Compromise in (Digital) Democratic Innovations

There has been, in recent years, an increased interest in (digital) democratic innovations from both academics and decision-makers. New institutions and processes have been designed in the hope of deepening citizen’s participation and enhancing deliberation. In particular, the deliberative paradigm has been at the core of the conceptualisation of democratic innovations. Citizens are invited to exchange their views, perspectives, and judgments in order to reach, if not a consensus, at least a clarified disagreement. However, in light of increased polarisation on controversial political and ethical issues, it is unclear whether the open-mindedness and fallibilism required by the ideal of deliberation will be realised in practice. Citizens are more and more likely to “stick to their guns” and the process to reach an impasse. This is when the idea of bringing compromise at the forefront of the reflection on (digital) democratic innovations becomes relevant. Compromise is a way of making decisions by reciprocal concessions. Compromisers concede and reach an agreement without changing their mind on their preferred position. I argue that the future of theorising democratic innovation lies in compromise. The paper proceeds as follows. I first critique the dominant deliberative paradigm in the study of democratic innovations. I then elaborate on how my account of compromise provides a viable alternative, which supplements, rather than replace, the deliberative paradigm. Finally, I delve into institutional design and creatively think of (digital) platforms and innovations susceptible to incentivise compromise among citizens.