by Brendan Halloran
Recently, I had the opportunity to participate in “Our Time, Our Power”, a learning exchange on participatory democracy hosted by the Participatory Budget Project in Orange, New Jersey. As someone who has worked on participatory budgeting and democracy for 15 years outside of the US, this was a great opportunity to learn from and connect with those researching, advocating for and doing participatory budgeting (PB) and other democratic practices here in the United States. I came away with not only a much more nuanced and granular appreciation of the work being done on the ground, but also a lot of questions!
My reflections are narrowed down here into three main takeaways: the role of participatory democracy at this historical moment in the US, PB as part of a broader democratic ecosystem, and what it takes to get PB up and running in local government contexts around the country.
Most Americans are dissatisfied with democracy, have low trust in government, and are concerned about the ongoing erosion of democratic guardrails and norms by the current government. While much of this is happening in real time, the underlying causes have been growing for decades.
Two of the root causes relate directly to the lack of participatory democracy in the country. The first is the weakening of the broader civic fabric that connects us as individuals to one another despite our many differences in lived experience and political preferences. A second is the continuing decline in government responsiveness to the public due to the direct and indirect influence of powerful interest groups through political finance, lobbying and the revolving door between government and business, among others.
PB can play an important role in creating spaces and processes for people to engage with each other, as well as with government, to make decisions about public resources and priorities. This can be part of rebuilding civic and democratic practices, norms and relationships, while making government more responsive to citizen priorities. I think that is an important part of how we think about, argue for, and practice PB at this moment in time.
A second reflection relates to PB as part of a broader ecosystem of democratic mechanisms and practices. The PB advocates and practitioners at the Learning Exchange were motivated by a commitment to inclusion, equity, justice and accountability, not just blind faith in PB as a methodology. Thus, many were sharing questions of their own and from their communities about the potential and limitations of PB. Does PB just leave communities fighting with each other over the crumbs from the budget table, while larger decisions and interests are untouched?
I came away with the impression that our broader goal is more inclusive and responsive governance of public resources to advance equity and justice. PB may be a first step in the journey and/or one element of a broader ecosystem of democratizing practices and mechanisms for public decision making. For example, I heard folks mention bringing in other deliberative mechanisms like citizen juries or assemblies that could credibly inform broader decisions about how governments use public resources.
Thus, we might think about PB as part of a longer-term trajectory of a more inclusive and participatory local governance ecosystem. This leads us to a question; How can PB be not only sustained, but broadened, deepened and/or complemented over time to overcome some of its current limitations? Given the moment we are experiencing in this country, we should also acknowledge and value the intangible outcomes of people engaging with each other and with local government in terms of strengthening civic and democratic relationships, norms, mental models and practices.
Finally, it’s all well and good to say that PB and other participatory democratic practices are important for our country given everything that is going on right now, and that beyond PB we should also be strengthening a broader civic and democratic ecosystem to reconnect people to each other and ensure that government is more responsive to our priorities and needs. This doesn’t necessarily make it any easier to actually get democratic innovations like PB approved by local government (although it could be part of the overall engagement and advocacy strategy).
I came away from the exchange with an appreciation of how challenging it is to get PB taken up by local government, let alone implemented and sustained. I was struck by the skepticism and opposition faced by PB advocates on the ground by powerful local stakeholders. For example, in Cleveland, voters narrowly rejected PB in the face of significant opposition from unions and elected officials.
I heard a lot of nuanced reflections from PB advocates on their allies and opponents in their local contexts. This reinforced the need for analysis and understanding of the relevant actors, motivations and other factors in any given context in which PB advocates are engaging to approve, implement and sustain PB. This might help answer key questions like: What sort of coalition is needed to win and maintain PB or other participatory democracy innovations and what would it take to bring such a coalition together? How do PB advocates frame and align PB with the ideas, motivations and interests of a critical mass of supporters (or to minimize opposition and antagonism)? Does this necessarily mean ‘watering down’ PB principles or practices, or just not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good enough?
Overall, I felt the need for a clearer strategic approach or theory of change for approving and sustaining PB that is based both on the nuances of local contexts but also on broader lessons about advancing democratic innovations around the country (or even internationally). We need participatory democracy now more than ever in this country, but that doesn’t make it any easier to move the needle (and indeed, probably makes it harder). There are many good ideas out there about ‘fixing our democracy’ from national to local levels. But relatively more energy and effort has been put into that ‘what’ of democratic reform and innovation and relatively less in the ‘how’ of actually getting these across the finish line (and then sustained over time against potential pushback). PB and other democratic reform advocates need to be more strategic than ever. They may benefit from resources and insights to support their reform strategies and from practices of clarifying and refining their theories of change about how to embed participatory democracy in their local context.
I came away from the Learning Exchange inspired and full of ideas as well as with questions about PB and participatory democracy in our current national context and that of the local democratic ecosystems we seek to strengthen in our communities and localities. I also came away with a sense of urgency and understanding of the pressing need for more democratic innovation, and therefore resources, support and engagement for successfully advancing and sustaining these practices based on local context and broader lessons. I look forward to building together with the learning community as we generate and put into practice strategic and practical insights on strengthening participatory democracy.