December 19, 2024 • 27 mins
Join us in this episode of the ALDA Podcast "Shades of Democracy" as we explore the transformative power of participatory democracy! Our guests, Anthony Zacharzewski, Anna Ditta, and Tamara Ehs, share their expertise and experiences in fostering local democracy and addressing today’s societal and environmental challenges.
Tune in to discover how involving citizens in decision-making processes can help shape a brighter, more inclusive future!
Tune in to discover how involving citizens in decision-making processes can help shape a brighter, more inclusive future!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:20):
Welcome to a new episode of the ALDA podcast, Shades
of Democracy. I am an As Needy from the communication
team of ALDA and I will be your host today.
Today we will be discussing the power of participatory democracy
in fostering local democracy and tackling some of today's most
pressing societal and environmental challenges. Joining us today are Anthony Zakazewski,
(00:46):
co founder of the Democratic Society and an expert in
participatory democracy, An Aditta, head of the Programs and Development
United ALDA and a skilled trainer in participatory democracy. And
Tamara is a political scientist and consultant for democratic innovation
from Vienna and a valued member of alda's advisory board.
(01:09):
Without further ado, let's dive into the conversation. So, first
of all, welcome Anthony, Tamara and Anna. It's a pleasure
to have.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
You hear with us today.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
So Anthony, my first question is for you. As a
co founder of the Democratic Society, you've been at the
forefront of participatory democracy initiatives.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Can you briefly explain what.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Participatory democracy means in practice and why you believe it
is essential in today's world?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Thank you, and thank you for the invitation as well.
The word democracy sounds a bit social science sometimes, but
if you ask people what they mean by it, they
often say voting, but they also say having say in
the place where you live and the decisions that shape
your lives. And participatory democracy is the stuff that comes
in between voting. It's the things that you might do
(02:00):
to protest. It's the things that you might do to
participate in a citizen assembly or a participates with budgeting exercise.
It was making your voice heard, and it's actually particularly
important and valuable at local level because you can see
the changes that your voice is bringing about. And right
now it's important because people are feeling a sense of
(02:20):
disconnection from the standard politics of the world. They're feeling
like maybe political parties don't speak for them so much,
they don't agree with them on every issue. It's very
hard to kind of be as identified with the political
party as maybe it was twenty years ago. And one
of the things that is an answer to that is
to say, Okay, you still should be voting, still should
be picking the least worst maybe, but there's going to
(02:42):
be lots more opportunity for you to have your say
and for you to make your bit of difference inha
in shaping the world.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
So what I can get from here is definitely that
it's true that most of us, when asked about participatory
democracy and its processes, mainly and directly think about voting
and the voting procedures. But that's very limited as an
answer to the big question. Now, let me go on
(03:13):
with you, Anna, I wanted to ask you, from your
experience training communities and organizations, how do you see participatory
democracy connecting with local governance and what challenges have you
observed in implementing these processes at a grassroots level.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
So I see a participatory democracy being very much linked
with local governance. Why because local governance is the political
level which is the closest to the citizens, and it
is that level where citizens can actually make it change,
have a say. Also, the local level is where citizens live.
(03:56):
They live in local communities, and whatever police see it
is produced and implemented at that level, has a direct
and visible impact on the life of the citizens. Therefore,
they can actually they can relate to what's happening to
the policies that are implemented in their communities. And therefore,
(04:18):
I think this is the level where where really activation
that can be done in terms of participatory democracy.
Speaker 5 (04:28):
Talking about challenges, we need.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
To consider that participatory processes are long, are tiring.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
They can they have to be.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Iterative to build the bonds, to build trust, to build
the mindset. Therefore, they do not show results in a
very short term and people might fail to see the
advantage the added value of them participating and dedicating their time.
Speaker 5 (04:58):
Another challenge is.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
For sure, the lack of feedback that sometimes happens to
participatory processes. So whenever a process is ongoing and citizens
give their opinion, it's not always the case that follow
up happens. And when this happens, it's frustrating for the
(05:21):
people as they do not see the usefulness of their
role and they might feel frustrated and distrust the process
in general. Also, these processes require resources in terms of finances,
technical skills. Also, you know you don't you don't build
a process in one day and without having a specific
(05:45):
knowledge of the of that mechanism. So you need skills,
you need time, and you need those financial resources.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
As I said, Therefore, often.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Local administrators do not have the possess all these kind
of resources.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
Which are limited by nature.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Therefore, these complicates, of course, the possibility of these processes
to happen, first of all, or to happen regularly even more.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Thank you very much. Indeed, I can see that the
challenges are many, and we hope that with this work
everyone is doing, we can face them one by one.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Little by little.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
So Tamara, the next question is for you. You often
speak about democratic innovation. How does participatory democracy fit into
the broader conversation about rethinking democratic systems in the twenty
first century.
Speaker 6 (06:43):
Thanks for having me on the show. In my academic
work and based on there's also my practical work as
a political advisor, I deal with the social imbalance of democracy,
and we see in our analysis the socio economic status.
So speaking of the formal education, income, wealth, wealth in general,
(07:07):
it always relates with the amount and the intensity of
participation and does with the political influence. So whether political
wishes are being hurt or being ignored, and we see
them all over Europe, whether on the national, regional, or
local level. And there's a so called two thirds democracy
(07:28):
where upper and middle class people are quite well integrated
into democracy and they make themselves hurt and politics therefore
response to them, but especially lower the income third is
increasingly refraining from the political participation or even excluded, and
this has consequences. It represents a major reason for declining
(07:53):
legitimacy of political institutions, for declining trust and institutions. And
I'm I'm sure we have to answer this imbalance and
participatory democracy can be part of dissolution, especially innovations that
work especially addressing this imbalance, and among them most prominently
(08:16):
are citizens assemblies, which work by sortician, which work by
calling people at their house, issuing this special invitation to
those that are not already active citizens themselves. And so
this core principle of citizens assembly, as you know, is
that there are a microcosm of the general public, so
(08:39):
called mini public, and they're not a replacement to the
representative democracy, but an addendum. As they try to involve
from parts of the population that are usually underrepresented in
the political decision making process. Citizens assemblies are more inclusive
than the electoral right and the effect is that they
(09:02):
are organizationally so on the organizational level that they are
counteracting this negative self selection of underserved population groups such
as minorities. And to achieve this, the citizens assembly rely
on the lottery system, so called certition, and this is
(09:22):
this is one way to counter this this social imbalance,
and and that's what we have to do in this
first in this twenty first century.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
Thank you very much Tamara for your answer and for
shedding a light on the social imbalance side of participatory
democracy and its challenges. Anthony, based on your experience and
thinking about some successful participatory democracy initiatives, what are some
practical tools or methods that have been particularly effective in
(09:56):
engaging citizens in decision making processes.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
So good example of this for a few years back
is in the city of Antwerp. So lots of cities
have participatory budgeting exercises. It's often a bit like, you know,
you give pocket money to the kids and they can
decide how to spend it. There's a website or a
process where you can propose a project and then people
vote on the project and maybe they spend a couple
of thousand euros or ten thousand euros on those projects.
(10:24):
City of Antwerp started in a very different place. They
spent ten percent of the city's budget through participatory budgeting,
and rather than starting with projects, they've started with topics.
So it was a three round process to talk it
through briefly. In the first one, participants selected from the
fullest of things. The council did the areas where they
felt that money should be spent. In the second round,
(10:47):
they used coins to distribute the amount of money that
was available this ten percent across the different areas. So
maybe these would be done in a big pile, maybe
a little pile, depending on what it was. And all
of these conversations happened tables of seven and each table
had one vote, so the tables had to reach a
full consensus or their vote didn't count. And then finally
(11:07):
in the third round, we got to projects. So in
between the second and the third round, there was a
gap where people could propose projects and then they were
ranked in the same kind of consensus building model in
the third round, and the money was kind of spent
out through those projects until it was finally gone. So
that process happened every year over four years. And the
important thing about it is not that it's a clever process,
(11:28):
although it is a clever process. The point about it
is that they ran it four years in the same way,
working in really hard with citizens and with citizen representative
groups to make sure that the people in that room
had the confidence to speak up and that they were
engaging with people who didn't have Duchess a first language,
who came from a migration background, who were maybe less
confident or less able to participate in other ways. And
(11:50):
by the end of the process they had a really
representative sample in the room having that conversation in a
really open and supported way. And that wasn't easy. That
required a lot of from the developmentt Deputy mayor. It required
a team who worked right the way through the year
rather than just when the participator. A bunch of team
was going on to build up the support, and it
required the council to take the results seriously, not to say, oh,
(12:13):
actually we don't like that bit, so we're not going
to do that. So there was a degree of trust
that was built that it took four years for them
to get to the place where they could properly run
it and be confidant they get a representative sample. So
it's a really good example of a tool. There's also
a really good example of how you need to embed
these tools in a long term piece of work.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
So Anna at Alda, we work on projects that faster
local democracy. Could you share how participatory processes are embedded
in these projects and their impact on community development.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
Yes, as ALDA, we work on many projects both at
international and local and at local level. In all our
projects there is always a component related to the promotion
of participatory democracy at local level, whether they are local
or international projects. How do we incorporate this dimension well
(13:08):
in different ways at different layers.
Speaker 5 (13:10):
First of all, we normally foresee.
Speaker 4 (13:15):
A part dedicated to capacity building to the main actors
of participatory democracy. So whether they are the partners of
the project or the beneficiaries and users of the project,
we foresee empowerment possibilities for them in terms of training
on participatory democracy, in terms of giving them tools which
(13:38):
are possible to use, mechanisms that they can use in
their communities. Our target groups are mostly local authorities and
civil society organizations. Then we give them we include in
let's say, in this project proposals activities that are expected
(13:58):
to produce lowcal processes or participatory democracy. So these are
activities foreseen by the project application itself. So let's say
that we envisage, for example, pilot actions where once the
capacity building happened, these partners, these stakeholders are expected to
(14:19):
go back to their communities and implement.
Speaker 5 (14:23):
These participatory processes.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
And normally ALDA has the role to accompany these stakeholders
in this process. One example of a project we have
implemented lately is a project in Tunisia.
Speaker 5 (14:41):
Project aimed to.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Foster the centralized the cooperation between European cities and Tunisian
cities on the topic of local sustainable development urban development.
So in this project, the idea was to train to
imp our local administrators in terms of sustainable urban planning
(15:06):
and a budget was given to these local administrators to
perform some local activities of grinning the cities, promoting the
soft mobility, this kind of actions. But what was important
is that these activities had to be put in place
(15:26):
through a consultation process with the citizens.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
So the rolevald that here was.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
To accompany these local administrators once they had been trained
to perform this consultation process and to decide together with
the cities and so what kind of interventions they wanted
to have for improving their city.
Speaker 5 (15:49):
And this process was.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
Amazing, It was longer, it was iterative, and we used
many different tools, whether they were interviews, surveys, public meetings.
We even went to schools and make kids draw the
school they wanted to have, you know, And so we
had to target different types of actors and use different
(16:12):
types of tools.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
And what happened.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Was was really positive because we managed to consult together
with these local administrations many different targets and to come
up with the interventions they really wanted to to improve,
to improve the local the local urban development of the city.
(16:37):
So this was a success. Also they could see visible results.
So when it comes to visible results, it's easier, you know,
for citizens to to trust the process, to trust the actors.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
So this is this is one example.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Thank you, Anna, and let's hope also that without concrete examples,
people will believe in participatory processes.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Another question for you, since you've worked closely with initiatives
like the Austrian Climate Assembly and the for All Deerk
Citizens come still on Climate Future, which tackle critical environmental challenges,
could you share insights from these experiences and how participatory
processes contributed to addressing these issues.
Speaker 6 (17:24):
Sure, thanks for the question. My colleagues and I were
commissioned with the affiliation of both climate assemblers, one on
the national level, that was the Austrian Climate Assembly conducted
in twenty twenty two was Austria's first national Citizens Assembly and.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
The other one was on the regional level.
Speaker 6 (17:44):
It's the most western part of Austria called for all
that that that's the province next to Switzerland, has a
long history and experience in working with citizens council like
since the two thousand and six And yeah, I'm happy
to provide some insight into the results all of these
(18:04):
climate citizens assemblies. They are organized as minipublics and they
used them for dealing with the climate crisis, to discuss
measures with a focus on social justice. So you also
remember the catchphrases of the European Union's Green New Deal
about just transition and no one left behind. And again,
this democratic innovation lies primarily in the random selection of
(18:28):
participants who are supposed to represent the population in its
socio democratic composition. So the advantage of climate assembly is
seen in the fact that they are better able to
consider long term solutions than traditional institutions of representative democracy,
(18:49):
which are always calculating on the next election. And now
from our evaluation and analysis, we have empirical evidence that
this deliberation in many publics promotes the public spirit and
the supports concern for future generations. And in addition, there
are also instruments of political education of social learning, and
(19:14):
the goal is to achieve what we call a social mandate,
a mandate for an ambitious climate policy, by actually influencing
the subsequent process in parliament and government. And so one
of our main finding in both a relations was that
the challenge of creating this effective democratic innovations begins already
(19:36):
with the recruitment of participants, and we are already good
in creating a mini public and concerning age, gender, etc.
But we have to work harder to include diverse political
views and opinions on the topic as a selection criteria
because the political legitimacy and the effects of social learning,
(19:58):
they are much higher among a more diverse group. People
learn at the cognitive level, that's the knowledge about climate
crisis and also about the normative level. So to give
you an example, fifty seven percent change their attitude towards
the climate crisis as a result of participating in the
Citizens Assembly and for all that, and people also learn
(20:22):
on the level of relationships, so towers each other, become
more trustful and understanding towards each other. When getting the
chance of a facilitated discussion as provided by such an assemblie.
But I just have to point out one more major
learning for also rethinking democratic systems for the twenty first century.
(20:43):
All of these instruments of participatory democracy, they must be institutionalized.
We've seen this in our evaluation, this insufficient institutionalization of
the Austrian Climate Assembly. So the recommendations were hardly taken
into account, not even taken seriously by the coalition partner,
(21:05):
but they were attributed solely to the Green Party whose
minister introduced this innovation. International politics, and however, these instruments
can only be successful if they are used in a
non partisan way, the same non partisan way and that
are beyond questions as our elections.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Thank you very much, Tamara, and thank you for providing
also some examples from your experience that also give us
good hope. I must say, some positive examples, definitely. So
to wrap up, I'd like each one of you to
share your vision, and this meaning what does the future
where participatory democracy is widely implemented look like to you?
Speaker 7 (21:51):
For me, a future where participatory democracy is widespread is
one where it's also mainstream, where you have something that
everyone who works in government or who works in a
decision making organization knows how to use participatory techniques to
bring citizen voices in for making policy better, for making
decisions better, and for understanding better the impact that policies
(22:15):
have on people's lives. It's also something where among citizens
you're seeing a greater understanding of how politics and government works,
a greater feeling of agency, that they can make a
difference and that what they say matters, and more importantly,
greater trust not just in politics or politicians, but in
the whole system of democracy.
Speaker 6 (22:36):
Yeah, thank you. All these instruments we have now in
participate or a democracy like citizens assembly, is participatory budgeting
and so on which level whatever, They have to be
incorporated in the constitution. So they must not be one
off events that depend on the good will of a politician.
(22:58):
But they must be part of the legal system, just
as elections are. So we need constant practice in participatory democracy,
and citizens must be also able to initiate these processes.
So I'm concerning institutionalization. I look at the Parliament of
the German speaking community of Eastern Belgium five years ago,
(23:20):
the setup a permanent citizens assembly drawn by a lot
just like a second chamber of Parliament and working together
with the first chamber and the government on the political implementation.
And that's my vision for other regional or even national
parliaments as well. So no more partici chainment as I
(23:40):
call it, but institutionalization of participatory democracy.
Speaker 4 (23:46):
Well in the future. You know, in all that we
say that local democracy will save democracy, I will not
agree more because in the period where there is a
big crisis of representation and big mainstream parties at national
(24:06):
level are in deep crisis, and I think the local
level is rising more and.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
People are focusing more on.
Speaker 4 (24:18):
Local let's say dimension, and even politically speaking, at local
level there are more there are coalitions that rise more
than the regular let's say, the mainstream parties, because people
need something new, need to believe in something different. I
think that the local dimension can really be an answer.
Speaker 5 (24:39):
Also, because societies have grown in.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Complexity lately, I mean they are hypercomplex.
Speaker 5 (24:47):
It's super difficult to manage.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
Democratic system at national or even above levels. So I
really think that starting from the local, from the grassroots,
we can make the difference. And it's also the easiest
level where to try and where we should try to
build the confidence to build trust between citizens and their administrators.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
So in my opinion, in my.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Idea, this is the future I see. I see strong,
strong activation and a change of mindset starting from the
very local level. This is what I feel.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Thanks very much to the three of you.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
I hope this gives some room for thought also to
our audience to reflect on the power of participatory democracy
at local level, regional, national levels.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
I would say that's all for this episode.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Today we had the privilege of hearing from Anthony, Anna
and Tamara about the real impact participatory democracy can have
on our communities and on tackling some of the biggest
challenges that we face today. A big thank you to
our guests for sharing their insights and their experience, and
(26:13):
also to you, our listeners, for joining us. We hope
you found this conversation thought provoking and inspiring, and don't
forget to stay connected, get involved, and also of course
play your part in shaping the future of democracy. So
until next time, take care and don't forget. You can
(26:35):
find all the podcasts on Spotify'sprecker, Google Podcasts, I Podcasts,
and of course on Alda's website.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
Goodbye,
Welcome to a new episode of the ALDA podcast, Shades
of Democracy. I am an As Needy from the communication
team of ALDA and I will be your host today.
Today we will be discussing the power of participatory democracy
in fostering local democracy and tackling some of today's most
pressing societal and environmental challenges. Joining us today are Anthony Zakazewski,
(00:46):
co founder of the Democratic Society and an expert in
participatory democracy, An Aditta, head of the Programs and Development
United ALDA and a skilled trainer in participatory democracy. And
Tamara is a political scientist and consultant for democratic innovation
from Vienna and a valued member of alda's advisory board.
(01:09):
Without further ado, let's dive into the conversation. So, first
of all, welcome Anthony, Tamara and Anna. It's a pleasure
to have.
Speaker 2 (01:18):
You hear with us today.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
So Anthony, my first question is for you. As a
co founder of the Democratic Society, you've been at the
forefront of participatory democracy initiatives.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Can you briefly explain what.
Speaker 1 (01:31):
Participatory democracy means in practice and why you believe it
is essential in today's world?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
Thank you, and thank you for the invitation as well.
The word democracy sounds a bit social science sometimes, but
if you ask people what they mean by it, they
often say voting, but they also say having say in
the place where you live and the decisions that shape
your lives. And participatory democracy is the stuff that comes
in between voting. It's the things that you might do
(02:00):
to protest. It's the things that you might do to
participate in a citizen assembly or a participates with budgeting exercise.
It was making your voice heard, and it's actually particularly
important and valuable at local level because you can see
the changes that your voice is bringing about. And right
now it's important because people are feeling a sense of
(02:20):
disconnection from the standard politics of the world. They're feeling
like maybe political parties don't speak for them so much,
they don't agree with them on every issue. It's very
hard to kind of be as identified with the political
party as maybe it was twenty years ago. And one
of the things that is an answer to that is
to say, Okay, you still should be voting, still should
be picking the least worst maybe, but there's going to
(02:42):
be lots more opportunity for you to have your say
and for you to make your bit of difference inha
in shaping the world.
Speaker 1 (02:49):
So what I can get from here is definitely that
it's true that most of us, when asked about participatory
democracy and its processes, mainly and directly think about voting
and the voting procedures. But that's very limited as an
answer to the big question. Now, let me go on
(03:13):
with you, Anna, I wanted to ask you, from your
experience training communities and organizations, how do you see participatory
democracy connecting with local governance and what challenges have you
observed in implementing these processes at a grassroots level.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
So I see a participatory democracy being very much linked
with local governance. Why because local governance is the political
level which is the closest to the citizens, and it
is that level where citizens can actually make it change,
have a say. Also, the local level is where citizens live.
(03:56):
They live in local communities, and whatever police see it
is produced and implemented at that level, has a direct
and visible impact on the life of the citizens. Therefore,
they can actually they can relate to what's happening to
the policies that are implemented in their communities. And therefore,
(04:18):
I think this is the level where where really activation
that can be done in terms of participatory democracy.
Speaker 5 (04:28):
Talking about challenges, we need.
Speaker 4 (04:30):
To consider that participatory processes are long, are tiring.
Speaker 5 (04:36):
They can they have to be.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
Iterative to build the bonds, to build trust, to build
the mindset. Therefore, they do not show results in a
very short term and people might fail to see the
advantage the added value of them participating and dedicating their time.
Speaker 5 (04:58):
Another challenge is.
Speaker 4 (05:00):
For sure, the lack of feedback that sometimes happens to
participatory processes. So whenever a process is ongoing and citizens
give their opinion, it's not always the case that follow
up happens. And when this happens, it's frustrating for the
(05:21):
people as they do not see the usefulness of their
role and they might feel frustrated and distrust the process
in general. Also, these processes require resources in terms of finances,
technical skills. Also, you know you don't you don't build
a process in one day and without having a specific
(05:45):
knowledge of the of that mechanism. So you need skills,
you need time, and you need those financial resources.
Speaker 5 (05:54):
As I said, Therefore, often.
Speaker 4 (05:57):
Local administrators do not have the possess all these kind
of resources.
Speaker 5 (06:03):
Which are limited by nature.
Speaker 4 (06:06):
Therefore, these complicates, of course, the possibility of these processes
to happen, first of all, or to happen regularly even more.
Speaker 1 (06:16):
Thank you very much. Indeed, I can see that the
challenges are many, and we hope that with this work
everyone is doing, we can face them one by one.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
Little by little.
Speaker 1 (06:29):
So Tamara, the next question is for you. You often
speak about democratic innovation. How does participatory democracy fit into
the broader conversation about rethinking democratic systems in the twenty
first century.
Speaker 6 (06:43):
Thanks for having me on the show. In my academic
work and based on there's also my practical work as
a political advisor, I deal with the social imbalance of democracy,
and we see in our analysis the socio economic status.
So speaking of the formal education, income, wealth, wealth in general,
(07:07):
it always relates with the amount and the intensity of
participation and does with the political influence. So whether political
wishes are being hurt or being ignored, and we see
them all over Europe, whether on the national, regional, or
local level. And there's a so called two thirds democracy
(07:28):
where upper and middle class people are quite well integrated
into democracy and they make themselves hurt and politics therefore
response to them, but especially lower the income third is
increasingly refraining from the political participation or even excluded, and
this has consequences. It represents a major reason for declining
(07:53):
legitimacy of political institutions, for declining trust and institutions. And
I'm I'm sure we have to answer this imbalance and
participatory democracy can be part of dissolution, especially innovations that
work especially addressing this imbalance, and among them most prominently
(08:16):
are citizens assemblies, which work by sortician, which work by
calling people at their house, issuing this special invitation to
those that are not already active citizens themselves. And so
this core principle of citizens assembly, as you know, is
that there are a microcosm of the general public, so
(08:39):
called mini public, and they're not a replacement to the
representative democracy, but an addendum. As they try to involve
from parts of the population that are usually underrepresented in
the political decision making process. Citizens assemblies are more inclusive
than the electoral right and the effect is that they
(09:02):
are organizationally so on the organizational level that they are
counteracting this negative self selection of underserved population groups such
as minorities. And to achieve this, the citizens assembly rely
on the lottery system, so called certition, and this is
(09:22):
this is one way to counter this this social imbalance,
and and that's what we have to do in this
first in this twenty first century.
Speaker 1 (09:33):
Thank you very much Tamara for your answer and for
shedding a light on the social imbalance side of participatory
democracy and its challenges. Anthony, based on your experience and
thinking about some successful participatory democracy initiatives, what are some
practical tools or methods that have been particularly effective in
(09:56):
engaging citizens in decision making processes.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
So good example of this for a few years back
is in the city of Antwerp. So lots of cities
have participatory budgeting exercises. It's often a bit like, you know,
you give pocket money to the kids and they can
decide how to spend it. There's a website or a
process where you can propose a project and then people
vote on the project and maybe they spend a couple
of thousand euros or ten thousand euros on those projects.
(10:24):
City of Antwerp started in a very different place. They
spent ten percent of the city's budget through participatory budgeting,
and rather than starting with projects, they've started with topics.
So it was a three round process to talk it
through briefly. In the first one, participants selected from the
fullest of things. The council did the areas where they
felt that money should be spent. In the second round,
(10:47):
they used coins to distribute the amount of money that
was available this ten percent across the different areas. So
maybe these would be done in a big pile, maybe
a little pile, depending on what it was. And all
of these conversations happened tables of seven and each table
had one vote, so the tables had to reach a
full consensus or their vote didn't count. And then finally
(11:07):
in the third round, we got to projects. So in
between the second and the third round, there was a
gap where people could propose projects and then they were
ranked in the same kind of consensus building model in
the third round, and the money was kind of spent
out through those projects until it was finally gone. So
that process happened every year over four years. And the
important thing about it is not that it's a clever process,
(11:28):
although it is a clever process. The point about it
is that they ran it four years in the same way,
working in really hard with citizens and with citizen representative
groups to make sure that the people in that room
had the confidence to speak up and that they were
engaging with people who didn't have Duchess a first language,
who came from a migration background, who were maybe less
confident or less able to participate in other ways. And
(11:50):
by the end of the process they had a really
representative sample in the room having that conversation in a
really open and supported way. And that wasn't easy. That
required a lot of from the developmentt Deputy mayor. It required
a team who worked right the way through the year
rather than just when the participator. A bunch of team
was going on to build up the support, and it
required the council to take the results seriously, not to say, oh,
(12:13):
actually we don't like that bit, so we're not going
to do that. So there was a degree of trust
that was built that it took four years for them
to get to the place where they could properly run
it and be confidant they get a representative sample. So
it's a really good example of a tool. There's also
a really good example of how you need to embed
these tools in a long term piece of work.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
So Anna at Alda, we work on projects that faster
local democracy. Could you share how participatory processes are embedded
in these projects and their impact on community development.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
Yes, as ALDA, we work on many projects both at
international and local and at local level. In all our
projects there is always a component related to the promotion
of participatory democracy at local level, whether they are local
or international projects. How do we incorporate this dimension well
(13:08):
in different ways at different layers.
Speaker 5 (13:10):
First of all, we normally foresee.
Speaker 4 (13:15):
A part dedicated to capacity building to the main actors
of participatory democracy. So whether they are the partners of
the project or the beneficiaries and users of the project,
we foresee empowerment possibilities for them in terms of training
on participatory democracy, in terms of giving them tools which
(13:38):
are possible to use, mechanisms that they can use in
their communities. Our target groups are mostly local authorities and
civil society organizations. Then we give them we include in
let's say, in this project proposals activities that are expected
(13:58):
to produce lowcal processes or participatory democracy. So these are
activities foreseen by the project application itself. So let's say
that we envisage, for example, pilot actions where once the
capacity building happened, these partners, these stakeholders are expected to
(14:19):
go back to their communities and implement.
Speaker 5 (14:23):
These participatory processes.
Speaker 4 (14:26):
And normally ALDA has the role to accompany these stakeholders
in this process. One example of a project we have
implemented lately is a project in Tunisia.
Speaker 5 (14:41):
Project aimed to.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
Foster the centralized the cooperation between European cities and Tunisian
cities on the topic of local sustainable development urban development.
So in this project, the idea was to train to
imp our local administrators in terms of sustainable urban planning
(15:06):
and a budget was given to these local administrators to
perform some local activities of grinning the cities, promoting the
soft mobility, this kind of actions. But what was important
is that these activities had to be put in place
(15:26):
through a consultation process with the citizens.
Speaker 5 (15:30):
So the rolevald that here was.
Speaker 4 (15:32):
To accompany these local administrators once they had been trained
to perform this consultation process and to decide together with
the cities and so what kind of interventions they wanted
to have for improving their city.
Speaker 5 (15:49):
And this process was.
Speaker 4 (15:50):
Amazing, It was longer, it was iterative, and we used
many different tools, whether they were interviews, surveys, public meetings.
We even went to schools and make kids draw the
school they wanted to have, you know, And so we
had to target different types of actors and use different
(16:12):
types of tools.
Speaker 5 (16:14):
And what happened.
Speaker 4 (16:16):
Was was really positive because we managed to consult together
with these local administrations many different targets and to come
up with the interventions they really wanted to to improve,
to improve the local the local urban development of the city.
(16:37):
So this was a success. Also they could see visible results.
So when it comes to visible results, it's easier, you know,
for citizens to to trust the process, to trust the actors.
Speaker 5 (16:48):
So this is this is one example.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
Thank you, Anna, and let's hope also that without concrete examples,
people will believe in participatory processes.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Another question for you, since you've worked closely with initiatives
like the Austrian Climate Assembly and the for All Deerk
Citizens come still on Climate Future, which tackle critical environmental challenges,
could you share insights from these experiences and how participatory
processes contributed to addressing these issues.
Speaker 6 (17:24):
Sure, thanks for the question. My colleagues and I were
commissioned with the affiliation of both climate assemblers, one on
the national level, that was the Austrian Climate Assembly conducted
in twenty twenty two was Austria's first national Citizens Assembly and.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
The other one was on the regional level.
Speaker 6 (17:44):
It's the most western part of Austria called for all
that that that's the province next to Switzerland, has a
long history and experience in working with citizens council like
since the two thousand and six And yeah, I'm happy
to provide some insight into the results all of these
(18:04):
climate citizens assemblies. They are organized as minipublics and they
used them for dealing with the climate crisis, to discuss
measures with a focus on social justice. So you also
remember the catchphrases of the European Union's Green New Deal
about just transition and no one left behind. And again,
this democratic innovation lies primarily in the random selection of
(18:28):
participants who are supposed to represent the population in its
socio democratic composition. So the advantage of climate assembly is
seen in the fact that they are better able to
consider long term solutions than traditional institutions of representative democracy,
(18:49):
which are always calculating on the next election. And now
from our evaluation and analysis, we have empirical evidence that
this deliberation in many publics promotes the public spirit and
the supports concern for future generations. And in addition, there
are also instruments of political education of social learning, and
(19:14):
the goal is to achieve what we call a social mandate,
a mandate for an ambitious climate policy, by actually influencing
the subsequent process in parliament and government. And so one
of our main finding in both a relations was that
the challenge of creating this effective democratic innovations begins already
(19:36):
with the recruitment of participants, and we are already good
in creating a mini public and concerning age, gender, etc.
But we have to work harder to include diverse political
views and opinions on the topic as a selection criteria
because the political legitimacy and the effects of social learning,
(19:58):
they are much higher among a more diverse group. People
learn at the cognitive level, that's the knowledge about climate
crisis and also about the normative level. So to give
you an example, fifty seven percent change their attitude towards
the climate crisis as a result of participating in the
Citizens Assembly and for all that, and people also learn
(20:22):
on the level of relationships, so towers each other, become
more trustful and understanding towards each other. When getting the
chance of a facilitated discussion as provided by such an assemblie.
But I just have to point out one more major
learning for also rethinking democratic systems for the twenty first century.
(20:43):
All of these instruments of participatory democracy, they must be institutionalized.
We've seen this in our evaluation, this insufficient institutionalization of
the Austrian Climate Assembly. So the recommendations were hardly taken
into account, not even taken seriously by the coalition partner,
(21:05):
but they were attributed solely to the Green Party whose
minister introduced this innovation. International politics, and however, these instruments
can only be successful if they are used in a
non partisan way, the same non partisan way and that
are beyond questions as our elections.
Speaker 1 (21:27):
Thank you very much, Tamara, and thank you for providing
also some examples from your experience that also give us
good hope. I must say, some positive examples, definitely. So
to wrap up, I'd like each one of you to
share your vision, and this meaning what does the future
where participatory democracy is widely implemented look like to you?
Speaker 7 (21:51):
For me, a future where participatory democracy is widespread is
one where it's also mainstream, where you have something that
everyone who works in government or who works in a
decision making organization knows how to use participatory techniques to
bring citizen voices in for making policy better, for making
decisions better, and for understanding better the impact that policies
(22:15):
have on people's lives. It's also something where among citizens
you're seeing a greater understanding of how politics and government works,
a greater feeling of agency, that they can make a
difference and that what they say matters, and more importantly,
greater trust not just in politics or politicians, but in
the whole system of democracy.
Speaker 6 (22:36):
Yeah, thank you. All these instruments we have now in
participate or a democracy like citizens assembly, is participatory budgeting
and so on which level whatever, They have to be
incorporated in the constitution. So they must not be one
off events that depend on the good will of a politician.
(22:58):
But they must be part of the legal system, just
as elections are. So we need constant practice in participatory democracy,
and citizens must be also able to initiate these processes.
So I'm concerning institutionalization. I look at the Parliament of
the German speaking community of Eastern Belgium five years ago,
(23:20):
the setup a permanent citizens assembly drawn by a lot
just like a second chamber of Parliament and working together
with the first chamber and the government on the political implementation.
And that's my vision for other regional or even national
parliaments as well. So no more partici chainment as I
(23:40):
call it, but institutionalization of participatory democracy.
Speaker 4 (23:46):
Well in the future. You know, in all that we
say that local democracy will save democracy, I will not
agree more because in the period where there is a
big crisis of representation and big mainstream parties at national
(24:06):
level are in deep crisis, and I think the local
level is rising more and.
Speaker 5 (24:13):
People are focusing more on.
Speaker 4 (24:18):
Local let's say dimension, and even politically speaking, at local
level there are more there are coalitions that rise more
than the regular let's say, the mainstream parties, because people
need something new, need to believe in something different. I
think that the local dimension can really be an answer.
Speaker 5 (24:39):
Also, because societies have grown in.
Speaker 4 (24:42):
Complexity lately, I mean they are hypercomplex.
Speaker 5 (24:47):
It's super difficult to manage.
Speaker 4 (24:51):
Democratic system at national or even above levels. So I
really think that starting from the local, from the grassroots,
we can make the difference. And it's also the easiest
level where to try and where we should try to
build the confidence to build trust between citizens and their administrators.
Speaker 5 (25:13):
So in my opinion, in my.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
Idea, this is the future I see. I see strong,
strong activation and a change of mindset starting from the
very local level. This is what I feel.
Speaker 2 (25:31):
Thanks very much to the three of you.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
I hope this gives some room for thought also to
our audience to reflect on the power of participatory democracy
at local level, regional, national levels.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
I would say that's all for this episode.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
Today we had the privilege of hearing from Anthony, Anna
and Tamara about the real impact participatory democracy can have
on our communities and on tackling some of the biggest
challenges that we face today. A big thank you to
our guests for sharing their insights and their experience, and
(26:13):
also to you, our listeners, for joining us. We hope
you found this conversation thought provoking and inspiring, and don't
forget to stay connected, get involved, and also of course
play your part in shaping the future of democracy. So
until next time, take care and don't forget. You can
(26:35):
find all the podcasts on Spotify'sprecker, Google Podcasts, I Podcasts,
and of course on Alda's website.
Speaker 5 (26:42):
Goodbye,
Popular Podcasts
Spooky Podcasts from iHeartRadio
Whether you’re a scaredy-cat or a brave bat, this collection of episodes from iHeartPodcasts will put you in the Halloween spirit. Binge stories, frights, and more that may keep you up at night!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.