Decide Madrid : Engaging citizens in binding policy-making
BY ANNA STROLENBERG
How to increase democratic processes by engaging citizens in decision-making procedures? Presented in this blog is the example of the city of Madrid. With the launch of the citizen platform Decide Madrid in 2015, this city has been well on its way to reach this ambitious and vital aim. Essential to the origin of the platform, are the anti-austerity protests of May 2011. Citizens demonstrated against corruption and demanded more democracy. It required patience, but four years later the City Council adhered to these demands and enrolled the platform Decide Madrid. The development, using collective participatory software originally created for the protesters, was achieved thanks to the efforts of the political party Ahora Madrid and the support of Madrid’s mayor Manuela Carmena. The aim of the platform is to ensure everyone’s voice and to make participation in decision-making available for all Madrileños. In 2018, the platform counted more than 400.00 registered voters. This small outline highlights the aim of the platform, but how does it work?
Citizens can participate in four different ways. The first possibility concerns citizen proposals. Citizens can directly propose ideas for new legislation. Between 2015 and 2018, more than 20.000 proposals had been made. For a proposal to become policy, it has to surpass several phases; the support vote (a threshold of 1% of Madrileños above 16 years old), the final decision vote, the City Council’s review on legality, feasibility, economic costs and competence. If this is achieved, the City Council constructs a Plan of Action. The cycle of this process exceeds a full year. As of now, two proposals have been established.
The second feature is the participatory budget. The yearly budget is currently set at €100 million, consisting of €70 million reserved for district projects and €30 million for city-wide projects. The process cycle of the participatory budget only covers a span of two months. After the City Council has reviewed both district and city-wide proposals, the most favoured projects are presented online in descending order. Projects are then chosen down the line from highest number of votes to lowest number of votes. If a projects exceeds the budget, the project is left out and the next viable project is chosen. After the projects have commenced, the project status and details can be followed online.
The other two features have a more deliberative and non-binding nature. The debates serve as an assessment of the public’s opinion on different topics. Citizens can exchange information and debate on issues that matter to them. The consultation feature enables citizens to voice their opinion on certain proceedings. Citizens can respond to surveys, make suggestions and support or denounce measures or activities which are already in place.
Deriving from this review, it can be stated that Decide Madrid is a unique example of the inclusion of citizens in binding decision-making procedures for city policies. Several lessons can be drawn. First a positive note; the transparency of the procedures and the development of the participatory budget can be seen as a success. However, as only two out of 20.000 citizen proposals have been realised, the question rises on how effective the system is. Clearly, several bugs have to be resolved. First of all, the government carries a crucial responsibility to ensure that the outcomes result in action. Hence, policy officers should be cautious of developing a platform just for the sake of it. To enhance its true potential, the inclusion of proper feedback loops and the constant revision of tools is a must. A second need for improvement, concerns the future development of the platform. To safeguard the continuation of citizen engagement, policy officers ought to be perceptive of the true institutionalisation of participatory processes in policy making. They should find a way to ensure the continuation of these processes, even if the next leadership will not be in favour.
To conclude: cities should open their eyes for the demand, the potential and ample possibilities of engaging citizens in policy-making. If they are aware of the responsibility this entails and if they anticipate on possible pitfalls, then digital democracy practices can reach their full potential.
