Participatory Democracy: Cracks in the Facade

Johns GT¹*

1. Institute of Public Affairs, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia

Participatory democracy and its techniques have produced a democratic process which makes governing and policy-making more open, but less effective for the disinterested public. It creates a policy class, which is no more representative than in the former, cruder, representative model. Policy makers need to be aware of pitfalls in the participatory model.

The mechanisms of participatory democracy, in particular the consensus method, confuse the distinction between representation and public recognition as criteria for selection, and between expertise and values in the process of policy formulation.

The consensus method becomes even less likely to produce good policy when the participants represent values rather than constituents. This occurs in the newer lobbies, the NGOs. For example, the welfare lobby claims to give a voice to the poor and disadvantaged, the environment lobby to the environment, the human rights lobby to refugees and others, the indigenous lobby to Aborigines and so on.

Why then does so much debate revolve around these voices? The answer lies in the appeal of participatory democracy. A democracy of active citizens is held to be superior to a democracy of politically apathetic citizens. On close reflection, it may not be so. A consensus of activists is a process-oriented policy; it sets a premium on a saleable outcome. It does not ensure a least cost or public interest outcome. While advocacy democracy values expertise and expertise in the citizenry, it devalues those same characteristics among policy makers.

Click here to view the full paper