Examine the ‘Participatory Model of Democracy’. (2011)
The participatory model holds that citizens should take part directly and continuously in the decisions that shape their lives: at work, in the locality and in the polity, not only at elections. It was revived against Joseph A. Schumpeter‘s competitive elitism by Carole Pateman (Participation and Democratic Theory, 1970). Tested against the evidence, its educative claim largely holds. Its hope of replacing representation does not.
Classical Roots
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract, 1762): taking part in making the law is what makes obedience compatible with freedom. Participation also educates citizens to will the general good.
- John Stuart Mill (Considerations on Representative Government, 1861): local office and jury service are a school of public spirit, drawing the citizen out of private concerns.
- G. D. H. Cole (Guild Socialism Restated, 1920): democracy must reach industry, since a person who takes orders all day at work cannot be self-governing on polling day.
The Modern Model
- Pateman reverses the elitist inference. Apathy is not proof of incapacity but the product of exclusion, because people acquire political competence by participating. Her participatory society begins with democracy at the workplace.
- C. B. Macpherson (The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy, 1977) sets out Model 4, participatory democracy. It is a pyramid of direct democracy at the base and delegates answerable to those below, combined with competitive parties. It requires two changes: citizens must see themselves as exercisers of their capacities rather than consumers, and social and economic inequality must shrink. Each presupposes the other, a vicious circle he hopes awareness of the costs of growth and of apathy might break.
- Benjamin R. Barber (Strong Democracy, 1984) sets strong democracy, self-government through public talk and common action, against the thin democracy of liberal representation. He proposes neighbourhood assemblies, a national initiative and referendum, and selection by lot for some local offices.
Mechanisms and Evidence
- Participatory budgeting, Porto Alegre, 1989. Neighbourhood assemblies set investment priorities; households with water and sewer connections rose from 75% in 1988 to 98% by 1997. More than 11,500 municipal processes now exist worldwide.
- Kerala’s People’s Plan Campaign (August 1996) devolved 35–40% of plan resources to 1,214 local bodies. Gram sabhas, development seminars and task forces drew up local plans, with the clearest gains in roads, housing and childcare.
- Gram sabhas under the 73rd Amendment (1992) and PESA (1996) give every village voter a standing assembly. Survey evidence from South India by Timothy Besley, Rohini Pande and Vijayendra Rao (2005) links gram sabha meetings to better targeting of benefits at the poor.
- Swiss referendums and initiatives insert direct decision into representation.
Limits
- Organisation. Robert Michels‘s iron law of oligarchy applies to participatory bodies too: a few activists soon set the agenda.
- Scale and time. Most citizens lack time and expertise for continuous involvement, and turnout falls once novelty fades. Gram sabhas often miss quorum or are held only on paper.
- Capture and inequality. Local forums reproduce caste, gender and class hierarchies unless the state intervenes; better-off men with spare time dominate.
- Fragility. Porto Alegre’s budget process weakened once political support waned and was suspended after 2017. In Kerala, gains in employment and agriculture were modest.
- Majoritarian risk. Mass participation without deliberation can turn into plebiscitary populism.
Conclusion
The participatory model is best read as a corrective to elite democracy, not a replacement for representation. Macpherson’s own hybrid admits as much. Pateman’s insight, borne out in Porto Alegre and Kerala, endures: people become democratic citizens by practising democracy, provided the state devolves real money and power.