Civil Society Engagement with Participatory Democracy Tools

Across Europe, declining trust in political institutions is unfolding alongside widening social polarization, the consolidation of populist movements, and decreasing levels of political participation. These intertwined trends raise urgent questions about democratic legitimacy and resilience. Rebuilding and sustaining trust between citizens and political actors has therefore become a central challenge for contemporary governance, one that requires attention not only to institutional performance, but also to the quality of interaction, responsiveness, and perceived fairness within democratic systems. Participatory democracy and democratic innovations are frequently presented as a promising response to this challenge. These innovations, ranging from citizens’ assemblies and deliberative forums to participatory budgeting and consultative mini-publics, seek to broaden political participation and re-establish dialogue between citizens and decision-makers. Yet their impact on political trust is not automatic. Existing research suggests that democratic innovations are most likely to foster trust when they are inclusive, transparent, procedurally fair, and consequential. Trust tends to increase when participants believe their input meaningfully influences policy outcomes, when deliberation is well facilitated and protected from manipulation, and when public authorities publicly commit to implementing or seriously considering participatory outputs. Conversely, poorly designed processes, unclear mandates, limited representativeness, or purely symbolic engagement can undermine confidence and deepen cynicism toward institutions. Trust-building, in other words, depends on how participatory mechanisms are organized, communicated, and embedded in decision-making structures. This paper examines how representatives of civil society organisations (CSOs) perceive participatory democracy tools and the involvement of citizens and CSOs in policymaking. It focuses on three guiding questions: 1) How should democratic innovation be organized?; 2) How to practically facilitate participation? and 3) Where are the limitations of using democratic innovations? Empirically, the paper draws on original qualitative material gathered through 15 consultative workshops conducted with CSO representatives in ten European countries: Austria, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Ukraine, Italy, Greece, Slovakia, and France. Workshops were organised as focus group discussions and World Café–style sessions, enabling structured yet open-ended reflection on experiences with participatory instruments, barriers to engagement, and expectations toward institutions. The analysis follows a thematic approach: workshop discussions were summarised, recurring patterns were identified across cases, and findings were grouped into key categories addressing perceived problems in the current use of democratic innovations, explanations for these problems, and recommendations for improving participatory practices. The findings highlight support among CSO representatives for democratic innovations as instruments with strong trust-building potential, provided they are properly designed and embedded in supportive institutional and social contexts. Participants repeatedly stressed the need for clear mandates, transparent procedures, inclusive recruitment and outreach, and visible follow-through by political authorities. They also emphasized the importance of sustained civic education, capacity building, and facilitation practices that lower participation costs and enable respectful, informed deliberation. Importantly, the workshops reveal that trust is strengthened when citizens’ voices are not only “heard” but demonstrably shape public decisions.