Citizen participation is playing an increasingly important role in our contemporary decision-making. This is certainly true regarding spatial planning and integration, but citizens can also inform themselves, contribute ideas, or voice their opinions on other issues. A large group of Dutch people experience little influence on decisions that affect them.

According to politicians, the solution to this is to listen more to ‘the citizen’. More participation would be a remedy for the distrust and dissatisfaction that prevails among a portion of the population. In short, participation is gaining momentum, and the word Participation has also, in recent years, acquired a status comparable to words such as livability, sustainability and Democracy. No one is against it, and when you make it part of a proposed vision or approach, you can count on approving sounds.

However, blindly setting up participation processes is not without its risks. It is strongly recommended to pause and ask yourself some questions before choosing a form of participation.

Risks of participation

Participation is surrounded by implicit promises about the ultimate outcome. Initiators hope for support for their ideas, and participants count on being able to exert a certain degree of influence. In practice, both sides can sometimes be disappointed.

The influence citizens have often falls short because participation processes must relate to regular forms of decision-making in representative democracy. In that context, administrators are tempted to keep the influence of participation small, thereby ensuring sufficient decision-making space for representatives and administrators. The disappointment of participants regarding the process and their lack of influence on the final outcome then comes at the expense of legitimacy. The fact that participation does not automatically lead to legitimacy and rather makes dissatisfaction more visible is often a disappointment for initiators.

We must be careful not to turn citizen participation into a trend that quickly goes out of fashion because everyone becomes disillusioned with it. The first signs of this already appear to be painfully visible. Not infrequently, there is (rightly and wrongly) skepticism about the intentions and legitimacy of participation. Initiators are then accused of engaging in ‘token participation’ or ‘tick-box participation’.

For this reason, it is important that initiators are fully aware that participation is a reciprocal process. It is not solely a service being provided from
initiator to stakeholders, the active citizenship of participants is also appealed to. Participating requires time and effort from people. If the time and effort invested are not rewarded with a form of influence on the final outcome, participants will ultimately feel cheated. If this happens often, it leads to participation fatigue and ultimately to an erosion of participation as a whole.

The end justifies the means

Citizen participation is a means of improving decision-making. But not the only means. It is therefore important for initiators (governments, companies, or civil society organizations) to ask themselves a number of questions:

1. For what purpose do you want to involve citizens? Do you want to increase trust in your organization? Do you want support for your initiative? Do you want to utilize citizen knowledge? Or all of the above? Each goal requires a different approach. But above all, it requires clear and honest communication about it.
2. How much room is there for participation? If there are no choices to participate in, or if there is insufficient legal room for them, then initiating a participation process is not appropriate. This leads to the false participation mentioned above. In that case, good environmental communication is a better idea.
3. Is there enough time and resources to set up a high-quality process? Think about planning, financial resources, administrative capacity, good process guidance, etc. But also: can you organize a representative population and ensure a good balance between expert knowledge and local knowledge?
4. What kind of issue or task are you considering a participation process for, and which form of participation is appropriate for it? Policy development, a regional challenge, a concrete public space project, a socio-economic issue, an issue with significant factual controversy? The answer matters for the participant population and how you engage them. Consider: an evening with a presentation, an information market, Joint Fact Finding, a dialogue table, an online platform, a citizens' assembly, etc.
5. Is it ‘fair’ to present the issue to citizens? Especially when the scope is limited, but burdens need to be allocated, a participation process can have a disruptive effect on a community. Groups of citizens can end up in opposition to each other because personal interests are at stake. This creates division and unrest, and a unanimous decision seems impossible. The result is that the initiator and/or the competent authority still has to make the difficult choice themselves.

Finally, if you opt for citizen participation, also set the objectives with the stakeholders with whom you are participating. Clearly indicate their role and the scope of their involvement, but also make it clear where your boundaries lie as the initiator. It is ultimately up to the stakeholders themselves to choose whether to participate or to seek another forum to advocate for their interests.

Less participation but higher quality

Incorrect participation leads to a devaluation of the importance we place on participation. There's a danger when participation is a requirement or expectation, but the initiator doesn't genuinely commit to it. This diminishes its impact, and participants (rightly) see it as participation for the sake of appearances. Before embarking on citizen participation, ask yourself if it's the appropriate method. If it's not, don't do it. If you do opt for participation, do it well. Setting up a good participation process isn't easy. Therefore, ensure you create a solid plan and possess sufficient knowledge of stakeholder management and participation. Only then can you achieve the goals you've set for participation. If we all do this, it will result in less participation, but of higher quality.

Senior consultant

Mart Scheepers

Senior consultant

Robin Schram