Summary
# The relationship between citizenship and democracy
This section explores the intricate relationship between citizenship and democracy, focusing on how citizen participation is crucial for the functioning of modern democratic systems and the challenges that arise from political alienation and unequal engagement.
## 1. Political alienation
Political alienation is a significant issue in Western democracies, characterized by two primary dimensions: distrust and powerlessness.
### 1.1 Distrust and powerlessness
* **Powerlessness** can manifest as internal powerlessness, where individuals feel that people like them have no influence on politics, or external powerlessness, where politicians disregard citizens' wishes.
* **Distrust** can be directed at political personnel (e.g., perceived corruption), political institutions (parties, governments), or the democratic regime itself.
> **Tip:** While trust in the core principles of democracy (like freedom of speech and elections) generally remains high, trust in institutions and political actors often shows a downward trend.
### 1.2 Trends in trust
Surveys indicate a decline in trust in political institutions in many Western countries, a trend that has been exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic. While short-term fluctuations can occur due to political crises or scandals, a long-term, gradual increase in political alienation is observable across Western democracies. This trend cannot be solely explained by objective factors like poor governance or economic performance, as it persists even in well-governed nations.
### 1.3 Explaining alienation: Subjective factors
Dierickx attributes the rise in political alienation to subjective factors within the population:
* **Individualism:**
* **Defensive individualism:** This affects weaker groups in society who feel powerless and distrustful of others' perceived selfishness. This often leads to apathy or aversion towards politics.
* **Offensive individualism:** This characterizes the socially privileged who demand immediate fulfillment of their rights and desires. These individuals tend to be less attached to long-term political organizations and parties, leading to a weakening of traditional political ties and a reinforcement of political individualism. They may resort to political protest to voice their dissatisfaction.
* **Subjective disinformation:** This arises from the increasing complexity of modern society. While the complexity itself is an objective factor, the subjective element lies in citizens' inability to process the overwhelming information about policy-making, leading to a feeling of being misinformed.
> **Example:** A highly educated individual might feel frustrated by the complexity of environmental regulations and struggle to understand the rationale behind them, leading to a sense of subjective disinformation.
### 1.4 Groups most affected by alienation
Political alienation is most pronounced in groups experiencing radical opposition to government policy, such as "strong" individuals in activist groups with high short-term expectations that clash with political complexity. Additionally, low-skilled groups are also significantly affected, experiencing heightened feelings of powerlessness and finding it harder to navigate political complexity.
## 2. Citizenship and democracy
Democracy fundamentally relies on citizens' control over power and their collective direction of society.
### 2.1 Types of democracy
* **Direct democracy:** Citizens directly decide on specific policy proposals.
* **Indirect democracy:** Citizens delegate decision-making power to representatives.
Modern democracies typically employ a **hybrid democracy**, a combination of both direct and indirect forms, where the nature and organization of citizenship play a crucial role.
### 2.2 The inseparable link
Citizenship and democracy are interdependent. Democracies require citizens to have the right to exercise power and the responsibility to ensure that power emanates from them.
### 2.3 Layers of citizenship
The concept of citizenship has two key layers:
* **Citizenship as status:** This refers to the legal contract between the state and the individual, symbolized by an identity card.
* **Citizenship as social role:** This encompasses the role an individual plays within their community as a citizen, with responsibility being central. This role is context-dependent and varies by community.
### 2.4 Active citizenship
Active citizenship refers to an individual's capacity to actively participate in public affairs. This engagement can take many forms:
* Associations and unions
* Political parties
* Advisory councils
* Self-help groups
* Action committees
* Media engagement and public debates
* Formal and informal networks
Historically, political participation was largely limited to voting, a right hard-won through extensive mobilization. Laborers, women, and new immigrants fought for broader democratic inclusion, expanding the concept of governance "of the people."
### 2.5 The role of civil society (middenveld)
Organizations within civil society have historically supported political participation by enabling citizens to:
* Meet and support each other.
* Collectively defend their interests.
Initially, large, structured organizations with hierarchical designs represented and organized loyal constituencies. Recognized interest groups played a role in policy formulation and, through sub-contracting, in policy execution. The influence of civil society was sometimes seen as complementing, and at other times as undermining, parliamentary democracy.
### 2.6 Evolution of participation
Following World War II and particularly from the 1970s onwards, several developments shaped citizen participation:
* **Emancipation and expanded services:** The emancipation of various citizen groups was politically recognized, leading to an expansion of services. Citizen participation increasingly involved forms of consultation, such as public inquiries and advisory councils.
* **The "old" pillarized Belgium:** In the past, citizens were not expected to heavily involve themselves in politics; this was the domain of political elites. Citizens were mobilized for demonstrations as deemed necessary by the top.
* **New participation movements (from the 1970s):** Protesting against closed, paternalistic decision-making, a new wave of participation emerged. Influenced by the May '68 emancipation movements, citizens, often highly educated, demanded more say and less paternalism.
* **Citizen initiatives:** Various actions, committees, movements, and citizen initiatives fundamentally altered the landscape of democracy from the ground up. New movements brought new issues to the political agenda, such as environmental quality, equal rights for women, and urban renewal.
* **"Top-down" participation:** In the 1990s, political elites, concerned by the rise of the far-right, became convinced that strong citizen participation was vital for a vibrant democracy. Efforts were made to bridge the "gap with the citizen" through increased government-citizen interaction. This included strengthening direct democracy (referendums, sortition) and interactive democracy (citizens as co-producers).
* **The role of civil society reaffirmed:** Civil society was again seen as a crucial link for politics and a training ground for democratic citizenship. High participation levels were considered a hallmark of a strong democracy.
* **Expanded participation opportunities:** The range of participation options beyond voting has significantly broadened, encompassing participatory councils in education, client participation in welfare and health, works councils, resident participation, and participatory justice.
* **Methods and levels of participation:** various methods are used, including interactive websites, participatory budgets, and citizen panels. Participation opportunities exist at international, European, federal, regional, and local levels. Local governance is particularly crucial for rebuilding trust and community development.
### 2.7 The participation ladder
The participation ladder illustrates the relationship between the type of democracy and the citizen's input and role. Higher levels on the ladder indicate greater "citizen power," showing how different conceptions of participation align with different views of democracy and the role of government.
> **Example:** In a "Doe democracy" (direct democracy), citizens take the initiative and are co-creators or self-managers, while the government provides a broad framework and supports citizen-led tasks.
## 3. Unequal political participation of citizens
While elections offer universal participation with one vote per citizen, other forms of participation often reveal inequalities mirroring those in broader society.
### 3.1 Socioeconomic disparities
* **Income, occupation, and education level** significantly influence political participation.
* **Higher socioeconomic status citizens** have expanded their participation repertoire to include petitions, legal actions, and open letters, which are less utilized by lower socioeconomic status citizens.
* **Education level** is a key factor, as higher-educated individuals possess greater political interest, knowledge, and the "suitable" skills for political engagement.
### 3.2 Consequences of unequal participation
* **Higher-educated citizens** can influence the political agenda and amplify their voices.
* **Lower-educated citizens** perceive the complex participation landscape as further increasing their sense of powerlessness.
This leads to a **dualization of political participation**: lower-skilled individuals participate less and in different ways, accessing information from different media and joining different organizations.
### 3.3 Gender inequality
Despite advancements in education and the labor market for women, a persistent gap remains in political participation compared to men. This is attributed to:
* Unequal distribution of household tasks.
* Continued male dominance in the leadership of organizations.
This gender gap means that women's concerns and preferences may reach the political agenda less easily.
### 3.4 Other challenges
Diversity and the digital divide also pose challenges for citizen participation. The scaling up of small-scale participation initiatives is another significant hurdle.
## 4. Participation, civil society, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond public administration into the broader public sphere, where civil society organizations (the "middenveld") play a vital role.
### 4.1 Defining civil society
The "middenveld" is understood as the differentiated and dynamic collective of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous space between the private sphere, the market, and the state. This includes a wide range of entities, from self-help groups and unions to sports clubs and temporary action committees.
### 4.2 Characteristics of civil society organizations
* **Private initiative:** They are founded and run by citizens, not government.
* **Non-profit orientation:** Their aim is societal participation, not profit.
* **Formal nature:** They are distinct from informal groups like friendship circles.
* **Differentiated and dynamic:** They continuously evolve in their forms, themes, and scales.
### 4.3 The historical context of civil society in Belgium
Belgium has a rich and extensive civil society that developed alongside its industrial society. In the first half of the 20th century, organizations evolved into "pillars" (Catholic, Liberal, Socialist), creating distinct social worlds for citizens. Conflicts between these pillars were resolved through negotiation and compromise.
### 4.4 The erosion of pillarization and the rise of new movements
Since the 1970s, pillarization has weakened due to increasing individualization and secularization. However, organizations like trade unions and mutualities remain influential. During this period, new social movements emerged, often driven by educated youth, focusing on themes like peace, environmentalism, sexual liberation, and gender equality. These movements challenged traditional elites and pushed for greater openness.
### 4.5 Contemporary civil society
More recently, new associations have formed around diverse themes, including mobility, animal rights, and poverty. There is a trend towards temporary, conditional, and individualistic forms of engagement, replacing long-term commitments to fixed associations. New social movements are often more dispersed and employ a variety of actions, from small-scale interventions to large demonstrations.
### 4.6 The political mission of civil society
Civil society fulfills three core missions:
* **Social mission:** Bringing people together, fostering social cohesion, and combating isolation.
* **Political mission:**
* Expressing citizens' wishes and needs.
* Representing their interests.
* Providing political education through practical experience in decision-making, negotiation, and action.
* **Service mission:** Delivering a wide range of services.
### 4.7 Evolution of the political mission
Traditionally, the Belgian government allocated significant space to civil society, granting interest groups substantial influence in policy formulation within a consensus-based decision-making system. However, this also led to criticism of civil society "colonizing" public domains and wielding excessive power.
Despite criticism, civil society remains politically relevant for two key reasons:
* **Social cohesion:** It prevents societal fragmentation and fosters trust.
* **Partnership:** It serves as a conduit for governments to receive signals from the population and to test policy ideas.
### 4.8 Success factors for the political mission
Successful political action by civil society depends on:
* **Access to the political system:** The multi-layered governance structure in countries like Belgium offers numerous access points, though this can also create management challenges. A de-pillarized political landscape generally offers more openness to diverse civil society actors.
* **Political-strategic positioning and resources:** This includes organizational strength, available volunteers and professionals, financial resources, expertise, political contacts, and media connections.
### 4.9 Civil society participation and democracy
David Putnam's work on "social capital" highlights a strong correlation between civic engagement and democratic performance.
* **Social capital:** Defined as networks, norms, and trust that enable individuals to work together effectively towards shared goals. It comprises:
* **Trust:** Citizens' basic confidence in each other.
* **Networks of engagement:** Dense networks of associations facilitate collective action and mutual understanding.
* **Norms of reciprocity:** Principles of equality and mutual benefit encourage cooperation.
Putnam suggests that active associations lead to stronger democracies by:
* **Internal functioning:** Serving as a "school of democracy" where citizens develop democratic thinking and behavior through socialization.
* **External functioning:** Enabling citizens to gain power by uniting and compelling governments to consider their demands.
A political system with numerous pressure groups and movements is likely to be more responsive than one facing only individual citizens.
## 5. Towards a new interplay between citizen and politics
The evolving roles of citizens and civil society present challenges for governments, politicians, and civil servants.
### 5.1 Changing context, changing participation
* **Individualization:** This has made citizens less reliant on traditional political structures, leading to a divergence in experiences between "strong" and "weak" citizens. Governments have responded with increased accountability, transparency, and feedback channels.
* **Shift from command to negotiation:** Governance models have moved from hierarchical command to more cooperative, shared responsibility. Interactive policy-making involves citizens as experts and co-producers, not just clients or advisors.
* **Increasing diversity:** Societal diversity requires adaptive participation methods that acknowledge and productively leverage differences, moving beyond assumptions of homogeneity.
* **Persistent social inequality and polarization:** This makes it difficult to speak of "the" citizen, with significant disparities between different groups. Existing participation channels can inadvertently reinforce these inequalities.
* **Digital revolution:** Offers opportunities for information dissemination and feedback but risks undermining deliberation essential for decision-making.
* **Evolving legal context:** A shift towards network thinking and the increasing use of legal recourse by citizens and groups.
* **Media dynamics:** Commercial pressures lead to rapid, often superficial reporting, creating challenges for issues less attractive to the media and potentially undermining considered democratic decision-making.
* **Economic globalization:** Poses a challenge to national democracies and traditional forms of collective participation, requiring a globalization of democratic participation.
### 5.2 The end of the citizen-client relationship?
Public administration has moved towards a more business-like model, with a retreat of the state as a dominant player in decision-making. This risks powerful actors advancing their own interests. While New Public Management emphasizes efficiency and effectiveness, it can lead to an inward focus at the expense of external engagement with citizens as co-owners.
Direct participation models, intended to bypass intermediaries, often neglect the need for a public sphere of debate crucial for a vibrant democracy. Interactive policy-making, where citizens, societal actors, and government collaborate from the outset, has gained traction.
### 5.3 Problems with participation
Despite increased policy attention, citizen participation faces several issues:
* **Inequality:** New participation forms often increase complexity, alienate less empowered citizens, and give more influence to an educated elite, widening the gap between citizens. The interests of non-participants are often overlooked, and access to information remains unequal.
* **Focus on administrative logic:** Participation processes are often driven by administrative needs rather than citizens' lived experiences, using jargon and overly structured procedures that create barriers.
* **Weaknesses in process design:** Unclear frameworks, incoherent links between goals and processes, insufficient information, late involvement of citizens, lack of feedback, and opaque interest balancing.
* **Risk of misuse:** Participation can be used as a mere legitimizing tool for pre-determined decisions, undermining the political aspect of debate and struggle over collective decisions. This "pseudo-participation" can fuel political distrust.
### 5.4 Perspectives for participation
Citizen participation remains essential for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping coexistence.
* **Policy priority:** Participation should be integrated into strategic planning with dedicated resources and tailored approaches.
* **Key organizational principles:** Transparent communication, attention to service functioning and key figures' attitudes, effective management of policy processes, and continuous evaluation of participation instruments.
* **Problem-oriented approach:** Focusing on concrete issues within citizens' lived realities, requiring cross-sectoral collaboration and new governance structures.
* **Sustained and professional approach:** Consistent, professional engagement builds trust over time.
* **Crucial role of professionals:** Experts should listen, communicate cautiously, work adaptively, embrace uncertainty, and recognize the value of difference. They should be service-oriented facilitators.
* **Political mindset:** Politicians need to embrace collaboration, be accountable, and connect with society.
* **Opening up public administration:** Decisions about collective societal shaping should be brought into public debate earlier and more profoundly.
* **Citizenship as practice:** Citizenship is not just a status but is dynamically shaped through groups claiming rights and striving for their vision of a good society. This happens within a shared democratic space of freedom and equality.
* **Role of civil society organizations:** They should act as supportive partners for citizens developing into political subjects, rather than merely extensions of government.
* **Realizing participation as a right:** Efforts must be made to ensure this right for all citizens, valuing and supporting citizen initiatives without dictating outcomes. Political participation inherently challenges the existing social order and power dynamics, serving as a crucial, disruptive force in a society that is never "finished."
---
The relationship between citizenship and democracy hinges on active citizen participation and the dynamic interplay between individuals, civil society, and governing institutions.
## 1. Citizenship and democracy
### 1.1 Introduction: The challenge of political alienation
Modern democracies fundamentally rely on public trust. However, contemporary Western societies face a growing challenge of political alienation, characterized by distrust and feelings of powerlessness. This alienation can be directed towards political figures, institutions like parties and governments, or even the democratic system itself. While trust in the core principles of democracy, such as freedom of speech and free elections, generally remains high, confidence in political institutions has seen a significant decline, a trend exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic. This suggests a deeper, long-term erosion of trust that cannot be solely attributed to short-term political failures or economic performance.
#### 1.1.1 Dimensions of political alienation
Political alienation in Western countries manifests in two primary dimensions:
* **Distrust:** This can range from skepticism about politicians' integrity (e.g., viewing them as self-serving) to a broader disillusionment with political institutions and the democratic regime itself.
* **Powerlessness:** This feeling encompasses both internal powerlessness (the belief that individuals like oneself have no influence on politics) and external powerlessness (the conviction that politicians do not heed citizens' wishes).
#### 1.1.2 Explaining the rise of political alienation
While objective factors like poor governance or weak economies can contribute to alienation, the slow but steady increase observed across Western democracies points to underlying subjective factors. Two key explanations are:
* **Individualism:** Modern societies increasingly emphasize individual autonomy. This can translate into a political individualism where:
* **Defensive individualism:** Weaker groups feel powerless and distrustful of others' "selfishness," perceiving themselves as victims. This can lead to political apathy or aversion.
* **Offensive individualism:** Privileged individuals assert their rights across all societal domains, expecting immediate political responsiveness. This often leads to reduced loyalty to long-term-oriented political associations and parties, fostering a reliance on protest to voice discontent.
* **Subjective disinformation:** The growing complexity of modern societal life can overwhelm citizens. The sheer volume of information about complex policy-making can lead to an inability to process it, resulting in a state of "subjective disinformation." Social media plays a role in amplifying this phenomenon.
These factors contribute to alienation being most pronounced among diverse groups. This includes individuals in radical opposition to government policy who have high expectations that clash with political complexity, as well as lower-educated groups who struggle with this complexity and experience heightened feelings of powerlessness and distrust.
### 1.2 Citizenship and democracy: Intertwined concepts
Democracy fundamentally relies on citizens' ability to control power and collectively steer society. This involves understanding the distinction between:
* **Direct democracy:** Citizens directly decide on policy proposals.
* **Indirect democracy:** Citizens delegate decision-making power to elected representatives.
Modern democracies are typically **hybrid democracies**, blending elements of both direct and indirect forms. The content and organization of citizenship are crucial to the functioning of these hybrid systems, as citizenship and democracy are inextricably linked.
#### 1.2.1 Layers of citizenship
The concept of citizenship can be understood in two distinct layers:
* **Citizenship as status:** This refers to the legal contract between the state and the individual, often symbolized by an identity card. It defines formal rights and obligations.
* **Citizenship as social role:** This encompasses the active part an individual plays within a community as a citizen. Responsibility is central here, and the interpretation of this role is context-dependent. This leads to the concept of **active citizenship**, which is the capacity of individuals to engage in public affairs through various means.
#### 1.2.2 The evolution of citizen participation
Historically, citizen participation was largely confined to voting, a right hard-won through prolonged mobilization efforts by groups like workers, women, and newcomers. Beyond voting, civil society organizations played a vital role in supporting political participation by enabling citizens to:
In the past, large, pillarized organizations with hierarchical structures mobilized loyal followings. Recognized interest groups significantly influenced policy preparation and, through subcontracting, policy implementation. This strong influence was sometimes viewed as both a complement and a detraction from parliamentary democracy.
The post-war welfare state saw increased political recognition of various citizen groups and an expansion of public services. Citizen participation primarily involved forms of consultation, particularly through public inquiries and early advisory councils. In the traditional, pillarized Belgian society, direct citizen involvement in politics was limited, with elites at the top of pillar parties controlling mobilization.
From the 1970s onwards, a new participation movement emerged in protest against closed, paternalistic decision-making. Driven by the emancipatory movements of the 1960s, a growing number of citizens, often well-educated young individuals, demanded more "say" in Western democracies. They began to actively claim input, leading to the proliferation of actions, committees, movements, and citizen initiatives that fundamentally reshaped democratic engagement. These new movements introduced new themes and demands, such as environmental quality, equal rights for women, and urban renewal.
The breakthrough of the far-right in the 1990s gave new impetus to "top-down" participation efforts. Political elites became convinced that strong citizen involvement was crucial for a vibrant democracy and aimed to narrow the "gap with the citizen." This led to a focus on enhanced interaction between citizens and government, advocating for strengthened direct democracy (e.g., referendums, lotteries) and interactive democracy where citizens act as co-producers. The civil society was again recognized as a vital link for politics and a breeding ground for democratic citizenship.
High levels of participation across a broad segment of the population became a hallmark of a strong democracy. This interaction between elites and "aware citizens" has led to a significant expansion of participation opportunities beyond voting. Citizen involvement and consultation have increased across various societal domains, including:
* **Education:** Participatory councils.
* **Welfare and healthcare:** Client participation.
* **Youth care:** Participatory structures.
* **Business:** Works councils and recognized union representatives.
* **Social housing:** Resident participation.
* **Justice:** Participatory justice through mediation.
Various methods are employed in this evolution toward active citizen participation, including advisory councils, interactive websites, visual materials, neighborhood budgets, and citizen panels. Participation opportunities have been enhanced at multiple governance levels:
* **International:** Consultative status for NGOs.
* **European:** Citizen petitions to the Parliament.
* **Federal:** Hearings and thematic debates with citizens, experts, and interest groups.
* **Flemish:** Strategic advisory councils.
* **Local:** Referendums, reporting cards, public inquiries.
Effective governance requires enabling residents to participate in various processes and giving them a voice. Building consensus is a crucial democratic element, and the local level is particularly important for regaining citizen trust and fostering community development.
### 1.3 The participation ladder
The participation ladder establishes a clear connection between the type of democracy and the input and role of the citizen. As one ascends the ladder, the level of citizen power increases. This schema illustrates how views on participation are linked to views on democracy, and how a different citizen role implies a different role for the government. Various activities can be employed depending on the objectives of participation.
#### 1.3.1 Unequal political participation of citizens
While political participation through elections offers a high degree of equality, with each citizen having one vote, other forms of participation reveal significant inequalities. Research consistently shows that more complex forms of participation are marked by disparities mirroring those in broader society, particularly concerning income, occupation, and education level.
* **Impact of Socioeconomic Status:** Citizens with higher socioeconomic status often expand their repertoire of participation methods to include petitions, legal actions, and open letters, which are less utilized by those with lower socioeconomic status.
* **Education as a Key Factor:** Educational attainment appears to be the most significant predictor of participation inequality. Higher-educated individuals tend to possess greater political interest and knowledge, along with the requisite skills to navigate the political landscape.
* **Consequences of Inequality:**
* Higher-educated individuals influence the political agenda more effectively, amplifying their voices.
* For lower-educated individuals, the complex "participation states" can make society appear more convoluted, intensifying their feelings of powerlessness.
This leads to a **dualization in political participation**: lower-educated individuals not only participate less but also engage differently, obtaining political information from distinct sources and joining different organizations.
* **Gender Inequality:** Despite advancements in education and the labor market for women, a persistent gap remains in political participation compared to men. This is attributed to:
* Continued male dominance in organizational leadership.
This gap means that women's concerns, themes, and preferences are less likely to reach the political agenda, despite having distinct preferences.
Other challenges for citizen participation include diversity, the digital divide, and scaling up small-scale initiatives.
### 1.4 Participation, civil society, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond public administration into the broader public sphere, where various associations play an active role. Civil society, particularly in Belgium, has a significant function not only in policy formation but also in policy implementation, and is expected to bolster democracy.
#### 1.4.1 Description and development of civil society
Civil society is understood as a differentiated and dynamic collection of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous position between the private sphere, the market, and the government. "Differentiated and dynamic" reflects the continuous evolution of organizational forms based on types, themes, and scales. This encompasses self-help groups, unions, mutual societies, employer organizations, socio-cultural associations, sports clubs, self-organizations for marginalized groups, and temporary action committees.
Civil society organizations are characterized by:
* **Private initiative:** They are based on citizens' own initiatives and are not government-controlled.
* **Non-profit motive:** Their goal is participation in society, not profit.
* **Formal character:** They are distinct from informal communities like friend groups or neighborhood associations.
The civil society is dynamic, encompassing traditional "rich" associational life, unions, mutual societies, sports clubs, socio-cultural groups, as well as newer, less formalized initiatives like self-help groups and temporary action committees. Coalitions and collaborations between civil society organizations also exist, united by common goals and programs.
Belgium possesses a very extensive and rich civil society, which developed alongside the modern industrial society. In the first half of the 20th century, new organizations evolved into distinct "pillars" (Catholic, Liberal, Socialist), creating separate societal worlds that enveloped citizens from "cradle to grave." In this pillarized society, individuals lived within segregated communities. Conflicts between these pillars were eventually resolved peacefully through a system of "armed peace," with pillar elites negotiating compromises that their followers accepted.
Following World War II, and especially from the 1970s, these pillars began to erode due to increasing individualism and secularization. This led to a reverse pillarization effect, as some Catholic youth movements took stances on issues like peace and sexuality that differed from the Church and the broader Catholic pillar. While pillarization waned, organizations like unions and mutual societies remained large and active.
During this period of de-pillarization, new social movements emerged alongside classical pillars. Well-educated middle-class youth introduced new themes, including peace and pacifism, environmental concerns, critique of unchecked economic growth, sexual liberation, youth autonomy, gender equality, and solidarity with the "Third World." These movements challenged established elites and pushed for greater openness from governments and institutions.
In recent decades, new associations have formed around emerging themes, such as the cycling federation, committees for safer school environments, animal rights organizations, and movements of people living in poverty. This has led to a trend towards temporary, conditional, and fragile affiliations with groups or actions, replacing long-term commitments in established organizations. New social movements also organize differently, with citizens participating temporarily in more fragmented groups and demonstrating significant mobilization power through numerous small, creative actions and large-scale demonstrations.
#### 1.4.2 The political mission of civil society
Civil society fulfills three central missions:
* **Social mission:** Organizations bring people together for diverse forms of interaction, fostering social cohesion and combating isolation. This is particularly important as traditional family networks diminish. These organizations also offer opportunities for collaboration, engagement, and mutual support.
* **Political mission:** This involves two aspects:
* Expressing citizens' wishes and needs and advocating for their interests (e.g., unions, farmer organizations, resident groups, action committees).
* Providing political education through democratic skill development in decision-making, agreement-making, argumentation, and action planning.
* **Service mission:** Civil society organizations deliver a wide range of services, from recreational activities and childcare to managing health insurance and offering supplementary services.
#### 1.4.3 Evolution of the political mission of civil society
Historically, the Belgian government provided considerable space for civil society. Within the Belgian consensus-based democracy, interest groups exerted significant influence on policy-making. In a consensus-driven decision-making process, all relevant societal groups had a voice in policy determination and could agree or disagree with the outcome. Decision-making circuits were often closed, limiting access for new themes and groups. This approach, however, provided stability and predictability. Government tasks were sometimes outsourced to large civil society umbrella organizations, such as unions distributing unemployment benefits or health insurance funds managing healthcare.
This extensive influence and subcontracting faced criticism, with accusations of civil society colonizing large parts of the public domain and wielding significant power within the state. Despite these criticisms, there is sustained political interest in civil society for two main reasons:
1. **Social Cohesion:** Civil society is vital for social cohesion, preventing societal fragmentation and fostering trust in one's environment and in politics. It is seen as an asset in combating anti-political sentiment.
2. **Partnership:** Politics requires partners. Civil society organizations act as antennae for governments to gauge public sentiment and as discussion partners for testing policy ideas. They can also help convey the feasibility of certain policies to their own constituents.
#### 1.4.4 Success factors for the political mission
Two crucial factors for the successful political engagement of civil society are:
* **Access to the political system:** The multi-layered governance structure in countries like Belgium offers numerous access points for civil society. However, managing these can be complex. The de-pillarized nature of Flanders, with a less dominant political party landscape, generally allows for greater openness to diverse civil society. Competition among political parties on new themes can also facilitate access.
* **Political-strategic positioning and resources:** Organizations differ in their commitment to their political mission. Some actively politicize issues, while others have become more institutionalized and cautious. In a vibrant democracy, civil society organizations should continually challenge existing consensus. Effective policy influence depends on resources such as strong organization, available volunteers and professionals, financial means (subsidies, donations, membership fees), expertise, and connections with political actors and the media.
### 1.5 Participation in civil society and democracy
The participation of citizens in civil society has a significant impact on democracy, as highlighted by the work of sociologist David Putnam. Putnam's research on "social capital" in *Making Democracy Work* and *Bowling Alone* reveals a strong correlation between democratic performance and "political culture."
#### 1.5.1 Social capital and democratic performance
Putnam argues that regions with high levels of citizen activity and political engagement compel regional governments to be more attentive to citizen demands. When citizens reject fraud and corruption, governments can more effectively combat these issues. The public's attitude is therefore crucial for explaining democratic performance.
Democratic systems function better when robust, horizontal networks of associations exist, fostering mutual cooperation and trust. Putnam defines social capital as: "features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives."
Social capital, as a resource for democratic society, comprises three elements:
* **Trust:** The degree to which citizens have basic trust in each other.
* **Networks of engagement:** In societies with dense networks of associations, citizens can achieve collective goals. They know and trust each other better.
* **Norms of reciprocity:** Norms of equality and reciprocity encourage cooperation, as individuals recognize its mutual benefit.
Putnam suggests that active associations lead to stronger democracies, but the relationship can also be reversed: stable democracies can foster thriving associational life.
#### 1.5.2 Contributions of associations to democracy
Associations contribute to democracy in two main ways:
* **Internal functioning:** They act as a "school of democracy," socializing individuals to think and act more democratically.
* **External functioning:** By uniting, citizens gain power and can compel governments to consider their wishes and desires more seriously. A political system facing numerous pressure groups and movements is likely to be more responsive than one dealing only with individual citizens.
### 1.6 Towards a new interplay between citizen and politics
The evolving roles of citizens and civil society present challenges for governments, politicians, and public officials.
#### 1.6.1 Changing context, changing participation
Several developments significantly influence the perception and practice of participation:
* **Individualization:** This has made citizens more independent of traditional patterns and political associations. For strong, calculating citizens, this means quicker reckonings with government. For more vulnerable citizens, it leads to a reduced sense of protection from collective interest representation, both potentially increasing political alienation. Governments respond with greater accountability and transparency, and by facilitating feedback through ombudsmen and accessible consultation channels. The collective interest representation for vulnerable citizens remains a significant challenge for civil society organizations.
* **Shift from Command to Negotiation:** The shift from a hierarchical command structure to a negotiation-based model emphasizes cooperation and shared responsibility over coercion and power. In interactive policy-making, citizens are viewed not just as clients or advisors, but as experts in their own situations and as socially responsible co-producers. Governments are moving towards a more horizontal governance model, characterized by flexible, project-based, and process-oriented approaches, employing new tools like public-private partnerships and tailored agreements.
* **Increasing Diversity:** Societies are becoming more diverse, with citizens from various backgrounds, values, and interests. This demands new forms and processes of participation that acknowledge and productively utilize diversity, rather than assuming homogeneity. Adapting methods to diverse target groups and moving beyond mere compromise are essential. Solidarity in diversity can be achieved through active citizenship processes where diverse citizens collaboratively shape their local environments.
* **Persistent Social Inequality and Polarization:** Significant social inequalities and polarization make it difficult to speak of "the" citizens in democracy. The divide between highly educated, affluent citizens and lower-educated individuals, those living in poverty, and "not-yet-citizens" seeking their place with limited rights, is stark. While participation initiatives have often stemmed from the educated middle class, new forms of citizenship where individuals claim rights and develop into citizens (even without formal status) are emerging. Governments are still learning to navigate this, and existing participation channels risk exacerbating existing inequalities.
* **Digital Revolution:** Offers opportunities for information dissemination and follow-up of participation processes. However, a key danger is the lack of necessary deliberation in decision-making. Participation requires interaction aimed at finding consensus, not just a juxtaposition of opinions.
* **Evolving Legal Context:** The shift from a pyramidal to a network-based legal approach means that new legal sources like tailored contracts and covenants have less clear binding force. Assertive citizens and action groups increasingly resort to legal channels to assert their rights or compel negotiation. Court appeals and administrative reviews are becoming more common.
* **Media Dynamics:** Commercial pressures drive media towards rapid, sometimes sensational reporting, creating opportunities for creative citizens to influence the political agenda. However, this can also lead to short-lived political trends and undermine the careful deliberation necessary for democratic decision-making. Groups whose issues are less media-friendly face greater challenges accessing the political arena.
* **Globalization:** Economic globalization poses a challenge to democratic politics and traditional participation models. National democracies have limited capacity to counter the competitive pressures of the global economy on social contracts. Traditional collective participation in unions and social movements, developed within national states, now faces the challenge of globalizing democratic participation, requiring democratic political counterparts at all governance levels, including the international.
#### 1.6.2 The end of the citizen-customer relationship?
Public administration has evolved in response to societal changes and neoliberal pressures, moving towards a more business-like model. The shift to governance implies a retreat of the government as the primary decision-making player, risking powerful actors serving their own interests. The idea that political discussion and decision-making can be power-free is a misnomer.
Internal administrative reforms, driven by New Public Management, have not necessarily enhanced citizen participation. While the "citizen-customer" received recognition for efficient service delivery, complaint procedures, and quality controls, administrations often became too inward-looking, prioritizing internal processes and efficiency over external orientation and citizen ownership.
Direct democracy instruments have had limited success. The neoliberal notion that minimizing intermediate organizations between individuals and government would allow unfiltered citizen voices to reach decision-making overlooked the necessity of a public sphere for debate, crucial for a vital democracy. This need for public debate has been recognized in the trend towards interactive policy-making, where citizens, societal actors, and government collaborate from the outset.
A further step involves government responding to and facilitating citizen initiatives, with neighborhood budgets being an experimental example.
#### 1.6.3 Problems with participation
Despite increased policy attention, citizen participation faces significant challenges:
* **Inequality:** New participation forms have often increased the complexity of decision-making, further alienating less articulate citizens, while educated elites gain more political influence. The gap between citizens widens, with the interests of non-participants being neglected and access to information being unequal.
* **Disconnection from Lived Reality:** Participation often starts from administrative logic rather than citizens' everyday lives. Used methods and jargon can be alienating. The complexity and technicality of many dossiers raise the participation threshold. Consultation procedures are often over-structured, inadequately considering target group backgrounds and competencies, and leaving little room for unpolished input.
* **Process Weaknesses:** Governments fail to clearly define frameworks and conditions. The link between goals and procedural paths is often unclear. Participants receive insufficient, inconsistent information. Citizens are involved too late in processes, rendering their input reactive and limited to blocking already decided paths, leading to frustration for both citizens and administration. There is insufficient feedback on how processes influence decisions, and the weighing of interests is often opaque. Participation processes can be too insular and difficult to monitor.
* **Risk of Misuse:** Participation can be exploited to legitimize pre-determined decisions, undermining the political aspect of participation, which inherently involves negotiation and contestation over collective decisions. Such pseudo-participation can significantly increase political distrust among engaged citizens.
#### 1.6.4 Perspectives for participation
Despite these challenges, citizen participation remains essential for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping community life. Democratic citizenship is concretely formed through ongoing struggles and dialogue.
* **Policy Priority:** Participation should be a core policy theme within strategic planning, with dedicated resources for customized approaches. Key elements for a participatory organization include transparent communication, attention to service functioning and the attitudes of key personnel, effective policy process management, and continuous evaluation of participation tools with stakeholders.
* **Problem-Centric Approach:** The focus should be on concrete issues and citizens' lived realities, rather than sectors or governance levels. This requires different communication, collaboration, and administrative structures.
* **Sustained and Professional Approach:** Participation initiatives should be consistent and professionally managed to build trust. Time is a crucial element, and a familiar environment with consistent guidance facilitates citizen connection.
* **Role of Professionals:** Experts must communicate listeningly rather than persuasively, being reserved yet active where needed. They must be comfortable working iteratively, tolerating uncertainty, recognizing diverse interests and reasoning styles, and viewing difference and opposition as essential to democratic practice, rather than striving for a bland consensus. Professionals should be service-oriented facilitators, allowing initiatives to grow and trusting societal forces. Frontline professionals, with their direct connection to citizens' lives, can embody a trustworthy image of government by relaying unfiltered signals.
* **Political Openness:** Politicians must exhibit an open mindset, believe in citizen contributions, and be willing to co-create policy, evolving towards accountability within a responsible community. Elected officials should make clear policy choices in connection with society, being alert to citizen initiatives and forms of self-organization.
* **Opening Up Public Administration:** Public administration needs to become more outward-facing. Participation should not be a mere policy ritual or a politically harmless phase in the policy process. Important decisions about collective societal shaping should be brought into public debate earlier, more consciously, and more profoundly, leading to informed discussions about fundamental choices rather than just the execution of policy consensus. This would significantly enhance the vibrancy and legitimacy of democratic debate.
* **Citizen Agency:** Citizenship is not just a fixed status but a dynamic process through which groups form, claim rights, and advocate for their vision of a good society within a shared democratic space of freedom and equality. Citizenship practices are situated in time and space. Through concrete "acts of citizenship," individuals assert rights in their daily lives, shifting the boundaries of citizenship and evolving into political subjects.
* **Role of Civil Society Organizations:** These organizations are crucial as engaged supporters of individuals developing into political subjects, rather than merely acting as extensions of government, responsible partners, or spokespersons.
* **Realizing Democratic Rights:** Participation is a democratic right, and efforts must be made to realize it for as many citizens as possible. Valuing citizen initiatives and acknowledging their indispensable contributions is paramount. Processes can be guided but not dictated. A driven process aiming for a predetermined outcome is not a participation process. Engaging in "the political" means that the existing social order and its underlying power structures can always be fundamentally questioned. Political participation, therefore, has a disruptive character, as no society is ever truly "finished."
---
# Understanding political alienation and its drivers
This section explores the concept of political alienation within modern democracies, examining its dimensions, causes, and implications for citizenship and the functioning of democratic systems.
### 2.1 Political alienation defined
Political alienation refers to a state of estrangement or detachment from the political process and institutions. In Western countries, it is primarily characterized by two dimensions:
* **Mistrust:** This can be directed towards various targets, including:
* **Political personnel:** Perceptions of politicians as self-serving or corrupt.
* **Political institutions:** Skepticism towards parties, governments, and broader political structures.
* **The political regime:** A broader dissatisfaction with the democratic system itself.
* **Powerlessness:** This feeling encompasses:
* **Internal powerlessness:** A belief that individuals like oneself have no influence on political decisions.
* **External powerlessness:** A perception that politicians do not consider or act upon citizens' wishes.
While trust in the fundamental principles of democracy (like freedom of speech and free elections) generally remains high, trust in specific political institutions, such as parties and governments, has seen a decline. This trend has been exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating a broader societal mistrust in political bodies. Data from various surveys highlight this decline, with a significant portion of citizens expressing low levels of trust in federal executive and legislative powers. Interestingly, trust tends to be higher at the local government level compared to higher administrative tiers.
### 2.2 Drivers of political alienation
Beyond immediate political events or policy failures, a long-term, slow increase in political alienation is observed across Western democracies. This phenomenon cannot be solely attributed to "objective factors" like poor governance or weak economic performance, as declining trust is also evident in countries with strong leadership and economic growth.
Researchers suggest that "subjective" factors stemming from the population are key drivers:
* **Individualism:** The growing emphasis on the individual in modern society translates into political individualism, manifesting in two forms:
* **Defensive individualism:** This affects weaker groups in society who feel powerless and distrustful of the perceived "egoism" of others. This can lead to aversion or indifference towards politics.
* **Offensive individualism:** Privileged individuals assert their rights across all societal domains, demanding immediate political attention to their individual needs. These individuals also tend to be less attached to traditional political organizations and parties, weakening established political ties and reinforcing political individualism. This can lead to a reliance on political protest to voice discontent.
* **Subjective misinformation:** The increasing complexity of modern life and policy-making can overwhelm citizens' capacity to process information. This "subjective desinformation" arises not from the complexity itself, but from the individual's inability to process the information provided, leading to a sense of confusion and detachment from political matters. Social media's impact on citizen opinion is also a contributing factor.
These drivers contribute to political alienation being most pronounced among seemingly disparate groups:
* Individuals in radical opposition to government policy who may have unrealistic short-term expectations that clash with political complexity.
* Lower-skilled groups who face greater mistrust and powerlessness, making it harder for them to comprehend the intricacies of political issues.
### 2.3 Citizenship and democracy
Democracy fundamentally relies on citizens' ability to hold power accountable and collectively steer society. The text distinguishes between:
* **Direct democracy:** Citizens directly decide on policy proposals.
* **Indirect democracy:** Citizens delegate decision-making power to representatives.
Modern democracies typically operate as **hybrid democracies**, blending elements of both direct and indirect forms. The content and organization of citizenship are crucial to their functioning.
**Citizenship** is understood on two levels:
* **Status:** This refers to the legal contract between the state and the individual, often symbolized by an identity card.
* **Social role:** This encompasses the responsibilities an individual undertakes as a citizen within a community. Active citizenship, in this context, is the capacity of individuals to play an engaged role in public affairs.
Historically, political participation was largely confined to voting. The struggle for suffrage involved extensive mobilization by various groups, broadening the conception of democracy as governance "of the people." The **civil society sector (middenveld)** has also played a significant role by enabling citizens to unite, defend collective interests, and provide support. Traditional civil society organizations were often large, hierarchical, and represented loyal constituencies, wielding considerable influence in policy-making and implementation.
However, the paternalistic and closed decision-making processes of traditional politics and civil society led to a rise in participation movements from the 1970s onwards, advocating for a more open and horizontal democracy. New social movements emerged, focusing on issues like environmental quality, equal rights, and urban renewal, fundamentally changing the face of democracy from the ground up. Political elites, concerned about the rise of far-right movements, later emphasized strengthening participation "from above," aiming to bridge the "citizen-government gap" through increased citizen involvement and a reinforced role for civil society.
Today, the range of participation opportunities has expanded significantly beyond voting, encompassing various forms of consultation and involvement across different societal domains, from education and healthcare to business and housing. Local governance is particularly crucial for rebuilding citizen trust and fostering community development, with many new initiatives emerging at the city and neighborhood level.
### 2.4 The participation ladder
The participation ladder illustrates the relationship between the type of democracy and the citizen's input and role. As one ascends the ladder, there is greater "citizen power." This model underscores that different conceptions of democracy naturally lead to different forms and expectations of citizen engagement and, consequently, a different role for the government.
> **Tip:** The participation ladder highlights that citizen involvement is not monolithic. It exists on a spectrum, from passive information reception to active co-creation and self-management.
### 2.5 Unequal political participation of citizens
While the act of voting is designed to be universally equal (one vote per citizen), research consistently shows that other, more involved forms of participation exhibit significant inequality. This disparity mirrors broader societal inequalities in income, profession, and education.
* **Socioeconomic status:** Individuals with higher socioeconomic status tend to have a broader repertoire of participation methods, including petitions, legal actions, and open letters, which are less utilized by those with lower status.
* **Education level:** This is identified as a primary driver of inequality. Higher educated individuals often possess greater political interest and knowledge, along with the skills necessary to navigate the political system. This leads to their voices being amplified and their preferred issues being prioritized on the political agenda. For lower-skilled individuals, the complexity of these participatory processes can exacerbate feelings of powerlessness.
* **Gender:** Despite advancements in education and employment, a persistent gap in political participation between men and women remains. Explanations include the unequal distribution of household tasks and the continued male dominance in organizational leadership. This gender gap can hinder the inclusion of women's concerns and preferences in politics.
* **Digital divide and diversity:** Challenges also arise from the digital divide and the need to scale up small-scale participation initiatives effectively.
This unequal participation leads to a **dualization** in political engagement, where lower-skilled individuals not only participate less but also engage differently, drawing information from different media and aligning with different political groups.
### 2.6 Participation, civil society, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond formal government structures into the broader public sphere, where numerous organizations play an active role. In countries like Belgium, the **civil society sector (middenveld)** holds significant importance not only in policy-making but also in policy execution, and is seen as vital for strengthening democracy.
#### 2.6.1 Definition and development of civil society
Civil society is broadly understood as a diverse and dynamic collection of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, maintaining an autonomous position between the private sphere, the market, and the government. This sector is characterized by:
* **Private initiative:** Organizations are founded by citizens and are not government-controlled.
* **Non-profit motive:** Their primary goal is societal participation, not profit.
* **Formal character:** They are distinct from informal groups like friendship circles.
* **Diversity and dynamism:** The forms, themes, and scales of these organizations are constantly evolving. This includes a wide range, from self-help groups and unions to sports clubs, socio-cultural associations, and temporary action committees.
Historically, in Belgium, civil society developed alongside the industrial society, leading to the formation of distinct **"pillars" (zuilen)** based on religious and ideological lines (Catholic, Liberal, Socialist). These pillars offered comprehensive support to citizens from birth to death, creating largely segregated societal spheres. The conflicts between these pillars were eventually resolved through peaceful negotiation and compromise.
From the 1970s onwards, these pillars began to erode due to increasing individualization and secularization. Concurrently, new social movements emerged, driven by educated youth from the middle class, raising issues such as peace, environmental protection, sexual liberation, and gender equality. These movements challenged established elites and pushed for greater openness from governments. More recently, new associations have formed around contemporary themes like mobility, animal rights, and poverty alleviation. This has led to a shift towards more temporary, conditional, and individualized forms of engagement, replacing long-term commitments to established organizations.
#### 2.6.2 The political mandate of civil society
Civil society fulfills three central mandates:
* **Social mandate:** Bringing people together, fostering social cohesion, and combating isolation. This is increasingly important as traditional family networks weaken.
* **Political mandate:** Expressing citizens' wishes and needs, and advocating for their interests. This includes providing political education by developing democratic skills through practical experience in decision-making, negotiation, and advocacy.
* **Service delivery mandate:** Providing a wide range of services, from childcare and holiday programs to health insurance and supplementary services.
#### 2.6.3 Development of the political mandate of civil society
Historically, the Belgian government granted significant autonomy to civil society, with interest groups wielding considerable influence in policy-making through consensus-based decision-making processes. This system, while stable, made it difficult for new themes and groups to gain traction. Certain public tasks were even outsourced to civil society organizations, such as unemployment benefit payments by unions.
Criticism emerged, accusing civil society of "colonizing" public domains and accumulating excessive power. Despite this, civil society remains vital for social cohesion, as it prevents citizens from becoming isolated and fosters trust. It also serves as a crucial partner for government, acting as an antenna to receive signals from the population and a sounding board for policy proposals.
#### 2.6.4 Success factors for the political mandate
The effectiveness of civil society's political engagement hinges on two key factors:
* **Access to the political system:** The multi-layered governance structure in countries like Belgium offers numerous access points for civil society. A de-pillarized and open political landscape can facilitate greater diversity of civil society engagement.
* **Political-strategic positioning and resources:** Organizations that actively politicize issues, possess strong organizational structures, dedicated volunteers and professionals, sufficient finances, expertise, and good media and political contacts are more likely to succeed.
#### 2.6.5 Participation in civil society and democracy
Sociologist David Putnam's work on "social capital" highlights a strong correlation between citizen participation in civil society and the democratic performance of governments. Regions with active citizen engagement often see governments more responsive to public demands. Societies with robust, horizontal networks of associations characterized by cooperation and trust tend to have better democratic outcomes.
**Social capital** is defined as the features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. It comprises:
* **Trust:** The degree to which citizens have basic faith in each other.
* **Networks of engagement:** Dense networks of associations facilitate collective action and mutual learning.
* **Norms of reciprocity:** Principles of equality and mutual exchange encourage cooperation.
Putnam suggests that active associations lead to stronger democracies by functioning as a "school of democracy," fostering democratic attitudes and behaviors, and by empowering citizens to collectively influence government decisions.
### 2.7 Towards a new interplay between citizens and politics
The evolving roles of citizens and civil society present challenges for governments, politicians, and public officials.
#### 2.7.1 Changing context, changing participation
Several developments influence contemporary views and practices of participation:
* **Individualization:** Citizens are less dependent on traditional political structures. This can lead to stronger citizens calculating their relationship with the government, while more vulnerable citizens feel less protected by collective representation. This individualization carries a risk of political alienation. Governments have responded with increased accountability and transparency measures and by facilitating feedback from individual citizens.
* **Shift from command to negotiation:** The governance model has evolved from hierarchical command to more collaborative approaches, emphasizing shared responsibility and treating citizens not just as clients but as experts and co-producers of policy.
* **Increasing diversity:** Societies are becoming more diverse, requiring participatory approaches that acknowledge and productively harness this variety. Methods must adapt to different target groups, and the goal is not always to reach a compromise but to manage diversity effectively.
* **Persistent social inequality:** Significant disparities persist between different groups of citizens (e.g., highly educated versus low-skilled, wealthy versus impoverished). Participation channels, often designed for "aware" citizens, risk exacerbating these existing inequalities.
* **Digital revolution:** While offering opportunities for information dissemination and process tracking, the digital realm carries the risk of lacking the crucial element of deliberation necessary for decision-making.
* **Evolving legal frameworks:** A shift towards network-based legal structures and increased reliance on litigation by citizens and activist groups to assert their rights.
* **Media influence:** Commercial pressures on media can lead to sensationalist reporting, potentially undermining thoughtful democratic decision-making and creating "flash politics."
* **Economic globalization:** National democracies face challenges in counteracting competitive pressures from the global economy, requiring traditional forms of collective participation to adapt and become more global in scope.
#### 2.7.2 The end of the citizen-customer relationship?
Public administration has moved towards a more business-like model, with a retreat of the government as the sole dominant player. This evolution towards "governance" risks powerful actors dominating decision-making for their own interests. The internal restructuring of public administration according to New Public Management principles does not automatically enhance citizen participation. While the "citizen-customer" received recognition for efficient service delivery, administrations sometimes became too inwardly focused, neglecting their external orientation towards citizens as co-owners.
Neoliberal thought favored minimizing intermediary organizations, allowing direct citizen input. However, this overlooked the necessity of a public sphere for robust debate. The concept of **interactive policy-making**, where citizens, societal actors, and government collaborate from the outset, has gained prominence. Facilitating and supporting citizen initiatives, as seen in "neighborhood budgets," represents a further step in this direction.
#### 2.7.3 Problems with participation
Despite increased policy attention, citizen participation faces significant challenges:
* **Inequality:** New participation forms have often increased complexity, alienating less articulate citizens while empowering the already engaged elite. The gap between participants and non-participants widens, with the interests of non-participants often neglected and access to information being unequal.
* **Process orientation:** Participation often stems from administrative logic rather than citizens' lived experiences. Jargon and methodologies can be alienating, and the complexity of issues raises barriers. Overly structured procedures may not accommodate diverse backgrounds or allow for unpolished contributions.
* **Process weaknesses:** Governments often fail to clearly define frameworks and conditions for participation. The link between objectives and process is unclear, and participants receive insufficient information. Citizens are often involved too late, leaving them little power beyond blocking already decided paths, leading to frustration for both citizens and administration. Lack of feedback, justification for decisions, and hidden interest-balancing are common issues. Processes can be too closed and difficult to scrutinize.
* **Misuse of participation:** Participation can be used to legitimize pre-determined decisions, undermining the political essence of negotiation and struggle over collective decisions. This "pseudo-participation" can fuel political mistrust.
#### 2.7.4 Perspectives for participation
Despite challenges, citizen participation remains essential for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping community life.
* **Policy integration:** Participation should be a core policy theme, integrated into strategic planning with resources allocated for tailored approaches. Key elements for a participatory organization include transparent communication, attention to service functioning, the attitude of key figures, effective policy process management, and continuous evaluation with stakeholders.
* **Problem-oriented approach:** Focus should be on concrete issues within citizens' daily lives, rather than strictly adhering to sectors or administrative levels. This requires different communication, collaboration, and management structures.
* **Sustained engagement:** Participation initiatives should be sustained and professionally managed to build trust. Time and a familiar environment with known facilitators are crucial for citizens to make connections.
* **Role of professionals:** Experts should communicate listeningly and supportively, embracing uncertainty and the diversity of interests and perspectives. They should act as facilitators, allowing initiatives to grow and trusting societal forces. Frontline professionals, with their direct connection to citizens' lives, can embody a trustworthy image of government.
* **Politicians' open mindset:** Politicians need to believe in citizen contributions, be willing to co-create policy, and be accountable within a responsible community. They should make clear policy trade-offs while remaining connected to society and open to citizen initiatives and self-organization.
* **Opening up public administration:** Public administration needs to become more outward-facing. Important decisions about collective societal shaping should be brought into public debate earlier and more substantively, allowing for informed discussions on core choices rather than just execution details. This would enhance the vibrancy and legitimacy of democratic debate.
* **Citizens as active agents:** Citizenship is not merely a status but is dynamically shaped through processes of self-formation, rights claims, and advocacy for visions of a good society. Citizens evolve into political subjects through concrete "acts of citizenship" in their daily lives. Civil society organizations can be crucial supporters in this development, rather than simply extensions of government.
* **Realizing the right to participate:** Every effort must be made to realize the democratic right to participation for as many citizens as possible. Valuing citizen initiatives and their contributions is paramount. While processes can be guided, they should not be controlled towards pre-determined outcomes. Political participation inherently questions the existing social order and power relations, possessing a disruptive character essential for a dynamic democracy.
The table below summarizes different types of democracy and citizen participation:
| Type of democracy | Activity | Input and role of the citizen | Objective and role of the government |
| :--------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------- | :-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Direct democracy | Doing democracy, co-producer, co-creation (e.g., living labs), self-management (e.g., neighborhood budgets) | Initiative lies with the citizen; the citizen makes choices and takes initiative. The citizen is co-responsible, decision-maker, and manager. | An open government willing to be corrected provides a broad framework. The government cedes decisions to citizens or allows citizens to take over government tasks. The government participates, advises, and supports. Officials act in an advisory role. |
| Interactive democracy | Co-producing (e.g., planning street redesigns), co-deciding (e.g., citizen juries) | The citizen co-determines the problem agenda and solution direction. The citizen is a partner and co-decides. Citizens think along beforehand. The citizen as co-producer. | The government jointly develops plans and projects with citizens and commits to agreed-upon solutions. Government and citizens agree on a joint agenda, seek solutions together, and make decisions together. |
| Consultative democracy | Advising (e.g., advisory councils), consulting (e.g., hearings) | The citizen as discussion partner. The citizen as idea provider gives opinions and comments in an open setting. The citizen as advisor, consulted. The citizen participates in discussion. | The government gives citizens the opportunity to raise problems and propose solutions. Decision-making occurs at another level. Politics may or may not be able to justify deviating from the proposal. The government sets the agenda and listens to the citizen in an open, voluntary conversation. The results are not binding for the government. |
| Representative democracy | Informing (e.g., info campaigns) | The citizen as client, listener. The citizen informs themselves. | The government keeps the population informed about decisions made through good information. |
---
This section explores the phenomenon of political alienation, defined by distrust and feelings of powerlessness, and investigates its root causes within contemporary Western democracies.
### 2.1 Political alienation: Distrust and powerlessness
Political alienation in Western countries manifests through two primary dimensions: distrust and powerlessness.
* **Powerlessness:** This can be internal, referring to the belief that individuals like oneself have no influence on politics, or external, indicating a perception that politicians do not consider citizens' wishes.
* **Distrust:** This can be directed at political personnel (e.g., perceived self-interest), political institutions such as parties and governments, or more broadly at the political regime itself, including democracy.
While trust in the fundamental principles of democracy, like freedom of speech and free elections, generally remains strong, there is a notable decline in trust towards political institutions such as parties and governments. This trend has been exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating a broader political distrust. Data from the OECD in 2020 revealed that only 29.5% of Belgians trusted their federal executive and legislative powers. Trust generally increases at lower levels of government, with local authorities receiving higher confidence than federal ones.
Short-term factors like poor political performance, prolonged government crises, or scandals can cause temporary dips in trust. However, the underlying trend is a gradual increase in political alienation across all Western democracies. This phenomenon cannot be solely attributed to "objective factors" such as mismanagement or economic weakness, as declining trust is observed even in countries with strong governance, effective politicians, and robust economic growth.
### 2.2 Subjective drivers of political alienation
Research suggests that "subjective" factors stemming from the population are key to understanding the rise in political alienation in late-modern Western societies. These factors include individualism and subjective misinformation.
#### 2.2.1 Individualism
Growing individualism in society translates into political individualism, which can take two forms:
* **Defensive individualism:** Prevalent among weaker groups in a knowledge-based society, this manifests as feelings of powerlessness and distrust towards the perceived selfishness of others, leading these groups to feel victimized. This general alienation can easily foster aversion or indifference towards politics.
* **Offensive individualism:** Characterized by strong individuals who assert their rights across all societal domains, including politics, with immediate expectations. These citizens also have less attachment to associations and political parties that aim for long-term political success. This trend weakens traditional political ties and reinforces political individualism, often leading to political protest as a means of expressing dissatisfaction.
#### 2.2.2 Subjective misinformation
The increasing complexity and opacity of modern societal life pose a challenge for governments and, more significantly, for citizens. This complexity, however, is not the primary driver of alienation; rather, it is the citizens' *response* to it. When citizens are overwhelmed by information about complex policy-making and are unable to process it, they experience "subjective misinformation." This is particularly relevant in the context of social media's impact on public opinion.
### 2.3 The interplay of individualism and misinformation in alienation
Both individualism and subjective misinformation contribute to the widespread nature of political alienation, affecting diverse groups:
* **Radical opposition groups:** Individuals within these groups, often characterized by strong individualism, may have inflated short-term expectations of politics, which are quickly frustrated by political complexity.
* **Low-skilled groups:** These groups also experience increased distrust and powerlessness and struggle to comprehend political complexity.
### 2.4 Citizenship and democracy
Democracy inherently relies on citizens' control over power and their collective direction of a diverse society. While direct democracy involves citizens making decisions on policy proposals themselves, and indirect democracy involves delegating this power to representatives, modern democracies typically employ a hybrid form.
* **Citizenship:** This concept encompasses both a legal status (the contract between state and individual) and a social role (the active participation of an individual in their community). Active citizenship refers to the capacity of individuals to play a role in public affairs through various engagements, including associations, unions, parties, advisory councils, and informal networks.
Historically, participation was largely limited to voting, with significant mobilization efforts by groups like workers and women to gain suffrage. The role of civil society organizations (the "middenveld") has been crucial in supporting political participation by enabling collective interest defense. In the post-war welfare state, citizen participation evolved to include more forms of consultation, such as public inquiries and advisory councils.
However, a shift occurred from the 1970s onwards, with a new participation movement emerging from citizens seeking a more open and horizontal democracy. This "bottom-up" movement, fueled by emancipation movements, led to the establishment of various action groups, committees, and citizen initiatives that fundamentally altered the landscape of democracy. New movements introduced new agendas, such as environmental quality and equal rights, and citizen participation gained significant momentum.
In response to the rise of the far-right in the 1990s, political elites reinforced the idea of strong citizen participation as a safeguard for democracy. Efforts were made to bridge the "citizen gap" through increased interaction between citizens and government, advocating for stronger direct democracy (e.g., referendums) and interactive democracy (citizens as co-producers). The civil society sector was once again valued as a vital link for politics and a breeding ground for democratic citizenship.
The range of participation opportunities has expanded considerably beyond voting, encompassing areas like education, welfare, health, business, housing, and justice. Various methods, including interactive websites, participatory budgeting, and citizen panels, are employed. Participation opportunities exist at international, European, federal, regional, and local levels. Local government plays a critical role in rebuilding trust and fostering community through citizen participation due to its proximity.
#### 2.4.1 The participation ladder
The participation ladder illustrates the relationship between the type of democracy and the citizen's involvement and role. Higher rungs signify greater citizen power, indicating that views on participation are intrinsically linked to views on democracy and, consequently, the role of government.
#### 2.4.2 Unequal political participation of citizens
While elections offer a seemingly equal form of participation with one vote per citizen, other, more complex forms of participation reveal significant inequalities mirroring those found in broader society.
* **Socioeconomic status:** Citizens with higher incomes, professions, and educational levels tend to expand their repertoire of participation methods, utilizing petitions, legal actions, and open letters. Those with lower socioeconomic status engage in these forms less frequently. Educational attainment is a particularly strong predictor, as higher-educated individuals possess greater political interest, knowledge, and the necessary skills to navigate the political landscape.
* **Consequences of inequality:** Higher-educated individuals shape the political agenda more effectively, amplifying their voice. For lower-educated individuals, the complexity of participation processes can exacerbate feelings of powerlessness. This leads to a dualization in political participation, with lower-skilled individuals participating less and differently, obtaining information from alternative sources and often voting for different parties.
* **Gender inequality:** Despite advancements in education and employment, a persistent gap in political participation exists between men and women. This is attributed to the unequal distribution of household tasks and the continued male dominance in organizational leadership. This gap means that women's concerns and preferences may be less likely to reach the political agenda.
* **Other challenges:** Diversity, the digital divide, and scaling up small-scale initiatives also present significant challenges for citizen participation.
### 2.5 Participation, civil society, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond public administration to the broader public sphere, where numerous associations play a vital role. In Belgium, the "middenveld" (civil society) holds significant importance in both policy-making and implementation, and is expected to strengthen democracy.
#### 2.5.1 Description and development of civil society
Civil society is defined as the differentiated and dynamic collective of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous space between the private sphere, the market, and the government. This sector is characterized by continuous change in organizational forms, themes, and scales, ranging from self-help groups and unions to temporary action committees.
Civil society organizations are based on private citizen initiative, are non-profit-oriented, and have a formal character distinct from informal communities. Belgium possesses an extensive and rich civil society that emerged alongside the modern industrial society. In the first half of the 20th century, these organizations developed into "zuilen" (pillarized communities) with distinct Catholic, liberal, and socialist "lifestyles" that encompassed citizens' lives.
While pillarization began to erode from the 1970s due to increasing individualism and secularization, organizations like trade unions and mutualities remain significant. During this period of de-pillarization, new social movements emerged, driven by educated young people from the middle class. These movements introduced new themes such as peace, environmentalism, sexual liberation, and gender equality, challenging established elites and demanding greater openness from governments.
Recent decades have seen the rise of associations focused on new themes like mobility, animal rights, and poverty. There is a trend towards more temporary, conditional, and fragmented engagements, replacing long-term commitments in established associations. These new movements often organize in a more decentralized manner, employing numerous small-scale actions and large demonstrations.
#### 2.5.2 The political mission of civil society
Civil society fulfills three central missions:
* **Social mission:** Bringing people together, fostering social cohesion, and breaking down isolation through diverse forms of meeting and collaboration.
* **Political mission:** Expressing citizens' wishes and needs, advocating for their interests, and providing political education by developing democratic skills and attitudes through practical experience.
* **Service mission:** Delivering a wide range of services, from childcare and holiday programs to healthcare benefits and supplementary services.
The political mission of civil society has historically been significant in Belgium, with interest groups heavily influencing policy-making within a consensus-based system. This led to both predictability and stability but also made it difficult for new themes and groups to gain traction. Some government tasks were even outsourced to civil society organizations.
Criticism has been leveled against the extensive influence and colonization of the public domain by civil society organizations. However, there remains a positive political interest in civil society due to its role in social cohesion and its function as a conduit for government to receive signals from the population and to test policy proposals.
##### 2.5.2.1 Success factors for the political mission
Two crucial factors for the successful political action of civil society are:
* **Access to the political system:** The multi-layered governance structure in Belgium offers numerous access points for civil society, but also presents management challenges. A de-pillarized Flanders and inter-party competition can enhance access.
* **Political-strategic positioning and resources:** The extent to which organizations prioritize their political mission varies. Effective policy influence relies on robust resources, including good organization, available volunteers and professionals, financial means, expertise, political contacts, and media relations.
#### 2.5.3 Participation in civil society and democracy
The participation of citizens in civil society is linked to the concept of "social capital," as researched by David Putnam. Social capital encompasses networks, norms, and trust that enable effective collective action for shared objectives.
* **Trust:** The level of basic trust citizens have in each other.
* **Networks of engagement:** Dense networks of associations foster collaboration and trust as citizens get to know each other better.
* **Norms of reciprocity:** Societal norms of equality and reciprocity encourage cooperation for mutual benefit.
Putnam suggests that active associations contribute to strong democracies by acting as schools for democracy (socialization) and by enabling citizens to exert power and influence governments through collective action. A political system facing numerous pressure groups is compelled to be more responsive than one dealing only with individual citizens.
### 2.6 Towards a new interplay between citizens and politics
The evolving roles of citizens and civil society present challenges for governments, politicians, and civil servants.
#### 2.6.1 Changing context, changing participation
Several developments are influencing the contemporary understanding and implementation of participation:
* **Individualization:** Citizens have become more independent of traditional political affiliations. This has led to stronger, more calculating citizens who readily hold the government accountable, while more vulnerable citizens feel less protected by collective representation. Both effects carry a risk of political alienation. Governments have responded with efforts towards greater accountability and transparency, and by expanding feedback channels for individual citizens.
* **Shift from command to negotiation:** The governance model has moved from hierarchical command structures to a more cooperative and shared responsibility approach. Interactive policy-making views citizens not just as clients or advisors, but as experts and co-producers. This has resulted in more flexible, project-based, and process-oriented approaches, with new instruments like public-private partnerships.
* **Increasing diversity:** Societal diversity requires new forms of participation that acknowledge and leverage differences, rather than assuming homogeneity. Adapting methods to diverse target groups and avoiding forced compromises are crucial. Solidarity in diversity can be fostered through active citizenship in local contexts.
* **Persistent social inequality and polarization:** This makes it difficult to speak of "citizens" as a homogenous group. The gap between highly educated and less educated citizens, those living in poverty, and "non-citizens" seeking their place in society is significant. Existing participation channels may inadvertently reinforce these inequalities.
* **Digital revolution:** Offers opportunities for information dissemination and feedback but risks undermining the necessary deliberation in decision-making processes.
* **Evolving legal context:** A shift towards network thinking has altered the binding force of legal instruments. Citizens and action groups increasingly resort to legal avenues to assert their rights.
* **Media evolution:** Commercial pressures lead to rapid, sometimes sensationalized reporting, offering opportunities for citizens to influence the political agenda but also contributing to "flash politics" and undermining considered democratic decision-making.
* **Economic globalization:** Challenges national democracies by imposing competitiveness pressures on social contracts. Traditional forms of collective participation, developed within nation-states, face the task of globalizing democratic participation.
#### 2.6.2 The end of the citizen-client relationship?
Public administration has evolved towards a more business-like model, with a retreat of the state as the dominant decision-making player. This raises concerns about powerful actors prioritizing their own interests and governance models that may not inherently lead to stronger citizen participation. While the "citizen-client" model acknowledged individual citizens with efficient service delivery, it also led to an inward focus on internal processes at the expense of external societal orientation.
Direct participation concepts, driven by neoliberal thought, often overlooked the need for a public sphere for debate, which is essential for a vibrant democracy. The trend towards interactive policy-making, where citizens, stakeholders, and government collaborate from the outset, has gained recognition. Some initiatives, like neighborhood budgets, represent a significant experiment in empowering citizens to drive policy.
#### 2.6.3 Problems with participation
* **Inequality:** New participation forms have often increased the complexity of decision-making, further alienating less empowered citizens while the educated elite gains more influence. The gap between citizens widens, with the interests of non-participants often neglected and unequal access to information.
* **Bureaucratic logic:** Participation often starts from administrative logic rather than citizens' lived realities. Jargon and formal procedures can be alienating and create high thresholds.
* **Process weaknesses:** Governments often fail to define clear frameworks and conditions. The link between goals and processes is unclear, and participants receive insufficient or inconsistent information. Late involvement of citizens can lead to frustration and the feeling of merely being able to block pre-determined paths. Lack of feedback and transparency regarding the influence of participation on final decisions is common, and interest balancing is often opaque.
* **Closed and uncontrollable processes:** Many participation processes are insular and lack sufficient oversight.
* **Misuse of participation:** Participation can be used to legitimize pre-determined decisions or non-decisions, undermining the political aspect of negotiation and struggle over collective decisions. This "pseudo-participation" can significantly increase political distrust among engaged citizens.
#### 2.6.4 Perspectives for participation
Despite these challenges, citizen participation remains vital for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making quality, and shaping community life.
* **Strategic planning:** Participation policy should be integrated into strategic planning, with resources allocated for customized approaches. Key elements include transparent communication, attention to service functioning, the participatory attitude of key figures, management of policy processes, and continuous evaluation with stakeholders.
* **Problem-oriented approach:** Focus should be on concrete issues and citizens' lived realities, rather than sectoral or administrative levels.
* **Sustained and professional approach:** Consistent, professional engagement is necessary to build trust. Time is a crucial element, as is a familiar environment with consistent facilitators.
* **Role of professionals:** Experts should communicate listen, be reserved yet active, work "on the go," and tolerate the uncertainty of participation outcomes. Recognizing and valuing diverse interests and reasoning styles is essential. Professionals should act as facilitators, supporting initiatives and empowering citizens. Frontline professionals can bridge the gap by conveying unfiltered signals and embodying a trustworthy image of the government.
* **Politicians' openness:** Politicians need an open mindset, belief in citizen contribution, a willingness to co-create policy, and accountability within a responsible community. Elected officials should make clear policy choices in connection with society, remaining alert to citizen initiatives and forms of self-organization.
* **Opening up public administration:** Important decisions about society's collective shaping should be brought into public debate earlier and more intensely. Well-documented debates should focus on fundamental choices, not just the execution of consensus.
* **Citizens as active agents:** Citizenship is a dynamic process where groups form, claim rights, and strive for their vision of a good society within a shared democratic space of freedom and equality. Citizenship is about situated social practices, where "acts of citizenship" push the boundaries of what it means to be a citizen and evolve individuals into political subjects.
* **Role of civil society organizations:** These organizations should act as engaged supporters of individuals developing into political subjects, rather than solely as extensions of government or mere conduits for information.
* **Realizing the right to participate:** Every effort must be made to realize the democratic right to participate for as many citizens as possible. Valuing citizen initiatives and their contributions is essential, with guidance provided but not direction. Genuine participation involves the possibility of fundamentally questioning the existing social order and its underlying power structures, thus acting as a disruptive, yet essential, element in a continuously evolving society.
---
# The role and evolution of civil society organizations in politics
This section explores the multifaceted role and evolving dynamics of civil society organizations (CSOs) within the political landscape, focusing on their impact on citizen engagement and democratic processes.
### 3.1 Political alienation
Modern democracies rely on public trust, which appears to be declining in many Western countries, leading to political alienation. This phenomenon encompasses two main dimensions: distrust and powerlessness.
* **Powerlessness** can be experienced as internal ("people like us have no influence on politics") or external ("politicians do not consider my wishes").
* **Distrust** can be directed towards political personnel (perceived as corrupt), political institutions (parties, governments), or the political regime itself (democracy).
While trust in the fundamental principles of democracy (e.g., freedom of speech, free elections) generally remains high, trust in political institutions like parties and governments is lower and has seen a sustained decline in countries like Belgium. This decline cannot solely be explained by objective factors like poor governance or weak economic performance, as it is observed even in countries with strong leadership and economic growth.
Instead, some scholars point to "subjective" factors:
* **Increasing individualism**: This manifests in two forms:
* **Defensive individualism**: Among weaker groups who feel powerless and distrustful of others' "egoism."
* **Offensive individualism**: Among the socially privileged, who assert their rights and demand immediate fulfillment of their political expectations, leading to a weakening of long-term political affiliations.
* **Subjective disinformation**: This arises from the overwhelming complexity of modern societal life, where citizens struggle to process information about policy-making, leading to a sense of overload and confusion.
These factors contribute to political alienation, particularly among groups in radical opposition to government policy and among lower-educated groups who find the political landscape increasingly complex.
### 3.2 Citizenship and democracy
Democracy fundamentally involves citizens controlling power and collectively guiding society. The relationship between citizenship and democracy is symbiotic:
* **Direct democracy**: Citizens directly decide on policy proposals.
* **Indirect democracy**: Citizens delegate decision-making power to representatives.
* **Hybrid democracy**: A practical blend of direct and indirect forms, where the nature of citizenship plays a crucial role.
Citizenship has two dimensions:
* **Status**: The legal contract between the state and the individual, often symbolized by an identity card.
* **Social role**: The responsibilities an individual undertakes as a citizen within a community, emphasizing active participation in public affairs.
**Active citizenship** can take many forms, including involvement in associations, trade unions, parties, advisory councils, self-help groups, action committees, media engagement, public debates, and informal networks. Historically, participation was primarily limited to voting, a right hard-won by various social groups.
The **"middenveld" (civil society)** has historically played a significant role in supporting citizen participation. Initially, large, hierarchical, and often "pillarized" organizations represented and organized citizens, influencing policy-making and execution. Following emancipation movements and the rise of new social movements from the 1970s onwards, citizen participation evolved to demand more open and horizontal democracy. This led to the development of various participation tools and practices at different policy levels, aiming to involve citizens more directly. In recent decades, spurred by concerns about extremism and a desire to bridge the "gap with the citizen," there has been a renewed emphasis on strengthening participation from "above," viewing it as a safeguard for a vibrant democracy. This has led to an expanded range of participation opportunities, including participatory councils, client participation, and employee representation.
### 3.3 The participation ladder
The participation ladder illustrates the relationship between the type of democracy and the level of citizen input and influence. Higher positions on the ladder indicate greater "citizen power." This framework highlights how conceptions of participation are linked to views on democracy, and how different approaches to citizen involvement necessitate different roles for the government.
**Table 1: The participation ladder**
| Type of democracy | Activity | Citizen's input and role | Objective and government's role |
| :---------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Direct democracy | Do democracy, Co-producer, Co-creation (e.g., living labs), Self-management (e.g., neighborhood budgets) | Citizen takes initiative, makes choices, and is responsible, a decision-maker, and manager. | An open government willing to be corrected provides a broad framework. Government delegates decisions to citizens or allows citizens to take over government tasks. The government participates, advises, and supports. Officials act in an advisory capacity. |
| Interactive democracy | Co-producing (e.g., street redesign plan), Co-deciding (e.g., citizen juries) | Citizen helps shape the problem agenda and solution direction. Citizen is a partner and co-decider. Citizen thinks ahead. Citizen as co-producer. | The government jointly develops a plan or project with citizens and commits to agreed-upon solutions. Government and citizens agree on a joint agenda, seek solutions together, and make decisions together. |
| Participatory democracy | Advising (e.g., advisory councils), Consulting (e.g., hearings) | Citizen as discussion partner, idea provider, offering opinions and comments in an open setting. Citizen as advisor, consulted. Citizen participates in discussions. | The government gives citizens the opportunity to present problems and propose solutions. Decision-making occurs at another level. The political sphere may or may not deviate from the proposal with justification. The government sets the agenda and listens to the citizen in an open, voluntary conversation. Results are not binding for the government. |
| Representative democracy| Informing (e.g., info campaigns) | Citizen as customer, audience. Citizen informs themselves. | The government keeps the population informed about decisions through good information. |
### 3.4 Unequal political participation of citizens
While elections offer a seemingly equal form of participation (one person, one vote) and encourage high participation rates, they provide limited specific information about citizen judgments and desires. Other forms of participation are often needed to supplement elections.
Research consistently shows inequalities in participation, mirroring societal disparities in income, occupation, and education.
* **Socioeconomic status**: Citizens with higher socioeconomic status tend to expand their participation repertoire to include petitions, legal actions, and open letters, while those with lower status engage less frequently in these activities.
* **Education level**: This is a key explanatory factor for inequality. Higher-educated individuals possess greater political interest, knowledge, and the "suitable" skills for political engagement. This leads to their issues being prioritized, while lower-educated individuals find the complex participation landscape overwhelming, reinforcing their sense of powerlessness.
* **Gender**: Despite educational and labor market advancements for women, a persistent gap in political participation remains. This is attributed to the unequal division of household tasks and the male-dominated leadership structures in many organizations. This gap means women's concerns and preferences may not reach the political agenda as effectively.
These inequalities create a **dualization in political participation**, where lower-educated individuals not only participate less but also engage differently (e.g., joining different organizations, consuming different media).
### 3.5 Participation, civil society, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond public administration into the broader public sphere, where CSOs play a vital role. In Belgium, the "middenveld" has historically been significant for both policy-making and implementation, with expectations that it strengthens democracy.
#### 3.5.1 Description and development of the civil society sector
The civil society sector is defined as a differentiated and dynamic set of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous position between the private sphere, the market, and the government.
Key characteristics include:
* **Private initiative**: Based on citizens' initiatives, not government-controlled.
* **Non-profit motive**: Aimed at societal participation rather than profit.
* **Formal character**: Distinct from informal communities.
* **Differentiated and dynamic**: Constantly evolving in types, themes, and scales of operation.
The Belgian civil society is extensive and rich, developing alongside the modern industrial society. In the first half of the 20th century, this led to the formation of "pillarized" societies (Catholic, Liberal, Socialist), creating comprehensive life worlds for citizens. Following World War II and particularly from the 1970s, these pillars began to erode due to increasing individualization and secularization.
Concurrently, new social movements emerged, driven by educated youth from the middle class. These movements introduced new themes like peace, environmentalism, sexual liberation, gender equality, and solidarity with the "Third World," challenging established elites and demanding greater openness. In recent decades, organizations have formed around issues such as mobility, animal rights, and poverty. This has led to a shift towards more temporary, conditional, and individualized engagements, replacing long-term commitments in fixed associations.
#### 3.5.2 The political mandate of civil society
Civil society organizations fulfill three central mandates:
* **Social mandate**: Bringing people together, fostering social cohesion, and breaking down isolation through diverse activities and opportunities for cooperation and mutual support.
* **Political mandate**:
* Expressing citizens' needs and interests and advocating for them (e.g., trade unions, residents' groups).
* Providing political education by developing democratic skills and attitudes through practical experience in decision-making, negotiation, and argumentation.
* **Service delivery mandate**: Providing a wide range of services, from childcare to healthcare support.
#### 3.5.3 Development of the political mandate of civil society
Historically, the Belgian government granted significant influence to civil society within a consensus-based decision-making system, where established interest groups participated in policy-making. This offered stability but also made it difficult for new themes and groups to gain access to the political agenda.
Criticism arose, particularly from figures advocating for a more streamlined government, accusing civil society of "colonizing" public domains and wielding excessive power. Despite this, civil society remains positively regarded for its role in social cohesion and as a vital partner for the government, acting as a conduit for signals from the population and a sounding board for policy ideas.
#### 3.5.4 Success factors for the political mandate
Two key factors are essential for civil society's successful political engagement:
* **Access to the political system**: The multi-layered governance structure in Belgium offers numerous access points for civil society. The de-pillarization of Flanders has also led to greater openness to diverse civil society organizations. Competition between political parties for new themes can further enhance access for CSOs.
* **Political-strategic positioning and resources**: Organizations vary in their commitment to their political mandate. Some actively politicize issues, while others have become more institutionalized. In a vibrant democracy, CSOs should continuously challenge existing consensus.
Effective policy influence requires significant resources, including:
* Good organization
* Available volunteers and professionals
* Financial resources (subsidies, donations, membership fees)
* Knowledge and expertise
* Political connections
* Media and opinion leader contacts
#### 3.5.5 Participation in civil society and democracy
Citizen participation in civil society has been linked to democratic performance. Sociologist David Putnam's research on "social capital" highlights a strong connection between active citizen engagement and government accountability.
* **Social capital**: Defined as "features of social life – networks, norms, and trust – that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives."
* **Trust**: The degree of confidence citizens have in each other.
* **Networks of engagement**: Dense networks of associations enable collective action and foster trust.
* **Norms of reciprocity**: Principles of equality and mutual benefit encourage cooperation.
Putnam suggests that active associations lead to stronger democracies, as they function as schools for democracy, fostering democratic thinking and action. Externally, CSOs enable citizens to collectively gain influence and compel governments to consider their demands. A political system facing numerous pressure groups is likely to be more responsive than one dealing solely with individual citizens.
### 3.6 Towards a new interplay between citizen and politics
The evolving roles of citizens and civil society present challenges and opportunities for governments, politicians, and civil servants.
#### 3.6.1 Changing context, changing participation
Several developments influence contemporary views and practices of participation:
* **Individualization**: Citizens are less dependent on traditional affiliations. For "strong" citizens, this means greater independence from government, while "weaker" citizens may feel less protected by collective advocacy, leading to risks of political alienation. Governments respond with increased accountability, transparency, and feedback channels.
* **Shift from hierarchical to negotiation-based governance**: This emphasizes cooperation and shared responsibility, with citizens viewed as experts and co-producers, not just clients. This leads to more flexible, project-based approaches and new instruments like public-private partnerships.
* **Increasing diversity**: Societies are characterized by greater diversity in backgrounds, values, and interests, requiring adaptive participation methods that embrace this diversity productively.
* **Persistent social inequality and polarization**: The concept of "the citizen" is complex, encompassing diverse groups with differing levels of education, wealth, and rights. Existing participation channels may inadvertently reinforce these inequalities.
* **Digital revolution**: Offers opportunities for information dissemination and feedback but risks undermining the essential "deliberation" needed for decision-making.
* **Evolving legal context**: A shift towards network thinking and a greater reliance on mechanisms like custom contracts and covenants. Citizens and groups increasingly resort to legal avenues to assert their rights.
* **Media dynamics**: Commercial pressures lead to fast-paced, sometimes sensationalized reporting, creating opportunities for some groups to influence the agenda but potentially leading to "flash politics" and undermining considered decision-making.
* **Economic globalization**: Challenges national democracies and traditional forms of collective participation, requiring a globalization of democratic participation to counter competitive pressures on social contracts.
#### 3.6.2 The end of the citizen-client relationship?
Public administration has moved from a hierarchical "command-and-control" model to a more business-oriented approach, and then to "governance" models, where the government's role as a dominant player diminishes. This can lead to powerful actors dominating decision-making for their own interests. While New Public Management emphasized efficiency and client-centric service, it sometimes led administrations to focus inward on internal processes, neglecting their external orientation towards citizens as co-owners.
The idea of direct participation, minimizing intermediaries, overlooked the need for a public sphere for debate. The trend towards **interactive policy-making** acknowledges this by involving citizens and stakeholders from the outset. There is also an increasing emphasis on facilitating and supporting citizen initiatives, such as neighborhood budgets.
#### 3.6.3 Problems with participation
Despite increased policy attention, citizen participation faces significant challenges:
* **Inequality**: New participation forms often increase complexity, further alienating less engaged citizens while empowering an educated elite, widening the gap between citizens. The interests of non-participants are often neglected, and access to information is unequal.
* **Disregard for citizens' realities**: Participation often starts from the perspective of governance logic rather than citizens' lived experiences. Jargon and complex dossiers create high thresholds. Over-structured procedures may not accommodate diverse backgrounds or allow for unpolished input.
* **Weaknesses in the participation process**: Governments may fail to clearly define frameworks and conditions. The link between objectives and processes is often unclear, and participants receive insufficient information. Late involvement of citizens can lead to frustration, as they may only be able to block existing policy paths.
* **Lack of feedback and transparency**: Insufficient communication about the influence of participation on final decisions and the opacity of interest balancing are common issues. Processes can be overly closed and difficult to scrutinize.
* **Misuse of participation for legitimacy**: Participation can be used as a mere legitimization tool for pre-determined decisions, undermining the political essence of negotiation and struggle over collective choices. This "pseudo-participation" can significantly increase political distrust.
#### 3.6.4 Prospects for participation
Despite these challenges, citizen participation remains essential for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping cohabitation.
Key prospects include:
* **Integrating participation into strategic planning**: Participation should be a core policy theme, supported by tailored resources. Key elements for a participatory organization include transparent communication, attention to service functioning, the participatory attitude of key figures, effective policy process management, and continuous evaluation involving stakeholders.
* **Problem-oriented approach**: Organizing around concrete issues and citizens' realities, rather than administrative sectors or governance levels.
* **Sustained and professional approach**: Building trust through consistent, professional engagement and recognizing the importance of time in participatory policy.
* **Role of professionals**: Experts should communicate listeningly, be reserved yet active when necessary, work with uncertainty, and embrace diversity of perspectives. They should be service-oriented facilitators, empowering societal forces.
* **Political leadership**: Politicians need an open mindset, belief in citizen engagement, and a willingness to co-create policy, evolving towards accountability within a responsible community. They should remain alert to citizen initiatives and forms of self-organization.
* **Opening up public administration**: Shifting from participation as a political ritual to bringing significant societal decisions into public debate earlier and more intensively to foster a well-informed discourse on essential choices.
* **Citizenship as social practice**: Recognizing citizenship not just as a status but as a dynamic process of claiming rights and shaping society through "acts of citizenship."
* **Empowering civil society organizations**: CSOs should act as supporters of individuals developing into political subjects, rather than mere extensions of government or spokespersons.
* **Realizing participation as a democratic right**: Valuing and supporting citizen initiatives, ensuring they are guided but not controlled, and acknowledging that true political participation involves fundamentally questioning the existing social order and power relations. This inherent "disruptive" character is vital for a dynamic democracy.
---
Civil society organizations play a crucial role in democratic politics by facilitating citizen participation, advocating for interests, and contributing to social cohesion, though their evolution reflects societal changes and challenges persist in ensuring equitable engagement.
Political alienation, characterized by distrust and feelings of powerlessness, has been a growing concern in Western democracies.
#### 3.1.1 Dimensions of political alienation
* **Distrust:** This can be directed at political figures (e.g., perceived corruption), political institutions (parties, governments), or the political regime itself (democracy). While trust in democratic principles like freedom of speech and free elections generally remains high, trust in specific institutions like parties and governments has declined significantly in many Western countries.
* **Powerlessness:** This manifests as internal powerlessness (the feeling that "people like us" have no influence) or external powerlessness (the feeling that politicians do not consider citizens' wishes).
#### 3.1.2 Explaining increasing alienation
While objective factors like policy failures or economic downturns can cause short-term dips in trust, the long-term rise in political alienation is often attributed to subjective factors:
* **Individualism:**
* **Defensive individualism:** This affects weaker groups in society who feel powerless and distrustful of others' perceived selfishness.
* **Offensive individualism:** Privileged individuals assert their rights and expect immediate fulfillment of their demands from politics, leading to less attachment to long-term political goals of parties and interest groups.
* **Subjective disinformation:** The increasing complexity of modern society overwhelms citizens' ability to process information, leading to a sense of being misinformed or unable to understand policy-making.
> **Tip:** Political alienation is not confined to one demographic; it can be found in groups in radical opposition to government policy (strong individuals with high expectations clashing with political complexity) and among lower-skilled groups who face similar feelings of powerlessness and struggle with complexity.
The functioning of democracy is inextricably linked to the concept and practice of citizenship, which encompasses both rights and responsibilities.
#### 3.2.1 Defining citizenship
* **Citizenship as status:** This refers to the legal contract between the state and the individual, often symbolized by an identity card.
* **Citizenship as social role:** This involves the responsibilities an individual undertakes as a member of a community, emphasizing active participation in public affairs.
#### 3.2.2 Active citizenship and its evolution
Active citizenship signifies an individual's capacity to engage in public matters through various avenues, including associations, unions, parties, advisory councils, and public debates. Historically, participation was largely confined to voting. The struggle for suffrage by various groups broadened the understanding of democracy.
#### 3.2.3 The role of civil society (middenveld) in historical political participation
* **Early civil society:** Citizens organized to meet, support each other, and collectively defend their interests. Large, structured organizations with loyal followings played a significant role. These recognized interest groups participated in policy preparation and execution, sometimes complementing and other times undermining parliamentary democracy.
* **Post-WWII welfare state:** Emancipation of various groups led to expanded services. Citizen participation often meant various forms of consultation, like public inquiries and advisory councils.
* **New participation movements (post-1970s):** In response to perceived closed and paternalistic decision-making, citizens, particularly educated young people, demanded more openness and input. New movements, action groups, and initiatives emerged, bringing new themes (environmental quality, equal rights, urban renewal) to the political agenda. This bottom-up participation, interacting with elite attention, promised a deepening of democratic politics.
* **Strengthening participation (post-1990s):** Political elites, concerned by the rise of the far-right, saw strong citizen participation as a guarantee for a vibrant democracy. Efforts to bridge the "gap with the citizen" led to strengthened interaction between citizens and government. This included advocating for direct democracy (referendums, lotteries) and interactive democracy (citizen co-production). Civil society was revitalized as a crucial link and training ground for democratic citizenship.
* **Diversification of participation:** Beyond voting, a wide range of opportunities for citizen involvement emerged across various domains: education, welfare, healthcare, youth care, business, social housing, and justice. This includes mechanisms like youth councils, hearings, neighborhood committees, and participatory budgeting.
> **Tip:** Citizen participation is crucial at the local level due to its proximity to citizens, making it vital for rebuilding trust and fostering community development.
The "participation ladder" illustrates the link between different types of democracy and the level of citizen involvement and power. Higher rungs on the ladder represent greater citizen power, indicating that views on participation are tied to conceptions of democracy, which in turn influence the role of government.
While elections offer a highly equal form of participation (one person, one vote), other, more complex forms of participation reveal significant inequalities mirroring societal divisions.
#### 3.4.1 Socio-economic disparities
* Citizens with higher socio-economic status (SES) tend to expand their repertoire of participation methods, utilizing petitions, legal actions, and open letters.
* Education level is a key predictor: higher-educated individuals possess greater political interest, knowledge, and the skills needed to navigate the "political game."
* **Consequences of inequality:**
* Higher-educated citizens set different political agendas, amplifying their voices.
* Lower-educated citizens find the complex participation landscape even more bewildering, reinforcing their sense of powerlessness.
* This results in a dualization of political participation, with lower-skilled individuals participating less and differently (e.g., in different organizations, consuming different media).
#### 3.4.2 Gender disparities
Despite educational and employment advances for women, a persistent gap in political participation remains. Explanations include the unequal distribution of household tasks and the male dominance in leading organizations. This gender gap means women's concerns and preferences may reach the political agenda less readily.
#### 3.4.3 Other challenges
Diversity and the digital divide, as well as the scaling up of small-scale participation initiatives, also present significant challenges to citizen participation.
Political interaction extends beyond government into the public sphere, where civil society organizations are active. The "middenveld" (civil society) plays a significant role in both policy-making and execution and is expected to strengthen democracy.
#### 3.5.1 Description and evolution of civil society (middenveld)
Civil society is broadly defined as a diverse and dynamic collection of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous space between the private sphere, the market, and the state.
* **Characteristics:**
* **Private initiative:** Managed by citizens, not governments.
* **Non-profit orientation:** Focused on societal participation rather than profit.
* **Formal character:** Distinct from informal communities like friend groups.
* **Differentiation and dynamism:** Civil society encompasses a wide range of forms, from self-help groups and trade unions to employer organizations, sports clubs, and temporary action committees. Coalitions and partnerships between these organizations also exist.
* **Historical development in Belgium:**
* **Pillarization (early-mid 20th century):** Large organizations developed into distinct "pillars" (Catholic, Liberal, Socialist) that shaped citizens' lives from birth to death. This created distinct societal sub-groups.
* **De-pillarization (post-WWII, especially from the 1970s):** Increased individualization and secularization led to the erosion of pillar structures.
* **New social movements (1970s onwards):** Higher-educated, middle-class youth initiated movements focusing on new themes like peace, environmentalism, sexual liberation, and women's rights. These movements challenged established elites and pushed for greater openness.
* **Recent developments:** Emergence of organizations addressing issues like mobility, animal rights, and poverty. There's a trend towards more temporary, conditional, and individualized engagements, replacing long-term commitments in fixed associations. These new movements often exhibit greater mobilization power through various small-scale and large-scale actions.
#### 3.5.2 The political mission of civil society
Civil society organizations fulfill three central missions:
* **Social mission:** Bringing people together, fostering social cohesion, and combating isolation through diverse activities.
* **Political mission:**
* Expressing citizens' needs and interests and advocating for them (e.g., trade unions, resident groups).
* Providing political education by developing democratic skills (decision-making, negotiation, argumentation) through practical experience.
* **Service-providing mission:** Delivering a wide range of services, from childcare and holiday programs to healthcare services and professional support.
#### 3.5.3 Evolution of the political mission of civil society
* **Historical government support:** The Belgian government historically granted significant space to civil society, integrating interest groups into policy-making within a consensus-based system. This provided stability but also limited access for new issues and groups. Some government tasks were even outsourced to large civil society organizations.
* **Criticism:** Critics like Guy Verhofstadt argued that civil society had "colonized" the public domain, wielding excessive power.
* **Enduring positive interest:** Despite criticism, civil society remains valued for its role in:
* **Social cohesion:** Without it, society may fragment, leading to a decline in trust.
* **Partnership with government:** Civil society organizations act as antennas for public sentiment, provide dialogue partners, and can help persuade their constituencies about the feasibility of certain policies.
#### 3.5.4 Success factors for the political mission
Two key factors are crucial for civil society's effective political engagement:
* **Access to the political system:** The multi-layered government structure in Belgium offers multiple points of access. A de-pillarized and open political landscape, as in Flanders, facilitates greater influence for diverse civil society organizations. Competition among political parties on new issues can also increase access.
* **Strategic positioning and resources:** Organizations vary in their commitment to their political mission. Effective policy influence requires resources, including strong organization, available volunteers and professionals, finances (subsidies, donations), expertise, and connections with politicians, media, and opinion leaders.
Research, notably by David Putnam, highlights the link between participation in civil society and democratic performance.
* **Social capital:** Putnam defines social capital as "features of social life - networks, norms and trust - that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives." It comprises:
* **Trust:** Citizens' confidence in each other.
* **Networks of engagement:** Dense networks of associations where citizens collaborate.
* **Norms of reciprocity:** Principles of equality and mutual benefit encouraging cooperation.
* **Contribution to democracy:**
* **Internal functioning:** Civil society organizations act as schools for democracy, socializing individuals into more democratic thinking and behavior.
* **External functioning:** By organizing, citizens can gain power and compel governments to be more responsive. A system facing numerous pressure groups is likely to be more alert than one facing only individuals.
Several developments influence contemporary participation:
* **Individualization:** Citizens are less dependent on traditional political ties. Stronger "calculating" citizens engage differently with government, while more vulnerable citizens feel less protected by collective advocacy, increasing the risk of political alienation. Governments respond with increased accountability and transparency.
* **Shift from command-and-control to negotiation:** Governance models emphasize cooperation and shared responsibility. Citizens are seen not just as clients but as experts and co-producers. This leads to more flexible, project-based approaches and new instruments like public-private partnerships.
* **Increasing diversity:** The heterogeneity of society demands participatory forms that acknowledge and leverage diversity, adapting methods to specific groups and embracing difference rather than solely seeking compromise. Active citizenship within local contexts (neighborhoods, schools) fosters solidarity.
* **Persistent social inequality and polarization:** The concept of "the citizen" is complex due to disparities between educated, affluent citizens and those with lower education or living in poverty. Existing participation channels can inadvertently reinforce these inequalities.
* **Digital revolution:** Offers opportunities for information dissemination and feedback but risks undermining the crucial element of deliberation in decision-making.
* **Evolving legal context:** A shift from hierarchical to network thinking, with increasing use of legal recourse by citizens and groups to influence or challenge government actions.
* **Media evolution:** Commercial pressures lead to rapid, sometimes sensationalized reporting, creating opportunities for agenda-setting but also risking "flare-up politics" and undermining considered democratic decision-making.
* **Economic globalization:** Challenges national democracies and traditional collective participation forms, requiring a globalization of democratic participation to include international governance levels.
Public administration has moved towards a more business-like model, with a retreat from government as the dominant player.
* **Governance and its risks:** Governance models can create the illusion of power-free decision-making and may lead to powerful actors dominating the field for their own benefit.
* **New Public Management (NPM):** While NPM focused on efficiency and quality of service, it sometimes led to an inward focus on internal processes, neglecting external orientation towards citizens as co-owners.
* **Direct participation ideals vs. reality:** The neoliberal idea of minimizing intermediary organizations between citizens and government overlooks the necessity of a public sphere for debate.
* **Interactive policy:** Recognizes the need for collaboration between citizens, societal actors, and government from the outset of policy development.
* **Facilitating citizen initiative:** Empowering and supporting citizen-led initiatives, such as neighborhood budgets, is a further evolution.
Despite increased policy attention, citizen participation faces significant obstacles:
* **Inequality:** New participation forms often increase complexity, further alienating less empowered citizens while benefiting an educated elite, widening the gap between citizens. The interests of non-participants are inadequately represented, and access to information is unequal.
* **Logic of administration over citizen reality:** Participation often starts from administrative logic rather than citizens' lived experiences. Jargon and complex dossiers create barriers. Overly structured procedures limit space for genuine expression.
* **Weaknesses in the participation process:**
* Unclear frameworks and conditions from government.
* Poorly defined links between goals and processes.
* Insufficient and inconsistent information for participants.
* Late involvement of citizens, limiting their influence to blocking already decided paths, leading to frustration.
* Lack of feedback on the impact of participation on decisions and opaque interest balancing.
* Processes can be too closed and lack accountability.
* **Misuse of participation:** Participation can be used to legitimize pre-determined decisions, undermining its political essence, which involves negotiation and struggle over collective choices. Such "pseudo-participation" can fuel political distrust.
#### 3.6.4 Perspectives for participation
Despite challenges, citizen participation remains vital for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping communal life.
* **Strategic policy theme:** Participation should be integrated into strategic planning with tailored resources. Key elements for a participatory organization include transparent communication, attention to service functioning and key figures' attitudes, effective management of policy processes, and continuous evaluation involving participants.
* **Problem-oriented approach:** Focus on concrete issues relevant to citizens' lives, rather than sectors or administrative levels. This requires different communication, collaboration, and management structures.
* **Sustained and professional approach:** Participatory initiatives need consistent, professional support to build trust. Time and a familiar environment with known facilitators are crucial.
* **Role of professionals:** Experts should communicate by listening, be hesitant yet active when needed, and embrace working with uncertainty. They must recognize pluralistic interests and differences as essential to democracy, acting serviceably to facilitate and support citizen initiatives. Frontline professionals can act as trusted intermediaries, embodying a positive image of government.
* **Politicians' open mindset:** Politicians should believe in citizen contributions, be willing to co-create policy, and be accountable within a responsible community, engaging with societal initiatives and self-organization.
* **Opening up public administration:** Moving beyond participation as a politically harmless ritual to engaging in more conscious, earlier, and deeper public debate on significant societal decisions. This would enhance the vibrancy and legitimacy of democratic debate.
* **Citizens as political subjects:** Citizenship is not merely a status but a dynamic process of self-formation, rights claims, and struggles for a vision of society within a shared democratic space. This involves continuous negotiation of claims and positions. Civil society organizations should support citizens in developing into political subjects, rather than acting solely as government extensions.
* **Realizing the right to participate:** Every effort must be made to ensure this right for as many citizens as possible. Valuing citizen initiatives and recognizing their indispensable contribution is essential. While guided, processes must not be rigidly controlled towards pre-determined outcomes. Participating in "the political" inherently means questioning the existing social order and underlying power structures, thus possessing a disruptive character crucial for a dynamic democracy.
**Table 4: The participation ladder**
| Type of democracy | Activity | Input and role of the citizen | Objective and role of the government |
| :----------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :--------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Direct democracy | Doing democracy, Co-production, Co-creation (e.g., living labs), Self-management (e.g., neighborhood budgets) | Initiative lies with the citizen; the citizen makes choices and takes initiative. The citizen is jointly responsible, a decision-maker, and manager. | An open government willing to be corrected provides a broad framework. Government cedes decisions to citizens or allows citizens to take over government tasks. Government participates, advises, and supports. Officials act in an advisory role. |
| Interactive democracy | Co-producing (e.g., street redesign plans), Co-deciding (e.g., citizen juries) | The citizen jointly shapes the problem agenda and solution direction. The citizen is a partner and co-decider. Citizens think along beforehand. The citizen as co-producer. | The government jointly develops a plan or project with citizens and commits to agreed-upon solutions. Government and citizens agree on a joint agenda, seek solutions together, and make decisions together. |
| Consultation democracy | Advising (e.g., advisory councils), Consulting (e.g., hearings) | The citizen as discussion partner, idea provider, giving opinions and feedback in an open setting. The citizen as advisor, consulted party. Citizen participates in discussion. | Government gives citizens the opportunity to identify problems and propose solutions. Decision-making occurs at another level. Politics may, with or without argumentation, deviate from proposals. Government sets the agenda and listens to citizens in an open, non-binding conversation. Results are not binding for government. |
| Representative democracy | Informing (e.g., info campaigns) | The citizen as customer, listener. The citizen informs themselves. | Government keeps the population informed about decisions made through good information. |
---
# The development of political participation and its challenges
This section explores the evolution of political participation and the obstacles it faces in modern democracies.
### 4.1 Political alienation
Political alienation, characterized by distrust and a sense of powerlessness, is a growing concern in Western democracies. This can manifest as feelings of internal powerlessness (individuals believing people like them have no influence) or external powerlessness (politicians ignoring citizens' wishes). Distrust can target political figures, institutions like parties and governments, or the democratic regime itself. While trust in core democratic principles remains, confidence in political institutions has declined, a trend exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic.
**Tip:** Political alienation is not solely explained by objective factors like poor governance or economic performance, as declining trust is observed even in well-governed countries.
Subjective factors such as individualism and subjective misinformation are considered key drivers of this alienation. Growing individualism can translate into:
* **Defensive individualism:** Prevalent among weaker groups who feel victimized by the perceived selfishness of others, leading to apathy or aversion towards politics.
* **Offensive individualism:** Characterized by strong individuals asserting their rights and demanding immediate political responsiveness, while feeling less attached to long-term political organizations.
Subjective misinformation arises from the increasing complexity of modern life, overwhelming citizens' capacity to process information about policy-making. This complexity, coupled with the influence of social media, contributes to the spread of political alienation across diverse groups, including those in radical opposition and lower-skilled populations struggling with political complexity.
### 4.2 Citizenship and democracy
Democracy hinges on citizen control over power and the collective direction of society. The distinction between direct democracy (citizens decide on policy proposals) and indirect democracy (citizens delegate power to representatives) forms the basis of modern hybrid democracies, where the content and organization of citizenship are crucial.
Citizenship encompasses two layers:
* **Citizenship as status:** The legal contract between the state and the individual, symbolized by an identity card.
* **Citizenship as social role:** The active responsibilities an individual undertakes within a community, often termed "active citizenship." This engagement can occur in various settings, including associations, unions, parties, advisory councils, and through media and public debates.
Historically, political participation was largely confined to voting, a right fiercely fought for by various social groups. Beyond voting, civil society organizations provided vital support, allowing citizens to unite, defend interests, and engage collectively. These organizations, often structured hierarchically, played a significant role in policy-making and implementation.
Since the 1970s, a new wave of participation emerged, driven by a desire for more open and horizontal democracy. Fueled by emancipation movements, citizens began demanding more "say" and taking initiative through various actions, committees, and civic initiatives. This bottom-up participation, interacting with increased policy attention from political elites, promised a deepening of democratic politics. Instruments like youth councils and public hearings were developed to engage citizens.
The rise of far-right movements in the 1990s spurred a top-down reinforcement of participation, with elites believing citizen engagement safeguards democracy. Efforts to bridge the "citizen gap" focused on strengthening direct democracy (referendums, lotteries) and interactive democracy, viewing civil society as crucial for democratic citizenship. This led to a significant expansion of participation opportunities across various societal domains, from education and healthcare to business and housing.
### 4.3 The participation ladder
The participation ladder illustrates the relationship between the type of democracy and the citizen's involvement and role, with higher rungs signifying greater citizen power. It highlights how different conceptions of participation align with differing views of democracy and the role of government.
> **Tip:** The participation ladder demonstrates that citizens' input and role are directly tied to their level of engagement and the government's approach to collaboration.
The ladder categorizes different types of democracy based on the citizen's role and the government's approach:
* **Direct democracy:** Citizens are "doers," co-producers, co-creators, and self-managers, taking initiative and responsibility. The government provides a broad framework, advises, and supports, allowing citizens to take over tasks.
* **Interactive democracy:** Citizens are co-producers and decision-makers, influencing problem agendas and solution directions. They are partners who contribute to planning and decision-making. The government collaborates with citizens to develop plans and commits to agreed-upon solutions.
* **Involvement democracy (or consultative democracy):** Citizens act as advisors and consultants, providing opinions and comments in open settings. The government offers opportunities for citizens to raise issues and propose solutions, but final decisions rest with the government and are not necessarily binding.
* **Representative democracy:** Citizens are primarily recipients of information, acting as customers or audience members. The government's role is to inform the public about its decisions.
### 4.4 Unequal political participation of citizens
While elections offer universal suffrage, making them a highly equal form of participation, other forms of participation reveal significant inequalities mirroring those in broader society. These inequalities are particularly evident in more complex participation methods.
Citizens with higher socioeconomic status often expand their repertoire of participation to include petitions, legal procedures, and open letters, while those with lower status engage less with these tools. Education level is a particularly strong predictor of this inequality, as higher-educated individuals tend to have more political interest, knowledge, and the skills necessary to navigate the political landscape. This disparity leads to higher-educated groups setting more of the political agenda, amplifying their voices. Conversely, for lower-educated individuals, the complexity of participation processes can increase their sense of powerlessness.
A dualization in political participation is observed, with lower-skilled individuals participating less and differently, including joining different organizations, voting for different parties, and obtaining political information from different media sources.
Gender also contributes to inequality. Despite advancements in education and employment, a gap persists in political participation between men and women. This is attributed to the unequal division of household tasks and the male dominance in organizational leadership. This gender gap means women's concerns and preferences may face greater challenges in reaching the political agenda.
Other challenges to citizen participation include diversity, the digital divide, and the scaling up of small-scale initiatives.
### 4.5 Participation, civil society, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond public administration into the broader public sphere, where civil society organizations play a vital role. In Belgium, this "middle field" is particularly significant, contributing to policy-making, implementation, and the strengthening of democracy.
#### 4.5.1 Description and development of civil society
Civil society is broadly defined as the diverse and dynamic array of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous space between the private sphere, the market, and the government. This includes a wide range of entities, from self-help groups and trade unions to sports clubs and temporary action committees.
Civil society organizations are characterized by:
* **Private initiative:** They are established by citizens and not governed by state authorities.
* **Non-profit motive:** Their goal is societal participation rather than profit.
* **Formal character:** They are distinct from informal communities like friend groups.
Civil society is dynamic, with continuous change in its forms, themes, and scales. Historically, in Belgium, this manifested as pillarized organizations (Catholic, liberal, socialist) that provided comprehensive social support. However, increasing individualization and secularization have led to the erosion of these pillars since the 1970s.
Alongside the decline of pillarization, new social movements emerged, driven by educated youth and focusing on issues like peace, environmental concerns, sexual liberation, and gender equality. These movements challenged established elites and pushed for greater openness. More recently, associations have formed around new themes such as mobility, animal rights, and poverty. This evolution has seen a shift towards more temporary, conditional, and individualized forms of engagement.
#### 4.5.2 The political mandate of civil society
Civil society fulfills three central roles:
* **Social role:** Bringing people together for diverse forms of interaction, fostering social cohesion, and combating isolation.
* **Political role:** Expressing citizens' needs and interests, and providing political education through the development of democratic skills.
* **Service role:** Delivering a wide range of services, from childcare to healthcare support.
The political role of civil society has evolved. Traditionally, in Belgium's consensus-based democracy, interest groups held significant influence in policy-making. However, this system could be closed to new themes and groups. While some criticized civil society for colonizing the public domain, its importance for social cohesion and as a partner for government has been increasingly recognized, especially in countering anti-politics.
#### 4.5.3 Success factors for the political mandate
For civil society to effectively fulfill its political mandate, two factors are crucial:
* **Access to the political system:** The multi-layered governance structure in Flanders offers numerous access points, while the de-pillarized landscape promotes openness to diverse civil society organizations. Competition among political parties can also increase access.
* **Political-strategic positioning and resources:** Organizations vary in their commitment to their political role. Active organizations aim to politicize issues and break existing consensus. Effective policy influence requires sufficient resources, including good organization, available volunteers and professionals, financial means, expertise, and strong media and public relations contacts.
#### 4.5.4 Participation in civil society and democracy
Participation in civil society is linked to democratic performance. Sociologist David Putnam's work highlights the concept of "social capital," which comprises trust, networks of engagement, and norms of reciprocity. Societies with strong social capital, characterized by active citizen engagement and robust associative networks, tend to have more responsive governments and better democratic performance.
Civil society organizations contribute to democracy in two ways:
* **Internal functioning:** They act as a school for democracy, socializing individuals into more democratic thinking and behavior.
* **External functioning:** By uniting, citizens can gain power and compel governments to heed their demands. A political system with numerous pressure groups and movements is more likely to be responsive than one facing only individual citizens.
### 4.6 Towards a new interplay between citizen and politics
The evolving roles of citizens and civil society present challenges and opportunities for governments, politicians, and public officials.
#### 4.6.1 Changing context, changing participation
Several developments influence contemporary participation:
* **Individualization:** Citizens are more independent of traditional political ties, with stronger individuals calculating their relationship with the government and more vulnerable citizens feeling less protected by collective representation. Governments have responded with increased transparency and feedback channels.
* **Shift from command to negotiation:** Governance has moved from hierarchical structures to a more cooperative model emphasizing shared responsibility, with citizens seen as experts and co-producers.
* **Increasing diversity:** The heterogeneity of society demands participatory forms that embrace diversity and adapt methods to different target groups. Solidarity in diversity can be achieved through active citizenship in local contexts.
* **Persistent social inequality:** The gap between different socio-economic groups makes it challenging to speak of "the" citizen. Existing participation channels risk reinforcing existing inequalities.
* **Digital revolution:** Offers opportunities for information dissemination but lacks the necessary deliberation for decision-making processes.
* **Evolving legal context:** A shift from pyramidal to network thinking, with increased recourse to legal avenues by citizens and action groups.
* **Media evolution:** Commercial pressures lead to rapid, sometimes sensationalized reporting, potentially fostering "flash politics" and undermining deliberative decision-making.
* **Economic globalization:** Challenges national democracy and the traditional forms of collective participation, requiring a globalization of democratic participation.
#### 4.6.2 The end of the citizen-customer relationship?
Public administration has evolved towards a more business-like model, with a retreat of the government as the sole decision-maker. This governance model risks powerful actors pursuing their own interests. While the "citizen-customer" model provided recognition for efficient service delivery, it sometimes led administrations to focus inward on processes rather than outward engagement with citizens as co-owners.
Direct participation models, intended to remove intermediaries, often overlooked the need for a public sphere of debate. Interactive policy-making, where citizens, societal actors, and government collaborate from the outset, and facilitating citizen initiatives (e.g., neighborhood budgets) represent a move towards more collaborative approaches.
#### 4.6.3 Problems with participation
Despite increased policy attention, citizen participation faces significant challenges:
* **Inequality:** New participation forms have often increased complexity, further alienating less empowered citizens and strengthening the influence of the participating elite. The gap between citizens widens, with the interests of non-participants inadequately represented and unequal access to information.
* **Logic of administration:** Participation often stems from administrative logic rather than citizens' lived realities, with alienating work methods, jargon, and overly structured procedures that can overwhelm participants.
* **Weaknesses in the process:** Unclear frameworks, incoherent links between objectives and processes, insufficient information, late involvement of citizens, and a lack of feedback and accountability lead to frustration. Processes can be overly closed and difficult to scrutinize.
* **Misuse of participation:** Participation can be used to legitimize pre-determined decisions, undermining the political essence of negotiation and struggle for collective choices. This "pseudo-participation" can increase political distrust.
#### 4.6.4 Perspectives for participation
Despite challenges, citizen participation remains essential for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping society. Key perspectives include:
* **Participation as a policy theme:** Integrating participation into strategic planning with dedicated resources and tailored approaches. Building blocks include transparent communication, service functioning, a participatory attitude of key figures, effective policy process management, and continuous evaluation.
* **Problem-oriented approach:** Focusing on concrete issues in citizens' lived worlds, with different sectors contributing to solutions. This requires different communication, collaboration, and management structures.
* **Sustained and professional approach:** Consistent, professional engagement builds trust. Time is a critical element, and a familiar environment with consistent facilitators helps citizens connect.
* **Role of professionals:** Experts should communicate by listening rather than persuading, acting with restraint but intervening when necessary. They must embrace uncertainty, recognize diverse perspectives, and facilitate rather than lead.
* **Role of politicians:** Open-mindedness, belief in citizen contributions, a willingness to co-create policy, and accountability are crucial. Politicians should make informed decisions in connection with society and be receptive to citizen initiatives and self-organization.
* **Opening up public administration:** Moving beyond participation as a mere policy ritual to more conscious, earlier, and deeper engagement in public debate. This would lead to more vibrant and legitimate democratic discourse.
* **Citizens as active subjects:** Citizenship is not just a status but a dynamic process of claiming rights and shaping the good society. Civil society organizations should support individuals in becoming political subjects, rather than acting solely as intermediaries for the state.
* **Realizing participation as a right:** All efforts should be made to ensure this right for as many citizens as possible, valuing and accompanying citizen initiatives without controlling them. True political participation challenges the existing social order and power structures, bringing a necessary disruptive element to society.
---
Modern democracies rely on public trust, yet a growing concern in Western countries is the increasing political alienation among citizens. This section explores political alienation, the relationship between citizenship and democracy, and the challenges and development of political participation.
Political alienation is characterized by two main dimensions in Western countries: distrust and powerlessness.
* **Powerlessness** can be internal, referring to the feeling that ordinary people have no influence on politics, or external, where citizens feel politicians disregard their wishes.
* **Distrust** can be directed towards political figures (perceived as corrupt), political institutions (parties, governments), or the democratic regime itself.
While trust in the core principles of democracy, such as freedom of speech and free elections, generally remains high, trust in political institutions like parties and governments has declined, a trend exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic. Data indicates a significant drop in trust in federal executive and legislative powers in Belgium, with higher levels of trust observed for local authorities compared to national ones. This decline is not solely attributable to short-term factors like poor governance or scandals; a long-term trend of increasing political alienation is observed across Western democracies, even in countries with strong governance and economic growth.
Subjective factors, such as individualism and subjective disinformation, are proposed as explanations for this increasing alienation:
* **Individualism** has evolved into political individualism, manifesting in two forms:
* **Defensive individualism:** Experienced by weaker groups in a knowledge-based society, leading to feelings of powerlessness and distrust towards the perceived selfishness of others.
* **Offensive individualism:** Characterized by empowered individuals demanding immediate satisfaction of their rights in all societal domains, including politics. This weakens traditional political affiliations and strengthens political individualism.
* **Subjective disinformation** arises from the increasing complexity of modern societal life, which overwhelms citizens' capacity to process information, leading to a state of subjective disinformation. Social media also plays a role in shaping citizens' opinions.
This alienation is most pronounced among groups in radical opposition to government policy and among lower-educated groups who struggle to grasp political complexity.
Democracy fundamentally involves citizens controlling power and collectively guiding society. A distinction exists between direct democracy, where citizens directly decide on policy proposals, and indirect democracy, where power is delegated to representatives. Modern democracies are typically **hybride democracies**, blending elements of both, with citizenship playing a crucial role in their content and organization.
Citizenship and democracy are inextricably linked, requiring citizens to have the right to exercise power and assume responsibilities. Citizenship has two layers:
* **Citizenship as a social role:** The responsibilities an individual undertakes within a community as a citizen, emphasizing active participation in public affairs.
This active citizenship can manifest in various contexts, including associations, unions, parties, advisory councils, and through media and public debates. Historically, political participation was largely limited to voting, a right fiercely fought for by various groups to broaden the definition of democracy as governance "of the people."
The **third sector (middenveld)** has historically supported political participation by enabling citizens to organize, meet, support each other, and collectively defend their interests. Large, structured organizations with loyal followings played a significant role in policy preparation and execution. After World War II, citizen emancipation led to expanded services and increased opportunities for input, such as public consultations and advisory councils. However, in a traditional, paternalistic society, citizen involvement was often limited, with elites dictating political participation.
From the 1970s, a new participation movement emerged, driven by a desire for a more open and horizontal democracy, advocating for increased citizen "say." New movements and citizen initiatives fundamentally changed the landscape of democracy, introducing new themes like environmental quality and equal rights, and fostering bottom-up participation that, in conjunction with increased policy attention, promised a deeper democratic politics. Instruments like youth councils and neighborhood committees were developed.
Concerns about the rise of the far-right in the 1990s spurred a renewed emphasis on "top-down" participation to strengthen democracy and bridge the "gap with the citizen." This led to a push for direct democracy instruments like referendums and lottery, and interactive democracy where citizens act as co-producers. The third sector was once again seen as vital for politics and fostering democratic citizenship. Today, participation opportunities extend beyond voting to various domains like education, welfare, healthcare, business, housing, and justice, employing methods like interactive sites, neighborhood budgets, and citizen panels across international, European, federal, regional, and local levels. Local participation is particularly crucial for rebuilding trust and fostering community.
#### 4.2.1 The participation ladder
The participation ladder illustrates the relationship between the type of democracy and the citizen's input and role, indicating that higher rungs signify greater citizen power. This framework highlights how conceptions of participation are linked to views on democracy, which in turn shape the role of government. Different activities can be employed depending on the desired level of participation.
* **Direct democracy (Do democracy):** Citizen initiative and decision-making, with citizens as co-producers, co-creators, and self-managers. The government provides a framework, allowing citizens to take over tasks and acting as advisors and supporters.
* **Interactive democracy:** Citizens are partners in decision-making, co-determining agendas and solutions. The government collaborates with citizens to develop plans and commits to agreed-upon solutions.
* **Consultative democracy (Inspraakdemocratie):** Citizens act as advisors and idea generators, offering opinions and comments in open forums. The government provides opportunities for citizens to raise issues and propose solutions, but decisions are not binding.
* **Representative democracy:** Citizens are primarily informed as customers or audiences. The government's role is to keep the public informed about decisions.
### 4.3 Unequal political participation of citizens
While elections offer equal participation for all citizens through the one-person, one-vote principle, other, more complex forms of participation often reveal inequalities mirroring those in broader society.
* **Socioeconomic status:** Citizens with higher socioeconomic status tend to expand their repertoire of participation methods to include petitions, legal actions, and open letters, which are less utilized by those with lower socioeconomic status.
* **Education level:** Education emerges as a key factor, with higher-educated individuals possessing greater political interest, knowledge, and the necessary skills to navigate the political system. This leads to their concerns being more readily placed on the political agenda, while lower-educated individuals may experience increased feelings of powerlessness due to the complexity of participation processes. This results in **dualization of political participation**, with distinct engagement patterns based on education.
* **Gender:** Despite advancements in education and employment, a persistent gap in political participation between men and women remains. This is attributed to the unequal distribution of household tasks and the continued male dominance in organizational leadership. This gender gap can result in women's issues and preferences being less represented on the political agenda.
* **Diversity and the digital divide:** These factors, along with the scaling up of small-scale participation initiatives, present significant challenges to citizen participation.
### 4.4 Participation, the third sector, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond public administration to the broader public sphere, where numerous associations, collectively known as the **third sector (middenveld)**, play a vital role. This sector is crucial not only for policymaking but also for policy implementation and is expected to strengthen democracy.
#### 4.4.1 Description and development of the third sector
The third sector is understood as a differentiated and dynamic ensemble of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous position between the private sphere, the market, and the government. This sector is characterized by:
* **Private initiative:** Organizations are founded by citizens, not governed by public authorities.
* **Non-profit motive:** The aim is societal participation, not profit.
* **Formal character:** Distinct from informal communities.
* **Differentiation and dynamism:** Continual evolution in organizational forms, themes, and scales. This includes a wide array of entities, from self-help groups and trade unions to sports clubs and temporary action committees.
Historically, in Belgium, the third sector developed alongside the industrial society, evolving into **pillars (zuilen)** – Catholic, Liberal, and Socialist – that provided comprehensive support to citizens. However, since the 1970s, secularization and individualization have led to the erosion of these pillars. New social movements emerged, raising new themes such as peace, environmental protection, sexual liberation, and gender equality, challenging traditional elites and fostering greater openness. In recent decades, further diversification has occurred, with organizations focusing on issues like mobility, animal rights, and poverty. This has led to a trend towards more temporary, conditional, and individualized engagements replacing long-term commitments in fixed associations.
#### 4.4.2 The political mandate of the third sector
The third sector fulfills three core mandates:
* **Social mandate:** Bringing people together, fostering social cohesion, combating isolation, and offering opportunities for collaboration and mutual support.
* **Political mandate:** Expressing citizens' wishes and needs, advocating for their interests, and providing political education by developing democratic skills through practical experience in decision-making, negotiation, and action.
* **Service mandate:** Providing a broad range of services, from holiday programs and childcare to health insurance and supplementary services.
The political mandate of the third sector has evolved. Historically, the Belgian government allocated significant space to interest groups, granting them substantial influence in policy preparation through consensus-based decision-making. This led to a closed system of decision-making, making it difficult for new themes and groups to gain traction. While ensuring stability, this system also faced criticism for its exclusivity.
Despite critiques, the third sector continues to attract positive political interest for two primary reasons:
1. **Social cohesion:** It is seen as essential for societal functioning, preventing citizen isolation and fostering trust in both the community and politics.
2. **Partnership:** It provides government with essential "antennae" to gauge public sentiment and serves as dialogue partners for testing policy ideas. Intermediate organizations can also help bridge the gap between political feasibility and public expectation.
#### 4.4.3 Success factors for the political mandate
Key factors for the successful political engagement of the third sector include:
* **Access to the political system:** The multi-layered structure of government in Flanders offers multiple access points for the third sector. The de-pillarized nature of Flanders and competition among political parties create openness for diverse third-sector organizations.
* **Political-strategic positioning and resources:** Organizations vary in their commitment to their political mandate. Some actively politicize issues, while others have become more institutionalized. Active engagement in breaking existing consensus is crucial.
* **Resources:** Effective policy influence depends on adequate resources, including good organization, available volunteers and professionals, financial means (subsidies, donations), expertise, and strong political and media contacts.
#### 4.4.4 Participation in the third sector and democracy
Participation in the third sector significantly impacts democracy, as explored by David Putnam. He argues that active citizen engagement and participation in civic traditions correlate with higher government performance. Regions with high citizen activity compel governments to be more responsive to public demands. A population that rejects fraud and corruption enables more effective governance.
Putnam introduces the concept of **social capital**, defined as "features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives." Social capital comprises:
* **Trust:** The degree of basic trust citizens have in each other.
* **Networks of engagement:** Dense networks of associations enable citizens to achieve common goals and foster mutual trust.
* **Norms of reciprocity:** Principles of equality and reciprocity encourage cooperation for shared benefit.
Putnam suggests that active associations lead to stronger democracies, with associations serving as "schools of democracy" that socialize citizens into more democratic thinking and behavior. Externally, organized citizens can exert power, forcing governments to be more responsive. A political system with numerous pressure groups and movements is likely to be more alert than one facing only individual citizens.
### 4.5 Towards a new interplay between citizen and politics?
The evolving roles of citizens and the third sector present challenges for governments, politicians, and civil servants, necessitating a shift from a hierarchical "command-and-control" approach to a more cooperative and shared responsibility model, characterized by **interactive policy-making**.
#### 4.5.1 Changing context, changing participation
Several developments influence contemporary views and practices of participation:
* **Individualization:** Citizens are less dependent on traditional political structures, with implications for both strong (calculating) and weak (vulnerable) citizens, potentially leading to political alienation. Governments have responded with increased accountability, transparency, and feedback mechanisms.
* **Shift from command to negotiation:** Public administration has moved from hierarchical structures to models emphasizing cooperation and shared responsibility. Citizens are viewed not just as clients but as experts and co-producers.
* **Increasing diversity:** The diverse backgrounds, values, and interests of citizens necessitate new participation forms that accommodate and productively utilize this diversity. Methods must be adapted to target groups, and the goal should not always be compromise.
* **Persistent social inequality and polarization:** This makes it difficult to speak of "citizens" as a homogenous group, highlighting the challenges for integrating diverse groups, including those with limited rights, into participation processes. Existing participation channels may inadvertently reinforce inequality.
* **Digital revolution:** Offers opportunities for information dissemination and feedback but risks neglecting the crucial element of **deliberation** in decision-making processes.
* **Evolving legal context:** A shift from pyramidal structures to network thinking, with an increasing reliance on contracts, covenants, and guidelines. Citizens and action groups are more inclined to seek legal recourse.
* **Media evolution:** Commercial pressures lead to rapid, sometimes sensational reporting, creating opportunities for creative citizens to influence the political agenda but also fostering "flash politics" and undermining considered democratic decision-making.
* **Economic globalization:** Poses challenges to national democracies and traditional participation models, requiring the globalization of democratic participation to counter global economic pressures.
#### 4.5.2 The end of the citizen-client relationship?
Public administration has transformed, influenced by neoliberal pressures, moving towards a more business-like model. The concept of **governance** signifies a reduced role for government as the sole decision-maker, with a risk of powerful actors dominating the field for their own benefit. While New Public Management aimed for efficiency, it sometimes led to an inward focus detrimental to external societal engagement.
Direct participation models, based on the idea of minimal intermediaries between citizens and government, have often overlooked the necessity of a public sphere for debate. Interactive policy-making, where citizens, societal actors, and government collaborate from the outset, recognizes this need. The emphasis is increasingly on facilitating and supporting citizen initiatives.
#### 4.5.3 Problems with participation
* **Inequality:** New participation forms have often increased the complexity of decision-making, further alienating less engaged citizens while empowering an educated elite. The gap between participating and non-participating citizens widens, with the interests of non-participants often neglected.
* **Disconnect from citizens' lives:** Participation often stems from administrative logic rather than citizens' lived realities. Jargon, complexity, and overly structured procedures create barriers.
* **Process weaknesses:** Lack of clear frameworks, unclear links between goals and processes, insufficient and inconsistent information, late involvement of citizens, and a lack of feedback on the influence of participation on decisions.
* **Lack of transparency and accountability:** Participation processes can be closed and difficult to scrutinize.
* **Misuse of participation:** The risk of participation being used to legitimize pre-determined decisions, undermining the essence of political negotiation and struggle over collective decisions. This "pseudo-participation" can fuel political distrust.
#### 4.5.4 Perspectives for participation
Despite challenges, citizen participation remains essential for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping collective life. Key perspectives for the future include:
* **Strategic integration:** Participation should be a core policy theme, integrated into strategic planning with resources for tailored approaches. Key elements include transparent communication, attention to service functioning, the attitudes of key figures, effective management of policy processes, and continuous evaluation.
* **Problem-oriented approach:** Focusing on concrete issues and citizens' lived realities, rather than sectoral or administrative levels, requires new communication, collaboration, and management structures.
* **Sustained and professional approach:** Ad hoc initiatives should be replaced by sustained, professional approaches to build trust. Time and a familiar environment with known facilitators are crucial.
* **Role of professionals:** Experts should communicate listeningly, offering support and allowing processes to unfold, embracing uncertainty and recognizing the value of diverse perspectives. They should act as facilitators, empowering citizens and embodying a trustworthy image of the government.
* **Politicians' open mindset:** Politicians need to believe in citizen contributions, be willing to co-create policy, and be accountable within a responsible community, while making clear policy trade-offs in connection with society.
* **Opening up public administration:** Public administration should become more outward-facing, moving beyond participation as a perfunctory ritual. Key decisions should be brought into public debate earlier and more thoroughly to foster legitimacy and democratic debate.
* **Citizens as active agents:** Citizenship is not merely a status but is dynamically shaped by processes of self-formation, rights claims, and struggles for one's vision of a good society. This involves continuous negotiation and weaving of diverse claims and political positions.
* **Third sector as facilitator:** Third-sector organizations should act as engaged supporters of individuals developing into political subjects, rather than simply as extensions of government or conduits for their concerns.
* **Realizing the right to participate:** Every effort must be made to ensure this right for all citizens, valuing and supporting citizen initiatives without directing them towards pre-determined outcomes. Political participation inherently challenges the existing social order and power structures, fostering a necessary disruptive character in an evolving society.
---
# Impact of societal changes on democracy and participation
Modern democracies rely on public trust, yet in Western countries, there's a perceived disconnect between citizens and politics, leading to alienation and impacting democratic participation.
### 5.1 Political alienation
Political alienation in Western nations is characterized by two key dimensions: distrust and a sense of powerlessness.
* **Powerlessness** can manifest as internal powerlessness (the feeling that individuals like oneself have no influence on politics) or external powerlessness (the perception that politicians disregard citizens' wishes).
* **Distrust** can target specific groups like politicians (perceived as self-serving), political institutions (parties, governments), or more broadly, the democratic regime itself.
While trust in the fundamental principles of democracy (e.g., freedom of speech, free elections) remains relatively high, trust in political institutions, including parties and governments, has declined significantly. This trend has been exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic, pointing to a broader political distrust. Data shows a stark decrease in trust in the federal executive and legislative branches in Belgium, with higher levels of trust generally directed towards local government.
Long-term, a slow increase in political alienation is observed across Western democracies, not solely attributable to "objective factors" like poor governance or weak economic performance, as declining trust is present even in countries with strong economies and effective leadership.
Research suggests "subjective factors" play a crucial role in this growing alienation:
* **Individualism:** The rise of individualism in society translates into political individualism.
* **Defensive Individualism:** Primarily seen in weaker societal groups, this manifests as feelings of powerlessness and distrust due to perceived selfishness from others. This can lead to apathy or aversion towards politics.
* **Offensive Individualism:** Characterizes socially privileged individuals who assert their rights across all societal domains, demanding immediate political responsiveness. These individuals are less attached to traditional associations and political parties that focus on long-term success, leading to a weakening of these established political ties.
* **Subjective Disinformation:** The increasing complexity of modern societal life overwhelms citizens, leading to an inability to process information about complex policy-making, resulting in a state of subjective disinformation. This is not about the complexity itself but rather the citizen's reaction to it. The impact of social media also contributes to the spread of political alienation.
Alienation is most pronounced in groups in radical opposition to government policy (e.g., "strong" individuals in action groups with high short-term expectations) and among lower-educated groups who find it harder to navigate political complexity, further reinforcing their feelings of powerlessness.
### 5.2 Citizenship and democracy
Democracy inherently involves citizen control over power and collective societal direction.
* **Direct Democracy:** Citizens make decisions directly on policy proposals.
* **Indirect Democracy:** Citizens delegate decision-making power to representatives.
* **Hybrid Democracy:** Modern democracies combine elements of both direct and indirect democracy, with the content and organization of citizenship playing a vital role.
Citizenship and democracy are mutually dependent. Democracy requires citizens to have the right to exercise power and the responsibility to ensure that power genuinely emanates from them. This intersection highlights two layers of citizenship:
1. **Citizenship as Status:** The legal contract between the state and the individual, symbolized by identity documents.
2. **Citizenship as Social Role:** The responsibilities an individual undertakes within a community as a citizen, heavily influenced by context and community specifics. This leads to the concept of **active citizenship**, the capacity of individuals to play a dynamic role in public affairs through various engagements (associations, unions, parties, advisory councils, media, public debates, networks).
Historically, political participation was largely limited to voting. The struggle for suffrage mobilized various groups, broadening the understanding of democracy as governance "of the people." Beyond voting, civil society organizations (the "middenveld" or "middle field") provided crucial support for citizen participation, fostering collective interest representation through structured organizations that influenced policy-making and implementation.
In the post-war welfare state, increased service provision led to greater citizen participation through input mechanisms like public inquiries and advisory councils. However, the traditional, pillarized Belgium was characterized by paternalistic decision-making, with elites controlling politics and citizens mobilized only for specific events.
From the 1970s onwards, a new participation movement emerged in protest against closed, paternalistic decision-making. Driven by emancipation movements, citizens demanded more open and horizontal democracy. Various actions, committees, and initiatives fundamentally reshaped democracy from the ground up, introducing new agenda items such as environmental quality and equal rights, fostering bottom-up citizen participation.
The political panic surrounding the rise of the far-right in the 1990s spurred a top-down reinforcement of participation, with political elites believing strong citizen involvement was essential for a vibrant democracy. Efforts to bridge the "citizen gap" focused on enhanced interaction between citizens and government. This included strengthening direct democracy (e.g., referendums, sortition) and interactive democracy (citizen co-production), and revitalizing the middle field as a crucial link and breeding ground for democratic citizenship.
The spectrum of participation opportunities has broadened significantly beyond voting, encompassing participation councils in education, client participation in welfare and health, employee representation in businesses, resident participation in social housing, and participatory justice through mediation. Numerous methods are employed, including interactive platforms, participatory budgeting, and citizen panels, across various governance levels: international, European, federal, regional, and local. Local governance is particularly crucial for rebuilding citizen trust and fostering community development.
#### 5.2.1 The participation ladder
The participation ladder illustrates the link between the type of democracy and the citizen's input and role. Higher rungs signify greater "citizen power," indicating that views on participation are tied to perceptions of democracy and, consequently, to the role of government.
| Type of democracy | Activity | Input and role of the citizen | Objective and role of the government |
| :---------------------- | :-------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------ | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Direct democracy | Doing democracy, Co-production, Co-creation, Self-management | Citizen-initiated, citizen-driven choices and initiatives; shared responsibility, decision-making, and management. | Open government willing to be corrected; government delegates decisions to citizens or allows citizens to take over government tasks; government participates, advises, and supports; officials act in an advisory capacity. |
| Interactive democracy | Co-producing, Co-deciding | Citizen co-determines problem agenda and solution direction; citizen as partner in decision-making; citizen contributes to planning. | Government jointly develops plans and projects with citizens, committing to agreed solutions; joint agenda setting, problem-solving, and decision-making. |
| Consultative democracy | Advising, Consulting | Citizen as discussion partner, idea provider, offering opinions and feedback; citizen as advisor or consulted party. | Government provides opportunities for citizens to identify problems and propose solutions; decision-making occurs at a different level, with the possibility for reasoned deviation from proposals; agenda is set by government, with open, voluntary dialogue. |
| Representative democracy | Informing | Citizen as customer or audience; citizen self-informs. | Government keeps the population informed about decisions through clear communication. |
### 5.3 Unequal political participation of citizens
While elections offer a high degree of equality (one person, one vote) and exert significant pressure on political elites, they provide limited specific information about citizen judgments and desires, necessitating complementary participation forms.
More complex forms of participation reveal inequalities mirroring those in broader society, with income, occupation, and education levels translating into unequal participation. Contrary to expectations, new and non-conventional participation methods have not resolved this; instead, citizens with higher socioeconomic status have expanded their repertoires to include petitions, legal actions, and open letters, which those with lower socioeconomic status utilize far less.
**Education level** is a key explanatory factor for this inequality. Higher-educated individuals possess greater political interest, knowledge, and the necessary skills for political engagement. This disparity influences the political agenda, amplifying the voices of the highly educated. For lower-educated individuals, the complexity of participatory processes further alienates them, intensifying feelings of powerlessness.
This leads to a **dualization of political participation**: lower-educated individuals not only participate less but also engage differently, obtaining political information from different sources and joining different organizations.
**Gender** also contributes to inequality. Despite advancements in education and the labor market, a persistent gap in political participation remains between men and women. Explanations include the unequal division of household tasks and the continued male dominance in leadership positions within organizations. This gap hinders the political agenda from fully reflecting women's preferences and issues.
Additional challenges include diversity, the digital divide, and scaling up small-scale participation initiatives.
### 5.4 Participation, civil society, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond public administration into the broader public sphere, with civil society organizations playing a significant role. In Belgium, the "middenveld" (middle field) is particularly important for both policy-making and implementation, and is expected to strengthen democracy.
#### 5.4.1 Description and development of the middle field
The middle field is understood as the diverse and dynamic ensemble of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous position between the private sphere, the market, and the state. This field is characterized by constant evolution in organizational forms, themes, and scales. It encompasses a wide array of entities, from self-help groups and trade unions to employer organizations, socio-cultural associations, sports clubs, advocacy groups for marginalized populations, and temporary action committees.
The term "middle field" signifies its importance as an intermediary between state, market, and citizens, operating on three axes:
1. **Private Initiative:** Organizations arise from citizen initiative, not government direction.
2. **Non-Profit Motive:** The goal is societal participation, not profit.
3. **Formal Character:** Distinct from informal communities like friend groups.
The middle field is differentiated and dynamic, evolving in types, themes, and structures. It includes traditional associations, unions, sports clubs, socio-cultural groups, and newer, less formalized initiatives like self-help groups and action committees, as well as collaborative coalitions.
Belgium boasts a rich and extensive middle field, which developed alongside its modern industrial society. In the early 20th century, organizations evolved into distinct "pillars" (Catholic, liberal, socialist), creating comprehensive life worlds for citizens. Post-WWII, and particularly from the 1970s, these pillars began to erode due to increasing individualism and secularization.
Concurrently, new social movements emerged, challenging traditional pillars with novel agendas like peace, environmentalism, sexual liberation, gender equality, and solidarity with the Global South. These movements, often driven by educated middle-class youth, pushed for greater openness from governments and elites. More recently, associations have formed around diverse themes like mobility, animal rights, and poverty. This has led to a trend towards more temporary, conditional, and individualized engagements replacing long-term commitments. New social movements also exhibit more fragmented organizational structures and strong mobilization power through small, creative actions and large-scale demonstrations.
#### 5.4.2 The political mandate of the middle field
The middle field fulfills three central mandates:
1. **Social Mandate:** Bringing people together through diverse forms of meeting and support, fostering social cohesion and combating isolation, especially as traditional family networks weaken.
2. **Political Mandate:** Expressing citizens' needs and interests, and providing political education through the development of democratic skills like decision-making, compromise, argumentation, and action planning.
3. **Service Delivery Mandate:** Providing a wide range of services, from recreational activities and childcare to health insurance and supplementary services.
The political mandate of the middle field has historically been significant in Belgium. In its "pact-making democracy," interest groups held considerable sway in policy preparation. Decision-making through consensus allowed all involved societal groups to participate in policy determination and agreement. However, these closed decision-making circuits sometimes made it difficult for new themes and groups to gain traction. This system also offered predictability and stability, with some governmental tasks even outsourced to large intermediary organizations (e.g., unions managing unemployment benefits).
Criticism of the middle field's extensive influence has been voiced, with accusations of colonizing public domains and wielding excessive power. Nevertheless, political interest in the middle field persists for two key reasons:
* **Social Cohesion:** The middle field is vital for societal functioning, preventing citizen isolation and fostering trust in both their environment and politics.
* **Partnership:** It serves as a crucial conduit for governments to receive signals from the population and as a partner for testing policy options. Intermediary organizations also help communicate policy feasibility to their constituents.
##### 5.4.2.1 Success factors for the political mandate
Two factors are essential for the successful political action of the middle field:
1. **Access to the Political System:** The multi-layered administrative structure (federal, regional, local) offers numerous access points, though managing influence can be complex. Belgium's de-pillarized landscape and party competition can open doors for diverse middle field organizations.
2. **Political-Strategic Positioning and Resources:** Organizations vary in their commitment to their political mandate. Proactive organizations actively politicize issues, while others have become more institutionalized. In a vibrant democracy, middle field organizations must continuously challenge existing consensus. Effective policy influence requires resources such as strong organization, available volunteers and professionals, financial means, expertise, and strong media and opinion leader contacts.
#### 5.4.3 Participation in the middle field and democracy
Research, notably by David Putnam, highlights the connection between civic engagement and democratic performance. Societies with active populations and extensive participation in political life tend to have regional governments that are more responsive to citizen demands. Citizen rejection of fraud and corruption can also empower governments to combat these issues more effectively.
Putnam's concept of **social capital**—features of social life like networks, norms, and trust that enable collective action—is crucial. High social capital, characterized by robust horizontal networks of associations fostering cooperation and trust, correlates with better democratic system performance.
Social capital comprises:
* **Trust:** The degree of basic trust citizens have in each other.
* **Networks of Engagement:** Dense networks of associations where citizens can achieve collective goals and build mutual understanding.
* **Norms of Reciprocity:** Principles of equality and mutual exchange that incentivize cooperation.
Putnam suggests a causal link from active associations to strong democracy, though the reverse can also be true: stable democracies foster thriving associational life. Associations contribute to democracy in two ways:
* **Internal Operation:** They serve as schools for democracy, socializing individuals into more democratic thinking and behavior.
* **External Operation:** Citizens gain power through collective action, compelling governments to consider their wishes and demands more attentively than they would with individual citizens alone.
### 5.5 Towards a new interplay between citizen and politics
The evolving roles of citizens and the middle field present challenges for governments, politicians, and civil servants.
#### 5.5.1 Changing context, changing participation
Several developments influence contemporary views and practices of participation:
* **Individualization:** Citizens are less dependent on traditional political affiliations. For stronger individuals, this means more direct negotiation with government; for more vulnerable citizens, it can lead to feelings of reduced protection, increasing the risk of political alienation. Governments have responded with increased transparency and feedback mechanisms.
* **Shift from Command to Negotiation:** Hierarchical command-and-control structures are evolving towards negotiation and shared responsibility. Interactive policy-making views citizens not just as clients or advisors but as experts and co-producers. Governments are shifting towards more horizontal governance models, characterized by flexible, project-based approaches and new instruments like public-private partnerships.
* **Increasing Diversity:** Citizens' diverse backgrounds, values, and interests necessitate new forms of participation that embrace rather than assume homogeneity. Adapting methods to diverse target groups and avoiding the pursuit of simple compromise are key. Solidarity in diversity can be fostered through active citizenship in local contexts.
* **Persistent Inequality and Polarization:** Social inequality and polarization make it difficult to speak of "the" citizen, with disparities between educated, affluent citizens and lower-educated or impoverished individuals. Existing participation channels risk exacerbating these inequalities.
* **Digital Revolution:** Offers opportunities for information dissemination and process tracking but poses a risk to deliberation, as participation requires more than just an exchange of opinions; it demands interaction towards a consensus.
* **Evolving Legal Context:** A shift from pyramidal to network thinking is evident, with less clear binding power of new legal sources. Citizens and groups increasingly resort to legal action.
* **Media Evolution:** Commercial pressures lead to rapid, sometimes sensationalized reporting, creating opportunities for citizens to influence the agenda but also potentially leading to "flash politics" that undermine considered decision-making. Groups with less media-attractive issues face access challenges.
* **Globalization:** The global economy exerts pressure on national social contracts, challenging democratic politics and traditional participation models. Strong collective participation forms developed nationally face the task of globalizing democratic participation.
#### 5.5.2 The end of the citizen-client relationship?
Public administration has moved towards a more business-like model, with a reduced role for government as the sole decision-maker. This governance model risks powerful actors pursuing their own interests and can create a false impression of power-free decision-making. New Public Management, while emphasizing efficiency and service quality, has sometimes led administrations to focus excessively on internal processes at the expense of external societal engagement.
Direct participation models, intended to reduce intermediaries, have overlooked the need for a public debate sphere essential for a dynamic democracy. The shift towards interactive policy-making, where citizens, societal actors, and government collaborate from project inception, acknowledges this need. Fostering citizen initiatives through mechanisms like participatory budgeting represents a further step.
#### 5.5.3 Problems with participation
Despite increased policy attention, citizen participation faces significant challenges:
* **Inequality:** New participation forms have often increased complexity, further alienating less articulate citizens while empowering the educated elite, widening the gap between citizens. The interests of non-participants are often neglected, and access to information is unequal.
* **Disconnection from Citizens' Realities:** Participation often stems from administrative logic rather than citizens' lived experiences. Jargon and overly structured procedures can be alienating and create high thresholds.
* **Weaknesses in Process Design:** Unclear frameworks, ambiguous links between goals and processes, insufficient and continuous information for participants, and late involvement of citizens can lead to frustration for both citizens and administrators. Lack of feedback on the process's influence on final decisions and the often-invisible weighing of interests are also issues.
* **Lack of Transparency and Control:** Participation processes can be too closed and difficult to monitor.
* **Risk of Misuse:** Participation can be used to legitimize predetermined decisions, undermining the political aspect of democracy, which involves negotiation and struggle over collective decisions. Such "pseudo-participation" can increase political distrust among engaged citizens.
#### 5.5.4 Prospects for participation
Despite challenges, citizen participation remains vital for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping community life.
* **Strategic Planning:** Participation should be integrated into strategic planning with dedicated resources. Key elements include transparent communication, attention to service functioning and key figures' attitudes, effective policy process management, and continuous evaluation with stakeholders.
* **Problem-Oriented Approach:** Organizing around concrete problems aligned with citizens' lives, rather than solely by sector or administrative level, is crucial. This requires different communication, collaboration, and management approaches.
* **Sustained Engagement:** Ad hoc initiatives need to be replaced by sustained, professional approaches that build trust. Time and a familiar environment with consistent facilitators are essential.
* **Role of Professionals:** Experts should communicate receptively, actively when necessary, embrace uncertainty, recognize pluralistic interests, and view difference and opposition as inherent to democratic practice. They should act as facilitators, supporting initiatives and trusting societal forces. Frontline professionals are vital for relaying unfiltered signals and embodying a trustworthy image of government.
* **Political Mindset:** Politicians need an open mindset, faith in citizen contributions, a willingness to co-create policy, and accountability within a responsible community. They should make clear policy trade-offs in connection with society and be alert to citizen initiatives and self-organization.
* **Opening Up Public Administration:** Public administration needs to move beyond viewing participation as a harmless ritual. Key decisions should be brought into public debate earlier and more profoundly to focus on fundamental choices rather than just implementation details, enhancing the vibrancy and legitimacy of democratic debate.
* **Dynamic Citizenship:** Citizenship is not merely a static status but is dynamically shaped through processes where groups form, claim rights, and strive for their vision of society within a shared democratic space of freedom and equality. Citizenship is understood as situated social practices, where "acts of citizenship" shift boundaries and evolve individuals into political subjects.
* **Empowering Civil Society:** Middle field organizations should act as engaged supporters of individuals developing into political subjects, rather than solely as extensions of government or conduits for societal signals.
* **Realizing a Democratic Right:** Participation is a democratic right that must be realized for all citizens. Valuing citizen initiatives and their indispensable contributions is paramount. While guided, processes should not be controlled to a predetermined outcome. Political participation fundamentally questions the existing social order and power structures, acting as a necessary disruptive force in a society that is never truly "finished."
---
Societal shifts significantly influence the dynamics of democracy and citizen participation, presenting both challenges and opportunities for governance.
Political alienation, characterized by distrust and powerlessness, is a growing concern in Western democracies. This phenomenon encompasses feelings of internal powerlessness (lack of influence) and external powerlessness (politicians disregarding citizens' wishes). Distrust can be directed towards political figures, institutions like parties and governments, or the democratic system itself. While trust in democratic principles generally remains strong, confidence in political institutions and governments has waned, a trend exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic. Analyses suggest that "objective factors" like policy failures are insufficient to explain this trend; "subjective factors" such as increasing individualism and "subjective disinformation" play a crucial role.
#### 5.1.1 Individualism and political alienation
Growing individualism manifests in two forms:
* **Defensive individualism:** Prevalent among weaker societal groups, it stems from feelings of powerlessness and distrust towards perceived "egoism" from others, leading to aversion or indifference towards politics.
* **Offensive individualism:** Exhibited by the socially privileged, it involves strong individuals demanding immediate fulfillment of their rights and preferences, weakening ties to traditional, long-term political organizations.
#### 5.1.2 Subjective disinformation
The increasing complexity of modern societal life, while objectively challenging for governments, leads to "subjective disinformation" among citizens. This arises not from complexity itself, but from an overwhelming inability to process the information provided, fostering a sense of helplessness and distrust. This alienation is most pronounced among groups in radical opposition to government policy and among lower-educated groups who struggle with political complexity.
Democracy fundamentally relies on citizen control over power and the collective direction of society. A hybrid model of democracy, blending direct and indirect forms, is prevalent, where the nature of citizenship is crucial.
#### 5.2.1 Layers of citizenship
Citizenship can be understood in two layers:
* **Citizenship as status:** This refers to the legal contract between the state and the individual, symbolized by an identity card.
* **Citizenship as social role:** This encompasses the responsibilities an individual undertakes as a citizen within a community. This aspect emphasizes "active citizenship," defined as an individual's capacity to actively participate in public affairs through various avenues like associations, parties, and public debates.
#### 5.2.2 Evolution of participation
Historically, political participation was primarily limited to voting. The struggle for suffrage broadened the definition of democracy as governance "of the people." The "middenveld" (middle field or civil society) has historically supported political participation by enabling collective interest defense and policy influence. Post-World War II welfare states saw expanded services and increased citizen input through consultation mechanisms. However, growing dissatisfaction with closed, paternalistic decision-making led to new participation movements from the 1970s onwards, advocating for more open and horizontal democracy. These movements introduced new issues onto the political agenda, revitalizing citizen engagement.
#### 5.2.3 Contemporary participation
Recent decades have seen a significant expansion of participation opportunities beyond voting. These include participation councils in education, client participation in welfare and health sectors, employee representation in businesses, resident participation in housing associations, and participatory justice through mediation. Various methods are employed, from advisory councils to interactive websites and citizen panels, across international, European, federal, regional, and local governance levels. Local government is seen as particularly crucial for rebuilding trust and community engagement.
### 5.3 The participation ladder
The "participation ladder" illustrates the relationship between different types of democracy and the degree of citizen input and power, with higher rungs signifying greater "citizen power." This framework highlights how conceptions of participation are linked to views on democracy and the role of government.
> **Tip:** The participation ladder visually represents how citizen involvement can range from mere information-gathering (representative democracy) to full co-creation and self-management (direct democracy).
**Table 1: The participation ladder**
| Type of democracy | Activity | Input and role of the citizen | Objective and role of the government |
| :----------------------- | :--------------------------------------------- | :---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | :------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Direct democracy | Citizen democracy, Co-producer, Co-creation | Citizen initiates, makes choices, and takes responsibility as decision-maker and manager. | Open government willing to be corrected, providing a broad framework. Government delegates decisions to citizens or allows citizens to take over government tasks, participating, advising, and supporting. |
| Interactive democracy | Co-producing, Co-deciding | Citizen co-determines the problem agenda and solution direction, acting as a partner and co-decision-maker. | Government develops plans and projects collaboratively with citizens, committing to agreed-upon solutions. A shared agenda is established, and decisions are made jointly. |
| Consultative democracy | Advising, Consulting | Citizen acts as a discussion partner, idea provider, offering opinions and commentary in an open setting. | Government allows citizens to raise problems and propose solutions. Decision-making occurs at a different level, and proposals may be accepted or rejected with reasoned justification. The agenda is set by the government, and discussions are non-binding. |
| Representative democracy | Informing | Citizen acts as a customer or audience member, receiving information. | Government keeps the population informed about decisions through clear communication. |
### 5.4 Unequal political participation of citizens
While elections offer a seemingly equal form of participation where each citizen has one vote, other forms of participation reveal significant inequalities mirroring broader societal disparities in income, occupation, and education.
#### 5.4.1 Socioeconomic disparities
Citizens with higher socioeconomic status often expand their repertoire of participation, utilizing tools like petitions and legal procedures. Lower socioeconomic groups engage less with these methods. Education level is a key determinant, as higher-educated individuals tend to possess greater political interest, knowledge, and the "suitable" skills for political engagement. This leads to higher-educated groups shaping the political agenda and amplifying their voices, while lower-educated groups may experience increased feelings of powerlessness due to perceived political complexity. A dualization in political participation is observed, with lower-skilled individuals participating less and differently, obtaining information from different media and supporting different political parties.
#### 5.4.2 Gender disparities
Despite advancements in education and employment for women, a persistent gap in political participation remains. Explanations include the unequal division of household tasks and the continued male dominance in organizational leadership. This gender gap hinders the inclusion of women's specific concerns and preferences on the political agenda.
#### 5.4.3 Other challenges
Further challenges to citizen participation include diversity, the digital divide, and the scaling up of small-scale initiatives.
### 5.5 Participation, civil society, and politics
Political interaction extends beyond public administration into the broader public sphere, where various associations and organizations within civil society ("middenveld") play a significant role.
#### 5.5.1 Description and development of civil society
Civil society is understood as a diverse and dynamic array of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous space between the private sphere, the market, and the government. These organizations are based on private citizen initiative, focus on societal participation rather than profit, and can range from self-help groups and unions to temporary action committees. Historically, Belgium developed a rich civil society organized into "zuilen" (pillars) based on religious and ideological lines, providing comprehensive social services. From the 1970s, these pillars began to erode due to individualization and secularization, giving rise to new social movements addressing issues like environmentalism, women's rights, and peace. More recently, organizations have emerged around specific themes like mobility and animal rights, characterized by more temporary and individualized forms of engagement.
#### 5.5.2 The political mandate of civil society
Civil society organizations fulfill three central mandates:
* **Social mandate:** Bringing people together, fostering social cohesion, and breaking down isolation.
* **Political mandate:** Expressing citizens' needs and interests, and providing political education through practical experience in decision-making and argumentation.
* **Service-providing mandate:** Delivering a broad range of services, from childcare to healthcare support.
#### 5.5.3 Development of the political mandate
Historically, the Belgian government delegated significant responsibilities to civil society organizations, particularly within a consensus-driven decision-making framework. However, this influence also led to criticisms of "colonization" of the public domain. Despite these criticisms, civil society remains vital for social cohesion and acts as crucial intermediaries for government to gather signals from the population and test policy ideas.
#### 5.5.4 Success factors for the political mandate
Key factors for successful political engagement by civil society include:
* **Access to the political system:** Multiple governance layers offer numerous entry points for influence.
* **Political-strategic positioning and resources:** Active pursuit of political agendas, coupled with resources like funding, expertise, and media contacts, are essential.
#### 5.5.5 Participation in civil society and democracy
The participation of citizens in civil society is linked to democratic performance. Research highlights the concept of "social capital"—networks, norms, and trust—as a resource for democratic societies. Active civil society fosters civic traditions, encourages governments to be more responsive to citizen demands, and strengthens the fight against fraud and corruption. Civil society organizations act as a "school of democracy" internally and empower citizens externally to influence policy.
### 5.6 Towards a new interplay between citizen and politics?
Changing societal structures and evolving government approaches necessitate a re-evaluation of citizen-state relations.
#### 5.6.1 Changing context, changing participation
* **Individualization:** Has made citizens more independent of traditional political ties, leading to increased accountability demands from strong citizens and a feeling of reduced protection for more vulnerable ones. Governments have responded with efforts towards accountability, transparency, and improved feedback mechanisms.
* **Shift from command to negotiation:** Governance models have moved from hierarchical command to more cooperative, shared-responsibility approaches, with citizens viewed as co-producers and experts in their own situations.
* **Increasing diversity:** Requires participation methods that accommodate diverse backgrounds, values, and interests, moving beyond assumptions of homogeneity.
* **Persistent social inequality and polarization:** Creates challenges in speaking of "the" citizen, as participation channels may inadvertently reinforce existing inequalities.
* **Digital revolution:** Offers opportunities for information dissemination but risks undermining the necessary deliberation for decision-making.
* **Legal evolution:** A shift towards network thinking and the increased use of legal avenues by citizens and groups to assert their rights.
* **Media evolution:** Commercial pressures lead to rapid reporting, potentially fostering "stunt politics" over considered decision-making.
* **Economic globalization:** Poses a challenge to national democracies and the traditional forms of collective participation developed within nation-states.
#### 5.6.2 The end of the citizen-client relationship?
The public administration has evolved towards a more business-like model, with a risk of powerful actors dominating decision-making. While New Public Management offered efficient service delivery, it sometimes led to an inward focus on internal processes at the expense of external societal engagement. The neoliberal ideal of minimizing intermediary organizations between citizens and government failed to recognize the need for a public sphere for debate. The trend towards interactive policy-making, where citizens and stakeholders collaborate from the outset, and the facilitation of citizen initiatives are seen as more promising.
#### 5.6.3 Problems with participation
Despite increased policy attention, citizen participation faces several issues:
* **Inequality:** New forms of participation have sometimes increased complexity, further alienating less empowered citizens while enhancing the influence of an educated elite, thereby widening the gap between citizens.
* **Access to information:** Remains unequal, and participation often stems from administrative logic rather than citizens' lived realities.
* **Alienating methods and jargon:** The complexity and technicality of many issues, coupled with overly structured procedures and inaccessible language, create high thresholds for participation.
* **Process weaknesses:** Unclear frameworks, inconsistent links between goals and processes, insufficient information, late involvement of citizens, lack of feedback, and opaque interest balancing.
* **Risk of misuse:** Participation can be used to legitimize pre-determined decisions, undermining the political struggle inherent in democratic decision-making and increasing political distrust.
#### 5.6.4 Perspectives for participation
Despite challenges, citizen participation remains essential for democratizing politics and society, improving decision-making, and shaping communal life. Key perspectives include:
* **Policy theme:** Participation should be integrated into strategic planning with resources for tailored approaches. Essential elements include transparent communication, effective service functioning, a participatory attitude from key figures, skilled management of policy processes, and continuous evaluation.
* **Problem-centric approach:** Focusing on concrete problems within citizens' lived environments, requiring different communication, collaboration, and organizational structures.
* **Sustained and professional approach:** Building trust through consistent and professional engagement, recognizing the importance of time and familiar guidance.
* **Role of professionals:** Experts should communicate by listening, be reserved yet active, embrace uncertainty, and recognize the value of difference and opposition. They should act as facilitators, supporting citizen initiatives.
* **Political mindset:** Politicians need an open attitude, belief in citizen engagement, and a willingness to co-create policy, evolving towards accountability in a responsible community.
* **Open public administration:** Decisions on collective societal matters should be brought into public debate earlier and more substantively, fostering lively and legitimate democratic discourse.
* **Citizenship as practice:** Recognizing citizenship not just as a status but as dynamic social practices where individuals claim rights and shape their understanding of a good society. Civil society organizations play a crucial role in supporting individuals to become political subjects.
* **Realizing the right to participate:** Valuing and supporting citizen initiatives, while ensuring that processes are guided by, rather than dictated to, citizens. Political participation inherently challenges the status quo and power structures, bringing a vital disruptive element to societal development.
---
## Common mistakes to avoid
- Review all topics thoroughly before exams
- Pay attention to formulas and key definitions
- Practice with examples provided in each section
- Don't memorize without understanding the underlying concepts
Glossary
| Term | Definition |
|------|------------|
| Political Alienation | A phenomenon characterized by distrust and feelings of powerlessness regarding politics. It can manifest as a belief that individuals like oneself have no influence on political processes (internal powerlessness) or that politicians disregard citizens' wishes (external powerlessness). |
| Distrust in Politics | A sentiment directed towards political actors, institutions such as parties and governments, or the broader political system. This can stem from perceptions of politicians as self-serving or from dissatisfaction with the functioning of democratic institutions. |
| Political Individualism | A concept describing the growing tendency for individuals to prioritize their own rights and immediate needs within the political sphere. It can be defensive, arising from feelings of powerlessness among weaker groups, or offensive, where stronger individuals demand prompt fulfillment of their political expectations. |
| Subjective Misinformation | A state where individuals feel overwhelmed by the complexity of modern societal issues and are unable to process the information provided by governments. This is a subjective factor, as it relates to the individual's perception and processing capacity rather than the objective complexity itself. |
| Citizenship | Encompasses two layers: status, referring to the legal contract between the state and the individual, and social role, which involves the responsibilities an individual undertakes within a community as an active participant in public affairs. |
| Active Citizenship | The capacity of individuals to play a proactive role in public matters, engaging in various contexts such as associations, unions, parties, advisory councils, and public debates. This engagement signifies a commitment to contributing to the community's well-being. |
| Direct Democracy | A form of democracy where citizens directly decide on concrete policy proposals without the intervention of elected representatives. This allows for immediate citizen input on specific issues. |
| Indirect Democracy | A system where citizens delegate decision-making power to elected representatives who then make decisions on their behalf. This is the most common form of democracy in modern nation-states. |
| Hybrid Democracy | A form of democracy that combines elements of both direct and indirect democracy. In this system, the content and organization of citizenship play a crucial role in shaping political processes and outcomes. |
| Civil Society | Refers to the differentiated and dynamic entirety of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens that occupy an autonomous position between the private sphere, the market, and the government. It is characterized by private initiative, non-profit goals, and formal structures. |
| Social Capital | Features of social life, including networks, norms, and trust, that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives. It is considered a resource for democratic society, fostering cooperation and collective action. |
| Participatory Ladder | A framework that establishes a clear connection between the type of democracy and the input and role of the citizen. The higher one ascends the ladder, the greater the citizen power and involvement in decision-making processes. |
| Political Powerlessness | The feeling experienced by individuals or groups that they lack the ability to influence political decisions or outcomes. This can be internal, relating to one's own perceived lack of agency, or external, concerning the perceived unresponsiveness of political actors. |
| Defensive Individualism | A form of political individualism prevalent among weaker societal groups, characterized by feelings of powerlessness and distrust towards the perceived selfishness of others. This often leads to aversion or indifference towards politics. |
| Offensive Individualism | A form of political individualism exhibited by socially privileged individuals who assert their rights and expect immediate fulfillment of their demands from the political system. This can weaken traditional political affiliations as individuals become less attached to long-term political goals. |
| Subjective Disinformation | A state where individuals feel overwhelmed and unable to process the complex information presented to them regarding policy-making. This is a subjective factor, stemming from the individual's inability to cope with complexity rather than the complexity itself. |
| Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) | A broad and dynamic spectrum of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens, occupying an autonomous position between the private sphere, the market, and the government. These organizations are based on private initiative, aim for societal participation rather than profit, and have a formal character distinct from informal communities. |
| Middle Field (Middenveld) | Refers to the sphere of organizations, movements, and activities managed by citizens that maintain an autonomous position between the private sector, the market, and the government. It is characterized by its differentiated and dynamic nature, encompassing various forms from self-help groups to trade unions and action committees. |
| Unequal Political Participation | The phenomenon where certain groups within society, often those with lower socioeconomic status, participate less in political activities compared to others. This inequality is frequently linked to disparities in income, occupation, and educational attainment, with higher education being a significant predictor of greater political engagement. |
| Governance | A shift from a hierarchical, command-and-control model of public administration to a more cooperative and shared responsibility approach. In interactive policy-making, citizens are viewed not just as clients but as experts and co-producers of policy, operating within a more horizontal governance model. |
| Internal Powerlessness | The feeling experienced by individuals that people like them have no influence on political processes or decisions. This perception contributes to a sense of detachment from the political sphere. |
| External Powerlessness | The perception that politicians and political institutions do not take into account the wishes and needs of individual citizens. This can lead to frustration and a feeling of being unheard. |
| Citizenship as Status | Refers to the legal contract between the state and an individual, formally recognized through documentation such as an identity card, which outlines rights and obligations. |
| Citizenship as Social Role | Encompasses the active part an individual plays within their community as a citizen, emphasizing responsibility and engagement in public affairs, which can vary depending on the societal context. |
| Participation Ladder | A framework that establishes a clear connection between the type of democracy and the input and role of the citizen. Higher positions on the ladder indicate greater citizen power, and it clarifies how views on participation are linked to views on democracy. |