The Bureaucratization of Participation

Abstract

Netherlands), the developments of contracts like 'Citizen's charters' (United Kingdom, France), the increasing number of formalized rights, such as the right to information, comprehension, to be listened to, to intervene, to correct and professional behavior and the right to controls and evaluation and the development of Ombudsman systems, albeit in different forms, as in Sweden, Finland, Spain, Australia, Canada, The Netherlands and France (see Rowat, 1983).Such procedures are aimed at improving the democratic features of policymaking processes.These are laid down in more or less 'ad hoc' laws, codifying the position of citizens, the relations between citizens and the administration, the principles of procedure, the rights of citizens and the responsibilities of civil servants.Such codification not only occurs at the general level but is sometimes even more specific in particular policy areas.In processes involving decisions about large-scale investments with possible effects on the environment, the procedures are formalized and detailed in laws on 'Environmental Impact Assessments'.The question this article deals with is whether there are indicators for the expectation that these new formal arrangements have negative side-effects in mature western democracies.The general purpose of such arrangements is to increase the democratic character of the nation-states, in general and of policymaking process, in particular, by enhancing the possibilities of public participation.Negative side-effects, however, might occur in the sense that increasing the codification, that is the standardization and formalization of participatory procedures, results in what might be called the bureaucratization of participation, instead of an increase in public participation.Thus it was found in one case that a policy-maker stated that he did not consult with relevant external partners in the first stage of the policy process because the regulations stipulated such contact was to take place at specific moments during the policy process and he was expected to act within the existing regulations.Such cases, which in my view are more structural than incidental in mature democracies, pinpoint the nature of the problem.It is my concern that new prescriptive arrangements may effectively stifle the degree to which policy-makers seek public support by imposing over-rigid timetables for each stage of activity and participation; and hence sometimes implicitly encourage policy-makers to do the minimum.Seen from the perspective of the public such arrangements are normally welcomed and often they are the result of long struggles between concerned citizens and the bureaucratic apparatus.People did strive and sometimes fought for political and citizen rights and often these rights did not come easily.The question is, however, whether in mature democracies, the extension of formal rules is still worth striving for.That is why this analysis is restricted in two ways.First, it only addresses mature democracies, e.g.OECD countries.These countries adhere to basic political and civil rights.Second, this article does not draw any conclusions about such rights, which are important in their own respect.This article focuses only on the new democratic arrangements which come after the basic civil and