UK. Decolonising politics means scaling them from experiments to everyday governance.
Towards a decolonised British politics
Decolonising British politics is not a symbolic gesture but a structural project. It requires redesigning institutions that continue to reproduce colonial hierarchies and inequalities. From housing insecurity to racialised policing, the failures are systemic. Indigenous political thought offers a roadmap for transformation rooted in care, reciprocity, and accountability. The question is whether Britain dares to take it.
The urgency could not be clearer. The Grenfell Inquiry and the Windrush scandal reveal the costs of inaction. Climate breakdown adds another layer of crisis, demanding governance that looks beyond electoral cycles. Democracy cannot survive on surface reforms alone. It must evolve into a system capable of repairing harm and sustaining future generations.
This article has traced lessons from land stewardship, healing justice, and collective decision-making. Each offers practical guidance, not just philosophical critique. CLTs in London and Bristol show how stewardship secures affordable homes. Restorative justice pilots in schools and youth courts reduce harm and build trust. Citizens’ assemblies and participatory budgeting demonstrate consensus in practice. These models prove that alternatives already exist.
Yet the work is not without challenges. Critics warn that consensus is slow, or that Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) may conflict with existing planning law. These are not reasons to dismiss transformation but invitations to innovate. Pilot projects, legal reforms, and community partnerships can test and refine these ideas. Transformation is a process, not a single act.
Decolonisation also requires cultural change. Britain must confront myths of neutrality and accept that all politics rests on values. By naming and embedding values of reciprocity and care, democracy can regain legitimacy. This means integrating storytelling, art, and cultural memory into public life. Politics becomes a practice rooted in community rather than spectacle.
The stakes extend to future generations. Wales’ Future Generations Act shows that intergenerational responsibility can be written into law. Indigenous traditions remind us that decisions should consider the impact seven generations. Britain can embed this horizon into policy-making. Climate and ecological survival depend on such long-term accountability.
For readers, the blueprint becomes actionable through three steps: Learn, Practice, Advocate. Learn from resources such as Shared Assets, Democracy Matters, and UK-based CLTs. Practice by engaging with local citizens’ assemblies, participatory budgeting sessions, or restorative justice initiatives. Advocate by supporting organisations that challenge extractive governance and build alternatives. These steps make decolonisation a lived commitment.
Learning is the foundation. Without knowledge, action risks appropriation or superficiality. Engaging with indigenous scholarship, UK policy experiments, and grassroots campaigns grounds action in respect and reciprocity. Reading, listening, and citing indigenous voices is a political act in itself. Knowledge is a tool for transformation.
Practising embeds change in daily life. Attending a local assembly, voting in a participatory budget, or volunteering with a CLT demonstrates democracy beyond Westminster. These practices make politics tangible and relational. They show that citizens can co-create decisions rather than passively receive them. Practice is where theory becomes life.
Advocacy scales these efforts into systemic change. Supporting policy campaigns for FPIC, affordable housing, or climate adaptation pushes decolonial principles into law. Backing organisations like the Bristol CLT, Restorative Justice Council, or Extinction Rebellion ensure movements have resources to grow. Advocacy transforms isolated projects into national shifts. It is how redesign becomes reality.
Decolonisation is not a one-time reform but a long process of rebalancing. It requires vigilance against co-optation and commitment to sustained change. Indigenous philosophies remind us that resilience lies in adaptation, not rigidity. By embedding care, reciprocity, and accountability, Britain can build institutions capable of surviving a crisis. The path is difficult but necessary.
Ultimately, the choice is collective. Britain can cling to extractive traditions that reproduce harm, or it can commit to building a democracy that heals, restores, and sustains. The blueprint exists in the practices already tested across the UK and informed by indigenous wisdom worldwide. Consent, not consultation, must anchor public decisions. Decolonising British politics means choosing redesign over reform — and beginning now.
References
Borrows, J. (2016). Freedom and Indigenous constitutionalism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Climate Assembly UK. (2020). The path to net zero: Climate Assembly UK final report. Retrieved from https://www.climateassembly.uk
East London Community Land Trust. (2021). East London CLT: Community-led affordable housing. Retrieved from https://www.eastlondonclt.co.uk
Grenfell Tower Inquiry. (2023). Progress update report. Retrieved from https://www.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk
Hansard Society. (2022). Audit of political engagement 19. London: Hansard Society.
Home Office. (2023). Windrush compensation scheme statistics, September 2023. London: UK Home Office.
International Labour Organization. (1989). Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, C169. Geneva: ILO.
Knepp Wildland. (2020). Wildland project outcomes. Retrieved from https://knepp.co.uk
Ministry of Justice. (2016). Restorative justice action plan for the criminal justice system. London: HM Government.
Office for National Statistics. (2022). Stop and search data tables, England and Wales, 2022. London: ONS.
PB Scotland. (2019). Glasgow participatory budgeting evaluation. Retrieved from https://pbscotland.scot
Shrubsole, G. (2019). Who owns England? How we lost our land and how to take it back. London: William Collins.
Te Arawhiti. (2020). Guidance on kaitiakitanga: Māori concepts of guardianship. Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Government.
United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). New York: United Nations.
Welsh Government. (2015). Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Cardiff: Welsh Government.
Whitt, L. A. (1996). The role of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy in the development of the U.S. Constitution. Native American Studies, 10(2), 45–67.
Wilson, S., & Stewart, D. (2018). Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. Canberra: ANU Press.
Keep Independent Voices Alive!
Rock & Art – Cultural Outreach is more than a magazine; it’s a movement—a platform for intersectional culture and slow journalism, created by volunteers with passion and purpose.
But we need your help to continue sharing these untold stories. Your support keeps our indie media outlet alive and thriving.
Donate today and join us in shaping a more inclusive, thoughtful world of storytelling. Every contribution matters.”
