Page 207 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

190 H. Heinrichs

the ‘participative revolution’. These include radical and grass-roots democratic
ideas in politics as well as the strengthening rights of worker co-determination in
the economic sector (Rucht 1997).
These demands for democratisation, which were first put forward by new social
movements, have led to an expansion of possibilities for participation by politi-
cally interested citizens and politically active workers. Especially in the case of
environmentally relevant large-scale technological and infrastructure projects,
these opportunities for political participation have become increasingly institution-
alised (e.g. environmental impact tests). Participation was initially limited to an
increased government obligation to make information publicly available as well as
to more civil rights guaranteeing access to information and consultation. Since the
beginning of the 1990s – triggered by the United Nations’ Agenda 21 – there has
been a world-wide wave of new interest in participation. The spectrum ranges from
a greater participation of civil society actors (NGOs) in international conferences
and negotiations to expanded rights to information for involved parties and citizens
to the participation of interest groups and citizens in local Agenda 21 processes. As
a result there is a continuing debate, especially in Western democracies, about the
quality and quantity of social participation in collective decision-making and
development processes (Dryzek 1994).
When discussing and implementing participative elements to expand representa-
tive democracy, two lines of argumentation are of central importance. First of all,
there is an ethical-normative perspective, according to which it is in principle a good
thing when as many people as possible are involved in the decisions that affect their
lives. And second there is a functional-analytical viewpoint, according to which a
representative political system can only deal with problems inadequately. Both lines
of argumentation indicate that it is both necessary and desirable to involve a greater
variety of actors as well as broader sectors of the population in the specific search,
learning and development processes needed to adequately cope with the techno-
logical and social complexity of highly differentiated civil societies.
There are a large number of proponents, both nationally and internationally, of
an expansion in participation, but there are also critical voices. From a perspective
of consensus and conflict theory, one might for example ask to what extent partici-
pation is able to contribute to initiating social change. In development policy con-
texts, there are warnings that participation can be counterproductive by creating
acceptance for existing structural inequalities rather than serving the empower-
ment and self-organization of the population (Cooke and Kothari 2001). From an
administration theoretical perspective, it may be more important for there to be
efficient ‘public management’ than to have the public participate in each and every
issue that affects them (Dahl 1994). We should remember that, due to a lack of
knowledge and competence, citizens are often unable to make an important contri-
bution to solving many issues. These perspectives share a reference to the political
elite model as well as a preference for bureaucratic-technocratic action together
with scepticism towards the citizen and sovereign. Finally there are also demands
for the democratic legitimation of participative procedures that – with the excep-
tion of petitions and citizen initiatives – do not involve the whole population