Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
Democracy Today.indb - Universidade do Minho
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
118<br />
DEMOCRACY TODAY<br />
effect (Hüller 2010). At least some degree of decision-making ability<br />
would significantly improve these experiments and enhance people’s<br />
willingness to participate (Münkler/Wassermann 2008: 18).<br />
• Accountability: The last factor reveals the iterative character of the three<br />
elements: if equality among participants is not guaranteed, the process<br />
is not democratic and therefore need no longer be considered. If there<br />
is equality but no decision-making ability, the question about accountability<br />
remains irrelevant, since there is nothing to account for. As has<br />
been pointed out, most deliberative forums <strong>do</strong> not go so far as to attempt<br />
direct influence on real policy decisions and thus there is no record of<br />
accountability that could be judged. However, it can be asserted that<br />
their widespread design as a one-shot affair would have to be extended if<br />
the participants were to be held responsible for their decisions (cf. Fung<br />
2003: 354f. for the case of deliberative polling). Similarly, the absence of<br />
impact had to be acknowledged regarding online communities. Yet, in<br />
principle, there are no obstacles for internet-based approaches to provide<br />
accountability, but this can only happen under the conditions that<br />
credible rules are established to secure privacy protection and if users<br />
are willing to give up their anonymity. It must therefore be concluded<br />
that “the internet will not be a tool for democracy unless its users choose<br />
to use it that way” (Ackerly 2006: 136, original emphasis).<br />
Alongside these far from ideal examples, there exist more promising<br />
experiments. Maybe the most successful and prominent is participatory<br />
budgeting in Porto Alegre, where citizens are allowed to decide<br />
on the spending of a fixed part of the city budget within an institutional<br />
design that combines direct and representative elements (for an overview<br />
see Fung 2003: 360-362, Smith 2009: 33-39). An analysis taking<br />
into consideration the three elements of the public realm shows that<br />
they are all present, at least to some degree: Equality is provided in<br />
that popular assemblies are open to every citizen and terms in offices<br />
and councils are strictly limited. Furthermore, a cleverly-designed<br />
mechanism seeks to equalise demands over districts with regard to<br />
the number of participants in each neighbourhood. [12] Decision-making<br />
12<br />
Following Baiocchi, Fung (2003: 361, note 51) describes the mechanism – by which one<br />
is immediately reminded of the Greeks’ efforts to secure equal participation – as follows: