Participatory Democracy
I first heard the term "Participatory Democracy" when I took an entry-level political science course in college. Our left-wing professor considered it the going-thing in politics. Wikipedia defines it as "any process that directly engages the public in policy-making and gives consideration to its input."
Simply voting in elections or campaigning for candidates is essential to electoral politics, but does not count as participatory democracy; but you have to read pretty far into the Wikipedia article to figure out what sort of procedures actually involve participatory democracy. Wikipedia only lists past historical examples of it, perhaps to establish the legitimacy of it. The last in the list of examples offered by Wikipedia, curiously, is The Occupy Movement.
Greater democratization, says the British political scientist Carole Pateman "is about changes that will make our own social and political life more democratic, that will provide opportunities for individuals to participate in decision-making in their everyday lives, as well as in the wider political system. It is about democratizing democracy."
Like the other Wikipedia references, Pateman never really says what participatory democracy involves, only how much good it will do, in that it provides "the means to a more just and rewarding society." Needless to say, Pateman is a leftist, as is another person consulted for Wikipedia's article, Joel Wolfe, who writes that "The more individuals participate, the better able they become to do so . . . diminishing state intervention." The Wikipedia article reads like a religious pamphlet, and keeps one disingenuous eye closed to conceal the risks and drawbacks.
One only has to look at the actions of people in the private-sector to see the risks that participatory democracy creates in the public-sector. Private foundations, people with wealth, corporations, and so on have to deal everyday with private-citizens applying for grant-money. You only have to look at the growth of professionals who write grant-requests for private citizens to understand how extensive this is. If you are a foundation with money, people will hit you up for it all day long.
The basic problem with participatory democracy is that it pits "participant" against "participant", and constituency against constituency. You can see the problem in other areas, such as law--with litigation, divorce actions, murder trials, and so on. Whoever can communicate grief and need most convincingly will find favor with the leadership. Since the participants will want to "diminish state intervention, they will mostly want money. The grant-requests for it will come with a devious mixture of pathos, browbeating, and intimidation. Concentrate all your hyped intentions on persuading better than the next applicant. Such actions always lead to a "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." If government leaders do something for you, they will expect you to pay them back. Influence-peddling will be the main result.
