Conclusion

For modern cities around the world, government-supported civic engagement has become the new normal. According to a city employee in Leipzig, this is in part because people have more choice now to decide where they live; his grandfather could only travel by horse. Regardless of the time period—or whether the government in question is a dictatorship or a democracy—he believes that people are interested in where they live. In today’s globalized world where there is so much more choice than ever before, people can really “take root where they live,” and become actively involved in their city in a way that’s different from civic engagement of the past.¹

At first glance, Leipzig may appear to be special in its emphasis on engagement, particularly by its residents. Its experience with establishing local democracy over the last 30 years seems too fresh. Its reputation as the Hero City and a "citizen city" can create the impression that there is an inherent climate of participation—something that other cities simply couldn’t replicate. Leipzig civic engagement expert Ralf Elsässer disagrees. He argues that this climate did not happen simply because of historical events, but that it was created by a culture of freedom and possibility. In particular, he points to the way that residents could be creative about how to use abandoned buildings and public space during the time of a shrinking city. To him, that example points to the broader importance of building a culture of possibility and freedom—what he calls “free space,” whether it is physical or metaphorical. “If a city has the chance to have free space, whatever that is,” he argues, “it is money well invested to support this free space and the use of such free space.”

Put another way, Wake Up Corners Foundation board member Thorsten Mehnert explains that, “I think you are only a hero city if [you] always give birth to new heroes. You will not remain a hero city if you only adore heroes from the past. You also have to create new ones.”

Residents in Leipzig like Barbara Baumgärtel certainly are committed to maintaining that civic spirit. After 20 years in the neighborhood association, she still finds that formal errors and bureaucratic hurdles in the participation process, such as the procedure for petitions, can be discouraging. She says that to make change, one needs persistence. Without “a lot of time and energy, at some point you will give up.” For her, she credits her persistence to the fact that she is an “incorrigible optimist.”

That optimism and persistence is not unique to Leipzig. Countless residents in Germany, the United States, and countries around the world are dedicated to making their cities better. The questions then become whether city governments subscribe to the belief that the governing process is “better with the citizens than without them,” as the city employee described it, and whether they implement that belief well in practice. By sharing lessons from Leipzig, and continuing transatlantic collaboration on issues large and small, hopefully more cities and their residents can work together to support a robust local democracy.