Can participatory democracy deliver on its promises?

Participatory democracy in the EU aims to bridge the democratic deficit but often falls short, as seen in the Conference on the Future of Europe and France’s Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat. While these initiatives promise inclusivity, they typically result in tokenistic consultation, sidelining grassroots voices. 

To move forward, the EU needs to prioritize transparency, binding mechanisms, and citizen empowerment. Innovative ideas, like a European Citizens’ Chamber, among others in a seemingly endless debate, offer a path toward meaningful participation, restoring trust and creating a more resilient democratic system across local, national, and EU levels.

Remember the Conference on the Future of Europe, or its unfortunate nickname, CoFoE? You know, the series of citizen-led debates a few years ago, aimed at making the European Union (EU) more resilient and future-proof? On the surface, it seemed like it actively involved citizens and civil society in shaping the EU’s future policies. While the intentions were commendable, can you recall any of their policy proposals? Likely not — and it is no surprise. The European Commission’s (EC) opaque approach to implementation, coupled with criticisms about uneven participant representation and the non-binding nature of the recommendations, has left doubts about whether these ideas will translate into meaningful policy changes.

And what about France’s Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat? This ambitious initiative from 2019 brought together 150 randomly selected citizens, reflecting the diversity of the population, to deliberate on solutions to combat climate change. Yet by 2021, an investigation by Reporterre found only 10% of those ideas were implemented as promised, and most were watered down or ignored. Even the Loi Climat et Résilience, hailed as a win, was dismissed by critics like Professor Thierry Libaert as a “total failure”. Ouch.

So, is this what participatory democracy boils down to? Big promises, weak follow-through, and processes so controlled by elites they barely give citizens a voice?  It is no wonder people are sceptical. Participatory democracy was supposed to make politics more open and interactive in an attempt to rebuild trust. Instead, it often comes across as a superficial solution, a polished veneer designed to downplay the problem rather than tackle it directly.

A vague but ambitious concept

Participatory democracy at its core is about giving people a bigger voice, a direct role in policymaking alongside traditional representative systems. As Professor Loïc Blondiaux puts it, this concept is one of those vague notions whose success lies precisely in its ambiguity. It responds to a growing distrust of political authorities. Rising electoral abstention and declining tolerance for authoritative discourse have further eroded the legitimacy of governments in many Western democracies. 

Recently, Europe’s approaches to participatory democracy have often felt more like a “take your kid to work” day than genuine engagement in policymaking. Institutional resistance and entrenched habits persist, leaving citizens to observe, offer the occasional suggestion, but rarely wield any real influence. All talk, very little action.

The track record across Member States is mixed. Ireland’s citizen assemblies made headlines with their successes on social issues, but France’s climate assembly fell flat, with most recommendations ignored or diluted. Germany’s deliberative experiments and Spain’s climate assembly saw limited outcomes, while Portugal’s participatory budgeting shows more promise. Citizen input is often filtered through preselected experts or stakeholders aligned with institutional priorities. This, in the eyes of many, sidelines genuine grassroots movements and discredits the participatory approach as a whole. 

At the EU level, the gap between ambitious rhetoric and reality is striking. Initiatives like the CoFoE or the grandly named “Community of Practice of the Competence Centre on Participatory and Deliberative Democracy” sound impressive, but often seem designed more for institutional self-congratulation than real public impact. These titles, brimming with bureaucratic flair, seem crafted less for public resonance and more for institutional pride.

The pitfalls of manufactured or symbolic participation 

As political scientist Sandra Seubert noted in her critique of the CoFoE: “While the Conference was presented as a flagship of participatory democracy, its process remained largely under institutional control, raising doubts about its capacity to overcome the democratic deficits it sought to address.” In recent institutional history, an ever larger disconnect has emerged between the European institutions and their citizens. 

On the face of it, our freshly reelected EC President, Ursula Von der Leyen really loves participatory democracy. As long as it does not mean being transparent on some texts, I guess. In practice, what have we seen in her previous mandate in terms of participative democracy? Some concrete examples. All from the CoFoE, to the European Citizens’ Panels, the European Citizens’ Initiatives, to even public consultations, fall under the same traps. They fit a manufactured top-down design under total institutional control over the process, ambiguous approaches and unclear objectives.

EU participatory mechanisms, often praised for promoting citizen engagement, too frequently fall short of their promises, as former MEP Helmut Scholtz noted in his 2021 report on the matter. Branded as inclusive and citizen-driven, these initiatives rarely empower grassroot voices in any meaningful way. Instead, they rely heavily on experts and preselected stakeholders who align with institutional perspectives, sidelining marginalized groups and genuine grassroots movements. Citizen involvement seems so at odds with the EU’s institutional habits that even with good intentions, follow-through remains elusive. While the EU lacks the media’s knack for manufacturing consent, it instead leans on ‘manufactured participation’, offering the appearance of inclusion without delivering real influence. 

On Sherry Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’ — where true participation occurs only when citizens are treated as partners in public action, sharing power and influence over decisions – most current initiatives remain stuck on the lower rungs. These often fall into the realm of tokenism, focused on informing or consulting citizens without truly including them in decision-making processes. To rebuild trust and legitimacy, it appears more effective to focus on developing genuine partnerships, where citizens have real control and a meaningful role in decision-making.

What is next for citizen power?

Despite its flaws, the CoFoE marked a noteworthy step forward by adopting an innovative approach to participatory democracy, involving citizens in policymaking through panels and digital platforms. Ultimately, it fits on the intermediate rungs of Arnstein’s ladder — informing, consulting and placating. 

For  future initiatives to succeed, they must be empowered to offer genuine opportunities for citizen input. While the EC and the European Parliament (EP) have shown a willingness to advance the proposals, the European Council’s caution underscores the broader challenges of integrating citizen-driven ideas into existing EU frameworks. As Janis Emmanouilidis and Corina Stratulat put it in their EU Democracy Reform Observatory report: “European democracy cannot become more participatory unless the EU27 are willing to face up to the Union’s more fundamental limitations and unless the EU and its members are ready to embrace fundamental changes”. Arguably, the impact of the CoFoE has been more incremental than transformative, reflecting the complexities of such an initiative. Still, it is seen as a useful step in democratic innovation, with calls for better follow-up and reforms to make future participatory processes more effective and impactful. To its credit at least, it contributed to keep the discussion on participatory democracy alive.

As Calum McGeown notes in his reflections on Ireland’s experience with participatory democracy, citizen assemblies alone cannot “save” democracy. True citizen participation requires more than symbolic gestures. It involves genuine political organization and translating citizen interests, especially those underrepresented in the current system, into actionable policy proposals. Issues like the climate crisis, social inequalities, and security concerns are mobilizing citizens to demand a voice in setting legislative and executive agendas. 

To make participatory democracy more effective and sustainable, several key reforms appear essential, however, consensus does not exist so far on the matter. Binding mechanisms could be established to ensure citizen proposals lead to action rather than being shelved. For example, Ireland’s citizen assemblies have demonstrated how clear follow-up processes can turn recommendations into tangible policy changes, like legalizing same-sex marriage. Transparency in how citizen input is handled is equally crucial. Citizens should see how their contributions shape decisions, avoiding the pitfalls of opaque processes seen in France’s Convention Citoyenne pour le Climat, where many recommendations were diluted or ignored.

Creating more room for grassroots initiatives is another priority. Efforts like Portugal’s participatory budgeting show how giving local communities a direct say in resource allocation can inspire trust and engagement. Digital tools, while not the all-encompassing solution, can also be better integrated to broaden participation and ensure diverse representation. Estonia, a leader in e-governance, illustrates how technology can facilitate large-scale citizen involvement while overcoming geographical and logistical barriers. 

The debate on participatory democracy is multi-faceted, probably endless, and must be approached from all angles to secure Europe’s democratic future and match citizens’ growing willingness to engage. One promising idea is the creation of a permanent European Citizens’ Chamber, as proposed by Alberto Alemanno, where randomly selected panels could deliberate on policy proposals. This could complement other reforms, such as increasing transparency in existing mechanisms, overhauling the European Citizens’ Initiative, and strengthening grassroots connections, to build a more inclusive and dynamic democratic system.

Whichever mechanisms are ultimately adopted, participatory democracy must move from an ambitious idea to an impactful practicality that restores trust and bridges the growing divide between people and institutions. We should call for our governance system to climb higher on Arnstein’s ladder, break the “invisible ceiling” and propose appropriate institutional designs for citizen inclusion, at various scales. To rebuild trust, we must be empowering citizens as true partners in governance. 

Maybe more importantly than ever, these debates and reforms must be tailored for every level – local, national, and European – because including citizens in decision-making is essential for a resilient, united Europe that truly reflects the voices of its people.

Raphaël Comte is studying in the advanced Masters in EU law at ULB, and is volunteering as health policy lead at the European Citizens Initiative PsychedeliCare.