DEMOS-ACT · Democratic Innovations and Citizens in the EU

Democratic innovations and citizens in the EU

Despite the world-wide triumph of democracy, the quest for an optimal 'politike' has not yet reached the 'end of history' (Fukuyama). It turned out that representative democracies do not necessarily satisfy the citizenries. While these malaises - some authors even speak of disenchantments, ills, demystification or deconsolidation (Dalton et al., 2006; Habermas, 1973; Offe, 2003) - do not necessarily lead to far-reaching political crises, they are viewed as cause for concern. This concern is the breeding-ground for discussions about new forms of democratic decision-making. Many national and subnational governments implemented various kinds of participatory innovations to mend the malaises. However, up to now there is a striking imbalance between the amount of time, money and energy invested in participatory innovations and the amount of attention paid to assess them empirically. The Marie-Curie project intended to fill this gap and to shed light on the hypothesis that democratic innovations can either be a source for improving the quality of democracies or a danger. The researcher and the host started to develop a comprehensive theoretical framework with criteria for evaluation, gather a centralised body of information on the different forms of democratic innovation that have been tried in various countries and to explore the merits and risks of democratic innovations. They provide the first attempt to systematically evaluate different forms of democratic innovations. The project was (and is) innovative because of its methodological approach, because it takes into account qualitative as well as quantitative studies. It was also innovative from a practical perspective, because we started to advice politicians as to which innovation can be chosen for which problem and give guidance regarding best practice. Thus the project is filling a gap that not only political scientists but also politicians have moaned and lamented about since the 1990s. The Interdisciplinary Centre of Excellence 'Democracy: a citizen perspective' (DCE) at the Abo Akademi University in Turku, Finland, was the host of the project. It provided abundant academic expertise and practical cooperation. Each member of the group and especially the personal coach, Marko Joas, has a record of extensive research on democratic innovations and was crucial for the success of the project. The project significantly advance applying fellow's career in several ways. During the Marie-Curie fellowship she was offered two professorships at universities with very good reputations (University of Goettingen, TU Darmstadt). Finally she was appointed to a third professorship (University of Frankfurt). Thus the Marie-Curie fellowship has supported her career crucially. Furthermore she has acquired not only additional methodological skills in experimental research, but also enhanced her transnational and trans-sectoral experience and management abilities. The fellow and the host have established long-term cooperation and collaborations, demonstrated for example in the collaborative organisation of the fellow and the host of a section with 7 panels and over 30 papers at the General Conference of the European Consortium for Political Research on the topic of 'Democratic Innovations and Innovative Democracies' (September 2009, Potsdam, Germany). Several research projects are planned and proposals for funding are already sent out (e.g. Eurocores). The project revealed several strengths and weaknesses of all innovations under research. Thus many hopes concerning democratic innovations can only be fulfilled if participative innovations are combined in such a way that their weaknesses and strengths can be balanced. Some examples can illustrate this notion: one of the disadvantages of discursive procedures is the small number of participants who can be involved. They may be able to deliberate sophisticated suggestions but they cannot make any decisions. With popular votes the problem is the other way round: a large number of people, in fact the entire electorate, can take part. However, the simple aggregation of citizens' preferences might not be the best solution as the preferences are not well thought out and be based on insufficient information. Thus neither consultative-discursive procedures nor the aggregation of preferences ('voting') are optimal. However, the combination and 'sequencing' of the two innovations could mitigate some of the weaknesses of each form. In terms of a future research agenda the study reveals, first, the need for an analysis that takes different designs of democratic innovations into account. For research on direct democracy, for example, it means not lumping together the different forms but evaluating binding and non-binding procedures, bottom-up and top-down initiatives along with decision-promoting and decision-controlling features separately to establish the strengths and weaknesses of each of these forms. Second, the context has to be considered in a comparative perspective. In spite of the rather universal trend trends towards participative innovations, the national context is decisive. The same is true for the political levels. Experiences at the small scale can not necessarily be implemented at higher scales - a problem discussed at length and already pointed out several times in this volume. Innovations, that might be successful at the local level, might be detriment at other political levels. However, it is no iron law that participative innovations have different impacts at different levels, but a matter of further empirical research. Target groups for our findings are political representatives as well as civil society. The guide for political actors is not yet published, but we are already active in advising. Contact details: Prof. Dr Brigitte Geissel, Technische Universitaet Darmstadt, Institut fur Politikwissenschaft Residenzschloss (Raum 211), 64283 Darmstadt, Germany, Email: geissel@pg.tu-darmstadt.de Starting 1 October 2009: Goethe-Universitat Frankfurt am Main, Institut fuer Politikwissenschaft Institut fur Politikwissenschaft, Robert-Mayer-Strasse 1 (FLAT), 60325 Frankfurt am Main Prof. Dr Marko Joas, Abo Akademi University, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, FIN-20500 Abo, Finland. E-mail: marko.joas@abo.fi

Текст от CORDIS, на английски · Данни: CORDIS, © Европейски съюз