The idea of participatory democracy

Introduction

In most modern states democracy means rule through elected representatives, a limited and indirect form in which most citizens take part only by voting every few years. Participatory democracy asks for something more: that citizens take an active part in the decisions that concern them. The question asks for the idea behind it.

Participatory democracy

Participatory democracy holds that citizens should take a continuing part in the decisions that affect them, not only vote at intervals: a vote once in five years is not enough, and active citizens help to make and shape a system's rules as well as choose its officials. Its thinkers include Rousseau, for whom people more readily accept a law they helped to make and gain a sense of community from doing so, and Mill and Aristotle, who held that a person reaches full human potential only by taking an active part in the political community. C. B. Macpherson sets two conditions for it: less social and economic inequality, and people who see themselves as exerters and enjoyers of their own development, not as mere consumers of government policy.

Core ideas. (1) Participation gives government policies legitimacy; without it a government comes to depend on force. (2) It keeps rulers accountable, and alert citizens restrain them. (3) It adds to what people know about their country's politics, and citizenship is learned partly through exposure to public life, and Mill counted the building of character among the advantages of democratic decision-making. (4) It guards against tyranny by drawing on collective wisdom. This fits NCERT's account of positive liberty: people need a real chance to share in deciding the laws they live under.

Forms. The ancient Greek assembly was the model of direct, unmediated participation, with citizens physically present. Today Swiss cantons rely on the initiative (people propose legislation for the legislature to discuss), the recall (people remove policy makers who perform badly) and the plebiscite (a major question is put to citizens for approval). In India NCERT speaks of informed citizens taking part in gram sabhas and in discussion on websites and polls.

Criticisms. Scale: what works in a city-state is hard to practise in a large nation-state, and the diversity of a modern nation makes wide participation harder still. Equality: in practice people do not take part equally, so participation does not by itself produce political equality. Overload: Huntington argues that excessive demands erode government authority, and calls for a balance. Leadership: Sartori says that anti-elitists attend to participation and neglect leadership, though he too wants an informed and active citizenry.

Participatory and representative democracy compared

Why the idea matters

Participation is also a part of freedom. On NCERT's account of positive liberty, laws should reflect what people choose, or at least weigh what they prefer, and that requires a chance to take part in making them. In its account of citizenship, citizens owe their community more than legal duties: they have a moral duty to take part in its common life and add to it. Participatory forms therefore strengthen both freedom and citizenship.

Conditions for success

For participation to be real, people need the capacity to judge, which NCERT says has to be built through education and cultivation of judgement; basic needs must be met, since political participation can be exercised fully only when food, shelter and health are secured; and social and economic inequality must fall, which is Macpherson's first condition.

Conclusion

Participatory democracy broadens democracy from voting to continuing involvement. It adds legitimacy and accountability, but it needs equal access and a balance with government authority. It is best seen as a complement to representative democracy.