Camille Morio, lecturer in public law at Sciences Po Grenoble and researcher at CERDAP2

The term "participatory democracy" is used here in the broadest sense of the term to refer to all the tools used to involve local residents in public decision-making, regardless of whether they are merely discussing matters among themselves or actually making decisions. In other words, to borrow a definition from Loïc Blondiaux, the term designates

We're talking about "everything in the political life of contemporary democracies that doesn't fall strictly within the logic of representative government".

A highly consultative local participatory democracy that stifles decision-making and citizen initiative

The analysis shows that participatory democracy at commune level is currently highly of deliberation, through the various councils and committees in existence and committees, and is rich in measures enabling elected officials to enrich public elected representatives to enrich public decision-making. On the contrary, it does not encourage, or even stifles, the decision-making and initiative initiative. The most obvious examples are petitions and local referendums. referendums.

Sometimes, a participatory approach will bring together a wide variety and/or a high number of people, take place in conditions of exchange and listening, and lead to genuine co-construction of a project or public policy. Sometimes, on the contrary, real difficulties are encountered, both quantitatively and qualitatively. At the same time, we are seeing the development of more original or ad hoc procedures, such as participatory budgets or citizen conventions[1].

Asking whether "it takes on the citizens' side" may already be part of the problem.

However, asking whether "it takes on the part of the citizens" may already be part of the problem, in a context where the current public offer is mainly oriented towards consultation. As Guillaume Gourgues and Sandrine Rui point out, half-hearted participation in the " public offer of participation " is not necessarily a sign of disinterest in political issues:

"It's worth recalling [...] the calls for boycotts, the public denunciations and the appeals lodged against the systems. Those who enter the systems do so with a great deal of skepticism and few illusions, and are not the useful idiots of the great participatory deception[sic]. [...] Those who have experimented with institutional forms of participation often emerge disgusted and defiant, sentiments that sharpen their critical capacity".

Antoine Bézard touches on a similar idea when he writes about participatory budgets:

"The question of participation is regularly posed by observers in terms of numbers. [...] The question posed by citizens is that of the results, of the changes that their participation produces".

So we need to take a step to the side: how can the public offer of participation better integrate the issue of influence, or even decision, coming from citizens on public decision-making? And how can it be better articulated with citizens' initiatives, including in their protest form?

Strengthen consultation and make room for decision-making and citizen initiative

Tomorrow's communes (or even neighbourhoods, in the case of large cities) will stand out for their proximity, understood in the sense of ease of sociability. This is what continues to distinguish them from other levels of local public entities, in a territorial framework that is likely to be reshaped. It is the level at which people come into contact with each other on a daily basis, but it is not the level at which all public policies are implemented. At its own level, it can already be the seat of a more vibrant democratic life. It can also be a gateway to the diversity of participatory paths that exist, both at its own level and at the level of other local entities.

From the point of view of municipal governance, a rebalancing can undoubtedly be envisaged between elective democracy[2] and participatory democracy. While this does not call into question the idea that there can be no single participatory model, three main axes can be considered:

1. continue to ensure that consultative procedures are backed up, without formatting them, by guarantees geared towards the sincerity of the systems: make better known and give greater weight to the principles recently spelled out in French law: sincerity, equality, impartiality, regularity (defined as compliance with the announced rules), definition of the public relevant to the purpose of participation, transparency on the purpose, methods and effect of participation, reasonable timeframe for participation, implementation of means to ensure a minimum diversity of participants. The use of deliberative methodologies should be encouraged, if necessary by offering methodological support to small local authorities (via departmental agencies, ANCT, etc.).

Adapt participation to multi-stakeholder and multi-level governance, by encouraging the networking of bodies (e.g., a neighborhood council with the intercommunal development council, etc.) and enabling the (co-)organization of initiatives on subjects not strictly within the remit of the organizing authority. Enhance the autonomy of bodies where relevant. Finally, to improve the accountability of consultative procedures.

2. better integrate decision-making and citizens' initiative by allowing local authorities to relinquish a portion of their decision-making powers in certain specific cases. This has already been called for by certain communes, and may be envisaged through a constitutional revision, or even, but in a much more limited way, through experimentation. The concrete forms are potentially infinite: introducing a genuine citizen-initiated referendum, opening up the right to set up citizens' conventions or any other body provided for by law, allowing referendums to be set up with other modalities than "yes" or "no" votes, or deliberative referendums, abolishing the 50% participation threshold, etc. Finally, and this has more to do with political culture, we need to consider how to receive and even support citizen movements. Reflect on the legal framework of the "commons", to enable cross-disciplinary projects between public authorities and citizens' collectives.

3. not to be afraid of politicizing participation, not in the sense of necessarily bringing in political parties, but in the sense of putting up for discussion both subjects with little strategic stakes and/or day-to-day issues, such as the layout of a street for example, but also sensitive subjects with strategic stakes (e.g. arming the municipal police).

Nor can the commune of tomorrow be conceived independently of intercommunality. And yet, in law, a participatory model specific to the latter is tending to develop, in a more co-constructive sense. However, there are still some grey areas to be clarified, notably as regards the possibility of using petitions or local referendums[3].

French-style decentralization is first and foremost an elective democracy. Over and above the necessary adjustments to be made to the legal framework, this constitutes a common political culture that must continue to evolve, among both elected and non-elected officials.

This post is a condensed version of a note produced for a hearing before the mission d'information sénatoriale sur l'avenir de la commune et du maire held on June 6, 2023. Among the issues addressed by the mission was that of participatory democracy, looking at existing tools, their appropriation by citizens and the improvements to be made.

[1] See special issue of Actualité juridique du droit administratif français, no. 14, April 17, 2023.

[2] It itself can be modernized, for example by making local representative life more parliamentary, opening the way to more collective governance, and reshaping the role of the mayor.

[3] Camille Morio, "La métropolisation et le citoyen", in S. Saunier (ed.) Métropolisation et grands ensembles urbains, L'Harmattan, forthcoming 2023.