Beyond the concrete problems plaguing the world (wars, genocides, poverty, climate crisis, etc.), there is a growing concern about the decline of democracies as a form of government for a society. Let us remember that democracy is a peaceful way to channel institutionally the natural conflicts within any society. Instead of beating each other to impose our interests or points of view, we listen to others, argue, debate, engage in public conversations to persuade, delegate decisions to others, reach agreements, and make decisions under varied rules; in short, we participate without exclusion in a space of civil and political liberties, mutual tolerance, efficient institutions, etc. This is the fundamental basis of democracy. As such, it is regarded as the least bad of known political regimes when compared to some alternatives that Juan J. Linz highlighted: authoritarian, totalitarian, sultanistic regimes or their derivatives.
In recent years, international classifications show a progressive deterioration of democracies, with a certain stagnation. Academic studies show several phenomena associated with this decline: polarization, disengagement, inequality, authoritarian mentalities, misinformation, populisms, corruption, fear of the other, precariousness, transformation of the media ecosystem, political impotence, instrumentalization of institutions, intolerance or discredited leaderships are just a few examples.
“Citizen involvement in the matters that affect them strengthens democracy and society when there is a vibrant civil society”
Although it may not appear on the list of obvious problems in society, the progressive wear of democracies is not only a fact, but a major issue that worries some institutions that bet on citizen participation as an antidote. The recent Declaration of Vitoria-Gasteiz (September 2025) is another push toward strengthening democracy by fostering citizen participation in public affairs. The Reykjavik Principles for democracy (deriving from the Reykjavik Declaration of the Council of Europe in May 2023) also highlight the need to confront the erosion of democracies by promoting citizen participation in public decisions. Faced with the decline of democracies, there is a proposal to return to what Tocqueville already stated: citizen involvement in the matters that affect them strengthens democracy and society when there is a vibrant civil society.
In Spain there are varied initiatives to channel this participation institutionally: participatory budgeting may be the best known at the local level, but there are also successive Open Government plans and some citizen consultations (local and regional) with more or less success in their aims. One of them is taking place these days in Donostia as a platform for citizen participation in urban planning and the environment. Many of these initiatives relate to the climate emergency, as Cristina Monge has noted, but others deal with health or they become citizen forums of varied nature or sectoral municipal councils.
“The aim is to have a democracy with public conversations in which citizens have opportunities to be heard and to participate in decisions”
All these initiatives (and others more institutionalized, such as parliamentary appearances) point toward what Robert Fishman calls the “deepening” of democracy: beyond meeting certain formal requirements (freedoms, regular elections, competition for the vote, etc.), it is about having a democracy with public conversations in which citizens have opportunities to be heard and participate in the decisions, removing the obstacles that prevent them from doing so. It will not be for lack of willingness.
In Spain, the desire for greater participation in political life is widespread. The CIS survey 3490 (December 2024) asks whether one would be willing to “participate in person [and online] in citizen meetings to make decisions about political issues that may affect them”. The table 1 shows the responses as a propensity to participate.
There is a willingness to participate in public affairs, but not only in a passive way, receiving information (71%), but also by attending in person to public conversations (71%) and, above all, by taking part in citizen meetings (83%). There is a slight difference between in-person participation and online participation, which shows a certain preference for face-to-face social interaction. This desire is a good sign, since social sciences have long known that interaction between people builds trust, creates community, integrates, and improves social life: solidarity bonds are formed.
“According to CIS data, most people want to participate, but in the end they do not. Why?”
They are wishes of participation. The contrast with reality comes when the same survey asks whether in the last year they have participated in any initiative. Only 22% have done so; of these people, more than half (53%) participated in person. That is, most people want to participate, but in the end they do not. Why? Although we may face some social desirability bias in the response, of the 77% who have never participated in anything, two-thirds (67%) indicate that if they had known of any initiative they would indeed have participated.
It seems that a first barrier to participation is the lack of information or the reluctance to educate oneself about participatory channels and proposed initiatives. But there is more. When asking those who have not participated and do not want to participate even if they have the information (21% of the sample), the most frequent reason is lack of interest, but also lack of time and the perception of a lack of preparation. These barriers have led some policymakers to reflect on how to bring politics closer to citizens, scouring the streets in search of problems to craft solutions and commitments.
Furthermore, there is another matter. When asking about the type of actions in which people have participated, the most frequent options are those related to donating or raising money for a cause, consuming or boycotting products for ideological reasons, collaborating with associations, convincing someone through dialogue, or signing petitions. This is a commendable and necessary form of participation, usually individualized, probably detached from the territory and, with some exceptions, foreign to meaningful social interactions.
“Perhaps it is worth reflecting on the fit between the deepening of democracy and individualized and isolated forms of participation”
Certainly, these are the times in a rapidly transforming society. We know from Durkheim that when transformations occur, old recipes often fail to fit new situations, generating anomic scenarios. Therefore, perhaps it is worth reflecting on how the deepening of democracy can align with individualized and isolated forms of participation within a context where there is a widespread desire to participate in politics, also through face-to-face initiatives.
This is not a trivial matter. In Spain, fragile support for democracy is widespread, though unevenly distributed. It is one of the first steps toward erosion. Beyond casting a vote, fostering participation may be one of the antidotes to the decline of democracies. We know the costs and the barriers, but we also know that citizens perceive politics, politicians, and parties more as a problem than as a solution. And in light of this, and as perceptions gradually improve, perhaps it would be wise to have more public conversations about how to facilitate citizen involvement in solving the problems that affect them.
