Democracy and participatory governance challenged. What about the potential of civic engagement?

Session Submission Type: Roundtable Discussion

Abstract

The umbrella term “Third sector” is important for all forms of civic engagement, from voluntary associations to social movements and networks (Evers & von Essen 2019).
The concern with “democracy disfigured” (Urbinati 2014) in contemporary societies - technocratic elitism, autocratic tendencies or populism – has put the intermediary capacity of civic engagement in the foreground. Collective civic engagement may fill the void between the individual voter and institutionalized politics (political parties, elected representatives and administration). Intermedia-tion appears in a multitude of channels, from corporatist mechanisms to advisory boards and citizen assemblies. The concern in democracies for civic engagement and participation capable to intermedi-ate between institutionalised politics and civil society counterweight practices where civic organisa-tions are meant to alleviate top-down governance, or when civic organisations are used to make au-tocratic governance legitimate and efficient.
There is a rich tradition of research on civic engagement and the challenges of intersectoral interplay in third sector. Due to an overarching consensus on liberal democracy, there has been a focus on civil society/third sector as “part of the welfare mix” (Evers 1995) and of nonprofits as “partners in public service” (Salamon 1995) pointing towards a more “associative democracy” (Hirst 1994).
However, this has changed, and the question has shifted and may be posed, What about the im-portance of civic engagement and intermediation by various forms of dialogue and participation aim-ing at defending, revitalizing or rebuilding democracy?
The question opens for discussions. Are traditional concepts of participation and intermediation still relevant? To what degree has their welfare-focus, forms of organizing participation, compromises and consensus become outmoded when societies and public spheres are restructured (Habermas 2023)? Do democracies and institutionalized politics today discuss and offer new spaces and innova-tive forms of intermediation, as public forums /mini-publics for deliberative democracy, use of the new media (Lafont 2017)? What is the intermediary potential of social movements and how do they influence “the organized civil society” (della Porta 2020)? What can we expect from concepts of collaborative and “interactive governance“ (Torfing a. o. 2019), interplay with public and private stakeholders, co-production as they are discussed and tried out in policy fields (Loeffler & Bovaird)?
After an introduction by the organizers, four contributions will discuss different aspects of interme-diation to encourage further debate:
• The changing context: Restructuring of society and its public sphere: does organized third sector - engagement loose importance? (Enjolras)
• Politics: Patronizing versus intermediation in Poland. Autocratic governance facing the plurality of civic engagement (Domaradzka)
• Policies: Giving migrants a place. What kinds of civic engagement can be supported by institu-tionalized policies and politics (Hustinx)
• Overcoming corporatist traditions. Examples for new forms of intermediary action from health policies in Germany (Ewert)

References

Evers, A. (1995). Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area. Voluntas, 6(1), 159-182.

Evers, A. & von Essen, J. (2019). Volunteering and Civic Action: Boundaries blurring, boundaries redrawn. Voluntas, 30 (1) 1-14.
Habermas, J. (2023). A New Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere and Deliberative Poli-tics. Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag

Hirst, P. (1994). Associative Democracy. New Forms of Economic and Social Governance. Cam-bridge: Polity Press.

Lafont, C. (2017). Can Democracy be Deliberative & Participatory? The Democratic Case for Politi-cal Uses of Mini-Publics. Daedalus, 146 (3), 85-105

Lichterman, P. & Eliasoph, N. (2014). Civic action. American journal of sociology, 120(3), 798-863.

Loeffler, E. & Bovaird, T. (eds.) (2020). The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

della Porta, D. (2020). How Social Movements can save Democracy. Democratic Innovations from Below. Cambridge: Polity Press

Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in Public Service. Government-Nonprofit Relations in the Modern Welfare State. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press

Torfing, J., Peters, G. B., Pierre, J. & Soerensen, E. (2019). Interactive governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford:Oxford University Press (2. edition paperback; publ. 2012)
Urbinati, N. (2014). Democracy Disfigured. Opinion, Truth, and the People. Cambrifge, Massachu-setts: Harvard University Press

Sub Unit

• Third Sector organizations and civil society under different political regimes and contexts: role and regulations

Discussants

• Bernard Enjolras, Norwegian Institute for Social Research

• Anna Domaradzka, University of Warsaw

• Lesley Hustinx, Ghent University

• Benjamin Ewert, Fulda University of Applied Sciences

Moderator

• Adalbert Evers, University of Heidelberg