Towards the democratic diagnosis of existing assemblages: Using democratic innovations to identify context-specific problems of democratic systems

Contemporary democracies face several challenges for which democratic innovations can represent appropriate solutions. From the focus on the democratic merits of single innovative devices (e.g. mini-publics; participatory budgets), the literature in democratic theory turned some attention towards "the big picture", that is the complex interconnection of these democratic innovations with the other institutions and practices of existing democratic systems. Seminal contributions in democratic theory have stressed the necessity of tackling the complex articulation of multiple democratic practices and institutions within broader political ensembles (Parkinson & Mansbridge 2012; Warren 2017; Saward 2021). Such developments have brought (back) to the fore essential features of democracy: the contingency and complexity of institutional architectures and their constant transformation; the connectivity between democratic elements; people's agency and the necessity of bottom-up self-governance in the (re-)design of democracies (Geissel 2022). Arguably, a significant part of these theoretical developments originates from a major mutation of the deliberative paradigm: the systemic turn (Mansbridge et al. 2012; Dryzek 2009). Far from being restricted to the deliberative model, the systemic approach also fueled discussions beyond it (Warren 2017; Dean et al. 2019; Saward 2021; Asenbaum 2022). Some criticisms have been raised against this approach: a tendency to conservatism and reification (Curato et al. 2019), a risk of objectivism and loss of normativity (Asenbaum 2022), and a static and linear depiction of democratic realities. Assemblage theory applied to democracy may indeed bypass some of these alleged limitations of the systemic approach to democracy. Nevertheless, the former shall not be taken as an alternative to the latter. Rather, a dialogue between these two akin and complementary analytical lenses might prove fruitful for the development of a democratic theory that puts at its core contingency and change, connectivity and complexity, agency and self-governance. In this paper, I demonstrate that social systems theory properly understood highlights exactly these features, and that democratic systems can be conceptualized in a way that avoids those alleged limitations. I show that a systemic perspective over democratic complexity precisely offers "an analytical and evaluative frame" of dynamic and ever-evolving democratic assemblages/systems within their broader societal environment. I argue here that such a systemic approach to democracy leads to a positive radical endeavor: the importance for democratic agents to diagnose democratically the problems faced by their democratic system(s). Indeed, not every democratic system/assemblage is confronted with the same problems, and new problems constantly emerge. While it is increasingly acknowledged in the literature that designed democratic solutions must be context-specific, little attention is given to the identification of context-specific problems to be solved. I argue here for the development of a critical democratic agenda: the constant diagnosis/problematization of democratic shortcomings, by citizens themselves and through democratic processes (including democratic innovations). In short, this paper justifies democratic diagnosis as a necessary function of democratic systems and suggests an analytical and evaluative framework to work with. This agenda is compatible and complementary with democratic assemblage: it proposes the constant problematization of existing assemblages in order to re-assemble democratic elements in more democratic assemblages.