Political Tolerance in a Participatory Democracy
An address by Ebrahim Fakir during the Afesis-corplan 2nd Quarter Seminar (July 2010)
I have been asked to dwell on the subject of Political Tolerance in a Participatory Democracy. I invite you to think through this with me. Contrary to popular opinion – thinking about this stuff should not be left to professional thinkers – philosophers, or “think tanks”- who in fact, often “do not think.” They appear to just do, why they do what they do, is a question they seldom ask.
Thinking appears complicated, but it isn’t really – especially for purposes of politics and particularly with regard to a “democratic politics.” Thinking in the political domain, can often be reduced to common sense, which some have argued is the least common of all senses.
Regardless, it is true that our “common senses” are all shaped differently and we would therefore apply it in different ways. Because of our wide social diversities and cleavages—shaped in part by our divided social and political histories , characterised by differences and inequalities in colour and class, ethnicity, religion and nationality—by the co-existence and the coincidence of deep levels of social, economic and political inequality.
Thus, what might appear as common may not in fact be common at all–and so we need some commonly constructed notions of what is common sense. We are fortunate in this sense when it comes to the question of politics, equality, rights, freedom, voice and choice. These notions and what they might mean, or ought to mean for all of us, finds expression in the South African Constitution. These notions will be revisited later.
The second thing to note at the outset is that the notions of “political tolerance” and “participatory democracy” appear to be unrelated issues. They are, in my view, related quite intimately and I hope to show how this is the case. I want to go beyond what may (or as it appears, what may not) be generally understood as the quite obvious, close causal relationship between one (tolerance) and the other (participation and democracy). So there it is, I have said it: I am of the view that it is not possible for people to participate in a society and its affairs in the absence of a degree of tolerance. In other words, tolerance is a precondition – a necessity – in order to make participation possible. Since without a degree of tolerance, participation is not possible, that is the participation of people who do not share your view, have different opinions, different views and orientations, have perspectives about the ordering of society, its affairs and government, or who are unlike you (in identity, in orientation, lifestyle, culture), that participation cannot happen if those who have power, influence and are dominant, and who have access to the means to perpetrate violence cannot accept, contend with or argue against views different to those of their own.
So this is quite obvious and upfront. In a free and open society, this precondition is a must. It is a free, open and socially just society that our constitution envisions and our Constitution, therefore, must be the guide to both our political system and our political culture and must guide the political behaviors that shape them.
Now let us turn to the idea of political tolerance, or tolerance more generally. What is this thing called tolerance? It means accepting and respecting the basic rights and civil liberties of persons and groups whose viewpoints differ from one's own. All citizens, including political leaders, have a responsibility to practice political tolerance in their words and actions. As a clear rejection of "might makes right," political tolerance is a key principle of democracy.
As an ideal, the rights based aspects of democracy upholds that members of the society should treat each other, and themselves be treated by others, as equals. In a DEMOCRATIC politics, is inherent the right to differ as well as the acceptance of such difference. It further accepts, as the SA Constitution does, on a basis of a societal consensus, a limitation to certain rights. This limitation, and any limitation of rights for that matter, is one that must be very carefully considered and applied ONLY as a limitation to the extent that the exercise of any right causes harm to another person’s rights, or harms other rights in general. So, political intolerance is engendered by a willingness to restrict the rights of a disliked person or group based merely and solely on their differing views, not on the harm that they might be perceived to cause. Intolerance creates an inhibited society, which narrows citizen’s perceptions of politics and shapes their subsequent behaviour.
A culture of tolerance involves debate and dynamic exchanges of opinions and arguments, whereby people can learn from others, get closer to the truth, and benefit from a vital public life. Developing a culture of tolerance is a long term undertaking that removes the roots of intolerance and is necessary for the democratic process.
Some of the key ingredients in a culture of tolerance are:
• Education
• Freedom of expression
• Critical Thought
• A Free Media
A conscious effort that has to be made to accept and appreciate “otherness” and this acceptance is the road that has to be trodden in order to arrive at a democratic culture. Democracy, which lends itself to the expression of diversity, is also a way of social functioning in which every citizen must follow absolutely the rule of listening and understanding."
Political tolerance, as it has evolved from constitutional theory and practice, since the 18th century, is a core value that not only keeps the social structure together but also enables it to function smoothly. It underlies the checks-and-balance system that makes it possible for individuals in society to act freely as responsible citizens, in full awareness of their rights and obligations. Political tolerance, in a word, is the catalyst that makes it possible for enlightened self-interest to subsume harmoniously within the larger collective interest of which it is as much a cause as a consequence.
The philosopher Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, says that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance; illustrating that there are limits to tolerance. This is where the notion that one person’s rights ends where another’s begins. What is non-negotiable is the notion of a “right.” What is at issue here is the extent/ limitation of the right, not the notion of the “right” itself.
But consider then also, the philosopher John Rawls, who devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to this very problem; and asks whether a just society should or should not tolerate something that it considers “intolerant.” He also addresses the related issue of whether or not the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated within their society. Rawls conclusion is that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated. Otherwise, the character of that society would be “intolerant,” and therefore unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this conclusion by insisting, like Popper, that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. In his words:
“While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.” Rawls, John, (1971), A Theory of Justice, p. 220
Now, in political thought, it is necessary to distinguish the idea of “toleration” from the idea of “tolerance.” This distinction may seem pedantic, but it is important for our purposes. This refers to the idea that you have a forbearance/tolerance for things, ideas, people that you don’t approve of. In this logic is the fact that you can only have “toleration” where there are things that are not approved. If things were perfect, obviously “toleration” would be neither necessary nor possible.
But intolerance, or what we perceive to be “intolerance” is also borne out of other things. By other things I am referring to something quite specific here, and that is a scramble for resources. By resources I mean multiple things, including power, influence, the ability to decide, access to money and wealth. Here it is the use and misuse of political power, not for the ends of political persuasion and political vision, but using politics, the State and society for non-political purposes that appear political, but which serve as sites for naked accumulation.
Let’s take the ideas I have expressed here and test whether it is in fact just political tolerance, or in a sociological sense, toleration that is a problem or whether it is something else?
Every political contest within political parties over the last three years has been characterised not by political contestation or even conflict over political ideas, political values, policy trajectories or ideology which we expect, but rather by incivility and violence – over what? One can’t quite work it out. That is the tragedy. Is this what we want our politics to degenerate to?
Let’s face it – some political intolerance in SA has been driven not by the principled, if ignoble, idea of opposition to ideas and views, and intolerance of some political “views,” but rather by an “intolerance” of and to people, rules, laws, institutions and organisations who get in the way my simply doing “what I want to do and whatever I feel like doing, how I want to do it, and where and when I want to do it.” That is not “political intolerance” per se, which unsatisfactory as it is, perhaps appears nobler than what I would argue is not “intolerance,” but common robbery, thievery and thuggery. We should not elevate this to “political intolerance”, we should call it what it is. Sure there is some political intolerance, but for the most part it is political thuggery.
Let’s examine what has been going on in political parties over the last four years:
1. High levels of inter-party conflict (1990-2000)
2. Moderate levels of inter-party (between) conflict, but increasing levels of intra-party (within) conflict (2000-2006)
3. Intensified levels of intra-party conflict (2006 –present) – court cases, bare bums, threats of violence, actual violence, death, murder and assassinations, contested delegate credentials, no respect or conformity or abiding by rules, regulations and constitutions, impunity and “do what-ever you want however you want” culture, personality cults, character assassination, and vilification.
And while all of this is going on, let’s just look at what ordinary people think. Data from 2005 suggests a trend of declining levels of trust in political leaders and institutions, the reasonable expectation is that by 2009 lack of confidence in leadership would have declined further. Using 2005 worldwide data, a combined 80% of people would rather give more power to religious leaders, academics, intellectuals and journalists than business leaders and politicians (Gallup, 2005). Religious leaders are the most trusted group and politicians the least trusted, with just13% of people around the world expressing trust and confidence in politicians (Gallup, 2005). Religious leaders are the most trusted group in Africa, trusted by 74% against 33% globally (Gallup, 2005), Gallup International Polls, 2005. Who runs your world? Press Release, 14 September 2005.
Every single party conference and congress has been marred by conflict, violence, incivility, Bad behaviour, petulance, court cases, and in some cases death has become an accepted feature in the conduct of politics. This has been true at the societal level too. Strikes/industrial action and protests have become characterised by burning tyres, the destruction of public property, death, police brutality, political interference, and government high handedness.
Has this come about because of political intolerance? I would argue NOT. Take a look around, Parliament has about seven different parties represented in it. Fundamental political, human and social and economic rights are protected by an advanced Constitution. Political freedom is a given, even if economic freedom has been hard to come by. An active civil society which has deep roots, but which has an increasingly shallow representation and narrowing interests, is still vigorous. We have a diversity of political opinion and a myriad of different religions and faiths which are catered for in an overwhelmingly “Christian” country. We tolerate a set of rights in the public sphere that most people would not countenance in the private domain – gay rights, choice regarding termination of pregnancy, an abolition of corporal and, more importantly, capital punishment. These are the markers of a progressive, incredibly cosmopolitan and remarkably tolerant society. We are in fact and indeed this very thing, but then why does it appear that our “politics” is becoming more recidivist and fractious, with high levels of violence and incivility? Surely it can’t be because we are “intolerant,” since I have just tried to demonstrate the contrary? Then surely, the violence and incivility must arise from elsewhere? Maybe I have deluded myself, perhaps we are not a progressive, cosmopolitan, tolerant society, or are struggling with ourselves to become that. Maybe we are in fact a conservative, patriarchal, recidivist and chauvinist society? In truth, the incivility is not a grand societal phenomena, though that feature may be gaining momentum. This violence, pettiness, petulance, backstabbing, dishonesty and conflict is a feature only among political elites. For the most part, most of us ordinary folk genuinely and tolerantly go about our business without the let and hindrance that appears to have become a feature of political life in political parties.
These are questions I ask you to ponder while I return to a few fundamentals regarding politics, democracy and participation.
Vibrant democracies require citizens that have rights and the agency to exercise these rights. It is equally trite to suggest that substantive democracies require public institutions with designated powers and functions, bound by a set of rules defining their roles and responsibilities, and modes through which public institutions can exercise their mandates. It is a precondition that the powers and functions of institutions are not only prescribed to ensure effectiveness and efficiency, but also proscribed in order to limit the abuse of power and define their inter-relationships with other public institutions and citizens. A democratic culture, however, is a product of the complex interplay between the (democratic) cultural norms and (openness) values of the society, with the institutional and systemic processes and procedural rules that govern it. Citizens without rights are merely subjects. The exercise of rights without limitation is a recipe for anarchy. And institutions unbounded by rules are a route to the abuse of power. The construction of democracy, therefore, requires checks and balances between the able agency of citizens to exercise and advance their rights, and institutions which must help them to do so.
What then, is participatory democracy? We’re invoking two rather large words, both loaded. We’ve been through the word “democracy;” let’s then tackle the word “participation.” I think that participation, like a lot of other things in our democracy, has been honestly misunderstood and mis-applied.
I think it ought to mean the ability to take part in something that one wishes to take part in. If that is the starting point, then our early discussion about tolerance and toleration is a necessary precondition for any kind of participation. The means (material, social, process requirements) are all important, but not as important to participation as toleration and tolerance are. In other words, you may have the means to participate, but if there is no tolerance, then the means have no end. The participation becomes pointless.
But let’s examine what participatory democracy means, in a more specific sense.
By definition, it is neither direct nor representative democracy. It is something else. It does not mean, therefore, every citizen must be involved, to the extent that everyone is asked to vote, in every decision. But nor does it mean that the opportunity to be involved in governmental decision-making is obviated by virtue of the fact that authority has been passed to a collective of free and fairly elected representatives. Participatory democracy, it is suggested, is a form of democracy in which citizens are actively involved in the decision-making processes of government at different levels on issues that interest or affect them, and on the basis that mechanisms and platforms will be in place to facilitate this.
In truth, however, we do not have an adequately theorised notion of participatory democracy. What we have are models of institutionalising platforms, modes and systems of participation. Propositions in this regard are preliminary and tenuous. Regarding both representative democracy and direct democracy–both focus ultimately on deliberative as well as decisive functions. Our notions of—and theorisation of participatory democracy—focus on deliberation solely in the absence of any decisive function that it may be imbued with.
The question I leave you with then, is what is the relationship between politics, democracy and development?
I have been asked to dwell on the subject of Political Tolerance in a Participatory Democracy. I invite you to think through this with me. Contrary to popular opinion – thinking about this stuff should not be left to professional thinkers – philosophers, or “think tanks”- who in fact, often “do not think.” They appear to just do, why they do what they do, is a question they seldom ask.
Thinking appears complicated, but it isn’t really – especially for purposes of politics and particularly with regard to a “democratic politics.” Thinking in the political domain, can often be reduced to common sense, which some have argued is the least common of all senses.
Regardless, it is true that our “common senses” are all shaped differently and we would therefore apply it in different ways. Because of our wide social diversities and cleavages—shaped in part by our divided social and political histories , characterised by differences and inequalities in colour and class, ethnicity, religion and nationality—by the co-existence and the coincidence of deep levels of social, economic and political inequality.
Thus, what might appear as common may not in fact be common at all–and so we need some commonly constructed notions of what is common sense. We are fortunate in this sense when it comes to the question of politics, equality, rights, freedom, voice and choice. These notions and what they might mean, or ought to mean for all of us, finds expression in the South African Constitution. These notions will be revisited later.
The second thing to note at the outset is that the notions of “political tolerance” and “participatory democracy” appear to be unrelated issues. They are, in my view, related quite intimately and I hope to show how this is the case. I want to go beyond what may (or as it appears, what may not) be generally understood as the quite obvious, close causal relationship between one (tolerance) and the other (participation and democracy). So there it is, I have said it: I am of the view that it is not possible for people to participate in a society and its affairs in the absence of a degree of tolerance. In other words, tolerance is a precondition – a necessity – in order to make participation possible. Since without a degree of tolerance, participation is not possible, that is the participation of people who do not share your view, have different opinions, different views and orientations, have perspectives about the ordering of society, its affairs and government, or who are unlike you (in identity, in orientation, lifestyle, culture), that participation cannot happen if those who have power, influence and are dominant, and who have access to the means to perpetrate violence cannot accept, contend with or argue against views different to those of their own.
So this is quite obvious and upfront. In a free and open society, this precondition is a must. It is a free, open and socially just society that our constitution envisions and our Constitution, therefore, must be the guide to both our political system and our political culture and must guide the political behaviors that shape them.
Now let us turn to the idea of political tolerance, or tolerance more generally. What is this thing called tolerance? It means accepting and respecting the basic rights and civil liberties of persons and groups whose viewpoints differ from one's own. All citizens, including political leaders, have a responsibility to practice political tolerance in their words and actions. As a clear rejection of "might makes right," political tolerance is a key principle of democracy.
As an ideal, the rights based aspects of democracy upholds that members of the society should treat each other, and themselves be treated by others, as equals. In a DEMOCRATIC politics, is inherent the right to differ as well as the acceptance of such difference. It further accepts, as the SA Constitution does, on a basis of a societal consensus, a limitation to certain rights. This limitation, and any limitation of rights for that matter, is one that must be very carefully considered and applied ONLY as a limitation to the extent that the exercise of any right causes harm to another person’s rights, or harms other rights in general. So, political intolerance is engendered by a willingness to restrict the rights of a disliked person or group based merely and solely on their differing views, not on the harm that they might be perceived to cause. Intolerance creates an inhibited society, which narrows citizen’s perceptions of politics and shapes their subsequent behaviour.
A culture of tolerance involves debate and dynamic exchanges of opinions and arguments, whereby people can learn from others, get closer to the truth, and benefit from a vital public life. Developing a culture of tolerance is a long term undertaking that removes the roots of intolerance and is necessary for the democratic process.
Some of the key ingredients in a culture of tolerance are:
• Education
• Freedom of expression
• Critical Thought
• A Free Media
A conscious effort that has to be made to accept and appreciate “otherness” and this acceptance is the road that has to be trodden in order to arrive at a democratic culture. Democracy, which lends itself to the expression of diversity, is also a way of social functioning in which every citizen must follow absolutely the rule of listening and understanding."
Political tolerance, as it has evolved from constitutional theory and practice, since the 18th century, is a core value that not only keeps the social structure together but also enables it to function smoothly. It underlies the checks-and-balance system that makes it possible for individuals in society to act freely as responsible citizens, in full awareness of their rights and obligations. Political tolerance, in a word, is the catalyst that makes it possible for enlightened self-interest to subsume harmoniously within the larger collective interest of which it is as much a cause as a consequence.
The philosopher Karl Popper, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, says that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance; illustrating that there are limits to tolerance. This is where the notion that one person’s rights ends where another’s begins. What is non-negotiable is the notion of a “right.” What is at issue here is the extent/ limitation of the right, not the notion of the “right” itself.
But consider then also, the philosopher John Rawls, who devotes a section of his influential and controversial book A Theory of Justice to this very problem; and asks whether a just society should or should not tolerate something that it considers “intolerant.” He also addresses the related issue of whether or not the intolerant have any right to complain when they are not tolerated within their society. Rawls conclusion is that a just society must be tolerant; therefore, the intolerant must be tolerated. Otherwise, the character of that society would be “intolerant,” and therefore unjust. However, Rawls qualifies this conclusion by insisting, like Popper, that society and its social institutions have a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance. In his words:
“While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger.” Rawls, John, (1971), A Theory of Justice, p. 220
Now, in political thought, it is necessary to distinguish the idea of “toleration” from the idea of “tolerance.” This distinction may seem pedantic, but it is important for our purposes. This refers to the idea that you have a forbearance/tolerance for things, ideas, people that you don’t approve of. In this logic is the fact that you can only have “toleration” where there are things that are not approved. If things were perfect, obviously “toleration” would be neither necessary nor possible.
But intolerance, or what we perceive to be “intolerance” is also borne out of other things. By other things I am referring to something quite specific here, and that is a scramble for resources. By resources I mean multiple things, including power, influence, the ability to decide, access to money and wealth. Here it is the use and misuse of political power, not for the ends of political persuasion and political vision, but using politics, the State and society for non-political purposes that appear political, but which serve as sites for naked accumulation.
Let’s take the ideas I have expressed here and test whether it is in fact just political tolerance, or in a sociological sense, toleration that is a problem or whether it is something else?
Every political contest within political parties over the last three years has been characterised not by political contestation or even conflict over political ideas, political values, policy trajectories or ideology which we expect, but rather by incivility and violence – over what? One can’t quite work it out. That is the tragedy. Is this what we want our politics to degenerate to?
Let’s face it – some political intolerance in SA has been driven not by the principled, if ignoble, idea of opposition to ideas and views, and intolerance of some political “views,” but rather by an “intolerance” of and to people, rules, laws, institutions and organisations who get in the way my simply doing “what I want to do and whatever I feel like doing, how I want to do it, and where and when I want to do it.” That is not “political intolerance” per se, which unsatisfactory as it is, perhaps appears nobler than what I would argue is not “intolerance,” but common robbery, thievery and thuggery. We should not elevate this to “political intolerance”, we should call it what it is. Sure there is some political intolerance, but for the most part it is political thuggery.
Let’s examine what has been going on in political parties over the last four years:
1. High levels of inter-party conflict (1990-2000)
2. Moderate levels of inter-party (between) conflict, but increasing levels of intra-party (within) conflict (2000-2006)
3. Intensified levels of intra-party conflict (2006 –present) – court cases, bare bums, threats of violence, actual violence, death, murder and assassinations, contested delegate credentials, no respect or conformity or abiding by rules, regulations and constitutions, impunity and “do what-ever you want however you want” culture, personality cults, character assassination, and vilification.
And while all of this is going on, let’s just look at what ordinary people think. Data from 2005 suggests a trend of declining levels of trust in political leaders and institutions, the reasonable expectation is that by 2009 lack of confidence in leadership would have declined further. Using 2005 worldwide data, a combined 80% of people would rather give more power to religious leaders, academics, intellectuals and journalists than business leaders and politicians (Gallup, 2005). Religious leaders are the most trusted group and politicians the least trusted, with just13% of people around the world expressing trust and confidence in politicians (Gallup, 2005). Religious leaders are the most trusted group in Africa, trusted by 74% against 33% globally (Gallup, 2005), Gallup International Polls, 2005. Who runs your world? Press Release, 14 September 2005.
Every single party conference and congress has been marred by conflict, violence, incivility, Bad behaviour, petulance, court cases, and in some cases death has become an accepted feature in the conduct of politics. This has been true at the societal level too. Strikes/industrial action and protests have become characterised by burning tyres, the destruction of public property, death, police brutality, political interference, and government high handedness.
Has this come about because of political intolerance? I would argue NOT. Take a look around, Parliament has about seven different parties represented in it. Fundamental political, human and social and economic rights are protected by an advanced Constitution. Political freedom is a given, even if economic freedom has been hard to come by. An active civil society which has deep roots, but which has an increasingly shallow representation and narrowing interests, is still vigorous. We have a diversity of political opinion and a myriad of different religions and faiths which are catered for in an overwhelmingly “Christian” country. We tolerate a set of rights in the public sphere that most people would not countenance in the private domain – gay rights, choice regarding termination of pregnancy, an abolition of corporal and, more importantly, capital punishment. These are the markers of a progressive, incredibly cosmopolitan and remarkably tolerant society. We are in fact and indeed this very thing, but then why does it appear that our “politics” is becoming more recidivist and fractious, with high levels of violence and incivility? Surely it can’t be because we are “intolerant,” since I have just tried to demonstrate the contrary? Then surely, the violence and incivility must arise from elsewhere? Maybe I have deluded myself, perhaps we are not a progressive, cosmopolitan, tolerant society, or are struggling with ourselves to become that. Maybe we are in fact a conservative, patriarchal, recidivist and chauvinist society? In truth, the incivility is not a grand societal phenomena, though that feature may be gaining momentum. This violence, pettiness, petulance, backstabbing, dishonesty and conflict is a feature only among political elites. For the most part, most of us ordinary folk genuinely and tolerantly go about our business without the let and hindrance that appears to have become a feature of political life in political parties.
These are questions I ask you to ponder while I return to a few fundamentals regarding politics, democracy and participation.
Vibrant democracies require citizens that have rights and the agency to exercise these rights. It is equally trite to suggest that substantive democracies require public institutions with designated powers and functions, bound by a set of rules defining their roles and responsibilities, and modes through which public institutions can exercise their mandates. It is a precondition that the powers and functions of institutions are not only prescribed to ensure effectiveness and efficiency, but also proscribed in order to limit the abuse of power and define their inter-relationships with other public institutions and citizens. A democratic culture, however, is a product of the complex interplay between the (democratic) cultural norms and (openness) values of the society, with the institutional and systemic processes and procedural rules that govern it. Citizens without rights are merely subjects. The exercise of rights without limitation is a recipe for anarchy. And institutions unbounded by rules are a route to the abuse of power. The construction of democracy, therefore, requires checks and balances between the able agency of citizens to exercise and advance their rights, and institutions which must help them to do so.
What then, is participatory democracy? We’re invoking two rather large words, both loaded. We’ve been through the word “democracy;” let’s then tackle the word “participation.” I think that participation, like a lot of other things in our democracy, has been honestly misunderstood and mis-applied.
I think it ought to mean the ability to take part in something that one wishes to take part in. If that is the starting point, then our early discussion about tolerance and toleration is a necessary precondition for any kind of participation. The means (material, social, process requirements) are all important, but not as important to participation as toleration and tolerance are. In other words, you may have the means to participate, but if there is no tolerance, then the means have no end. The participation becomes pointless.
But let’s examine what participatory democracy means, in a more specific sense.
By definition, it is neither direct nor representative democracy. It is something else. It does not mean, therefore, every citizen must be involved, to the extent that everyone is asked to vote, in every decision. But nor does it mean that the opportunity to be involved in governmental decision-making is obviated by virtue of the fact that authority has been passed to a collective of free and fairly elected representatives. Participatory democracy, it is suggested, is a form of democracy in which citizens are actively involved in the decision-making processes of government at different levels on issues that interest or affect them, and on the basis that mechanisms and platforms will be in place to facilitate this.
In truth, however, we do not have an adequately theorised notion of participatory democracy. What we have are models of institutionalising platforms, modes and systems of participation. Propositions in this regard are preliminary and tenuous. Regarding both representative democracy and direct democracy–both focus ultimately on deliberative as well as decisive functions. Our notions of—and theorisation of participatory democracy—focus on deliberation solely in the absence of any decisive function that it may be imbued with.
The question I leave you with then, is what is the relationship between politics, democracy and development?