SIEMENS

Is there a global trend toward citizens demanding more participation rights in issues affecting their communities?

Renn: More and more people are living in densely populated areas around the world, which means they’re becoming increasingly dependent on one another. The actions of each person affect everyone else. Infrastructure projects are often marked by a conflict of interest between those who benefit and those who bear the risks. The latter ask themselves why they should suffer disadvantages when it’s only the others who profit. Another problem is that even experts often disagree on a project’s goals and details. As a result, their knowledge becomes useless in mediation, as each one focuses on the things he or she considers useful. In many cases there’s a discrepancy between the risks calculated by specialists and the risks subjectively perceived by the public. Public mistrust then grows if no one addresses this problem. Many people also feel their lives are being governed by elements beyond their control, so they try to defend themselves against everything they believe is being forced upon them. Finally, the desire to participate in decision-making processes, especially those that affect one personally, increases in line with the education and economic affluence of the individual in question.

Do we need to have a public counterweight to parliaments?

Renn: Germany, like almost all representative democracies, has done well with the system it has. However, our political system is often unable to deal with situations where decisions affect people personally. Those who are impacted by decisions usually don’t see their interests being considered, nor do they understand why particular decisions are made. That doesn’t mean we need to get rid of parliaments, but it would make sense to have direct citizen participation, especially in local matters. This is not a counterweight — it’s actually a win-win situation. Citizens can be heard and politicians can count on more public support for projects that have a solid democratic foundation. Dialogue creates transparency; it allows affected citizens to communicate their wishes to decision-makers and clarify open questions. Citizen participation processes allow people to become involved and work together to develop solutions.

Is participation a cure-all in terms of public acceptance? Where does it make sense to use it — when the issue is a local wind park, in major infrastructure projects, or with decisions that affect entire countries, such as whether or not to remain in the euro zone?

Renn: The more complex the world becomes, the more people focus on what they’re familiar with and think is valuable and important. That means any change affecting oneself or one’s immediate environment will initially be questioned. At the same time, you have to provide citizens with information about complex issues. It’s important that every participatory process be started without any preconditions, with leeway for changes and new ideas. Simple yes-or-no decisions usually aren’t conducive to a participatory process. Anyone looking for simple approval shouldn’t get involved with citizen participation, which by definition means shaping the decision-making process. Ultimately, it’s a question of how you view human nature. If you think people are only interested in their own personal advantage, you’re going to be skeptical about citizen participation. But if you think people are generally capable of keeping their eyes on the big picture, if you give them time to think and reflect, and if you provide them with the knowledge they need, then you’ll conclude that participation offers great opportunities. I go by what Lao Tse said: “Tell me, and I’ll forget; show me, and I may remember; involve me, and I’ll understand.”

Which citizens should get involved in participatory processes?

Renn: That depends on the situation. If the issue is local, you should bring in the people who are directly affected. But if you’re talking about issues on a broader scale, it’s better to choose people who don’t represent either side and can impartially consider and evaluate all the arguments, like a jury in a trial.

How do you select citizens for participation in your own projects?

Renn: In one of the three ways. We either invite representatives of the affected groups, ask for volunteers, or select people at random from the affected area. Sometimes we combine the three options. It makes things easier, of course, if the participants are open to learning new things and aren’t simply there to defend their own position at all costs.

How would you describe a successful participatory process?

Renn: Success doesn’t depend on whether or not a measure is ultimately implemented. Fairness plays a major role. Everyone should be given a chance to participate, and all citizens should have the same rights and obligations. Especially if the issue is complex, we have to make sure everyone has the same level of knowledge. That’s why we start out with in-formational events. Participation only makes sense if governments give citizens a certain amount of freedom of action and make sure that recommendations are implemented. Finally, the costs and benefits of the process should be in a reasonable ratio.

Will the Internet simplify participatory processes in the future?

Renn: Yes and no. Social networks make it possible to organize such processes more quickly and reach a broader range of people. But virtual forums can never replace personal dialogue, because discussions usually get very dynamic and complex and you can structure the situation better with direct encounters. This is very important when you’re trying to make balanced judgments.

What’s the future of citizen participation on the international level?

Renn: The OECD countries will expand their use of participatory processes in which citizens weigh certain options, examine potential consequences, and finally make recommendations to governments. In countries such as China, the emerging middle class will increasingly demand participation rights, and it remains to be seen how this will be carried out within the framework of the existing political system.

Can Germany learn from the experiences of other countries?

Renn: Yes, of course. We can learn from Switzerland, for example — but countries like Brazil also have good ideas. The important thing is for all parties to come to the table in good faith and to have clearly defined areas of responsibility, a clear and structured process, and professional support.

Let’s say its 2020 and that most of the 4,000 kilometers of power transmission lines needed to expand the German grid have been built. How did it get done?

Renn: If that happens it will be because the common good has triumphed over selfishness. Such an outcome would indicate that the majority of people realized the measure had to be carried out if the desired energy transformation was to be achieved. Communities affected by this would probably have to be brought into the process early on, and the authorities would have to listen to what they have to say. But in view of the current time pressure, it won’t be easy to make this vision a reality.