The participation of public bodies such as workers unions and chambers is useful because knowledgeable public parciptiation helps the government to let errors not occur and see and listen what failures are still in the legal text - some written ideas are then considered successful and others not but we in Germany have very good experiences in this way and participation in the legal/law creation process of the government/parliament. The first draft version goes to all required stakeholdend all answers are considered before this draft will be implemented as government proposal...

The participation of public bodies such as workers unions and chambers is useful because knowledgeable public parciptiation helps the government to let errors not occur and see and listen what failures are still in the legal text - some written ideas are then considered successful and others not but we in Germany have very good experiences in this way and participation in the legal/law creation process of the government/parliament. The first draft version goes to all required stakeholdend all answers are considered before this draft will be implemented as government proposal...

Over and above what Carsten has said, I have assisted in developing policies for my Government and what I have realised is that stakeholder participation means public approval translating into seamless implementation of the public policy. In legislation, it usually happens that sometimes if users are not consulted, the legislation is usually non implementable because they are the ones who know how the sector/ industry works. We have had instance where we had to review the policy /stroke law within months of adoption/promulgation because it was impractical although it looked good on paper.

Participatory bodies in many Brazilian cities, provincial governments and federal agencies in the last few decades have been efficient to increase public intervention in local governance -- besides being highly recomended by such external financing agencies such as the World Bank. The best examples of these positive results were those of "Participatory Budgeting" adopted by different parties and local governments all over the country, and thoroughly appraised by several studies. Most criticisms were received from those who claim eventual public participation duplicates the role of the elected regular representatives to the legislative and executive bodies. It is certain that participatory policies may increase the costs and controversies surrounding the destination of public investments, but that seems to be necessary to spread the trust and resilience

("habitus") in democratic life.

I think without MPs role in decision making, the decision will suffer severely from absence of democratic aspect. And this means the exclusion of public entities from any representing of public will.

The whole subject revolves around the legalization of decision making process.

Ideally policy-making seeks to promote government by discussion. The participation of civil society and representative public bodies provides opportunities for discussion that scrutinises values and accepts pluralities. Amartya Sen’s , “The idea of Justice” provides an in-depth analysis of the same, that helps in making societies less unjust. India, has experimented with social audit in MGNREGA and Pre-legislative processes where draft laws are hosted on the website to solicit inputs from diverse stakeholders before it becomes a law, I have been part of the POCSO Act deliberation ( link for the same - http://mpp.nls.ac.in/blog/a-conspiracy-of-silence/ )

and Social Security Code by Ministry of Labor, Government of India. I thoroughly enjoyed and got first hand information on the various groups I met. However, one must be cautious policy-making does not get captured by the elites.

In Brazil, diverse chambers which represented different beneficiaries (e.g. people with disabilities, farmers, LGBT) were constituted as a consultative instance to provide important feedback during the policy-making process. It is a democratic approach, even though many criticisms were raised by general society due to an alleged politicisation. In my perspective, this is the ultimate way to democratise the process.

The participation of public bodies such as workers unions and chambers is useful because knowledgeable public parciptiation helps the government to let errors not occur and see and listen what failures are still in the legal text - some written ideas are then considered successful and others not but we in Germany have very good experiences in this way and participation in the legal/law creation process of the government/parliament. The first draft version goes to all required stakeholdend all answers are considered before this draft will be implemented as government proposal...

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, The role of chambers of commerce that represent specific professional and employee groups and certain types of enterprises can be very large in terms of influence on policy making, including writing laws, ordinances and other legal norms, normative studies, etc. Chambers of commerce representing specific types of companies and their companies representatives, entrepreneurs develop bills and ordinances that facilitate running a business and thus affect economic policy regarding a particular type of company, enterprise and / or specific group of entrepreneurs. Chambers of commerce play a particularly important role in improving the issue of communication between entrepreneurs and citizens of the country and the politicians responsible for conducting specific economic policies, including entrepreneurship, innovation, fiscal, financial, competitiveness, etc. The issue of the role and importance of chambers of commerce in the context of policy making, in including the writing of laws, regulations and other legal norms, normative studies, etc. I described in my publications on the example of one of the largest chambers of entrepreneurs in my country, i.e. the example of the Congregation of Industry and Commerce of the Polish Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce described in my publications, i.e. the Congregation of Industry and Commerce of the Polish Chamber of Commerce, plays an important role in improving the legislation on business operations and in improving communication between entrepreneurs and politicians responsible for conducting specific economic policies related to enterprises in the SME sector, including entrepreneurship policy , innovation, fiscal, financial, competitiveness etc.

I conduct research in this area. The conclusions of the research I published in scientific publications that are available on the Research Gate portal. I described these issues on the example of the chamber of commerce - the Congregation of Industry and Commerce of the Polish Chamber of Commerce. I invite you to cooperation.

Best wishes

Dariusz Prokopowicz

An opinion of a physician, but an EU-member state citizen nevertheless...

For the sake of a more balanced discussion, let us provide an alternative view.

Democracy is based on citizen participation, but also on the official selection of elected representatives (versed in an array of socio-economic issues) one per a number of citizens.

The reason for democratic elections is to reduce the number of actors involved in public discussions and decision-making, thus:

- speeding up the devising of new policy- and legal provisions,

- minimizing prolonged stalemates between conflicting interests, eventually leading to non-optimal compromises, necessitating further policy changes.

It is then elected representatives' duty to engage with unelected representative and public bodies on current or outstanding issues, later on, translating these grievances into an attempt to change policy.

There is enough pressure as it is (lobbying) from businesses and representative bodies on elected officials to sway policy-making in their favor.

There is a difference between raising awareness to correct social injustice from below, and providing convincing arguments (incl. a financial push) to key policy-makers to change policy in one's favor.

Besides, who is representing the interests of the other side in the discussion, the side of the citizens whose lives will be negatively impacted as a result of a successful participation of other unelected representatives/ bodies in policy-making?

In order to give, one must take from another. There are no unlimited common resources.

For policy to be changed, the elected officials must first realize that there is a serious problem affecting a large multitude of citizens, which needs to be addressed through civic participation.

This, in my opinion, is the rightful place for constituents to provide relevant awareness and subsequent input. Input only. No sitting at the negotiation policy-making table.

Otherwise, matters disintegrate into a frustrating talk show, whereby no decision is ever reached or comes to pass. Everyone agrees to disagree.

Another problem is that most of the raised issues relate to small groups in society, which immediately triggers the ethical issue of social balance and justice (no one gets more than their fair share of common resources and legal protection + everyone is expected to sacrifice a percent of their desired goals for the common good of the many).

The problem that I see here is of civic judgement nature - meaning, electing the correct representatives as policy-makers.

With all due respect, but many politicians nowadays are lawyers by trade.

By virtue of the precepts of the modern secular socio-political system, on which (at least) European governments are based (aka Montesquieu's separation of powers into legislative, executive, judicial) - this fact in itself is undemocratic.

There are no effective checks and balances.The powers of the legislative (policy-makers/ givers) and the judicial (policy-interpreters) are somewhat merged, which (in many countries) should be unconstitutional.

Yet, it does go on.

There simply must be a more careful selection by voters of policy-makers, based on proof of their ethical system and professional specialty relevant to the tripartite division of powers.

If this happens, there would be, I believe, more desire for interaction with (i.e. going back to) the constituents, and no need for separate unelected representatives/ bodies to participate in policy-making at a higher level.

:)

Dear Valeria Tananska, thank you for your detailed answer.

I know that my answer is a bit on the long side, but analysis of legal matters and policy-making usually is.

I hope I did not bore everyone to death with state politics.

:)