The review of social cohesion risks is contained in ‘The Khan Review: executive summary, key findings and recommendations’. It sets out the reasons for current challenges to social coherence and explains why it is a key risk: “Disillusionment with democracy, the emergence and growth of social media and artificial intelligence, the spread of disinformation and deep fakes; and the mainstreaming of extremism has profound consequences for democratic nations. How we preserve social cohesion while preventing, managing, and responding to these challenges is fast becoming one of the most important questions of our time.”
Social cohesion threatens the structure of society, as well as democracy itself; and, by implication, it threatens the organizations and businesses that operate within society. As social cohesion breaks down, so the risks of costly civil unrest grow.
“Rather than high risk and acute threats such as terrorism, cyber security, and foreign state interference, many of the cohesion risks I identify are chronic, insidious, and often sit below the radar; the impact of which is not actively measured or even fully appreciated,” says report author Dame Sara Khan.
In the following article, frequent Resilience Forward contributor, Robert Hall, gives his take on the Khan Review.
Social Cohesion and Resilience – The Khan Review
The Khan Review was published by the UK government on 25 March. It offers a detailed analysis of the state of play in the UK and provides some important recommendations. How many are adopted by government will be telling. It is well worth a read – if only confined to the Executive Summary – as it raises issues that affect us all – and not just those in the UK.
Two short extracts give a flavour of the report. First, ‘Disillusionment with democracy and distrust of its institutions and the political elite; the economic, cultural and social dislocation people and communities experience; and threatening forms of harassment and censorship cannot be ignored.’ Second, ‘Social unrest and the erosion of democratic freedoms do not happen overnight, and acting to mitigate against such threats through early intervention is critical. Prevention is far more effective than cure, and prevention comes in the form of long-term work to build cohesion and resilience over time, as well as deploying pre-emptive interventions to early warning signs.’ Here is, first, the motive for action and, second, the way to respond: prevention and preparation are key elements of resilience.
In trying to identify solutions, the author believes that there is ‘no strategic approach within Whitehall’ to social cohesion and democratic resilience. Sara Khan reports that: ‘Neither the National Risk Register or the National Resilience Framework adequately address the chronic cohesion and democratic threats this Review has identified.’ In response, the author calls for a new approach to ensure we harness the many benefits while also ensuring we have the capability to identify and respond to new trends and threats. Hence, the first recommendation of the review is to: ‘establish and fund an independent, impartial Office for Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience (OSCDR)’ while the second calls for the government to publish: ‘a 5-year Social Cohesion and Democratic Resilience Strategy (SCDR) and Action Plan, with long-term objectives alongside the Levelling Up Strategy. An integration strategy should be distinct from the SCDR strategy.’ There are 13 other recommendations in the report.
The suggestions chime with calls from other quarters for further improvements to the UK’s approach to national resilience. To develop the current Resilience Framework into a fully-fledged strategy would allow the direction of travel to be fleshed-out (particularly with regards to the ‘whole-of-society’ concept) and placed on a par with other key government strategies such as the Biological Security Strategy, the Cyber Security Strategy, the Net Zero Strategy, the Energy Security Strategy, the International Development Strategy, etc.
Other ideas for an independent Office for National Resilience or Resilience Responsibility, along the lines of the established Office for Budget Responsibility – or even, going one step further, a Ministry for Civil Protection – indicate the feeling that resilience should be elevated in both scope and scale. (1) (2). Hence, the notion of an OSCDR should be treated seriously but as part of a larger dynamic that melds together other aspects of resilience and places them ‘in the round’. This may allow prevention and preparation to be co-ordinated across the board and delivered in a more holistic fashion, not only but especially for the benefit of social cohesion and democratic resilience.
The review states that: ‘Social cohesion is not just about protecting the democratic norms of our country. It has wide-reaching benefits for society as a whole. From helping achieve sustainable economic growth, to reducing the threat of terrorism and hate crime, increasing societal resilience to shocks such as pandemics, improving public health, increasing volunteering and strengthening communities, social cohesion benefits a wide range of adjacent policy areas.’ This sentiment should be a motivator to tackle the issues, perhaps best under the rubric of national resilience but on an elevated, strategic platform.
The author
Robert Hall is cofounder and former executive director of Resilience First Ltd. His book ‘Building Resilient Futures’ was published by Austin Macauley in 2023. The original version of this article was published as a RUSI Newsbrief on 29th January 2024.
References
- Hall, R. RUSI Newsbrief, Security with Resilience: A National Perspective, 26 January 2024.
- Devlin, J. Bridging the gap between regulation and private sector innovation. Resilience First Newsletter, 19 February 2024.
