Participatory democracy strives to create opportunities for all members of a population to make meaningful contributions to decision-making, and seeks to broaden the range of people who have access to such opportunities. Since so much information must be gathered for the overall decision-making process to succeed, technology may provide important forces leading to the type of empowerment needed for participatory models, especially those technological tools that enable community narratives and correspond to the accretion of knowledge. Effectively increasing the scale of participation, and translating small but effective participation groups into small world networks, are areas currently being studied. Other advocates have emphasized the importance of face to face meetings, warning that an overreliance on technology can be harmful.
Some scholars argue for refocusing the term on community-based activity within the domain of civil society, based on the belief that a strong non-governmental public sphere is a precondition for the emergence of a strong liberal democracy. These scholars tend to stress the value of separation between the realm of civil society and the formal political realm. In 2011, considerable grassroots interest in participatory democracy was generated by the Occupy movement.
Overview
Participation
is commonly defined as the act of taking part in some action.
'Political participation', hence, is largely assumed as an act of taking
part in 'political' action. However, such definition often varies in
political science due to the ambiguities surrounding what can be
conceived as 'political' actions.
Within this general definition, the perception of political
participation varies by differing modes, intensities, and qualities of
participation.
From voting to directly influencing the implementation of public
policies, the extent to which a political participation should be
considered appropriate in political theory is, to this day, under
debate. Participatory democracy is primarily concerned with ensuring
that citizens are afforded an opportunity to participate or otherwise be
involved in decision making on matters that affect their lives.
Participatory democracy is not a novel concept and has existed under various political designs since the Athenian democracy. The theory of participatory democracy was developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and later promoted by J.S. Mill and G. D. H. Cole, who argued that political participation is indispensable for the realization of a just society.
Nevertheless, the sudden invigoration and popularity on this topic in
the academic literature only began in mid-19th century. One conjecture
is that the revival of political participation's significance was a
natural progression from the growing assessment that representative
models of democracy were in decline; increasingly inorganic relations
between the elected elites and the public, diminishing electoral
turnouts, and ceaseless political corruptions are often considered as
the rationales behind its alleged crisis.
Another, as argued by David Plotke, is that the proponents of
participatory democracy were originally the critics of 'minimal
democracy', a theory popularly established by Joseph Schumpeter.
Plotke claims, "In the Cold War, nonCommunist left critics of minimal
democracy tended to define their positions by reversing the [proponents
of minimal democracy's] claims. [...] Given [an] unappetizing menu,
critics of minimal democracy advocated a sharp and sustained increase in
political participation." Regardless of its origin, the recent resurgence of participatory democracy has led to various institutional reforms such as participatory budgeting, steadily challenging the traditionally predominant form of liberal democracy.
The proponents of participatory democracy criticize liberal
democracy and argue that representation is inherently deficient for
truly democratic societies, leading to the fundamental debate on
democratic ideology. Benjamin Barber,
an advocate for 'individual democracy', has denounced liberal democracy
because "it alienates human beings from each other and, more important,
because the epistemological basis on which liberalism stands is itself
fundamentally flawed."
Barber's notable significance is the return to the epistemological
basis of politics and democracy, and in that vein, Joel Wolfe reinforces
his hypothesis: "[...] strong democracy should be a form of government
in which all people participate in decision-making and implementation.
While recognizing that the complexity of modern society imposes limits
on direct democracy, participation by all is imperative because it
creates shared interests, a common will, and community action, all of
which inevitably give legitimacy to politics."
History
Members of the Occupy Movement practicing participatory democracy in a general assembly held in Washington Square Park, New York City on October 8, 2011
Origins
In 7th and 8th century BCE Ancient Greece,
the informal distributed power structure of the villages and minor
towns began to be displaced with collectives of Oligarchs seizing power
as the villages and towns coalesced into city states. This caused much
hardship and discontent among the common people, with many having to
sell their land due to debts, and even suffer from debt slavery. Around
600 BCE the Athenian leader Solon
initiated some reforms to limit the power of Oligarchs and re-establish
a partial form of participatory democracy with some decisions taken by a
popular assembly composed of all free male citizens. About a century
later, Solon's reforms were further enhanced for even more direct
involvement of regular citizens by Cleisthenes. Athenian democracy
came to an end in 322 BC. When democracy was revived as a political
system about 2000 years later, decisions were made by representatives
rather than by the people themselves. A minor exception to this was the
limited form of direct democracy which flourished in the Swiss Cantons from the later Middle Ages.
Modern Era
19th and 20th Centuries
An ephemerous but notorious instance, taking place in the Modern Age, was the Paris Commune of 1871, which married the universal political engagement of participatory democracy with a correspondent collective ownership and management of the means of production, which, like participatory democracy itself, was a demand of the nascent organized left-wing. In the late 19th century, a small number of thinkers, including Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Mikhail Bakunin—all highly influenced, along with their International Working Men's Association, by the Commune–and Oscar Wilde
began advocating increased participatory democracy. It was in the 20th
century that practical implementations of participatory democracy once
again began to take place, albeit mostly on a small scale, attracting
considerable academic attention in the 1980s.
During the Spanish civil war, from 1936–1938, the parts of Spain controlled by anarchist members of the Spanish Republican
faction was governed almost totally by participatory democracy. In 1938
the anarchists were displaced after betrayal by their former Republican
allies in the Communist party and attacks from the Nationalist forces of General Franco. The writer George Orwell, who experienced participatory democracy in Spain with the anarchists before their defeat, discusses it in his book Homage to Catalonia,
and says participatory democracy was a "strange and valuable"
experience where one could breathe "the air of equality" and where
normal human motives like snobbishness, greed, and fear of authority had
ceased to exist.
The mystic and philosopher Simone Weil,
who had helped the Spanish anarchists as a combat soldier, would later
promote participatory democracy in her political manifesto The Need for Roots.
In the 1980s, the profile of participatory democracy within academia was raised by James S. Fishkin, the professor who introduced the deliberative opinion poll.
Experiments in forms of participatory democracy that took place within a
wider framework of representative democracy began in cities around the
world, with an early adopter being Brazil's Porto Alegre. A World Bank
study found that participatory democracy in these cities seemed to
result in considerable improvement in the quality of life for residents.
21st Century
In
the early 21st century, low profile experiments in participatory
democracy began to spread throughout South and North Americas, to China
and across the European Union. A partial example in the USA occurred with drawing up the plans to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, with thousands of ordinary citizens involved with drafting and approving the plan.
In recent years, social media has led to a change in how
participatory democracy is conducted. In the 2016 election social media
was used to spread news and many politicians used social media outlets
like twitter to attract voters. Social media has been used to organize
movements to demand change. Mainly through hashtags, citizens join political conversations with differing view points.
To promote public interest and involvement, local governments are using
social media to make decisions based on public feedback.
Though it requires much commitment, citizens have organized committees
to highlight local needs and appointing budget delegates who works with
the citizens and city agencies.
In 2011, participatory democracy became a notable feature of the Occupy movement,
a movement largely started by a Tumblr post titled "We Are the 99
Percent", protesting and claiming few individuals held all the power.
Occupy camps around the world made decisions based on the outcome of
working groups where every protestor gets to have their say, and by
general assemblies where the decisions taken by working groups are
effectively aggregated together. Their decision process was an attempt
to combine equality, mass participation, and deliberation, but caused
slow decisions. By November 2011 the movement had been frequently
criticized for not yet coalescing around clearly identifiable aims.
Major Criticisms
Strengths
Main
advocates of participatory democracy view it as an appropriate
political development considering the inherent democratic deficiency in
representative models. Generally argued as an intermediary between
direct and representative democracy, participatory democracy's alleged
strengths lie in greater citizen involvement, popular control, and
egalitarian and non-exploitative social relations.
The most prominent argument for participatory democracy is its
function of greater democratization. Although the extent of how
'democratized' societies should be may rely on sociocultural and
economic contexts, Pateman claims, "[...] the argument is about changes
that will make our own social and political life more democratic, that
will provide opportunities for individuals to participate in
decision-making in their everyday lives as well as in the wider
political system. It is about democratizing democracy."
In such a democratized society, individuals or groups can not only
pursue, but also realistically achieve their interests, ultimately
"[providing] the means to a more just and rewarding society, not a
strategy for preserving the status quo."
Another proposed advantage participatory democracy over other
democratic models is its educative effect. Initially promoted by
Rousseau, Mill, and Cole, greater political participation can in turn
lead the public to seek or accomplish higher qualities of participation
in terms of efficacy and depth: "the more individuals participate the
better able they become to do so"
Pateman emphasizes this potential because it precisely counteracts the
widely spread lack of faith in citizen capacity, especially in advanced
societies with complex organizations.
In this vein, J. Wolfe asserts his confidence in the feasibility of
participatory models even in large-member organizations, which would
progressively diminish state intervention as the most crucial mode of
political change.
Weaknesses
The
negative criticisms of participatory democracy generally align with
exclusive advocacy for 'minimal democracy'. While some critics, such as
David Plotke, call for a conciliatory medium between participatory and
representative models, others are skeptical of the overly leftist
democratic ideology. Two general oppositions can be found within the
literature, the prior is the disbelief in citizen capabilities,
considering how greater responsibilities come as participation grows.
Michels rejects the feasibility of participatory models and goes so far
as to refute the educative benefits of participatory democracy by
delineating the lack of motivations for extensive participation to begin
development: "First, the self-interested, rational member has little
incentive to participate because he lacks the skills and knowledge to be
effective, making it cost effective to rely on officials' expertise."
In other words, the motivation, or even desire, for participation is a
misconceived understanding of the general will in politics.
By analyzing that the aggregate citizenry is rather disinterested and
leader-dependent, the mechanism for participatory democracy is argued to
be inherently incompatible with advanced societies.
Other concerns largely rest on the feasibility of effectively
managing massive political input into an equally meaningful, responsive
output. Plotke condemns the ideological element of universal
participation since any institutional adjustment to employ greater
political participation can never exclude a representative element.
Consequently, neither direct nor participatory democracy can be truly
themselves without having some type of representation to sustain
realistically a stable political system. Such examination derives from
the supposed impossibility of achieving equitably direct participation
in large and populated regions. Plotke ultimately argues in favor of
representation over participation and criticizes the misconception by
participatory democrats of "representation [as] an unfortunate
compromise between an ideal of direct democracy and messy realities."
Models of Democracy
Representative Democracy
Representative
democracy is not generally considered participatory since it tends to
assume a lack of time, knowledge or will in individual citizens to
contribute to policy making.
Participatory Democracy
Pateman
characterizes the participatory model as one where maximum input
(participation) is required, and where output includes not only policies
but also the development of the social and political capacities of each
individual. The literature generally emphasizes this combination of
influence on policy making, quality of deliberation, and citizen
engagement based on what has been argued that a successful institution
of citizen participation is one that (i) provides a channel of influence
in policy making, (ii) engages citizens in a process of deliberation
and public communication, which in return provides legitimacy to the
institution, and (iii) is able to attract a constant or increasing
number of participants.
Deliberative Democracy
Deliberative
democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic
deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of a law's
legitimacy. It adopts elements of both consensus decision-making and
majority rule. When practiced by small groups, it is possible for
decision-making to be both fully participatory and deliberative. But for
large political entities, the democratic reform trilemma
makes it difficult for any system of decision-making based on political
equality to involve both deliberation and inclusive participation. With
mass participation, deliberation becomes so unwieldy that it becomes
difficult for each participant to contribute substantially to the
discussion. James Fishkin argues that random sampling to get a small but
representative sample of the general population can mitigate the
trilemma, but notes that the resulting decision-making group is not open
to mass participation.
