1 Paper to be presented at Abo academy (Turku/Abo) Norbert Kersting (norbert.kersting@uni-muenster.de) 1 Democracy: A Citizen Perspective" to be held in Åbo (Turku), Finland, on May 27-28, 2015. Online or Offline Participation? Participatory turn redefined? Citizens evaluation of direct and deliberative participatory instruments Abstract: Most democratic innovations are implemented at the local level, which is regarded as a laboratory for democratic innovation. Driven by innovations and phenomenon of Open government initiatives, local administrators implement their own participatory instruments using social media websites as they mostly combine both omnipresent online and offline participatory tools. Some other instruments are primarily online (e-petitions, e participatory budgeting). What are the attitudes of the citizen regarding these new particular participatory instruments? Is there a difference between online and offline participation? Based on a framework for online and offline participation (participatory rhombus) the paper presents an overview of trends and more detailed survey data from a representative survey of citizen and local politicians in Germany. Earlier research on one hand compared general trends in participation and could not deliver an evaluation on the broad range of participatory instruments. On the other hand, other research focused only on particular innovative instruments without generating comparative data. Here the survey design allows a comparative detailed analysis of deliberative and direct-democratic participation Norbert Kersting (norbert.kersting@uni-muenster.de) : Online or Offline Participation? Participatory turn redefined? Citizens evaluation of direct and deliberative participatory instruments The crisis of representative democracy can be seen in one hand, in growing political apathy and cynicism and a decline of voter turnout as well as political party membership (invited space) in a number of countries. On the other hand, political protest, violent and non-violent demonstrations (invented space) are growing in the young and old democracies (see Kersting 2013). Both phenomena are reflecting the lack of legitimacy of the political systems. These are influenced by the growing demand in the citizenship and financial restrictions as well as financial crisis at the local, regional and national levels. The 1970 s witnessed a stronger demand for political participation, which became obvious not only in semi authoritarian systems, but also in new democracies and in established democracies. Since 1990 s 1 I would like to thank the organizers of the survey Bertelsmann Foundation and the Staatsrätin (Minister of state) for Civil society and participation in the state of Baden Württemberg as well as the partners in the academic researcher team (Oscar Gabriel, Brigitte Geissel, Roland Roth and others) for their contributions (discussion of the case selection, questionnaire) in the research project.
2 also new forms of vote centric - direct democracy such as referendums and initiatives as well as participatory instruments in the field of talk centric deliberative democracies began to be implemented in some countries (Smith 2009; Kersting 2007). Further still, the 1990 s also saw more open dialogue-oriented participatory instruments being implemented. This has been called the deliberative turn (Dryzek 2002; Goodin/Niemeyer 2003; Kersting 2008, 2012, 2013). Deliberative democracy often develops a path from conflict to consensual deliberative decision making and new participatory instruments spread worldwide ( century of participation ). What kind of online and offline participation can be analyzed? What kinds of instruments are implemented? What is the influence of new ICT on the development of new instruments? Most of democratic innovations were implemented at the local level first, which became a kind of participatory laboratory. For this reason, this article has a strong focus on the local context, while on the other hand, other questions cannot be analyzed here because they need more comparative research. Who is included and who is excluded? Are these instrument accepted by the citizen? What are the expectations about positive and negative side-effects? How do citizen evaluate new and old participatory instruments in detail? Are these instruments enhancing legitimacy and are they able to channel growing political protest (Gabriel/ Kersting 2014)? 1. Conceptual Framework for Political Participation There is a new debate about a redefinition of political participation (see van Deth 2014; Barnes and Kaase et al., 1979). Here political participation is defined as an individual and organised act to influence political decision-making (see Kersting 2007). This excludes all forms of communal self-help such as civil engagement which cannot be classified as political participation as they only focus on the production of certain services and often do not include any kind of decision-making competencies. In other words, communal self-help is not primarily oriented towards the influence of decision-making. This is a social innovation that focuses on civic engagement as co-production. However, it has an important social function especially when it comes to the development of social capital (see for social innovation Kersting et al., 2009). Democratic innovations focus on participatory instruments, electoral reforms etc. (see Kersting 2005; Kersting, Trechsel Schmitter, 2008). Both are interdependent, but have to be differentiated. In this regard, there are instruments of political participation which are attributed to the invited space. Invited space is defined as a form of political participation which is planned and organized in a top down manner by government (see for details Kersting, 2013). In
3 contrast, invented space encompasses instruments which are initiated by the citizenry in a bottom up manner and are organized to a certain extent autonomously. Political participation can be divided into four different political spheres (see for details Kersting, 2013): participation in representative democracy, participation in direct democracy, deliberative participation and demonstrative participation. Therefore, as it proceeds onlineand offline-instruments of political participation as well as their main and collateral functions are described using a model of participation with four spheres of participation (see Kersting, 2013 Figure 1). Political participation comes across in diverse forms and through heterogeneous instruments (see the model developed in Kersting 2013, 2014). These diverse forms are related to four different spheres of democratic participation, characterized by different intrinsic logics and specific participatory instruments of both online and offline: representative democracy, direct democracy, deliberative democracy and demonstrative democracy (Kersting, 2013). These are briefly presented in the model below;. Figure 1 Hybrid and blended participation Source: Kersting 2013 The sphere of representative democracy is a characteristic of modern, liberal democracies and is long established than other contemporary forms of democratic involvement. The
4 representative democracy is a vote-centric that is based on elections. This means that representatives and parties at different levels of policy making are elected. It exclusively comprises of conventional forms of political participation, which are institutionalized and decisive by nature. Besides elections and party membership, direct contacts to politicians and engagement in election campaigns are relevant instruments. Online participation includes internet-voting or contact to politicians via E-Mail or Facebook (Kersting, 2012: 17-18; 2014: 66-68). Despite the fact that representative participation faces a severe crisis and is gradually declining, elections remain the most used instrument of political participation (Hay 2011: 12-16, Kersting 2005). The sphere of direct democracy participation is the third area of democratic involvement, which is an issue oriented and vote-centric (Qvotrup 2014). It is mainly used in the forms of referendums and citizen initiatives which produce binding decisions (Kersting, 2007: 18; 2014: 61-62). But, on the other hand, there are other online and offline instruments such as opinion polls, which are also vote-centric and issue oriented (Schiller 2011). The third sphere, deliberative participation has its origins in the deliberative turn of democratic theory in the last decade of the 20th century (Warren/Pearse 2008). Its nature is talk-centric (Kersting 2014: 62). Idealistically free and equal people communicate and search for political decision through exchange of arguments and not through bargaining. Preferences are not fixed in deliberation. People are willing to change positions in exchange of better mutually acceptable argument (Bächtiger et al. 2010: 36). The fourth sphere of democratic participation is demonstrative democracy. Political disenchantment, individualism and societal change of values all together lead to new forms of symbolic participation such as political demonstrations, wearing campaign batches etc. Online participations include civil society protests such as flash mobs etc. (Kersting 2012: 18; 2014: 76-79, Hay 2011: 1-25, Rucht 2007: 719-720; Norris 2012). Because of a lack of discursiveness, its character as non-reflexive monologues instead of dialogues, and deliberative quality, online participatory instruments are regarded as a forms of demonstrative participation (see Kersting 2005, 2013)
5 2. Citizen perspective on participation: Empirical results from German city survey The following analysis focuses on the attitudes of citizen regarding new forms of political participation. Most democratic innovations in the field of deliberative participation are implemented at the grassroots level. For this reason we refer to a representative study of 27 German cities. For example, in 2014, the study interviewed 2700 citizen and politicians (the group of politicians include 587 councillors, 27 high ranking members of the local administration and 27 mayors). The study allows a multilevel analysis as well as comparative study with different perspectives from citizen and politicians (see for details Gabriel/Kersting 2014). The new forms of participatory instruments are contrasted to traditional forms of political participation. At the beginning the analysis focuses on the acceptance of political decision-making using different forms of representative participation, direct Democratic participation and deliberative participation. The demonstrative participation as another form of the invented space is not analyzed at this stage. The argument of the second part focuses on the benefits of broad citizen participation. Are the new participatory instruments producing better results? Then an analysis of the effects of broad citizen participation is described in detail. The bi- and multivariate analysis allows to detect correlations between social demographic variables, institutional trust, internal and external efficacy. Finally, particular participatory instruments are evaluated by the citizen. - Better results by new forms of participation In the following figure, four ways of decision making are analysed. In this case, besides deliberative and direct Democratic forms of participation as well as council decisions, another way of decision-making like the pure administrative decision is included. When it comes to the better results nearly 3/4 of the citizen prefer a dialogue between politicians and citizens. On the other hand, nearly 2/3 evaluate direct referendums as very positive. Pure decision by the council is select only by 39% and the pure decision by the Administration is supported by only one quarter (26%) of the citizen. This is a group that is engaged in citizen initiatives and social clubs at the local level in which deliberative and the direct Democratic forms of political participation are highlighted. Therefore, direct democracy is strongly emphasized among the affiliates of the left party and got less positive evaluation by the supporters of the Conservative party.
6 Graph 1: Better results: deliberative, direct, councilor, administration (Totally) disagree - (totally) agree Citizen: Better results through minipublics 8,0 71,8 Citizen: Better results through referendums 9,7 62,8 Citizen: Better results through council 27,2 39,3 Citizen: Better results through administration 6 1, 7 43,9 25,6 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 Likert 5- scale, middle category not presented Questions/Statements: Listening to the people and deliberation with the people is leading to the best results in local politics Direct participation by local referendum leads to the best political results Best results can be achieved when we elected council members can decide free on their own Best results are achieved when members of the Administration solve the political problems - Acceptance and legitimacy by participation In theory input legitimacy bases on the existence of participatory institutions (see Kersting 2008). Strong protest seems to grow in older democracies such as the UK and the US as well as in younger democracies such as Spain. This is often a critique on social inequalities and negative side-effects of globalization, but also directed against big local infrastructural projects. It is further argued that in the global North and South, strong protests are triggered by lack of political participation. Is there a chance to channel this protest by using new participatory instruments? In this case, representative democracy is seen as the main participatory sphere in liberal democracies. In this regard, therefore, other forms such as deliberative and direct Democratic participation are seen as additive channels to influence political decision-making. But how important are these for the different societal groups. Citizen were asked what they think about direct, deliberative and representative democracy. It is surprising that the new forms of deliberative and direct participation are strongly preferred by the citizen. According to the majority of the citizen, a decision by the council in other
7 words by the representative system has less value than other forms of decisions resulting from public deliberation on direct-democratic decision in a referendum (see table 2). It is showed that direct-democratic decisions are accepted by two thirds of citizen even though they do not agree with this decision. In contrast, only 40% of the citizens think that participation of citizen is not important as long as the council delivers fair and just decisions. Graph 2: (Better) Acceptance of political decisions (Totally) disagree - (totally) agree Citizen: Deliberative Instruments 10,3 66,3 Citizen: Referendum 12,2 65,8 Citizen: Council decisions 27,6 42,0 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 Likert 5- scale, middle category not presented Questions/Statements: Citizen accept political decision -even when they disagree - when they are allowed to vote directly Citizen accept decisions they do not, you when they disagree when they had a chance to participate in the discussion Citizen participation is not very important but is more important that the council is doing their job, open and fair As a result, it is stated that new forms of participatory instruments are expected by the citizenry and have to be installed to enhance acceptance and legitimacy. It can be shown in cities with the number of deliberative instruments satisfaction, democracy is much higher in cities with a stronger focus on representative and direct Democratic participation. - Positive effects of citizen participation One reason for strong political participation is to include better information into local politics. Furthermore; different interest groups are able to articulate their different interests and positions. It is often criticised that because of a dominating small interest groups, broader
8 marginalised groups can bring in their interests and tyranny of participation developed (Kersting 2009, 2015). In general, there is ubiquity a credo for new participation. In this scenario, more than 80% of the citizens think that there is a better information as soon as new participatory instruments are implemented. In addition, more than three quarter believe that new ideas are coming into the local political arena. At the same level, citizens think that with new participatory instruments as well as new divergent interests are included in local politics. Still around two thirds of the citizens think that using citizen participation can reduce political apathy and cynicism. The same percentage follows the idea that mismanagement can be avoided. More than 60% think that protest as well as veto positions within the society can be reduced within the planning processes. Graph 3: New Participatory Instruments: Positive Impacts Citizen: Better information for council + administration (Totally) disagree - (totally) agree 4,0 84,2 Citizen: New ideas 6,8 78,8 Citizen: Expression of different interests 5,5 74,9 Citizen: Depletion of political apathy 10,2 69,3 Citizen: Avoiding mistakes in planning 12,1 67,2 Citizen: Reduce resistance 13,1 59,5 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 Likert 5- scale, middle category not presented Questions/Statements By citizen participation councillors and local administration get a better impression about the needs of the citizen, which is helpful for planning Citizen participation introduces new ideas and politics, which are otherwise not on the agenda By citizen participation different interests and values are infused into the decision-making process which strengthens the community Citizen participation helps to reduce political cynicism By early citizen participation mis-planning and mis-investments can be avoided By citizen participations strong veto positions planning processes can be diminished
9 - Negative effects of citizen participation The debate on the tyranny of participation highlights different negative effects (Kersting 1998, 2007). In general, about one quarter of the citizen criticizes this new forms of participation. More still, 35% of the citizens believe that during the participatory process, citizen are regarded as an opponent and an enemy. A quarter of the population believes that political participation cannot contribute to an appeasement of conflicts. On the other hand, 48% of the citizen believe that political participation cannot contribute to the solving of local political conflicts. Graph 4: New Participatory Instruments: Consequences Participation as a symbolic show event (Totally) disagree - (totally) agree 19,4 50,1 Participation causes delay Participation is a reasonable amount of effort Participation raise excessive expectations Citizens as opponents in controversial issues 26,7 20,6 29,0 32,0 47,7 40,9 34,2 34,7 Participation does not solve political conflicts Elected representatives avoiding their Loss of importance of politcal parties, politicians 55,6 48,1 44,7 23,1 17,6 26,9 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 Likert 5- scale, middle category not presented Question/ Statements: Political participation is reduced to show events Citizen participation leads to delays in decision-making Cost for participation is not appropriate New forms of participation raise unrealistic expectations Because of citizen participation politicians and administrators recognise citizen less as partners but more is opponent in controversial processes of political decision-making Elected representative use citizen participation two avoid responsibility for their own decision-making and to avoid strong pressure from the civil society. Political participation can contribute to solve political conflicts New forms of political participation are diminishing role of political parties and elected political representatives There exists also the verdict that using political participation, political representatives tend to avoid to take responsibility. Only one fifth of the citizen have this opinion as well. Does political participation have a negative influence on the importance of political parties and the role of politicians? On to this therefore, less than one fifth of the citizen (18%) do believe in
10 this and think that with the new implementation of participation, the importance of the values of political parties and politicians could be to diminished. While on the other hand, more than half of the citizen and nearly 2/3 of the politicians cannot see this negative effect. Another group of criticism focuses on possible negative side-effects. Around half of the citizen think that participation is often only a symbolic show-event while one fifth of both groups reject this statement. Less than half of the citizens think that citizen participation causes delays when it comes to the implementation of local policies. Only one quarter show a different opinion and cannot see this effect of causing delays in the implantation of local policies. A quarter of the citizen think that participation creates unrealistic demands and hopes. This statement is rejected by one third of the citizen as well as 35% of the politicians respectively. The statement citizen participation as an inefficient and a waste of resources is supported by 41% of the citizen and is on the other hand, rejected by 21% of them. The majority of 52% think that the invested resources are justified. - Participatory repertoire The repertoire of instruments of political participation has increased over the years (Kersting 1998). New forms of invited space gives citizen new possibilities and chances to be included (Kersting 2013). In the 1960s representative participation in the liberal democracy is seen at the central element of local democracy. In the 1970s, unconventional forms of participation emerged. Representative democracy prevailed. In the 1990s with the introduction of the direct election of the mayor and new electoral reforms, democratic innovation took place in a lot of German cities. Furthermore, local referendums, which had existed but was only scarcely used in Baden Württemberg were introduced in all German Länder. In the following ups of the Rio conference with the local agenda 21 in the early 90s, new deliberative instruments for participation were implemented. These were included in the German processor new public management and second wave of civic engagement as well as mobilization in the late 90s. New Public Management fostered new forms of advisory boards of users, opinion polls etc. the new social innovation strengthened the process of coproduction which was often combine this composition process in the field of Democratic innovations. In the new millennium, the new information and communication technologies emerged and brought new opportunities to citizen participation
11 In the following paragraph, citizen s attitudes are presented and described. Hereby the typology of the Democratic rhombus are used. To answer the question if online or off-line participation predominates the hierarchy of participatory instruments is to be presented. Graph 5: Citizen: Participatory instruments. Evaluation Not important (at all) - very (important) Voting at local election Voting at local Referendum Join ctitizen initiative (CBO, NGO) Youth parliament Citizen forum (open, self selection) Sub-municipal Council Petition Advisory board for migrants Engagement in Political Parties Opinion polls Contact local politician/adminstration Advisory boards (organized stakeholders) Demonstration Partcipatory budgeting Letters to the editor (newspapers) Minipublics (random selection) Participation Online (facebook etc.) 4,5 4,2 4,9 9,0 6,7 7,1 10,3 11,1 12,3 10,0 11,8 16,6 22,8 13,8 23,0 30,1 42,8 81,7 80,4 78,9 73,7 72,7 70,1 68,3 66,1 64,8 63,4 62,7 53,0 49,1 49,0 48,3 33,6 32,9 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 In the field of representative democracy, the survey poses questions regarding to the importance of voting at local elections, sub municipal councils, engagement in political parties, and the contact to politicians, as well as local administration. In the field of direct democratic participation voting at local referendums, joining a petition, participating in opinion polls as well as participatory budgeting processes are is included. In Germany participatory budgeting is more an online suggestion box where besides the possibilities to suggest and propose new infrastructural and other projects, the main focus lies on the voting of these proposals.
12 In the field of deliberative participation the participation and open self-selected citizen forum is included, participatory instruments such as modern advisory boards organised by the stakeholders, and which are randomly selected like mini publics,, youth parliaments, advisory boards for migrants are included. Lastly the citizen as well as the politicians were asked how important they think are demonstrations, letters to editors of newspapers, joining the citizen initiative, for example, CBO and NGO and lastly the main question what they think about political online-participation in facebook and other social media. - Representative participation 80% of the citizen believe that participation in local elections is a relevant and a (very) good instrument. Elections produce binding decisions on the selection of the candidates in the frame for an American democracy. They still enjoy the highest rates of participation and have big numbers of participants which is related to a strong base of legitimacy. This positive opinion on elections is stronger in the older generation and in the group which is more satisfied with the democracy. In this group, there is a higher trust in councilors and the media as well a higher external efficacy. Participation in the political parties is regarded by two third of the population as a very good form of participation. Similarly, direct contacts to councilors and to the administration is assessed very good meanwhile only 12% regard this as negative. Trust in the city council and administration correlates to the evaluation party support as well as voting. Also NGO affiliation correlates to a work in political parties and contact to councilors. - Direct democratic participation In Germany, local referendum are temporarily and sporadically used instrument in which it is mostly initiated from below and in some cases follows a council decision. This instrument of participation is regarded as positive by 80% of the citizen and only 4% criticize local referendums. Local referendums enjoy a slightly lower support in the group of the pensioners while on the other hand, citizen with a higher degree of education and higher interests in politics as well as supporters of the social-democratic and the Green party favor local referendums. Since 2010, participatory budgeting is seen as a form of online suggestion box where people could present their ideas mostly. In most cities, citizen have to use the Internet, while 49%
13 regard this instrument is (very) positive and 40% see it as a (very) bad participatory instrument. Participatory budgeting is favored by organised members of clubs and NGOs (Sintomer et al 2010; Diaz 2014). Petitions are regarded by 60% of the citizen as very positive. Petitions are especially attractive for members and supporters of the left wing parties and NGOs. Locals opinion polls get very good marks from 63% of the citizen and only every 10th gives very bad marks. Here in NGO- support is positively correlated to these participatory instruments. - Deliberative participation In the 1990s numbers of new participatory instruments were implemented, which tried to include certain particular interest groups. The child and youth parliaments were seen as positive by three-quarter (75%) of the citizen. 70% evaluate the sub-municipal councils as an important instrument. Also three third of the population believes that council for disabled people as well as councils for migrants are important. Sub-municipal neighbourhood councils as well as councils for migrants even get relatively more support from politically active respondents. The strong trust into NGOs and CBO is also positively related to the neighbourhood councils. Open forums are seen as a good participatory instrument. On the other hand, only the half of the citizenry regard citizen dialogue which include; organised interest groups like stakeholder conferences as very good. Last but not least, in the deliberative world, mini publics in citizen juries are getting the worst marks. Only some asses these as positive, but 30% give (very) bad marks. Open forums are favoured by organised members of clubs and NGOs. Meanwhile, women give slightly better marks for stakeholder conference. - Demonstrative participation 49% of the citizen believe that political demonstrations are an important form of participation, while on the other side, only 23% mark demonstrative participation as very badly. In here the older generation is more skeptical, but also trust in clubs and NGOs as is positively correlated. Only 40% evaluate the letters to the editor positively. More than a quarter is regard this as negative. An affiliation to an NGO is positively correlated to a positive evaluation of letters to the editor,
14 Surprisingly, the new instruments of participations like political online participation in social networks are regarded (very) negative by the citizen, while about 33% view online participation viewed with (very) good marks, but 43% evaluate them (very) bad. Although online participation is slightly better assessed in the younger generation the overall result is still very fair. 3. Participatory Democracy: Clusters and factors A factor analysis which analyzing the evaluation of participatory instruments give an indication what kind of instruments are building clusters. Are these related to certain social and political groups?. The main focus lies on online participation. Is online participation a new instrument or does it belong to one of the cluster? The two participatory instruments with a strong online component are online participation by social media and (online) participatory budgeting processes. As we have seen in Germany most participatory budgeting processes have a strong online component. It can be shown that the first groups include instruments close to representative democracy such as Voting at local election, Sub-municipal Council, Engagement in Political Parties, Contact local politician/administration, Citizen forum (open, self selection), Youth parliament Advisory board for migrants (see table 2,3). These are mostly instruments in a party-based local representative democracy. In the second group we find more direct democratic and demonstrative participation such as Voting at local Referendum, Petition, Opinion polls, Demonstration, Letters to the editor (newspapers). Most have instrument that are sporadic, vote oriented and require need little resources. In the third group are Participatory budgeting, Online partcipation social media (facebook etc.), Mini-publics (random selection), Advisory boards (organized stakeholders). In the third cluster those instruments with an online component is found. They are combined with consultative instruments and are more consultative but also sporadic and temporarily. In online participatory instruments, citizen bring in their ideas (crowd sourcing) without encountering cumbersome negotiations. It is more a form of crowd monitoring and or crowdsourcing monitoring democracy. The three factors are combined in a sum-index and included in a regression to analyse relevant independent variables. It is obvious that this group comprises of younger, male dominated and closer related to the left political parties and ecological parties. Meanwhile,
15 political interest and political activity is less important than in the other clusters that focus more on party politics and direct as well as demonstrative democracy. 4. Conclusion Direct and deliberative democracy seems to be deeply rooted in the political culture. In here, citizen respect the existing representation of particular interest groups (youth, neighbourhood, migrants). But their demand for new direct and deliberative participatory instruments is high. They do not see a diminished importance of politicians and councilors avoiding responsiveness. Although, they predominately and realistically recognise the negative aspects (symbolic character, time consumption) they evaluate the positive effects (inclusion of Interest groups, better planning conflict resolution) as very positive. Citizens are in favour of direct and deliberative participation and predominately reject decision making processes which base only on a pure council or administrative decision without inclusion of the citizen. A bureaucratic and elite model of local decision making is dismissed by both groups. These opinions are idealistically lip service and do not reflect real rates of participation (see e.g. the low turnout at referendums). But citizen at least want the option to participate. But it is obvious that representative and bureaucratic decision making has to be extended and enriched. Citizen strongly support voting in liberal representative democracybecause of its easniness and its legal and formal character. On the next ranks there are all forms of deliberative organized groups such as advisory boards. In this regard, the inclusion of interest groups for certain particular interests are accepted by the citizen. On the other hand, it is not surprising that individual citizen support those instruments especially where they have a significant influence. So the citizen dialogue with a randomly selected group of participants is not assessed highly positive by the citizenry. At the end of ranking are some of the participatory instruments which are seen as a future of political participation. These got relatively bad marks. Online participation via social media is splitting the population. For example, 29% see the positive effects and 36% evaluate it as very negative. The same happens to participatory budgeting in Germany, which is predominately an online instrument for political participation. In the vast majority of the German cities, participatory budgeting is an online suggestion box. This is seen as an important administrative and management tool, but to most of the citizen, they see this not as a kind of political participatory instruments. In the factor analysis, online participation is within an a
16 group of low level easy participation using little resources without being included in the cumbersome daily routines and discussions of local politics. The not very positive evaluation of online instruments which is slightly better in the younger generation can be interpreted as a support for offline participation. Citizens seem to the deficits of online participation, when it comes to deliberation and social contacts. This can lead to a conclusion to combine the online-world and the offline world. In here, the new invited space has to focus more strongly on sub-local off-line participatory instruments and the combination between online and off-line. Online participation in blended democracy is responsible for mobilization and as an organizational societal memory as well as base of information. Meanwhile, off-line participation is responsible for deliberation and discussion of new forms of participation. The future lays less in a cyber-democracy, but more in a blended participation combining the best of the two worlds. References: Barnes, Samuel H./Kaase, Max (Hrsg.), 1979: Political Action. Mass Participation in Five Western Democracies. Beverly Hills/London: Sage. Bertelsmann Stiftung & Staatsministerium Baden-Württemberg (eds) 2014, Partizipation im Wandel. Unsere Demokratie zwischen Wählen, Mitmachen und Entscheiden. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung Diaz, Nelson 2014: Hoped-for democracy. 25 years of participatory budgeting worldwide. Todo In Loco Dryzek, John 2002: Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: OUP Fung, Archon and Wright, Erik Olin, eds 2003: Deepening democracy. London: Verso Gabriel, Oscar /Kersting, Norbert 2014: Politisches Engagement in deutschen Kommunen: Strukturen und Wirkungen auf die politischen Einstellungen von Bürgerschaft, Politik und Verwaltung. In Bertelsmann Stiftung & Staatsministerium Baden-Württemberg (eds), Partizipation im Wandel. Unsere Demokratie zwischen Wählen, Mitmachen und Entscheiden. Gütersloh: Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Goodin, Robert E. (2008). Innovating Democracy: Democratic Theory and Practice After the Deliberative Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press Kersting Norbert 2013: Online participation: from invited to invented spaces. International Journal of Electronic Governance. (2013) 4 270-280 Kersting, N./ Schmitter, Ph. /Trechsel. A. 2008: Die Zukunft der Demokratie in: Politische Beteiligung. Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: 40-64 Kersting, Norbert 2005: The quality of political discourse: Can E-discussion be deliberative? Paper presented at the PSA conference in Leeds. Kersting, Norbert 2005: Reforming local electoral systems in Europe. in: Reynart, Herwig, Delwit, P., Steyvers, K., Pilet, J.-B., (eds.) 2005, Revolution or renovation? Reforming local politics in Europe. Brugge: Van den Broele
17 Kersting, Norbert 2007: Assessing Participatory Democracy. Trends and criteria for an evaluation. in: Reynart, Herwig, Delwit, P., Steyvers, K., Pilet, J.-B., (eds.) 2007,: Towards DIY-Politics? Participatory and direct democracy at the local level in Europe. Brugge: Van den Broele Kersting, Norbert 2012: The Future of Electronic Democracy. In: Kersting, Norbert (Hrsg.). Electronic Democracy. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich: 11-44 Kersting, Norbert 2013: Electronic partcipation From invited to invenited spacein in International Journal of Electronic Governance (2013)4 270-280 Kersting, Norbert, ed. 2008: Politische Beteiligung. Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation. Wiesbaden: VS -Springer. Kersting, Norbert/ Janice Caulfield/Andrew Nickson/Dele Olowu/Hellmut Wollmann 2009: Local Governance Reform in Global Perspective. Urban and regional research international. Wiesbaden: VS -Springer. Norris, Pippa 2012: Political Mobilization and Social Networks. The example of the Arab Spring. in: Kersting, Norbert (Hrsg.). Electronic Democracy. Opladen: Verlag Barbara Budrich, 53-76. Qvotrup, Matt 2014: Referendums around the world. London: Palgrave Schiller, Theo 2011: Local direct democracy in Europe-a comparative overview. in: Theo Schiller 2011: Local direct democracy in Europe. Wiesbaden VS: 9-31 Schlozman, Kay L./Verba, Sidney/Brady, Henry E., 2012: The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sintomer, Yves et al. (2010): Der Bürgerhaushalt in Europa eine realistische Utopie? Zwischen partizipativer Demokratie, Verwaltungsmodernisierung und sozialer Gerechtigkeit. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Smith. Graham 2009: Democratic innovation. Cambridge: CUT Steiner, J. & Bächtiger, A. & Spörndli, M. & Steenbergen, M. (2004): Deliberative Politics in Action. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press Teorell, Jan/Torcal, Mariano/Montero, José Ramón, 2007: Political Participation. Mapping the Terrain, in: van Deth, Jan W./Montero, José Ramón/Westholm, Anders (Hrsg.), Citizenship and Involvement in European Democracies. A Comparative Analysis. London: Routledge, 334-357. Van Deth, Jan (2014). A conceptual map of political participation. In: Acta Politica 1(2014) 1-19 Warren, Mark E /Pearse, Hilary, eds (2008). Designing Deliberative Democracy. The Bristish Columbia s Citizen Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18 Table 1: Participatory instruments citizen preferences Component Direct and demonstrative Representativ -thematic Consultative Voting at local election,789 Engagement in Political Parties,727 Contact local politician/adminstration,674 Sub-municipal councils,615 Advisory board for migrants,608 Join citizen initiative (CBO, NGO),507,324 Youth parliament,481,309 Citizen forum (open, self selection) e,443,392 Opinion polls,745 Petitions,738 Letters to the editor (newspapers),716 Demonstration,483 Voting at local Referendum,329,367 Minipublics (random selection),734 Partcipatory budgeting,573 Participation Online (facebook etc.),563 Advisory boards (organized stakeholders),491 Factor analysis. matrix (3 components), 46 percent explanation Variance Extraction: Principal Component. Rotation-method: Oblimin Kaiser.
19 Table 2: Regression Dimension Representativ (Scale 1 5) Dimension Direct and demonstrative -thematic (Scale 1 5) Dimension Consultative (Scale 1 5) (Constant) 3.557 *** 3.867 *** 3.538 *** (0.092) (0.096) (0.161) Ager (in years) 0.003 ** 0.005 *** 0.004 * (0.001) (0.001) (0.002) Male 0.109 *** 0.173 *** 0.168 ** (0.031) (0.032) (0.055) Class (Scale 1 lower class 5 upper class ) 0.056 * 0.059 * 0.045 (0.024) (0.025) (0.041) Academic (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.102 ** 0.051 0.031 (0.034) (0.036) (0.062) political aktive (1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.120 *** 0.079 * 0.054 (0.034) (0.035) (0.061) Party SPD 0.129 ** 0.219 *** 0.026 (0.046) (0.049) (0.082) Party Grüne 0.073 0.233 *** 0.236 * (0.055) (0.058) (0.115) Party FDP 0.017 0.113 0.143 (0.102) (0.112) (0.179) Party Linke 0.042 0.452 *** 0.269 * (0.068) (0.071) (0.119) Party Other 0.098 0.286 ** 0.028 (0.101) (0.105) (0.151) Party none 0.131 ** 0.070 0.011 (0.041) (0.043) (0.072) Club member(1 = yes, 0 = no) 0.100 ** 0.048 0.040 (0.032) (0.034) (0.058) Political interest (Scale 1 very low 5 very strong ) 0.106 *** 0.043 ** 0.029 (0.015) (0.016) (0.026) R 2 0.122 0.066 0.043 Adj. R 2 0.115 0.061 0.027 Num. obs. 1.766 2.103 789 *** ** * p < 0.001, p < 0.01, p < 0.05. Reference Partyg: CDU/CSU. Unstandardised Coeffizient. Standarderror in ().