From International Values to Local Democracy

Before turning to the details of engagement in Leipzig, this section will review the political, academic, and democratic context for understanding municipal civic engagement. Specifically, the section will address the state of transatlantic democracy, the changing role and growing importance of municipal governments for public policy and democratic practice, and the ways that civic engagement can contribute to broader democratic health.

For centuries, the United States and Western European countries built transatlantic alliances upon the foundation of shared democratic values—as well as the shared process of experimentation and trial-and-error.

Today, both the United States and Germany find themselves in a moment of democratic crisis, with decreasing popular confidence in political institutions, voters who are disenchanted with mainstream political parties, disinformation, and concerns about increasing executive power.¹ Specifically in the United States as of 2018, there were high levels of partisan polarization, increasing socioeconomic inequality, and “deeply contested electoral process,” while European countries faced increasing political representation won by extremist and antipluralist political forces, a democratic deficit,² and Euroscepticism that’s unique to the European Union.³

These developments have also had negative consequences for democracy. In 2019, American trust in the federal government was at 17 percent,⁴ down three points from its 2017 levels. Between 2017 and 2018, German rates of trust fell 6 points to 24,⁵ though trust in public institutions was already low in the 1990s and early 2000s.⁶ Both countries have seen lower rates of support for democracy in recent years too: In 2019, roughly 60 percent of Americans and 53 percent of Germans were satisfied with democracy.⁷ Additionally, a minority of voters in the two countries have shown degrees of support for strong, authoritarian-leaning leaders. Over a quarter of Americans reported through polling some support for “army rule” or a “strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections.”⁸ In practice, voters in the United States and Germany have also supported far-right and illiberal parties, too, such as the 70 million ballots cast for Donald Trump in 2020 and 5.8 million counted nationally for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party list in 2017.⁹

A strong democratic system that can address these existential doubts and dissatisfaction requires institutions that “channel the representative qualities of democracy, whether it be independent courts, or uncensored media that provide information for an informed citizenry, or strong and independent civil society organizations.”¹⁰ In a democracy, the practice of civic engagement is an institution as much as the individual branches of government, and it requires just as much infrastructural support, informed design, and ongoing maintenance.

As democratic experiments with strengthening this institution continue in the United States, Germany, and around the world, some of the most interesting come from the municipal level, such as in Leipzig.

From public policy to democratic experimentation, cities’ mandates are shifting to include broader questions than were traditionally thought to be part of municipal governing.¹¹

Soon, “cities will be at the center of the global response to climate change, migration, violence and injustice, health security, economic inequality, and security.” They will not simply be “places that global challenges affect, but also actors and influencers of the solutions.”¹² In no issue has this been more clear than during the COVID-19 pandemic, where mayors found themselves making high-stakes decisions that would have real, life and death impacts on their constituencies.

Similarly, cities around the world have also been at the forefront of democratic experimentation: Participatory budgeting, a practice that gives residents decision-making power over part of a municipal budget, originated at the city level in Porto Allegre, Brazil in 1989 and has since spread to cities across the world.¹³ In Murcia, Spain, the city developed an approach of what they called “urban acupuncture,” or a way to use many targeted, civic engagement-based mini-interventions that all contributed towards big-picture solutions.¹⁴ In Tulsa, Oklahoma, the mayor designed a data analysis volunteering program through which residents can help make recommendations for public policy.¹⁵ There are countless stories like these.

With such experimentation, local government has become an important zone for civic engagement and developing residents’ democratic practice, with accessible opportunities to participate outside of elections. When residents do, they are able to engage around issues that are concrete, meaningful, and touch upon some of the greatest policy and institutional challenges of our time.

With all the shapes and models it can take, civic engagement refers to a wide spectrum of activity. Outside of government, this can include activities like joining local groups, volunteering, participating in advocacy, and community organizing. Inside government, engagement can include the basic functions of democracy, such as voting in elections and communicating with representatives, but it can also expand to participation in governing processes.

Opportunities that allow residents to engage in the governing process can be referred to as public participation or collaborative governance (co-governance). Public administration professor Tina Nabatchi defines this participation as having seven characteristics:

• Public participation is based on the belief that those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision-making process.
• The participation of those who are potentially affected by or interested in a decision should be sought out and facilitated.
• Public participation should seek input from participants in designing how they participate.
• Public participation includes the promise that the public’s contribution will influence the decision.
• How public input affected the decision should be communicated to participants.
• Public participation should recognize and focus on the needs and interests of all participants, including decision makers.
• Public participation should provide participants with the information they need to participate in a meaningful way.¹⁶

In addition to these foundational characteristics, successful government-led engagement can be evaluated by several measurements. Harvard University Professor Archon Fung argues that justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness are essential democratic values for engagement.¹⁷ Other research indicates that elements such as inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgment, transparency, efficiency, and transferability are important criteria.¹⁸ Engagement expert Sherry Arnstein’s classic ladder of participation¹⁹ argues that engagement activities typically fall into three categories: nonparticipation (manipulation of residents or what she calls “therapy,” essentially means of public relations), tokenism (informing, consulting, or placating residents), and citizen control (partnership, delegation, and citizen control).²⁰ While public participation and co-governance efforts aim to provide opportunities in the citizen control range, many stay within the tokenism and consulting stage.

When civic engagement is executed well, it can help empower constituencies, overcome social divisions, address distrust of government,²¹ improve resident acceptance of government decisions, and increase trust in democratic institutions and satisfaction with democracy.²² Participation can increase residents’ democratic competences, provide new ideas and better information for policymakers, and help avoid bad planning and decisions.²³ Perhaps as a reflection of this potential, the German federal government also views civic engagement as an element of national reunification in its annual status reports, especially as a tool to help with integration of immigrants.²⁴

Beyond government-led efforts, civic organizations also play an important role in supporting democracy as an institution. This sector refers to voluntary associations that can be formal and informal, such as “interest groups, cultural and religious organizations, civic and developmental associations,” and more.²⁵ French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville saw civic associations as a key part of American democracy,²⁶ and German Vereine, a type of civic associations or organizations similar to nonprofits, have a strong cultural history.²⁷ In the United States, political scientist Robert Putnam argues that decreasing membership in American civic associations leads to lower social capital and more democratic disarray.²⁸

At its best, the “success of democracy depends on the existence of dense networks of civic engagement.”²⁹ Similarly, sociologist and political scientist Theda Skocpol writes that democratic health relies on an improved connection between civic organizations and the federal government.³⁰ From a culturalist perspective, these kinds of voluntary associations “mediate between civic society and the state: they inculcate individuals with the rules of compromise and democratic principles; they make individuals more socially active and supportive of democratic norms; and they produce a capacity for trust, reciprocity and cooperation, thereby strengthening democracy.”³¹ Finally, associations also play a “role in making the state responsive and accountable to its citizens.”³²

A 2014 survey study by the Bertelsmann Foundation³³ found that in Germany, “satisfaction with the functioning of democracy is higher among democratically active citizens than among democratically inactive citizens and is also higher than the average of all citizens.”³⁴ These benefits range based on the type of participation tools used, which underscores the importance of carefully designed procedures: Satisfaction was highest for citizens who participated in successful direct democracy procedures (48 percent), dialogue processes (48 percent), and institutions and committees of representative democracy (55 percent), compared to the average satisfaction for all citizens (46 percent).³⁵ Ultimately, the improvements in democratic satisfaction for direct democracy and dialogue processes are marginal (48 percent vs. 46 percent), but by increasing satisfaction 9 percentage points, participation in forms of representative democracy such as advisory councils can be particularly impactful when people believe their engagement makes a difference.

At the same time, there are also serious potential pitfalls for engagement.

First, negative experiences with participation can damage residents’ relationships with government and democracy. In fact, the negative effects of unsuccessful engagement “are even more pronounced than the positive effects in the case of successful participation: the proportion of satisfied participants in unsuccessful deliberative procedures decreases by 17 percentage points,” and by 7 percentage points for “unsuccessful direct democratic procedures.” Naturally, failures can also increase dissatisfaction: by 14 percentage points for unsuccessful dialogue processes and 13 percentage points for unsuccessful direct democracy. Notably, “the effect of engagement in the institutions of representative democracy is strongest when it fails: Unsuccessful representative engagement reduces satisfaction by 21 percentage points,” and “increases dissatisfaction by 15 percentage points.”³⁶ In short, the impact of unsuccessful engagement on democracy can be substantially larger than the impact made by productive engagement.

Additionally, engagement can create increased conflict and opposition between constituents and politicians or involve the appearance of elected officials shirking their responsibilities. For co-governance efforts in particular, Professor of Public Affairs Don Kettl argues that they “push greater responsibility for achieving public goals into the for-profit and nonprofit sectors, based on an underlying assumption that the non-governmental sectors can do at least as well as and probably at lower cost than the government.”³⁷

It is also important to note that not all civic engagement is good or democratic, simply by the merit of encouraging people to participate. History Professor Sven Reichardt argues that “energies generated by sheer civic activism do not of necessity feed into a politics of toleration and inclusion; they can just as well be utilized for repressive ends.” The practice and frequency of far-right demonstrations in both the United States and Germany reflect this tension. Therefore, he argues that “instead of naively understanding civil society as a highly normative utopia, it should be seen as a sphere or realm of power relations.”³⁸

Despite the potential for problems with engagement—including increased dissatisfaction, conflict, outsourcing, and illiberal participation—the same 2014 study from the Bertelsmann Foundation found that both German local elected officials and citizens believed the benefits of engagement outweighed the downsides.³⁹ But ultimately, whether civic engagement benefits democratic health depends on the structure and design of the effort, as well as the greater political and structural context within which it takes place.