You may have a point. It sounds a bit like devolution of power (to an extent) and like you said a throwback to participatory democracy. I think to add robustness to your argument, you would have to go and look at commonly cited examples of democratic innovation (e.g. Brazil, British Columbia) and see of those cases fit squarely into the old theoretical paradigms you are referring to.

Markus,

Considering the advances in communication technology, it seems that democratic innovation in the 21st century will be markedly different than the old theoretical concepts of participatory democracy. My reasoning revolves around examples from the Arab Spring and the Hong Kong student democracy protests. What can be seen from these events is that social media has played a crucial role in uniting citizens, while not necessarily requiring physical meetings of the actors. Ultimately, the ability of peoples to organize without congregating physically is a direct evolution of the democratic process and must be understood at an institutional level. The question that comes to mind is how institutions and governments can integrate these new technologies into public discourse in an effort to let the voices of the people be heard, regardless of socio-economic status, party affiliation, or party(ies) in power.  I would recommend a book by Michael Saward which goes through some of the currently discussed problems in democracy. There exists within the book a plethora of examples and writings from various theorists on this matter which may help you direct your inquiry.

I look forward to seeing where this inquiry takes you and please feel free to contact me about any further questions or thoughts you may have about this subject.

All the best on your endeavor,

Regards

Jacob R Chambers 

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_PaCAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=democratic+innovation&ots=XmN4gRV1dX&sig=bmnKqmKTYrQRgJgHgPwlTTEfoxg#v=onepage&q=democratic%20innovation&f=false

when democracy by one group means "non-democratic" by another group, in our current era, the meaning of innovation could totally change from a lawful freedom to an unwanted force by an outsiders, especially if there is a cultural gap exists within. 

The "democratic innovation" label largely follows the work of Graham Smith, and his book of the same name is the ideal place to start. He defines the term; as does (to some extent), the ECPR Democratic Innovations Group. As such, it's certainly more than "old" participatory democracy (although what do you mean by that phrase?). Smith is largely taking his lead from deliberative democracy, which has participatory and liberal and republican and other versions.  

Thank you all for your substantial comments. I also believe that democratic innovation is more than just the rethinking of participatory democracy. John, what I mean by "that phrase" is the theoretical strand that came up in the 1970s, especially promoted by Carole Pateman or Benjamin Barber (strong Democracy). Generally speaking, it was about the expansion of democracy into our daily lives, the workplace etc, but also the introduction of deliberative methods and direct democratic instruments. Some argue that Habermas' deliberative democracy falls into this category as well. Democratic innovation as discussed today has some similarities - Graham Smith defines democratic innovations as "formal methods for involving citizens in the political decision-making process".

The reason why I asked my question is that I am part of the ECPR Group on Democratic Innovation and in my Institution we are in a very lively debate on the use of the term "Innovation" that seems to spread out over the scientific world, especially "Social Innovation". As far as I know, there is - by now - no common definition of a social Innovation. That's why I wondered what you know about definitory approaches to "democratic Innovation". I think one should also include Schumpeter's definition of innovation in the context of social or democratic Innovation.

Dear Jacob! Thank you very much - the book you mentioned seems to be very interesting. I think that the inter-relationship of technological innovation and social or democratic innovation is extremely interesting. The example you mentioned (Arab Spring) shows how technology can change our ways of communication and political action. What I am mainly interested in is how, why and under which circumstances citizens use new media for political protest - and to what extent it replaces physical presence.

Markus- In your search for understanding the "how, why, and under which circumstances..." have you considered the difference in the mobilization seen within un-developed, developing, and developed nations? It seems interesting given the current political climate in the US(and other developed nations; EUCs) that more mobilization has not been seen, even though the US(EUCs) is one of the most media connected societies in the world. So a question I would ask is; What are the social mechanisms which make social media a powerful democratic tool for public discourse? Viewing this prima facie, I would venture that levels of affluence, cultural identity, and the framing of the message all have very powerful relations to the efficacy of new media in fomenting political protest. Let me know your thoughts about this supposition. 

Regards- Jacob

I'm tempted to answer your question with another question: why would i want to define democratic innovation? Since i'm not part of the debate you mention, i don't have your reasons for seeking an answer.

In my point of view democratic innovation is the attempt to increase the Input Legitimation by either new selection methods and/or political participation i.e. via the Internet or by new themes i.e. citizen paticipation in budgeting. It is of course a kind of paticipatory democracy but the idea is how to motivate citizens to be active. The danger of existing democracies is that citizens understand democracy as a system where they vote from time to time and  then let it go. The result can be and is in some cases a "benevolent dictatorship" (Abromeit 2001 Wie demokratisch ist die EU - wie ist sie demokratisierbar?)

I suspect that the original question as concerned with the question of how to be sure that a change in existing arrangements would actually make them more democratic. If this is the case, there is no point in seeking for an abstract definition of democratic innovation. What makes something seem to be more democratic will depend on what features of existing arrangements are seen asobstacles or limitations to democracy: removing some of those limitations would then be an improvement

Dear Markus,  The foregoing discussion has been first-rate, and it has led me to see two possible meanings of "democratic innovation"  First, it can refer to establishing democracies in countries, such as countries in the Middle East, where there are no historical precedents for democratic government or many of the background conditions considered necessary for constitutional democracy to flourish.  This sense of democratic innovation provides the theoretical challenge of developing new democratic models which provide structures sensitive to those countries with entrenched and often violent multi-ethnic and multi-religious circumstances.  The theoretical danger is to expect such countries to adopt democratic governments which reflect a Western view of democratic ideals.  

Second, among the established democracies, democratic innovation means exploring models which transcend the longstanding advocacy of participatory democracy.  One model which has received much attention is deliberative democracy.  For deliberative democrats, freedom and political equality are most valuable when they support autonomy, defined as the ability of individuals to shape their interests and goals through rational popular deliberation.  

In this model, people define their own politics through reasoned argument and persuasion.  It is this form of self-government which advocates of deliberative democrats see as respecting (and fostering) personal autonomy.  It is not direct participation as much as ongoing accountability which is essential to deliberative democracy, and which owes much to the conceptions of public reason drawn from both Kant and Habermas.  

Finally, Amy Gutman in the "Disharmony of Democracy" claims that democracy is not paradoxical, but disharmonious.  In politics, as in personal life (See Isiah Berlin), autonomy requires choosing among conflicting and incommensurable values.  This is a challenge for any system of deliberative democracy in practice.

Dear Markus,

It's very rare find a new scene of thought in the politics and a innovation in a democratic scenery, to myself, it's an oasis in a desert of uncertainty. I think that a good innovation says about the end of obligation to vote. In Brazil, for example, the vote is a public obligation for the people besides 18 and 70 years old. If them don't vote, they can't get a loan, exercise a public office, in other way, they lost their political rights.  

Dear all,

I am sorry for a shift in this discussion but I was surprised by the Gustavo´s contribution. Dear Gustavo, I am not familiar with the Brazilian political system, but how are the penalties/punishments, which were mentioned by you, performed in practice? I mean... "a loss" of political rights - it seems to me that it is very rigorous penalty/punishment. However, is it really possible to punish such citizens/eligible voters by making impossible for them to get loans? This is far beyond a domain of political rights...

Daniel

Dear Barry,  you certainly don't have the same reasons as I do for seeking an answer to that question. But there might be other reasonable reasons like the discoursive power of "democratic innovation". I am not sure, but I think that the term "innovation" is a kind of empty signifier in a hegemonic discourse, a term that can hardly be contested because of its emptiness (we only need to look at the wording in research funding). I am interested in discussions on such terms and would like to know what is behind them and by whom they are used.

Dear Markus,

taking into account an origin of main donors which support the research activities in the field of political science, we cannot be surprised that they "press" the applicants (i.e. also scholars) to use buzz-words. Nowadays, you can see the terms like a gender equality, democratic innovation, accountability, participation, sustainability etc. almost in all research calls. However, operationalization of these terms is usually not so important for the donors. And... maybe because of this attitude, one can see high number of "empty" (i.e. poorly defined) terms in current research... (I am defending neither the donors´ nor the applicants/scholars´ behaviour but the "game looks simply": either you swim downstream or you contend with windmills...)

Daniel

PS: Just for clarification of my experience: I am a member of the Steering Committee of the Open Society Foundiation in Slovakia, I have been involved in several evaluations (e.g. EEA/Norway grants), and I have experience as an academic fundraiser and project coordinator too (I have been coordinating several educational as well as research grants).

Regarding the legal obligation to vote, Brazil, Belgium, and other countries do make such participation legally mandatory.  This is not innovative, and it conflicts with the conception of voting as a right, which entitles one "to do or to forbear" (Hobbes).  

I agree with H. Arendt that the right engage in political participation entails the right to refrain from participation, if one chooses.  She alludes to Socrates in the Apology, who explains to the court that involvement in political affairs leads one to commit injustice.  "He who would pursue justice must do so as a private individual, not one involved in public affairs as a political figure".  This is the first reference in Western philosophy to what is now known as the problem of political "dirty hands".

Further, as I understand the terms, engaging in a practice cannot be both a right and a duty simultaneously.  I have written a paper on non-voting from a moral perspective and argue that voting is a conditional forward-looking shared responsibility.  This paper is attached for anybody interested. 

                    I appreciate this opportunity to revisit this excellent question,

                                                                                                                      David

Article The Moral Problem of Nonvoting

I come from Australia, of which it is often incorrectly stated that citizens are required to vote. There is a law which requires that citizens attend a polling station. You turn up, have your name marked off, are given the necessary voting slip(s), go into a polling booth, come out, and put the voting paper(s) into the ballot box.

What the person does in the booth is entirely a private matter. The choices are, as I recall them, are of two types. One is to put nothing on the paper, to deface it or write something on it (Mickey Mouse was a favourite when I served as a teller on election nights). These spoiled or blank votes are called 'informal'. The second option is to assign a preference number to every candidate (there could be up to 30 for the Australian Senate, or only a few of your top picks - either way, your vote would be considered formal, and counted. 

In other words, no one has to vote, and no one knows who has and who hasn't.

It is interesting to note that, in the Australian case, the level of the informal vote has been about 6% for a long time. Hardly an indication of protest. It is about the same level of spoiled ballots occuring in countries where attendance at a polling booth is voluntary.

Markus, I was about to respond to your second question -- and sorry it took so long -- but then noticed that Barry Hindess had said some of what I wanted to say. It seems to me that almost nothing hangs on the word "innovation", which is a rather generic, British way of saying "good" or "shiny", "different from what we did yesterday" without much content. It marks off democracy as usual from alternatives, but what counts as democracy as usual will vary from place to place (which is why Graham includes referendums in his list of innovations, something that would strike many Americans and Swiss as odd, to say the least).  So defining it in the abstract makes little sense as an enterprise - the concept only makes sense in a particular context - and so I suspect such discussions are never going to lead anywhere. 

John, thank you very much for this comment! Your are probably right - too much concern about definition leads to nowhere. On the other hand: I was socialized in a way that I cannot do research without definitions. It might be a cultural characteristic of the German speaking world - we love definitions... but seriously: As political philosophers and also as researchers what else do we have than terms? And why do we use a term like "innovation" if it tells us nothing. I can't help believing that language reflects political and social phenomena and that we - as researchers - should really try to fix things that we are talking, writing and discussing about. If "innovation" is really without content, then we should just trash it and resist using it anymore.

Dear David, I fully agree with your two-fold model. We indeed need to differentiate between democratic movements in dictatorships and democratic innovations in established democracies. Maybe democratic innovation is something that leads us to the ideal of democracy as it is imagined by great theorists - then, any method, instrument or tool that helps bringing real democracy closer to ideal democracy could be considered a democratic innovation. Participatory democracy in this sense would be progress - deliberative democracy as well as long as it manages to include broad public - which is not always the case.

Dear Gustavo, it is very interesting what you write about the obligation to vote. In some Western European democracies, we discuss the re-introduction of compulsory voting. Wolfgang Merkel and others believe that democratic citizenship needs rights and duties - and since voting is the minimum condition of a democracy, every citizen should be obliged to vote - just as he/she is obliged to respect other laws and duties. Thus, in Brazil it might be innovative to set an end to compulsory voting while in Germany or Austria right the opposite is the case: it could be an innovation to re-introduce compulsory voting. That's interesting and shows the importance of context.

Dear Markus,

considering your question from the other side of the Dual Monarchy, the first idea that comes to my mind is the question how to establish workable democratic regimes in countries deeply imbedded in totalitarian political cultures, as in Eastern Europe, where Communism had a deep impact on people's way of thinking about and acting in a democratic regime. Although Europe had earlier examples of transitions from autocratic forms of government to democracies, yet each country should find their own specific ways of handling the issue. It seems to me, that 25 years after the fall of the Iron Curtain, there is a need for innovation to to tackle the political problems of the transition. Importantly, the countries electorate should be able to learn from earlier examples, but surely, there is a need for innovation here, too. But perhaps, old EUrope should also be able to improvise, as otherwise the gap between the west and the east,, the north and the south might get wider and wider. In this respect the whole EUropean Union is in need of innovative ideas!

Dear Markus,

It seems to me that if voting in a representative democracy is truly a means by which citizens can have some degree of influence on the decisions and policies which affect their lives, it should never be necessary (or morally permissible) to make voting compulsory.  

If voting is a real exercise of power, at least at the aggregate level, one would expect that people will want to vote and will see doing so as something of value at both an individual and at a collective level.  But, if voting is, or is considered to be, merely symbolic and, at best, a means of legitimizing the current or dominant distribution of wealth, power and status, then conscientious nonvoting is an expression of dissent. To make voting compulsory would be to penalize a peaceful means of democratic dissent.  This is not to claim that much or most nonvoting is other than the consequence of political apathy.  But, political apathy itself may be a passive and/or inchoate form of dissent.

I suggest that the most important forms of democratic innovation are those which challenge the traditional boundaries set on that which is understood to be politics or which challenge the nature of the political.  In particular, I encourage democratic theory which addresses the tremendous political power of corporate concentrations of wealth. The most significant power in politics is the capacity to influence the political agenda, and specifically the capacity to submerge and deflect potential issues and keep them from even reaching the agenda, i.e., the decision making and public debate stage of the policy process.  Corporate organizations are disproportionately influential in affecting political agendas, and even in countries, other than the US, with healthy democratic socialist parties and an accompanying political culture, innovation of the sort I am suggesting is essential as capitalism and corporate entities become increasingly global.

Dear Markus,

Politics, and democratic politics in particular, does not present people with ideals to be approached or met, but is rather a set of humane principles and procedures employed to mediate the common life of any society, such as solving the problems which history presents. Democratic politics is a "language game", in fact, an architectonic language game.

Wittgenstein asks: "For how is the concept of game bounded?  What still counts as a game and what no longer does?  Can you say where the boundaries are?  No. You can draw some, for there aren't any drawn yet.  (Philosophical Investigations) 

Democratic innovation must take as a given the pragmatic nature of that which is defined as a political issue and also of the pragmatic nature of the boundaries of the language game which is politics.  The essentially contested nature of the boundaries of the political implies that there is no absolute demarcation between the political and the nonpolitical, and that to engage in democratic innovation is not to transcend politics, but to engage in political discussion and debate at the most fundamental level.

Many philosophers, such as Plato, Rousseau, Marx, and others, reject this absence of  political absolutes.  Successful democratic innovation and reform must embrace this absence of absolute boundaries.  ( See Bernard Crick's In Defense of Politics and Joseph Schwartz's The Permanence of the Political. )

Is it the same demoocratic innovation that innovative democracy? We are now living in Catalonia a political situation really dificult. The term democracy is used by the partisan of two opposite views: the defensors of the statu quo of the Spanish official democracy and also by supporters of the Catalan referendum. My point is that maybe a public debate about innovative democracy could help to clarify which option to choose. 

When I think of democratic innovation, the first thought that comes to mind is the potential of online voting to make the democratic process more accessible. My major research project (MRP), essentially the equivalent of a thesis, examines voter turnouts of undergraduate student unions in Canada. The student unions that implement online voting systems often see increases in voter turnout, and it seems that those that use online voting tend to have higher percentage turnouts than those that use paper ballot systems.

On more theoretical level, democratic innovation could be understood to include calls for making democracy more of a deliberative process among citizens. Jürgen Habermas' work for instance may be a good example of this. Attempts to implement these kinds of sentiments can perhaps be observed in countries' advancements in digital government and the creation of online platforms for citizens and government to collectively engage in policymaking processes like with Canada's GCcollab (https://gccollab.ca).