Andrew Mycock: Phoney peace may be ending over Cameron's Big Society

The warmth of the coalition partners is often noted, with Conservative and Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet sharing an apparent zeal to cut public spending and roll-back the scope and remit of the state.

This has been shown by the speedy passage of radical legislation concerning health and education provision. Polls suggest this has proven largely successful, with many of us convinced of the necessity of public sector cuts, if not their scale. The assured Prime Ministerial performance of David Cameron has been praised, particularly when contrasted with his predecessor.

However, concerns have been also raised about the potential for the coalition to become defined by its cuts agenda. Some suggest that the scale and speed of reforms could overwhelm the Government, leading to poorly designed and implemented policy as with the recent Building Schools for the Future fiasco.

If the coalition has been defined by anything so far, it is "phoniness". A "phoney war" quickly emerged as the Labour Party's obsession with its leadership contest allowed the coalition to avoid concerted political scrutiny. This was complemented by a "phoney peace" whereby leading Liberal Democrats, "punch-drunk" on power, have avoided schisms by failing to adequately question the design and coherence of some Conservative-inspired policy initiatives.

One such policy area has been the Big Society. It has been hailed by Cameron as a "guiding philosophy" of modern Conservatism but was described by the Liberal Democrats during the election as "patronising nonsense".

The Big Society now forms a central plank of government, seeking a shift from state to social action by breaking state monopolies, allowing charities, social enterprises and companies to provide public services, devolving power down to neighbourhoods and making government more accountable.

Through public sector reform and community empowerment, it is argued the Big Society will create a more moral, considerate and polite society based on social responsibility and engagement.

Though initiatives to encourage more volunteering and community engagement are laudable, the Big Society is not new. The origins of the empowerment narrative of the Big Society can be traced back to John Major's "citizens' charters". Many people already volunteer regularly and the framework for the Big Society is well-developed in many communities. Where the Big Society differs is the scale of the re-prioritising of responsibilities over rights.

But there are a number of assumptions overlooked by proponents. The main weakness of the Big Society narrative is its amorphous and confusing aims and objectives. Coalition ministers have tied the Big Society to a wide and disparate range of policy areas without fully developing how these cohere. The Big Society is in danger of becoming quickly sidelined as it emerges as a philosophy for everything and nothing.

The Big Society assumes that citizens want to contribute more to the running of their communities, but polls raise doubts that many have the time or desire to run their local library, start a school or contribute to the provision of other roles provided by the state. The potential for "citizen overload" is considerable and the Big Society could actually weaken existing patterns of volunteering by overwhelming those already engaged in such activity.

It could also push citizens who lack the time and resources into running public services in their communities, or risk seeing them disappear. Evidence from other countries, such as Germany, suggests that "enforced volunteerism" also depresses wages for low-paid full-time workers.

There is concern over how volunteering organisations, many reliant upon government for much of their funding, will be able to develop the Big Society in the face of funding cuts. The role of local government in the Big Society is also unclear. Citizens vote for elected councillors to run local services, thus establishing a direct line of accountability.

There are plenty of opportunities for citizens to participate in the development and implementation of policy but participation rates remain low. The extent to which voluntary co-operation will improve services or make them more democratic is unproven – particularly if "sharp-elbowed" citizens dominate emerging Big Society structures.

The period of "phoniness" is coming to an end though. The autumn will see the conference season test the commitment of both coalition partners as party members voice their concerns. It will also see the election of a new Labour leader who will attempt to scrutinise the coalition in a more sustained manner.

The publication of the October Spending Review will, however, be crucial as public disquiet about the scale of cuts, and their impact on communities, could see the Big Society become the first victim of the coalition's tenure in office.