Realizing Radical Openness: Conversation starters for innovating democracy "bottom-up"

Liberal democracy often counts as the only viable strategy to realize self-government by the people which can deal with the “problem of scale” in contemporary mass democracies. Yet liberal democracy is arguably in deep crisis: recent studies find that even citizens in established democracies tend to reject fundamental principles of democracy (Foa & Monk 2017). At the same time, results of mini-publics where participants developed visions for institutional/constitutional reform suggest that people want more, not less democracy. In exemplary cases that aim renewing “the rules of the democratic game”, citizens were willing and able to engage even in complex debates about institutional and constitutional reforms (e.g., Fleuss 2021; forthcoming/2023; Geissel 2022; Landemore 2019). Such examples are crucial since they contradict the assumption that citizens are either incompetent “hobbits” or “hooligans” (Brennan 2016) and therefore not qualified to participate in policymaking, let alone in reforming constitutions. This paper’s point of departure is the claim that “experts” and professional politicians are not better equipped to deal with these intricate tasks than so-called “ordinary citizens”. Crucially, this also holds for political theorists: “we” political theorists should practice epistemic humility, acknowledge the “limits to theory” (Blaug 1990) and hand the task of renewing democracy over to affected people/communities (Fleuss 2021). Nevertheless, political theorists are not out of a job: one of their core tasks is to facilitate civil society-led reform processes and to provide “conversation starters”, i.e. ideas for democratic alternatives to the status quo. But even if theorists “only” stick to these tasks, they arguably have a biased and “blinkered” view of what democracy is and can be (Fleuss 2022). Against this backdrop, I will address two questions: (RQ1) How can political theorists design participatory procedures for reforming democracy without repeating the mistake of “top-down” theorists, i.e. impose their (predominantly Western, white, male) views and perspectives about “good participatory processes” on other people? (RQ2) How can political theorists propose alternative institutional or constitutional settings as “conversation starters” for citizen deliberations about reforms without inadvertently falling into the same trap as “top-down theorists”? In a nutshell, political theorists must find a way to counteract their own biases to democratize and decolonize their understandings of democracy and democratic institutions. With regards to (RQ1) and (RQ2), it is certainly not possible to reach an epistemological “point zero” (Mignolo 2009). Concerning (RQ1), my paper explores strategies for co-designing procedures for democratic renewal and reform with members of affected communities. With regards to (RQ2), I highlight the benefits of inductive and, more specifically, ethnographic approaches. To avoid the pitfalls of “top-down” theorizing, we should explore understandings and practices of democracy at (a) diverse levels (local, national, international, etc.) and (b) in diverse parts of the world (see Gagnon & Fleuss 2020). The results of the strategies suggested in response to (RQ1) and (RQ2) will certainly always be up for dispute, contestation, change. This, however, is not a detrimental effect of my approach but can rather count as a way of putting the ideal of “radical openness” into practice.