Field Note: We need a common vocabulary for participation

The United States has a long tradition of public participation in one shape or form. But when I sat down to explain to the staff of a District of Colombia council member why three-minute speeches at oversight hearings aren’t meaningful opportunities, I realized that we were lacking a shared vocabulary. Before introducing tactics like citizens’ assemblies and legislative theater, I needed to start at the beginning: What does make public participation in government decision-making meaningful? 

I set out looking for a definition that would resonate with my particular audience, from sources they’d find credible. One source I found is the Open Government Partnership, which offers a basic framework for what mainstreamed public participation should look like:  

• Make participation commonplace: In other words, transition from sporadic events to opportunities woven throughout a government’s operations. 
• Elevate the quality of participation: Equip government institutions with the skills and resources necessary to customize and innovate. [The only edit I’d make is to say “quality and inclusiveness,” with an emphasis on individuals who are or would be directly impacted by the issue of focus.]
• Enhance the impact: Establish clear connections between public input and outcomes.

Surprisingly, I found a similar example in a memo issued just last month by the administration of former President Joseph Biden (an obvious last swipe before Donald Trump took office with his alarmingly dictatorial style). Titled, “Broadening Public Participation and Community Engagement with the Federal Government,” the Office of Personnel Management offered these characteristics of meaningful engagement: 

• Purposeful: Plan and prepare for it! 
• Respectful and mutually beneficial.
• Transparent and accountable. 
• Welcoming and accessible: Seek out and encourage engagement from all individuals and communities that will be affected by any proposed actions.
• Learning-focused and iterative: Continuously assess engagement activities to identify gaps and opportunities for improvement. 

‍

It’s the last point that I find most lacking among most local governments in which I’ve attempted to participate. I’m pretty sure that if the DC council member polled those who have shown up to testify at council hearings (or a few of those who would be impacted but didn’t engage), he’d find out that a lot of people don’t feel that the opportunity (often referred to as a “dog-and-pony show”) is meaningful.

And then there is the guidance offered by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). It offers a 10-step path toward creating meaningful citizen participation. The first step is for the government entity to “identify the problem to solve and the right moment for participation.”  But doesn’t keeping the power to set the agenda in the hands of the government work somewhat against true participatory democracy? I rather like the approach of the European Citizens’ Initiative, which allows people themselves to identify priority issues and propose how to address them. Those that attract at least 1 million votes are considered by the European Commission. 

But my favorite tool for coming to a common understanding of what meaningful engagement is was developed by the International Association of Public Participation: 

I plan to use this at my next meeting with the council member’s office. What about you? What have you found to effectively bridge the divide?