![Participatory rhombus [4].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norbert-Kersting/publication/352811588/figure/fig1/AS:1039903525703685@1624943729841/Participatory-rhombus-4_Q320.jpg)
![Citizens' attitudes to participatory instruments. Own data; N 2000; 5-point Likert scale: (very) positive, (very) negative, middle category not shown [31].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Norbert-Kersting/publication/352811588/figure/fig2/AS:1039903525711878@1624943729930/Citizens-attitudes-to-participatory-instruments-Own-data-N-2000-5-point-Likert-scale_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Norbert Kersting
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Norbert Kersting on Sep 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Participatory Democracy and Sustainability. Deliberative
Democratic Innovation and Its Acceptance by Citizens and
German Local Councilors
Norbert Kersting
Citation: Kersting, N. Participatory
Democracy and Sustainability.
Deliberative Democratic Innovation
and Its Acceptance by Citizens and
German Local Councilors.
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137214
Academic Editors: Sergiu Gherghina
and Marc A. Rosen
Received: 16 March 2021
Accepted: 21 June 2021
Published: 28 June 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Institute for Political Science, Muenster University, 48151 Muenster, Germany; norbert.kersting@uni-muenster.de
Abstract:
Political participation and sustainability seem to be closely intertwined. In the last few
decades it can be shown that the topic of sustainability and ecological interest groups play an
important role in citizen engagement, political participation, and democratic innovations at the
local level. Using a participatory rhombus model of participatory democracy, different forms of
participation and democratic innovations in the representative sphere, in direct democracy, in
demonstrative participatory space, and finally in deliberative participatory instruments are important
in the decision-making for sustainability policies. Here the paper tries to close the gap in empirical
data on the perceptions of citizens and councilors on these participatory instruments. Citizens believe
strongly in the importance of elections and referendums, but they extend their political repertoire
and start protesting and demanding more deliberative democracy. Councilors positively perceive
democratic innovations, and the councilors of the Green Party in particular strongly support new
participatory instruments. However, citizens and councilors do not support all instruments in the
same way.
Keywords: participation; digitalization; local government; innovation; deliberation; sustainability
1. Introduction
The crisis of representative democracy triggered democratic innovations [
1
,
2
]. En-
deavors for the qualification of democratic systems and democratic reforms are high on the
agenda. Political participation plays an important role in democracies [
3
]. With the Rio
conference in the 1990s, the Local Agenda 21 strategies strengthened a new trend towards
more deliberative political participation, focusing on sustainability. It was also a trigger for
social innovations and a wave of more civic engagement and communal self-help in the late
1990s. A broader participatory space with the democratic innovations as a “deliberative
turn” [
4
] can be testified to in several new participatory instruments in the invited and
invented space [
5
]. In the invented space, new participatory instruments are initiated by
civil society (bottom up) often in the form of demonstrations. In the invented space, the
state offers new channels to extend the participatory space often to include new interest
groups and to put new issues on the agenda. Nevertheless, criticism of participatory
democracy and demands for more elite-centered epistocratic governance and a stealth
democracy also became louder [6,7].
The main focus here is on Germany. Germany will be analyzed as one of the frontrun-
ners in two aspects. Since the 1980s in Germany, new parties (Green) have been highlighting
policy issues such as sustainability and climate change, and new social movements have
demanded new economic and infrastructural policies at the national, regional, and local
levels [
8
]. Secondly, the German federal system highlights the role of multifunctional
municipalities and attributes numerous decision-making processes to the local level [
9
].
Here democratic participatory innovation plays an important role.
In Germany, this is evident through the development of the Green Party, which took
up the new cleavage in the 1980s, and its growing importance firstly at the local level and
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137214 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 2 of 12
later at the regional and national level. After the nuclear disaster in Fukushima 2011, the
German Green Party gained more members of parliament and became part of government
coalitions in different Länder. However, with the push by the Fridays for Future movement
in the late 2010s, the Green Party has also been able to increase both its membership and its
voters. The ecological transformation of society is deeply embedded in the Green Party
manifesto. However, ecological issues also became relevant topics for most other parties,
with the exception of the right-wing populists.
In the area of democratic innovations, another global trend has appeared. The local
level in particular was often seen as a laboratory for new participatory instruments. German
cities had implemented some participatory instruments on conflict resolution in the 1970s.
With the direct election of mayors at the local level, new referendums, and new forms
of participatory budgeting in most European countries, new deliberative participatory
instruments were also high on the agenda. In Germany, this can be seen as a reaction
towards political scandals (Barschel affair) as well as good experiences with round tables
in the process of German unification. German cities in the 1990s were characterized
by the implementation of new instruments such as referendums at the local level, new
voting systems such as cumulative voting and panache voting, direct elections and recalls
of mayors, and new advisory boards for particular interest groups involving elderly or
disabled citizens. To mitigate strong protests against some infrastructure projects, such
as the railway station “Stuttgart 21,” in the 2010s, a number of deliberative participatory
instruments such as participatory budgeting processes were introduced in most large
German cities. In the 1990s, Germany introduced and “imported” a number of democratic
participatory innovations, reinvigorating the local representative democracy (see, for
example, the participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre). In Germany in the 1980s and
even more in the 2010s, demonstrations by large social movements such as Fridays for
Future pushed most political parties towards a stronger focus on climate change and
sustainability [10].
Political participation and sustainability, which means questions of ecological policies,
climate justice, and change, are strongly intertwined. We will analyze where political
participation focuses on sustainability topics. In the following, we will analyze the broad
range of participatory instruments within the political system using the participatory
rhombus model. After a short description of participatory instruments, we will concentrate
on the deliberative participatory tools. It will be argued that ecological transformation
is strongly related to new participatory instruments. Ecological transformation includes
policies that reduce climate change such as the sharing economy, the development of re-
newable energy production, etc. For this transformation, on the one hand, broad legitimacy
and support by the citizen seems to be necessary. On the other hand, the sharing economy,
for example, must be based on innovative forms of community development. Both are
dependent on participatory instruments and democratic innovations. How do citizens and
local councilors evaluate these different forms of participation in democratic innovations?
The councilors’ survey focuses on the question of the acceptance of these new participatory
instruments in the field of sustainability.
2. Typology and Definitions
Political participation is defined as an individual and organized act to influence politi-
cal decision-making. Democratic innovations focus on political participatory instruments,
electoral reforms, etc. In contrast, civic engagement and all forms of communal self-help
(for example, on climate change initiatives in the neighborhood) predominately concen-
trate on producing certain services (e.g., in a sharing economy) and, in general, do not
include any decision-making competencies [
11
,
12
]. This social innovation is not primarily
oriented towards the influence of decision-making, but focuses on civic engagement as
co-production. Political participation and civic engagement are interdependent, but have to
be differentiated. Nevertheless, political participation can have an essential social function,
especially in social capital development (for social innovation see [
9
]). Furthermore, in the
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 3 of 12
field of ecological transformation, there seems to be an overlapping of political participation
and civic engagement.
On the one hand, participatory instruments can be developed bottom-up by civil
society to create an invented space as the political arena [
5
]. Participatory instruments
can be implemented top-down by local, regional, or national governments to include
citizens and open the invited space. They can have a binding role, such as in elections
and referendums in “numeric democracy” (see [
13
]), and they can be more consultative
and more discursive, for example, in open forums based on self-selection, in stakeholder
conferences with organized interest groups, and in randomly selected citizen assemblies,
or more expressive, for example, in demonstrations.
In the following, we divide online participation from offline participation. We often
find a combination of online and offline participation, different types, and another sequenc-
ing of these tools (see the directly deliberative democracy (DDD) project). Instruments can
be initiated by civil society (invited space) and top-down planning (invited space, which
can be binding or not binding, formal or informal, and expressive or decisive [5].
The political arena is divided into different spheres: the representative participatory
sphere, the direct democratic participatory sphere, the demonstrative participatory sphere,
and the deliberative participatory sphere (see the participatory rhombus in Figure 1). These
four spheres encompass all forms of participation. In the following part, we will define
the instruments and show where sustainability became an important topic in political
participatory instruments. In all these spheres, climate change and transformation in
sustainability become more important on the agenda.
Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW4of13
Figure1.Participatoryrhombus[4].
Inthe1990s,afterBaden‐Wuerttemberg,allotherregionsimplementedlocalinitia‐
tivesandreferendumswithdifferentthresholdsandsomaticexclusions.Around4107ref‐
erendumstookplaceinGermanybetween1956and2009atthelocallevel(another4000
werestoppedbeforehand,butaltogethertherewere8100processes)[18].Mostoftheover‐
all8100directdemocraticprocesseswerenotimplementedbycitizensascitizeninitiatives
butratherbythecouncilorthelocaladministration.Therefore,over50%tookplacebe‐
tween2003and2019.Becauseofdifferentlegislationandthresholds,regionaleffectsoc‐
curred.Itcanbeshownthat40%ofallprocessestookplaceinBavaria.
Townplanningwasdifferentindifferentregionsbecausesomeregionshavethe‐
maticexclusionsanddonotallowtownplanningissuesinlocalreferendums.Othereco‐
logicalpolicieswereoftenontheagenda,with16.2%constitutingtrafficandtransport
issues,andeconomicprojectssuchasnewhotels,shoppingcenters,andwindparks
(17.8%).Infact,mosttopicswerehighontheagendaexcepttheareaofsocialdevelopment
andeducation(19.7%)andamalgamationsinterritorialreforms(9.7%),culturalprojects
(4.0%),andgovernancetopics(2.4%).Mostotherlocalreferendumshadastronginfluence
onsustainability.
Insomecases,therewasanindirecteffect,forexample,whenlocaltariffsforthe
durationofgarbagecollectionwereontheagenda.Theresultsofthesereferendumsin
theareaof“re‐communalization”showedapositiveeffectonsustainabilitypolicies.
Nevertheless,alltheresultsshowamixedpicture.Ingeneral,referendumscanbe
regardedasmore“structurallyconservative.”Ontheonehand,largenewinfrastructural
projectssuchasairports,highways,etc.,wereoftenblocked.Ontheotherhand,newgreen
energyprojects,suchasturbinesandwindparks,werestopped.
2.3.DemonstrativeParticipation
InEurope,ecologicalpoliticalpartiesoftendevelopedfromstrongsocialmovements
inthe1970sandearly1980s.ThisisquiteobviousintheGermancase,wherestrongfun‐
damentalistpositionsandevenstrategiescharacterizedtheGreenParty,oftenasextra‐
parliamentaryopposition(“AusserparlamentarischeOpposition,”APO).Therewas,and
Figure 1. Participatory rhombus [4].
2.1. Representative Participation
In the representative sphere, participation encompasses elections and direct contacts
with political candidates and political administration, predominately. In this area, it can
be shown that new Green political parties have played a more and more critical role in
many countries [
14
]. In Germany, the Green Party entered local, regional, and national
parliaments in the early 1980s and became a coalition partner in a number of the local
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 4 of 12
and regional governments in the 1990s and 2000s. In particular, in the late 2010s, it can be
shown that sustainability policies were more and more supported not only by the Green
Party but also by most relevant political parties except the right-wing populist party.
2.2. Direct Democratic Participation
In the direct democratic sphere, referendums and petitions are important instruments
of this numeric participation. Parliamentary petitions are used at the regional and the
national level (e.g., Bundestags-Petitionsausschuss) [
15
,
16
]. Additionally, civil society
organizations use online petitions, which focus on topics of sustainability, in the invented
space (e.g., Change.org, MoveOn, Campact) [17].
In the 1990s, after Baden-Wuerttemberg, all other regions implemented local initia-
tives and referendums with different thresholds and somatic exclusions. Around 4107
referendums took place in Germany between 1956 and 2009 at the local level (another
4000 were stopped beforehand, but altogether there were 8100 processes) [
18
]. Most of
the overall 8100 direct democratic processes were not implemented by citizens as citizen
initiatives but rather by the council or the local administration. Therefore, over 50% took
place between 2003 and 2019. Because of different legislation and thresholds, regional
effects occurred. It can be shown that 40% of all processes took place in Bavaria.
Town planning was different in different regions because some regions have thematic
exclusions and do not allow town planning issues in local referendums. Other ecological
policies were often on the agenda, with 16.2% constituting traffic and transport issues, and
economic projects such as new hotels, shopping centers, and wind parks (17.8%). In fact,
most topics were high on the agenda except the area of social development and education
(19.7%) and amalgamations in territorial reforms (9.7%), cultural projects (4.0%), and gover-
nance topics (2.4%). Most other local referendums had a strong influence
on sustainability.
In some cases, there was an indirect effect, for example, when local tariffs for the
duration of garbage collection were on the agenda. The results of these referendums in the
area of “re-communalization” showed a positive effect on sustainability policies.
Nevertheless, all the results show a mixed picture. In general, referendums can be
regarded as more “structurally conservative.” On the one hand, large new infrastructural
projects such as airports, highways, etc., were often blocked. On the other hand, new green
energy projects, such as turbines and wind parks, were stopped.
2.3. Demonstrative Participation
In Europe, ecological political parties often developed from strong social movements
in the 1970s and early 1980s. This is quite obvious in the German case, where strong
fundamentalist positions and even strategies characterized the Green Party, often as extra-
parliamentary opposition (“Ausserparlamentarische Opposition,” APO). There was, and
in certain regions there still is, a strong link between economically left-wing social groups
and ecological parties [
19
]. In the early 1980s, the development of the Green Party was
strongly connected to the peace movement and large demonstrations such as the one in
1982 against NATO decisions in Bonn. Furthermore, green parties firmly focused on direct
and deliberative democracy.
In the following years, strong inclusion into the parliamentary system became appar-
ent. In the 2010s, new social movements and protest were developing in larger European
cities, such as “Anonymous” in Madrid [
20
]. In Germany, strong protest against infrastruc-
ture projects such as the railway station and shopping mall project “Stuttgart 21” took place.
In the late 2010s, with the movement Fridays for Future, the younger generation, including
striking pupils, became highly involved in politics. Their focus is on the World Climate
Conference (COP-21) results in Paris in 2015), on the end of coal power stations, and on new
regenerative energy. Here it can be shown that this movement strongly influences all politi-
cal parties. Fridays for Future has highly decentralized but digitally connected branches,
and it uses decentralized weekly demonstrations and online networks to influence local,
regional, and national politics. The social movement is related to the protest against large
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 5 of 12
infrastructure projects to develop coal mining (in the late 2010 Hambacher Forst) and new
highways (Highway 21: A47). Besides demonstrations, consumer boycotts, strikes, and
digitally organized flash mobs, etc., are characterizing these social movements’ activities.
From a global perspective, these movements are robust in other European countries such
as Sweden, France, the UK, and Italy, as well as in Australia, Brazil, etc.
2.4. Deliberative Participation
In the 1990s, new deliberative instruments were implemented. Here, already existing
formal local council commissions and informal advisory boards were added, especially
at the local level. This deliberative turn [
4
] brought three different types of deliberative
instruments [
21
]. Already existing advisory boards were redeveloped. In neo-corporatist
contexts, these informal instruments incorporated existing organized interest groups.
They were predominantly administered by the local administration and chaired by the
mayor or the town clerk. New modern advisory boards try to incorporate broader new
social movements from civil society. These advisory boards predominantly focused on
particular interest groups and topics. Furthermore, some of them were directly elected.
They are chaired by a civil society representative, which is very important for agenda-
setting and influence.
Therefore, child and youth parliaments, advisory boards for disabled citizens, and
advisory boards for seniors or migrants have been implemented. In the area of sustain-
ability, advisory boards for ecological topics were implemented in the new millennium.
Some of them incorporated representatives from the already existing Local Agenda 21
groups, developed in the years after the Rio conference in the 1990s [
22
]. But in the 1990s,
additional experts on climate change were directly included on these new stakeholder
boards (local climate change committees).
In the 1990s, the new strategy incorporating civil society also opened to members
of the public. In these open forums, ordinary citizens were invited to participate. It
can be shown that citizen participation often mirrors the already existing inequality and
the political participatory divide. Although anyone could take part in numerous offline
participatory instruments, marginalized social groups with low levels of resources such
as time, knowledge, and finances did not participate. These open forums often focus
on important local ecological topics such as new transport systems within cities, town
planning, traffic, and prominent infrastructural instruments such as wind turbines. In
some of these participatory instruments, “Not in my backyard” attitudes became obvious.
Affected citizens protested against these infrastructure projects. This conservative bias is
similar to direct democratic initiatives. In fact, referendums can often be seen as a result of
social movements and deliberative processes.
At the local level, after the reforms of the 1990s, more deliberative instruments as well
as more digital instruments were implemented, particularly in the early 2000s. Starting in
Puerto Rico, the participatory budgeting processes focused on the distribution of financial
resources in sub-municipal contexts. This instrument became very popular in Brazil, in
Latin America, and further on in Southern Europe, in particular in Spain and Italy [
23
]. It
was also used in all larger German cities but with different characteristics. In Germany and
in a couple of other countries, participatory budgeting was implemented slightly differently.
In Germany in the 2010s, it was more a management tool and was predominantly a digital
electronic suggestion box. Citizens were allowed to make suggestions for smaller projects,
which were handed over to the administration. After an administrative evaluation and
scrutinization, these instruments were transferred to the city council, which had the final
say. Participatory budgeting processes in Germany did not have their own budget, but it
was incorporated in the municipal budget decision-making process. Secondly in Germany,
after some quite disappointing tests of face-to-face town hall meetings to discuss the budget,
most administrations and mayors decided to run participatory budgeting predominantly as
an online participatory instrument. Thus, individuals could make their suggestions online
and then in the second phase they were evaluated online by members of the public before
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 6 of 12
they went to the administration of the city council. This hindered and stopped intensive
deliberations but also led to number of smaller and less cost-intensive projects, because
broader forms of planning were made impossible. In the following years, because of the
local financial crisis, it was not even allowed to make suggestions for new projects anymore,
only suggestions for saving financial resources. Because of this, participatory rates and
turnaround in participatory budgeting processes became very low. In the following years,
a couple of cities stopped participatory budgeting altogether. In some other cities it was
revitalized by a slight change in its implementation. In some German cities, so-called
“citizen budgets” were implemented. This instrument is more comparable to the original
Porto Alegre participatory budgeting processes, because here a small but substantial budget
is reserved for neighborhood projects.
In recent years an even older instrument experienced a renaissance. The first smaller
test, with participatory instruments based on sorting and randomly selected participants,
was implemented sporadically in the 1980s and 1990s [
24
]. Deliberative polls could be
regarded as citizens’ assemblies [
25
]. With its best practices at the national level in Ireland
and the local level in Belgium and other countries, citizens’ assemblies (mini publics,
citizen juries, deliberative polls, Planungszelle) were implemented not only at the national
level but also locally. Therefore, with the wave of citizens’ assemblies and with their new
components (from mini public to citizen assembly) and changes, citizens’ assemblies could
be regarded as real democratic innovation. At various weekend workshops, between 50
and 160 randomly selected members of the public were briefed by a neutral set of experts.
The group discussed important topics before they voted on actions and suggestions for the
legislative or executive body.
In France, following the Yellow Vest movement, a citizen assembly on climate change
was implemented in 2019 at the national level. Similar processes followed this in Scotland,
the UK, and other countries. In Germany, the federal parliament supported the first national
citizen’s assemblies that focused on the future of democracy and governance role in the
global context. Civil society groups demanded a focus on sustainability, but because of
upcoming elections for the 2021 German Parliament it was denied. In May 2021 a citizen
assembly (Bürgerrat) on sustainability was initiated by different civil society groups. At the
local level, citizens’ assemblies mostly focused on areas of town planning and developed
often detailed reports for the city council.
3. Citizen Perceptions of Participatory Instruments
It could be argued that the use of participatory instruments is related to its accep-
tance [
11
,
26
]. Low voter turnout is regarded as a dissatisfaction with representative democ-
racy. Participatory instruments in the four participatory spheres are characterized by
different rates of participation.
The “numeric democracy” instruments, such as elections and referendums, have by
far the highest turnout (for numeric democracy, see [
9
]. Although the voter turnout in local
elections is decreasing in most countries, it can be shown for Germany that there is still a
relatively high voter turnout with around 50% of eligible voters. In local direct elections of
mayors, the voter turnout can fall to one third of the eligible voters in cases where parallel
elections are not taking place. In contrast, this turnout is even 10% higher in regional and
20% higher in national elections [27]).
In addition to the direct election of mayors, local referendums have been taking place
in all German Länder since the 1990s. There is a widespread voter turnout depending
on the size of the city as well as the importance of the topic. However, it can be shown
that even where participation rates are low, more than one third of citizens still take part
in referendums. Regional referendums are parallel to regional elections and have a voter
turnout of around two thirds of the eligible voters.
In local demonstrations, only a small part of the whole population is involved (see
Stuttgart 21). The biggest demonstration in Germany in the early 1980s had around
200,000 participants (for the peace movement, see [
28
]). Nevertheless, Fridays for Future
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 7 of 12
demonstrations in 2019 were held in different cities simultaneously and could motivate
some thousands of participants in each city. Here the number of participants increased
with online instruments. Nevertheless, demonstrative participation cannot enlist as many
citizens as elections and referendums. This discrepancy and participatory divide are even
higher when it comes to deliberative democracy. Open forums in some cities and suburbs
only attracted a small number of people or a few hundred. When it came to stakeholder
conferences, new advisory boards included in general between 10 and 50 people. Citizens’
assemblies (mini publics) with randomly selected participants had between 50 and 150
participants [29].
Before the councilors’ acceptance of participatory instruments is discussed, the atti-
tudes of the citizens will be presented briefly (see Figure 2).
In a survey in 2019, 2000 citizens were asked about their opinion on participatory
instruments in an online survey. The analysis showed that the data were representative
in the important aspects of gender, education, and age groups’ political party affiliations.
The survey was a replication of the earlier telephone survey in 2014 in 27 cities in Germany
with 2700 citizens [21,30].
Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW7of13
Participatoryinstrumentsinthefourparticipatoryspheresarecharacterizedbydifferent
ratesofparticipation.
The“numericdemocracy”instruments,suchaselectionsandreferendums,haveby
farthehighestturnout(fornumericdemocracy,see[9].Althoughthevoterturnoutin
localelectionsisdecreasinginmostcountries,itcanbeshownforGermanythatthereis
stillarelativelyhighvoterturnoutwitharound50%ofeligiblevoters.Inlocaldirectelec‐
tionsofmayors,thevoterturnoutcanfalltoonethirdoftheeligiblevotersincaseswhere
parallelelectionsarenottakingplace.Incontrast,thisturnoutiseven10%higherinre‐
gionaland20%higherinnationalelections[27]).
Inadditiontothedirectelectionofmayors,localreferendumshavebeentakingplace
inallGermanLändersincethe1990s.Thereisawidespreadvoterturnoutdependingon
thesizeofthecityaswellastheimportanceofthetopic.However,itcanbeshownthat
evenwhereparticipationratesarelow,morethanonethirdofcitizensstilltakepartin
referendums.Regionalreferendumsareparalleltoregionalelectionsandhaveavoter
turnoutofaroundtwothirdsoftheeligiblevoters.
Inlocaldemonstrations,onlyasmallpartofthewholepopulationisinvolved(see
Stuttgart21).ThebiggestdemonstrationinGermanyintheearly1980shadaround
200,000participants(forthepeacemovement,see[28]).Nevertheless,FridaysforFuture
demonstrationsin2019wereheldindifferentcitiessimultaneouslyandcouldmotivate
somethousandsofparticipantsineachcity.Herethenumberofparticipantsincreased
withonlineinstruments.Nevertheless,demonstrativeparticipationcannotenlistasmany
citizensaselectionsandreferendums.Thisdiscrepancyandparticipatorydivideareeven
higherwhenitcomestodeliberativedemocracy.Openforumsinsomecitiesandsuburbs
onlyattractedasmallnumberofpeopleorafewhundred.Whenitcametostakeholder
conferences,newadvisoryboardsincludedingeneralbetween10and50people.Citizens’
assemblies(minipublics)withrandomlyselectedparticipantshadbetween50and150
participants[29].
Beforethecouncilors’acceptanceofparticipatoryinstrumentsisdiscussed,theatti‐
tudesofthecitizenswillbepresentedbriefly(seeFigure2).
Inasurveyin2019,2000citizenswereaskedabouttheiropiniononparticipatory
instrumentsinanonlinesurvey.Theanalysisshowedthatthedatawererepresentative
intheimportantaspectsofgender,education,andagegroups’politicalpartyaffiliations.
Thesurveywasareplicationoftheearliertelephonesurveyin2014in27citiesinGermany
with2700citizens[21,30].
Figure 2.
Citizens’ attitudes to participatory instruments. Own data; N 2000; 5-point Likert scale: (very) positive, (very)
negative, middle category not shown [31].
The evaluation focused on the process, its efficacy, and its legitimacy. At first glance it
does not seem remarkable that more than 76% of citizens regarded local elections as most
important for the decision-making process. Only 8% saw local elections negatively and a
middle range of around 14% were indifferent. This is important regarding a lower voter
turnout and a decrease at the local level.
Referendums were also seen as important, with two thirds of citizens supporting
them, despite the low turnout and some controversial referendums (see referendum on
schools in Hamburg, on Olympic Games in München, on Brexit in UK, etc.).
Demonstrations were lower on the list of preferences. Here half of the citizens regarded
this as an important and influential positive instrument. Nearly a quarter of the citizens
were critical of demonstrations, which were regarded as an unconventional participatory
instrument in Germany for a long time [32].
When it came to the deliberative instruments, the three types of participation were
evaluated differently. Open citizen forums such as town hall meetings based on self-
selection were regarded as the most positive deliberative instrument. Here, more than
half of citizens regarded these open conferences positively. A fifth of citizens viewed
them critically.
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 8 of 12
Advisory boards for stakeholders were regarded positively by more than a third of
the citizens. Meanwhile, nearly one third criticized these stakeholder conferences.
Citizens’ assemblies are not well known among the general public as a whole. Nev-
ertheless, it seems that these are seen more critically. More than a third of the population
supports these new instruments, one third is indifferent, and one third is (very) critical.
Participatory instruments broaden the chance for participation, but it is often men-
tioned that citizens’ demands are critical and too high. It is apparent that this is not just a
wish list where citizens demand as many instruments and as much as possible. The list
shows a clear differentiation.
Citizens seem to regard the binding decision in elections and in referendums much
higher than the more consultative ones. Elections and referendums do not require a
high investment of time and other resources (knowledge), but offer an influential vote.
Traditional participatory instruments from the neo-corporatist system such as stakeholder
conferences with influential representatives of organized interest groups are criticized
because citizens are excluded. The same aspect applies to citizens’ assemblies with a
selection by a lottery. The chances of being selected are not very high, although these
instruments are regarded as a stimulator and incubator for broader discussions.
4. Acceptance of Participatory Instruments by the Councilors
Turnout and the rate of representation ca be regarded as one indicator of the accep-
tance of participatory instruments. Acceptance includes the evaluation of the process
(input legitimacy) as well as satisfaction with the results (outcome, impact, output legiti-
macy). In the following, the acceptance of the different participatory instruments within
the local politicians is analyzed. In a survey in June/July 2020 during the COVID-19 pan-
demic and three months before the local elections, local councilors in the biggest German
“Land,” North Rhine-Westphalia, were asked to evaluate local participatory instruments
(see
Figure 3
). In this survey all cities over 100,000 inhabitants were included, as well as the
same number of medium-sized cities (20,000–10,000) and small-sized cities (
−
20,000). The
response rate was 25% and altogether 1800 people responded. The evaluation concentrated
on the participatory process itself as well as its effects. The survey was a replication of the
earlier survey in 2014 [
30
]. In the following, participatory instruments from the different
participatory spheres are analyzed. The research question concentrates on the general
acceptance by the councilors as well as different opinions in small and large cities, in
different age and gender groups, as well as in different partisan groups.
Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW9of13
Figure3.Localcouncilors’attitudesonparticipatoryinstruments.Owndata2020;N1800;5‐pointLikertscale:(very)
positive,(very)negative,middlecategorynotshown[33].
Whenitcametoelections,itisobviousthatmorethan84%ofthecouncilorsstrongly
highlightedtheimportanceoflocalelectionsforthedecision‐makingprocess.Only4%
sawlocalelectionsnegatively.Themiddlerangeof12%wasindifferent.Analyzingthe
differentpoliticalparties,itisobviousthatespeciallythemoreestablishedpartieshada
slightlystrongerfocusonlocalelections.Nevertheless,allcouncilorsregardedlocalelec‐
tionsashighlyimportant.
Localreferendumswerealsosupportedbymorethantwothirdsofthecouncilors.A
totalof69%regardedlocalreferendumsas(very)positive,whereasonly9%hadmore
negativeattitudestowardslocalreferendums.Thereweresignificantdifferencesbetween
thedifferentpoliticalparties.Intheconservativeparty(CDU),only61%regardedlocal
referendumsaspositiveandaround11%asnegative,whereasintheGreenPartymore
thanthree‐quarters(79%)supportedlocalreferendums.Atthelocalleveltherewasstrong
supportfordirectdemocracywithintheGreenParty.
Demonstrationswereseenpositivelyandasapositiveandeffectiveinstrumentby
only46%ofallcouncilors.Therewasabigdiscrepancybetweenthepoliticalparties.In
theconservativeparty(CDU),onlyaminority(23%)sawdemonstrationsaspositiveand
amajority(32%)asnegative.ThesupportinggroupwasmuchbiggerintheSocialDemo‐
craticParty(SPD),where51%sawdemonstrationspositivelyandonly13%critically.In
theGreenParty,asmanyas70%evaluateddemonstrationas(very)positiveandonly7%
evaluatedthemnegatively.
Inthedeliberativesphere,theacceptanceofthethreedifferenttypesofdeliberative
participation,i.e.,openforums,stakeholderconferences(advisoryboards),andcitizens’
assemblies,variedamongtheparties(seeFigure4).Deliberativeinstrumentswithopen
accessandself‐selectionsuchasopenforums,futuresearchconferences,townhallmeet‐
ings,andsampleconferenceswerehighlyaccepted.Twothirds(63%)ofthecouncilorsin
generalsupportedtheseinstrumentsandonly12%rejectedthem.However,withinthe
GreenParty,asmanyas76%stronglysupportedtheseopendialogicalparticipatoryin‐
struments.Thissupportwasmuchlower(55%)intheconservativeparty(CDU).
Figure 3.
Local councilors’ attitudes on participatory instruments. Own data 2020; N 1800; 5-point Likert scale: (very)
positive, (very) negative, middle category not shown [33].
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 9 of 12
When it came to elections, it is obvious that more than 84% of the councilors strongly
highlighted the importance of local elections for the decision-making process. Only 4% saw
local elections negatively. The middle range of 12% was indifferent. Analyzing the different
political parties, it is obvious that especially the more established parties had a slightly
stronger focus on local elections. Nevertheless, all councilors regarded local elections as
highly important.
Local referendums were also supported by more than two thirds of the councilors.
A total of 69% regarded local referendums as (very) positive, whereas only 9% had more
negative attitudes towards local referendums. There were significant differences between
the different political parties. In the conservative party (CDU), only 61% regarded local
referendums as positive and around 11% as negative, whereas in the Green Party more
than three-quarters (79%) supported local referendums. At the local level there was strong
support for direct democracy within the Green Party.
Demonstrations were seen positively and as a positive and effective instrument by
only 46% of all councilors. There was a big discrepancy between the political parties.
In the conservative party (CDU), only a minority (23%) saw demonstrations as positive
and a majority (32%) as negative. The supporting group was much bigger in the Social
Democratic Party (SPD), where 51% saw demonstrations positively and only 13% critically.
In the Green Party, as many as 70% evaluated demonstration as (very) positive and only
7% evaluated them negatively.
In the deliberative sphere, the acceptance of the three different types of deliberative
participation, i.e., open forums, stakeholder conferences (advisory boards), and citizens’
assemblies, varied among the parties (see Figure 4). Deliberative instruments with open
access and self-selection such as open forums, future search conferences, town hall meetings,
and sample conferences were highly accepted. Two thirds (63%) of the councilors in general
supported these instruments and only 12% rejected them. However, within the Green Party,
as many as 76% strongly supported these open dialogical participatory instruments. This
support was much lower (55%) in the conservative party (CDU).
Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW10of13
Figure4.Localcouncilors’attitudesondeliberativeparticipatoryinstruments.Owndata2020;N1800;5‐pointLikertscale:
(very)positive,(very)negative,middlecategorynotshown[33].
Participatoryinstrumentsforstakeholderssuchasroundtablesoradvisoryboards
andcommissionsforparticularinterestgroupsweresupportedby47%.Meanwhile,18%
sawthemasnotveryeffectiveorpositive.Herepoliticalpartiesweremoresimilarintheir
evaluation.Atotalof54%ofcouncilorsintheGreenPartyand45%intheconservative
party(CDU)sawthemverypositively.
Finally,thecitizens’assemblies(minipublics,citizenjuries,Planungszelle)usingran‐
domselectionandsortitionwassupportedbythemajority.Atotalof39%sawthisrela‐
tivelynewinstrumentpositively,and26%criticizedit.However,therewerestrongparty
discrepancies.WithintheGreenParty,56%supportedcitizens’assembliesandonly16%
evaluatedthemnegatively.Intheconservativeparty(CDU),only29%supportedcitizens’
assembliesand33%rejectedthem.
5.Conclusions
Sincethelastmillennium,itcanbeshownthattwoimportantpoliticalmegatrends
havebeenvisible.Ontheonehandthereisastrongtendencytowardsdemocraticinno‐
vationsandnewformsofparticipatoryinstruments.Ontheotherhand,climatechange,
sustainability,andecologypolicieshavebeenpushedtremendouslysincethe1980s.Inall
spheresofparticipatoryinstrumentsinGermany(representative,directdemocratic,
demonstrative,anddeliberative),sustainabilityishighontheagendaandtheclimate
changemovement,politicalparties,andindividualactorsplayanimportantroleinde‐
mandingmoredemocraticinnovationsandmoredirectanddeliberativeformsofpartici‐
pation.Germanywasoneofthefrontrunnersinthedevelopmentofgreenpoliticalpar‐
ties.However,itwaslateintheimplementationofnewinstruments(participatorybudg‐
eting),butislearningparticipatoryinnovationsfromtheGlobalSouthandfromother
Europeancountries.
Intherepresentativesphere,greenpoliticalpartiesareplayinganimportantrole.
Directdemocraticinstrumentsareusedbycivilsocietygroupsaswellasecologicalpar‐
ties.Referendumsarerelatedtocriticalinfrastructuresuchaspowerstations,windtur‐
bines,andhighways.DemonstrationssuchasFridaysforFutureareimportantchannels
toexpressprotest,andinthedeliberativesphereallthreetypesofparticipatoryinstru‐
mentscanbeseen:openforumswithself‐selection,citizenassembliesbasedonsortition,
Figure 4.
Local councilors’ attitudes on deliberative participatory instruments. Own data 2020; N 1800; 5-point Likert scale:
(very) positive, (very) negative, middle category not shown [33].
Participatory instruments for stakeholders such as roundtables or advisory boards
and commissions for particular interest groups were supported by 47%. Meanwhile, 18%
saw them as not very effective or positive. Here political parties were more similar in their
evaluation. A total of 54% of councilors in the Green Party and 45% in the conservative
party (CDU) saw them very positively.
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 10 of 12
Finally, the citizens’ assemblies (mini publics, citizen juries, Planungszelle) using
random selection and sortition was supported by the majority. A total of 39% saw this
relatively new instrument positively, and 26% criticized it. However, there were strong
party discrepancies. Within the Green Party, 56% supported citizens’ assemblies and only
16% evaluated them negatively. In the conservative party (CDU), only 29% supported
citizens’ assemblies and 33% rejected them.
5. Conclusions
Since the last millennium, it can be shown that two important political megatrends
have been visible. On the one hand there is a strong tendency towards democratic inno-
vations and new forms of participatory instruments. On the other hand, climate change,
sustainability, and ecology policies have been pushed tremendously since the 1980s. In all
spheres of participatory instruments in Germany (representative, direct democratic, demon-
strative, and deliberative), sustainability is high on the agenda and the climate change
movement, political parties, and individual actors play an important role in demanding
more democratic innovations and more direct and deliberative forms of participation. Ger-
many was one of the frontrunners in the development of green political parties. However,
it was late in the implementation of new instruments (participatory budgeting), but is learn-
ing participatory innovations from the Global South and from other European countries.
In the representative sphere, green political parties are playing an important role.
Direct democratic instruments are used by civil society groups as well as ecological parties.
Referendums are related to critical infrastructure such as power stations, wind turbines,
and highways. Demonstrations such as Fridays for Future are important channels to
express protest, and in the deliberative sphere all three types of participatory instruments
can be seen: open forums with self-selection, citizen assemblies based on sortition, and
stakeholder conferences that focus more on sustainability and include organized ecological
interest groups. Deliberative participatory instruments (round tables) focus on big, highly
criticized infrastructural projects such as railway stations (Stuttgart 21).
Our empirical research shows that citizens want more of a say in the decision-making
process. They highlight the representative democracy and elections. However, there is a
high demand for direct democratic referendums as well as for deliberative participatory
instruments. Here open forums are preferred by a clear majority. Only a smaller majority
supports stakeholder conferences as well as randomly selected citizen assemblies. Further
research in more countries is needed to analyze whether this is related to different chances
to participate in these instruments.
In the late 2010s, only a few local councilors were resistant to and critical of new
participatory instruments that give broader power to the direct participation of the general
public. The surveys show that in general, the majority of the councilors regarded most
of these instruments much more positively and saw them as a kind of add-on for local
representative democracy. However, local elections and referendums were regarded as the
dominant, most important instrument by the majority of all councilors. Most councilors
supported more deliberative forms of participation as well as even more unconventional
involvement such as participation in demonstrations, etc.
However, a significant correlation between party membership and the evaluation and
acceptance of participatory instruments is obvious. Younger local councilors, particularly
female councilors, seem to be more open to new forms of local participation and the new
deliberative participatory space. This includes not only the invited space implemented by
local administrations in order to channel local protests. It also encompasses the bottom-up,
more informal participatory instruments within the invented participatory space. The
new instruments also have a strong political party bias. Our survey data show that
more councilors from the Green Party strongly supported more deliberative and direct
democratic instruments. In the conservative parties (CDU/CSU) there was also a majority
in favor of the new participatory instruments, but there was still a group of often older
councilors who rejected this kind of participatory democracy at the local level.
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 11 of 12
All councilors in all political parties saw the dominant and important role of voting
in elections and referendums. When it comes to the other participatory instruments it
becomes clear that the acceptance of the instruments differs from party to party. Political
demonstrations were strongly supported by the Green Party and rejected by a majority
within the conservative parties, whereas the Social Democratic councilors were split. Within
the deliberative participatory instruments open forums found the greatest acceptance.
Roundtables for stakeholders were also high on the agenda, and in third place—and often
not well known—were the new instruments of randomly selected citizens’ assemblies.
It can be argued that political parties have, over the years, learned how to engage
in new forms of participatory instruments. Although political parties still play the most
important role in the elections, they often play a relevant role in referendums. Sometimes
they use these instruments as a kind of second channel or a last resort in the decision-
making process. Some referendums are implemented by political opposition parties
in cooperation with civil society groups. The same strategic engagement can exist in
deliberative participatory instruments. It can be shown that political parties play an
important role in local open forums and townhall meetings, where they often dominate the
discussion. The relatively new instrument of randomly selected members of civil society
in citizens’ assemblies can significantly reduce the influence of political parties, because
neither every citizen nor every politician may be selected. Because of sortition, members of
the political parties are not directly included in this process. Members of political parties
may be invited as experts to show their political positions, but they are not part of the
group developing a final report. It could be argued that this is a general reason for the high
skepticism of councilors towards citizens’ assemblies.
Finally, it can be concluded that different forms of participation are closely related
to sustainability. Germany has learned from other countries and in particular from the
Global South (e.g., Brazil). However, in Germany, these participatory processes are strongly
related to the local level. Cities have become a laboratory for an innovative participatory
space. In other countries, such as Ireland, France, the UK, Belgium, Italy, and Portugal, new
participatory instruments play a more important role at the regional and the national level.
New participatory instruments get support from citizen and politicians. All these
instruments may be important for legitimate ecological transformations and mobilizing
civic engagement in the field of sustainability.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available at GESIS.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Smith, G. Democratic Innnovation; Cambridge University: Cambridge, UK, 2008.
2. Smith, G. Can Democarcy Safeguard the Future; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021.
3. Dahl, R. Who Governs; Yale: New Haven, CT, USA, 1961.
4. Dryzek, J.S. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2002.
5. Kersting, N. Online Participation: From “invited” to “invented” spaces. Int. J. Electron. Gov. 2013,6, 260–270. [CrossRef]
6.
Hibbing, J.R.; Theiss-Morse, E. Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work; Cambridge University
Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002.
7. Brennan, J. Aganst Democracy; Princeton University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
8. Poguntke, T. The organization of a participatory party—The German Greens’. Eur. J. Political Res. 1987,6, 609–633. [CrossRef]
9.
Kersting, N. (Ed.) Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in Dialogorientierte Instrumente Politischer und Gesellschaftlicher Partizipation;
Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008.
10. Sommer, M.; Haunss, S. Fridays for Future—Die Jugend gegen den Klimawandel; Trasncript: Bielefeld, Germany, 2020.
11.
Van Deth, J.W. New modes of participation and norms of citizenship. In New Participatory‘ Dimensions in Civil Society: Professional-
ization and Individualized Collective Action; Routledge: London, UK, 2011; pp. 115–138.
Sustainability 2021,13, 7214 12 of 12
12. Zhifu, M.; Coffman, D.M. The sharing economy promotes sustainable societies. Nat. Commun. 2019,10, 1–3.
13.
Kersting, N.; Trechsel, A.; Schmitter, P. Die Zukunft der Demokratie. In Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in Dialogorientierte
Instrumente Politischer und Gesellschaftlicher Partizipation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 40–62.
14. Probst, L. Bündnis 90/Die Grünen (GRÜNE); Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 509–540.
15.
Lindner, R.; Riehm, U. Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. International parliamentarye-petition systems in
comparative perspective. JeDEM eJ. eDemocracy Open Gov. 2009,1, 1–11. [CrossRef]
16.
Eisel, S. E-Petitionen beim Deutschen Bundestag. Sinnvolles Angebot mit begrenzter Reichweite. Z. Parlam.
2016
,4, 867–877.
[CrossRef]
17.
Voss, K. E-Petitionen, Shitstorms, Crowdsourcing & Co. –Engagement digitaler Bürger. In Crowds, Movements& Communities;
Vilain, M., Wegner, S., Eds.; NOMOS Glashütte: Baden-Baden, Germany, 2018; pp. 179–198.
18. Mehr Demokratie. Bürgerbegehrensbericht 2020; Mehr Demokratie: Hamburg, Germany, 2020.
19.
Blühdorn, I. Reinventing Green Politics: On the Strategic Repositioning of the German Green Party. Ger. Politics
2009
,18, 36–54.
[CrossRef]
20.
Iglesias, Á.H.; Barbeito, A.H. Participatory Democracy in Local Government: An Online Platform in the City of Madrid. Croat.
Comp. Public Adm. 2020,20, 241–268. [CrossRef]
21.
Kersting, N. Participatory turn? Comparing citizen and politicians perspectives on Online and Offline local political participation.
Lex Localis J. Local Self Gov. 2016,14, 225–249. [CrossRef]
22. Lafferty, W.M. Implementing LA 21 in Europe. New Initiatives for Sustainable Communities; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1999.
23.
Kersting, N.; Gasparikova, J.; Iglesias, A.; Krenjova, J. Local Democracy Renewal by Deliberative Participatory Instruments: Participatory
Budgeting in Comparative Study; Kuhlmann, S., Bouckaert, G., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 317–331.
24. Dienel, P.C. Die Planungszelle. Der Bürger als Chance; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002.
25.
Fishkin, J. (Ed.) Deliberative Poll. Jenseits von “Polling Alone”. In Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in Dialogorientierte Instrumente
Politischer und Gesellschaftlicher Partizipation; Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2008; pp. 80–91.
26.
Schlozman, K.L.; Verba, S.; Brady, H.E. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy;
Private University: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2007.
27.
Kersting, N.; Caulfield, J.; Nickson, A.; Olowu, D.; Wollmann, H. Local Governance Reform in Global Perspective; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009.
28.
Della Porta, D.; Kriesi, H.; Rucht, D. (Eds.) Social Movements in a Globalizing World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1999.
29.
Leyenaar, M. Citizen Jury. In Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in Dialogorientierte Instrumente Politischer und Gesellschaftlicher
Partizipation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2008; pp. 209–221.
30.
Gabriel, O.W.; Kersting, N. Politisches Engagement in Deutschen Kommunen. Strukturen Wirkungen auf die Politische Einstellungen von
Bürgerschaft, Politik und Verwaltung; Bertelsman: Gütersloh, Germany, 2014; pp. 43–184.
31.
Kersting, Norbert 2019: Citizens’ Attitudes to Participatory Instruments; Representative Survey 2019; IfPol_Muenster University:
Muenster, Germany, 2019.
32.
Barnes, S.H.; Kaase, M.; Allerbeck, K.R.; Farah, B.G.; Heunks, F.J.; Inglehart, R.F.; Jennings, M.K.; Klingemann, H.D.; Marsh, A.;
Rosenmayr, L. Political Action: Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies; Sage: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1979.
33.
Kersting, Norbert 2020: Local Councillorsns’ Attitudes on Participatory Instruments; Opinion Poll; IfPol_Muenster University:
Muenster, Germany, 2020.
