Many answers regarding the benefits of participation are provided by Carol Pateman in her book ' Participation and Democratic Theory'. I think the negatives of participation come from the lack of participation from the positive side. In other words, the negative consequences of participation are owing to the non-participation of those who would be truly democratic.

The point is, as Pateman so emphatically mentioned in her book, participation is highly educative. This educative element of participation, the power of the education of individuals and social groups in participation forms a bedrock of a stable democracy in any society. All said, we need to fear more, fear the consequences of non-participation more, than the participation. By withdrawing from participation an individual or group makes the larger society their opinion/choice unavailable. This is one form of self exclusion. However, an inclusive democracy, where all the weaker groups in society actively participate, can always normatively tilt the policy outcomes of democracy in their favour. Hence, ordinary people, weaker groups in a society, have more stakes in voting and other forms of participation than the better fed and better off.

Political participation is necessary to achieve social justice. Amartya Sen uses the concept of ‘deliberative democracy’ to unpack inequalities in society.

The negatives of not having political participation is becoming invisible, unheard and therefore marginalised and relegated to margins of society.

Hate speech etc is not produced by a surplus of political participation is it? Other factors account for it?

I do not see why shift from original hypothesis

I think I may have read your paper in Resistance Studies. Is that right?

It is believed that participation in civic life, in the liberal tradition, is a good development and that citizen participation makes the democratic society stronger and better prepared. The problem now is the rate of exclusion and political apathy among voters and citizenry whose livelihoods are the most directly impacted by the state. Currently political participation among people in liberal democracies are low (Japan, U.S. Turkey, Ireland) and are continuing to fall among OECD countries. What is it good for? It guards against misrule. The lack of participation would create an epistocracy or plutocracy among the most affluent or knowledgeable citizens. The lack of participation among citizens (and knowledge among them) also can undermine accountability and transparency within democratic or semi-democratic institutions, create entrenched systems of political power within institutions loyal to the plutocrats, encourage corruption or institutional decay, and widen social exclusion. Over/hyper-participation have their downsides too, as Ronaldo wrote, but they are minor compared to under-participation.

Thanks to this first round of contributions and answers. I fully agree with all of you about the positive effects of political participation. No doubt about that - yes, Mark, the paper I referred to was the one in Resistance Studies. But still: I think we can undoubtedly say that hate speech is a form of participation as well, isn't it? At least it corresponds to the definition of participation that I suggested in the article mentioned before. Some years ago we were troubled about the shrinking political participation in elections and about the disinterest in politics among more and more voters. Today, we can see the opposite. Everything is politicized and many people expresses their political positions in the social media and beyond. I would indeed want to call this hyper-participation and would be very interested in literature or studies about that phenomenon. So maybe you could help me with literature, links etc.

Can we better define participation? If voting is part of it, then it's important to note that across the OECD and beyond, voter turnout is at a 25-year low. If it includes membership in a political party, that is also down. But social media usage is definitely up. I'll review what I have that may be of some use to you.

In Spain there is still a lack of participation in the public sphere, we still talk about dissafection about politics. Maybe it would be useful to distinguish different forms of participation. Hate speech is an expression of an opinion but not in itself a way of participate in politics. Political participation has to involve reflexion, balance among opinions and respect in expresing political views. You can disagree with proposals but the legal channels and procedure rules need to be observed.

If we focus on the area of violent radicalisation for example, the expression of ideas, debate, discussion in each and every fora, even the expression of hate ideas, can be highly recommendable in order for a society to elaborate other discourses, narratives and be ready for preventing a radicalisation of ideas that turn in a radicalisation of behaviour.

For a definition of participation I would like to introduce my article from 2012 of the Resistance Studies and would in general see any public expression as either direct or indirect political participation - no matter if it respects normative agreements or not, no matter if it is rational or not. Habermas is one of my normative bases, but I disagree with his idea of a rational public sphere to a certain extent, but this would lead us to far for the moment.

http://resistance-journal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Markus-Pausch.pdf

Mark: Voting is undoubtedly part of it. I am however skeptical concerning the trend of non-voting in OECD countries. We can see many examples of a turnaround in that trend, many ups and downs and different explanations for it. In Austria we had a trend-turn in the last elections as well as in other states.

I found a lot of facts in Indonesia, when political participation, especially voting is widespread and deep, voters whose candidates lose tend not to accept the defeat. Even the losing and winning parties hate each other. It still seems to be needed political maturity after the New Order regime for over 30 years.

Markus:

Thank you for the very good question and to everybody for the sophisticated debate.

Maybe a brief contribution. In an article for the German Yearbook for Democracy Education, I discuss the potentials and pitfalls of active citizens' participation in shaping educational policies at the local level.

In the article, I focus on two prominent examples. One is the referendum of the school reform in Hamburg which took place in 2010. As a result, the government's reform proposal was turned down by a majority of voters. According to the Senate and in line with the overwhelming majority of educational experts, the reform would have increased the chances for disadvantaged children (which would improve, i.e., Hamburg's result in comparative studies of school achievements). In this case, a coalition of the wealthier citizens and the yellow press managed to discredit this reform, partly by publishing the wild 68 past of some of its protagonists. Those who would have benefitted most from the reform either were not equally motivated to vote, or they did not have the right to vote as foreign citizens. So for me this is an example that raises many questions - it shows that a democratic process can have results that run counter democratic principles of equality and inclusion.

Another example from a major German city - Mannheim - shows how the local authorities made all possible efforts to discuss their strategies with local by a multi-layered process of local meetings, partly with translators, cumulating in a town-hall style meeting where the city's mayor discussed the proposals with the citizens. This example looks much more inclusive than the case of Hamburg, yet it brings with it another set of questions: Who will translate the diverse suggestions made at decentralised meetings into coherent policies? How will the city sustain its efforts to communicate with the citizens, and how could it raise the necessary funds for extra staff for community outreach?

Here is the RG link - full text in German on request.

Chapter Kommunale Bildungslandschaften als Katalysatoren für die Dem...

Not all of the centrists (liberals) think democracy is a good idea. See attached.

A thought provoking debate.

Thanks for the enlightenment.

Good question!

In a context where it is necessary for public policies to be effective, bringing society closer to the construction of public policies is an excellent tool to enhance the accuracy of laws focused on the benefit of the population.

I've written an article that can help understand this issue.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328225519_Analise_da_Plataforma_de_Participacao_Social_Participacao_do_Cidadao_e_Organizacoes_na_Elaboracao_de_Politicas_Publicas

Political participation is a diverse subject, from organizing a political party to electoral process. Political participation has many consequences in different countries with different moral and objectives. In USA and European countries political participation is seen positively mostly because of inclusive institutions, but in developing countries political participation has few negative consequences as well. But in most parts of world political participation and political movements brought fruitful results specially Arab spring is a big example.