They tend to operate in the background, but have a major influence on how citizens are involved in political processes: "participation professionals". These are people who work full-time on citizen participation. They can be found in very different sectors and fulfil a variety of tasks. In the private sector, a whole range of service companies have specialised in the planning and implementation of participatory dialogue processes. However, more and more positions for "participation officers" are also being created in public administrations - particularly at municipal and state level - who initiate participation processes and promote more participation within the administration. In addition, there are numerous civil society initiatives that endeavour to promote citizen participation. One well-known example is the association "Mehr Demokratie e.V." (More Democracy), which has long campaigned primarily for more direct democracy, but now also promotes and organises randomly assembled citizens' councils. Another example is the "Es geht LOS" initiative, which is pursuing the vision of nationwide citizens' councils and initiating this form of participation throughout Germany.
All of these actors are driving the "participation boom" in Germany and are simultaneously fuelled by the continuing enthusiasm for participation among the population. They all see themselves as democracy reformers and advocates of broad political participation. In their view, they all have distinctive expertise in the field of participation - they know which forms of participation are suitable for which case and can advise politicians accordingly.
However, we should take a closer look at the profit-orientated companies that are active in this market. On the one hand, they often take on particularly influential tasks: They design the participation process, select the participating citizens and the consulting experts, moderate the dialogue processes, record the results and ensure that they are communicated to politicians. These are very important management tasks that directly influence the shape of democratic institutions, decision-making and even policy outcomes. Secondly, these companies naturally also pursue profit interests in the realisation of participatory processes, and this interest will not always steer them in the same direction as their expertise or their democratic ethos. For example, the realisation of a lot-based citizens' assembly is costly and therefore, in principle, quite lucrative for a company with a private sector mindset. However, it is not the best participation option in all cases (you can find an in-depth analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of citizens' councils here).
However, to speak of a "participation industry" in Germany would certainly be inappropriate. It is not at all like in the USA, where large PR and planning companies dominate the market and carry out participation processes that have been labelled manipulative and "fake" by academics.
But the industry is also constantly evolving in Germany and we as civil society should keep an eye on this. There may well be a further commercialisation of the participation business, which could then result in a market concentration that squeezes out specialised participation companies with their decades of experience in citizen participation. If, in such a case, we do not take a close look at how the participation business actually works, but simply assume that every attempt at involvement will advance democracy, then this would be problematic.
However, a process of differentiation and professionalisation in the field of participation is also conceivable, in which all actors involved learn - citizens, participation companies, institutes and associations as well as the commissioning administration and the political decision-makers called upon to act by the citizens' assembly. Such a collective learning process would increase the likelihood of customised participation models being used that are linked to the representative institutions that make political decisions and effectively involve the respective target group of citizens. The administration could more easily make informed decisions about how to involve the public, and we as civil society would be in a better position to exercise effective control and further develop democratic institutions without sitting out trends.
Dr Eva Krick has been researching the topic of public participation for years. Her study "Participation professionals in democracy. On the professionalisation and commercialisation of a growth industry" was recently published in the journal Leviathan and is available for free download here.
