Participatory democracy
Participatory democracy is primarily concerned with ensuring that citizens have the opportunity to be involved in decision-making on matters that affect their lives.
Its modern theory was developed by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century and later promoted by John Stuart Mill and G. D. H. Cole, who argued that political participation is indispensable for a just society.
[14][15] During the 20th century, practical implementations began to take place, mostly on a small scale, attracting considerable academic attention in the 1980s.
A World Bank study found that participatory democracy in these cities seemed to result in considerable improvement in the quality of life for residents.
[16] In the early 21st century, experiments in participatory democracy began to spread throughout South and North America, China, and across the European Union.
[23] Users have also organised online committees to highlight local needs and appoint budget delegates who work with the citizens and city agencies.
It is about democratizing democracy.With participatory democracy, individuals or groups can realistically achieve their interests, "[providing] the means to a more just and rewarding society, not a strategy for preserving the status quo.
[8] Pateman emphasises this potential as it counteracts the widespread lack of faith in the capacity and capability of citizens to meaningfully participate, especially in societies with complex organisations.
[8] Joel D. Wolfe asserts his confidence that such models could be implemented even in large organizations, progressively diminishing state intervention.
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.
[26]Critics conclude that the citizenry is disinterested and leader-dependent, making the mechanism for participatory democracy inherently incompatible with advanced societies.
[27] A third category of criticism, primarily advanced by author Roslyn Fuller, rejects equating or even subsuming instruments of Deliberative Democracy (such as citizens’ assemblies) under the term of Participatory Democracy, as such instruments violate the hard-won concept of political equality (One Man, One Vote), in exchange for a small chance of being randomly selected to participate and are thus not ‘participatory’ in any meaningful sense.
[30][31] Fuller's most serious criticism is that deliberative democracy purposefully limits decisions to small, externally controllable groups while ignoring the plethora of e-democracy tools available which allow for unfiltered mass participation and deliberation.
[33] Comparing an untested voter to an unlicensed driver, Brennan argues that exams should be administered to all citizens to determine if they are competent to participate in public matters.
Critics of Brennan, including reporter Sean Illing, found parallels between his proposed system and the literacy tests of the Jim Crow laws that prevented black people from voting in the United States.
[34] Brennan proposes a second system in which all citizens have equal rights to vote or otherwise participate in government, but decisions made by the elected representatives are scrutinized by an epistocratic council.
These methods intend to increase the agenda-setting and decision-making powers of the people by giving citizens more direct ways to contribute to politics.
[36] Assemblies chosen by sortition provide average citizens with the opportunity to exercise substantive agenda-setting and/or decision-making power.
They have gathered public opinion data on over 300 policy proposals that have been put forward by Members of Congress and the Executive Branch, in a variety of areas.
[44] Members of the public can take the policymaking simulations to better understand the proposal, and are given the option to send their policy recommendations to their elected officials in Congress.
The results of deliberative opinion polls are more likely to reflect the considered judgments of the people and encourage increased citizen awareness of civic issues.
[46] Political scientists Christian Blum and Christina Isabel Zuber suggest that liquid democracy has the potential to improve a legislature's performance through bringing together delegates with a greater awareness on a specific issue, taking advantage of knowledge within the population.
[47] Originating in Porto Alegre, Brazil, the general procedure involves the creation of a concrete financial plan that then serves as a recommendation to elected representatives.
Political theorist Hélène Landemore raises the concern that referendums may fail to be sufficiently deliberative as people are unable to engage in discussions and debates that would enhance their decision-making abilities.
[51] Theorist Graham Smith, however, notes the limited impact of town meetings that cannot lead to action on national issues.
