By Dr. Sofia Eliodori
Innovating the European democracies and democratic practices around Europe is considered one of the main challenges to driving our system and values in the XXI century, renewing our institutions, and making them able to face the issues of our times. This task is integral to perpetuating our system and its underlying values, which are foundational to our identity and way of life. A crucial aspect of this innovation involves the revitalization of our institutions, ensuring that they are equipped to address the multifaceted issues that characterize our era (Macq & Jacquet, 2023). These institutions, irrespective of their size, embody a principle of paramount importance: they provide a thread of continuity for governance and legislative frameworks within the dynamic environment of human societies. As our societies continue to evolve, marked by shifts in needs, cultural landscapes, technological advancements, and the collective aspirations of our people, we are confronted with the ephemeral nature of generational change. Despite this constant evolution, there’s a tendency to perceive our institutions as immovable monoliths, bastions of permanence in a sea of change. This perspective underscores a commitment to the idea that continuity and change are dichotomous, and it posits stability as the cornerstone for the enduring success of our institutions. Yet, as we forge ahead, it is imperative that we reassess this viewpoint. During the past years, also thanks to programs like Horizon2020, the European Union has recognized that the vitality of our institutions lies not in their immutability, but in their ability to adapt, to be resilient yet responsive to the progressive cadence of societal transformation. Only by embracing this can we ensure that our democratic structures remain robust and relevant, capable of safeguarding the collective well-being of current and future generations.
Building upon the need for innovation in European democratic practices, the implementation of participatory and deliberative tools has been recognized as an antidote to the growing disengagement of citizens from political institutions and the democratic process. These tools serve a dual purpose: they not only rekindle the public’s interest in democracy by fostering involvement at the grassroots level within their communities and neighborhoods, but they also act as a cohesive force, bridging the divide created by disaffection. The rationale for these initiatives is straightforward yet profound: by encouraging citizens to partake in the decision-making processes that directly affect their lives, we are essentially inviting them to take ownership of their democratic rights and responsibilities. This approach is expected to counteract the sentiments of alienation that often lead to populist movements, which thrive on polarization and disenchantment. By involving people in the governance of their communities and the stewardship of commons, in the minds of promoters, these tools offer a tangible ‘reality check’ that underscores the impact of collective action. This, in turn, can prompt a renewed sense of solidarity and mutual respect among citizens, promoting civic pacification through compromise and collaborative problem-solving (Fischer, 2006).
Having accepted these premises, the problem now turns to the ‘how to’ do it, and that’s when the analyses of participatory and deliberative tools intervene. The first peculiar characteristic of participatory and deliberative democracy tools is that they can be placed at different moments of the policy cycle. When local governments are involved or frequently are the actors that boost a certain participatory process, we can see the choice of a specific participatory tool as the beginning of the process while it is actually already placed at some specific point in policy formulation. In addressing any given issue or problem through a participatory or deliberative approach, one must acknowledge the impossibility of completely extricating politics from policy. The desire for solutions that are technical, objective, and rational is understandable, yet recognizing the political nature (‘politicità’) of policy can greatly simplify and elucidate the policy formulation journey, challenging the populist notion of a mechanical and managerial approach to democracy. Despite the positive connotations traditionally associated with ‘democratic,’ the term ‘political’ has, paradoxically, acquired a pejorative undertone, often being obscured in the context of policy-making. This sentiment is especially pronounced in the realm of participatory and deliberative tools, which aim to foster community involvement, enhance citizen representation, and bolster inclusivity and diversity in the policy-making process. Contrary to the trend of veiling the political aspects, policymakers and practitioners ought to embrace this intrinsic characteristic of democracy. Such a perspective acknowledges that democracy thrives on the confluence of varying actors and interests, all converging to devise solutions that reflect the collective will and advance the common good.
The initial objective of a public administration and local government seeking to start a participatory process through a participatory or deliberative tool can vary but is frequently connected to the necessity of consensus building, collecting information on a particular problem, consolidating agreement on policy options, and doing community engagement to assess the success of the policy initiative. Forms of participative and deliberative democracy are therefore intended frequently as complementary to traditional forms of governance (Turpenny, Jordan, Benson, & Rayaner, 2015). Considering the enormous amount of variables in the social, juridical, economic, political, and cultural landscape of real-life societies placed in European cities and villages, the adaptation of a specific participatory or deliberative tool in a specific context is crucial for its success: a tool that was effective and extremely positive change-making in one place can be totally useless or even damaging in another context. The risk analysis of how a tool can be detrimental in a particular context goes from the waste of economic and human resources to the balkanization of society and public interest, to the disruption of the trust relationship between citizens and institutions, but also to unfitting and improper policy formulation. Therefore, once the tool is selected to pursue determined policy objectives, it is crucial to verify and ensure the financial, technical, and political feasibility of the process (Papdopoulos & Warin, 2007).
During the most recent decades, a great assortment of participatory and deliberative tools and approaches emerged, promising to bring change at various levels of governance (Geissel, Michels, N., Schauman, & Grönlund, 2023). Some of these tools exist to suggest the idea that there can be ‘ready to use’ solutions to complex problems, while it is important to stress that democracy is a process: once embarked on it, we might know where we want to go but not know where we will arrive.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bibliography
Fischer, F. (2006, March). Participatory Governance as Deliberative Empowerment: The Cultural Politics of Discursive Space. American review of Public Administration, 36(1), 19-40.
Geissel, B., Michels, A., N., S., Schauman, J., & Grönlund, K. (2023). Public Deliberation or Popular Votes? Measuring the Performance of Different Types of Participatory Democracy. Representation, 59(4), 573-595.
Macq, H., & Jacquet, V. (2023). Institutionalising participatory and deliberative procedures: The origins of the first permanent citizens’ assembly. European Journal of political Research, 62, 156-173.
Papdopoulos, Y., & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political research, 46, 445-472.
Turpenny, Jordan, Benson, & Rayaner. (2015). The Tools of Policy Formulation: An Introduction. (A. J. Jordan, & J. R. Turpenny, A cura di) Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar publishing.