Public participation in local affairs and elections CPL (12) 10 Part II

Rapporteur:
Anders KNAPE, Sweden,
Chamber of Local Authorities, Political Group : EPP/CD

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:

1.1 Democracy is exercised at the local level primarily through free and fair elections in which citizens residing in the locality choose candidates to represent their interests in local councils. There is a wide variety of arrangements with regard both to electoral systems and to the institutional design of local authorities. In some countries, the plurality or “first-past-the-post” system is used; in others, it is some version of proportional representation; in some cases, it is a mixture of plurality and proportional systems. Sometimes the mayor or council leader is elected directly by the population; at others, he or she is elected by the council; and, in a small number of cases, the mayor is appointed by the central government. With regard to institutional design, this varies from systems where the representative and executive branches are separate to those where they are combined. In councils where there is a mingling of the representative and executive branches, council business may be carried out by a committee structure. In some countries, the committees, also called boards, may contain non-elected members. Whatever, the electoral system or the institutional design, the basic principles of liberal democracy at the local level are the same: citizens choose representatives in open and fair elections to take decisions on their behalf; these elections are usually contested by political parties but, in some cases, also by independent individuals or groups; there is an executive, assisted by paid officials, responsible for the implementation of these decisions. A key element of this democratic system is the participation of citizens in elections. The legitimacy of the elected representatives derives from this. A key concern, therefore, in assessing the health of a democratic system is the extent to which citizens actually participate in the elections and this is one of the questions that this report seeks to clarify.

1.2 Democratic practice, however, is not limited to the activities of elected representatives. It is clear that a variety of other groups from civil society are involved in the decision-making process1 and the question is how the involvement of these groups affects the democratic system outlined above. If non-elected groups try to influence the process and if elected politicians allow them to be influenced in this way, then it might be argued that the legitimacy of the democratic process is compromised. Many would maintain that this is to be avoided. On the other hand, it might be argued that the involvement of groups in an open and transparent manner in the decision-making process can enhance the democratic process and can be considered complementary to the electoral process of political legitimation. For this to be the case, a certain number of conditions are necessary. First, there should be constitutional or legislative recognition, whether at the national, regional or local levels, of the involvement of such groups. Second, there should be mechanisms for the granting of such recognition, at least by the local authorities themselves. Third, the involvement of groups from civil society should not undermine the democratic legitimacy of elected local politicians, who will maintain final control of public decisions. Besides these forms of representative and participatory democracy there is also the possibility of direct democracy, that is, the involvement of the wider population through mechanisms other than elections, such as referendums, petitions, surveys, or citizens’ juries. The general pattern is that, for the most part, such mechanisms are consultative only, although they may exercise a strong influence on the elected politicians. Only in a few cases, usually connected with the amalgamation of local authorities or with boundary changes, are referendums binding.

1.3 The questionnaire was an attempt to elicit information on these different aspects of local democracy from the Committee of Independent Experts of all 46 member states of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe of the Council of Europe. 31 experts responded2. The countries covered include different parts of Europe and several different state traditions: the two “Anglo-Saxon” countries (the United Kingdom and Ireland); the Germanic federal states (Germany and Austria); the decentralised unitary states of the Scandinavian countries (Norway and Sweden) and the Netherlands; the Napoleonic states (France, Portugal); and some of the former communist states. This broad spread of countries may help us to discern general trends across Europe but also differences within different state traditions and forms of state.

1.4 The Rapporteur would like to thank the Group of Independent Experts on the Charter, attached to the Institutional Committee of the Congress, for its valuable help in drawing up this Report.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL SITUATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REPRESENTATION OF GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS

2.1 The issue of constitutional or statutory (legislative) recognition of groups is important as it provides a formal basis for the participation of groups in the political system. The strongest form of recognition is that which is mentioned in the country’s constitution and this is the case in: Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, and Ukraine. As a general rule, these countries also grant recognition through legislation. A number of countries, however, grant recognition through legislation, even if it is not in their constitutions: Azerbaijan, Cyprus, France, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom.

2.2 It is interesting that only a minority of countries do not allow any constitutional or legislative recognition of groups. Of the majority that do, they fall into three main categories, although these may overlap with each other: those with federalist or corporatist traditions of government or both (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal); those with significant linguistic or ethnic minorities (Azerbaijan, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine); traditional unitary states which cannot give constitutional recognition but which have developed such recognition through legislation: especially France, but also Cyprus, Ireland, Latvia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. It is interesting that classical unitary states such as France, whose constitutions and concepts of citizenship exclude recognition of group characteristics, allow such recognition through legislation.

2.3 Several countries give some definition of the kinds of groups that are recognised. These include countries with national minorities (e.g. Hungary), whose existence is mentioned in the constitution, but also countries which have corporatist approaches to political representation (e.g. Austria and, more recently, Ireland). In other countries, there is a constitutional and/or legislative obligation on local authorities to consult groups. In the majority of cases, this seems to be an obligation that exists in relation to planning procedures that may affect residential or economic aspects of local citizens’ lives [this actually might be more widespread than the questionnaire responses suggest]. There seems, however, in the majority of cases to be no obligation to consult specific groups although in Luxembourg it is obligatory to consult foreigners’ councils and, in Ireland, it is obligatory on local authorities to consult the “social partners” and other community groups. In several countries, formal procedures of consultation are in place but in both these and other countries there are also informal procedures.

3. THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ON PARTICIPATION

3.1 This section of the questionnaire was designed to explore whether there are institutional mechanisms to allow the representation of groups and the wider community and what form these might take. A number of countries signalled the existence of mechanisms allowing group representation and another group signalled mechanisms to allow wider participation. All of those who permit group representation also allow wider community involvement with only Georgia allowing neither. With regard to group representation, there is a limited number of mechanisms: advisory councils (France, Germany, Netherlands), community meetings (Azerbaijan), residents’ committees (Azerbaijan), users’ associations (Azerbaijan, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Slovenia, Sweden), consumers’ associations (Croatia), specific interest groups (France, Germany, Ireland, Norway), foreigners’ advisory councils (France, Germany, Luxembourg), neighbourhood councils (France, Italy, Netherlands), territorial minorities (Slovenia), civic fora (the United Kingdom). Local referendums are the most popular form of wider consultation (Armenia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Ukraine, the United Kingdom) although there is a considerable variation in their use. In some cases, this is extremely limited or confined to issues connected with either establishing new municipalities or changing boundaries. In most cases, the referendum is not binding although occasionally this is the case (Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Portugal [on planning issues], Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Turkey [only in setting up a small commune], Ukraine). In some countries, however, such as Ireland, even non-binding referendums can exercise a strong influence on council decisions.

3.2 A number of other mechanisms are in use: citizens’ initiatives/petitions, public opinion polls, citizens’ juries, public meetings, citizens’ assemblies, public enquiries, opening council meetings to the public, opinion poll surveys, publication of information. In none of these cases, however, are decisions binding on the council.

3.3 With regard to the institutional design of local authorities and the question of directly vs. indirectly elected mayors, this variable seems to have only a small influence on encouraging wider participation. Some answers (Netherlands, Portugal) seemed to suggest that “dualisation”, separating the deliberative and executive branches of local government and holding different elections for each branch had the effect of encouraging participation in so far as they engaged citizens more directly with the representative and decision-making aspects of local government. Similarly, several answers suggested that directly elected mayors or leaders had the effect of encouraging greater interest in the local authority. On the other hand, it was also suggested that the mayors, even if directly elected, could also be closely associated with the political parties and, if the parties played a negative role in the eyes of the citizenry, this could be a negative influence.

3.4 Finally, with regard to the relationship between citizens’ socio-economic characteristics and participation in local affairs, the general pattern is that the higher the levels of education and socio-economic status, the higher the level of participation. Those most engaged in local affairs seemed to be male, middle-aged, middle-class with women and young people mostly absent. In some countries, women were almost entirely absent although in some of the East and Central European countries (e.g. Croatia, Slovenia) this is changing. In some countries, (e.g. Germany) women’s representation is institutionalised, while in others (the Scandinavian countries for example), it has ceased to be an issue as women are already highly represented (“mainstreamed”). [there is probably much more to say on this question but in many countries the data was lacking – perhaps scope for another study]

4. TRENDS IN ELECTORAL TURNOUT

4.1 Elections are the classical method of participation in a liberal democracy and this section sought answers as to the general trends with regard to electoral participation. The general perception among many commentators is that there has been a general decrease in participation. This is confirmed to a large extent, but not completely, by the answers received. In sixteen countries turnout has been on the decrease: Austria, Azerbaijan, Croatia, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Sweden and the United Kingdom. In Luxembourg, where there is obligatory voting, there is a growing abstentionism, which is not punished. But we need to be careful in interpreting these trends, as the rate of increase or decrease may be quite small and, in some instances, there have been unexpected increases (Ireland, the United Kingdom), which may be related to specific circumstances such as the simultaneous holding of a controversial referendum or another high profile election rather than signalling a general trend. On the other hand, this might contain an important message in that it may be useful to combine local elections with another more high profile event such as national elections. The argument against this is that it may submerge the significance of the local because of the importance of national issues. In some countries, though, there has actually been an increase in turnout that is a general trend rather than a one-off event: Armenia, Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Spain. In others, the trend is toward stability: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. More important than the actual trend, perhaps, is the degree of turnout and whether this is high or low. In the United Kingdom, for example, turnout has been very low for a number of years, while in Ireland and the Scandinavian countries it is traditionally high. There is also a difference between urban and rural patterns of turnout with the countryside usually recording higher scores.

4.2 In those cases, where there is a decline, among the reasons given were:

Disillusionment with politics, loss of interest in public affairs, decreasing trust in government (majority of countries);
Alienation from political parties (France);
System “over-politicised” and dominated by parties (Croatia) or there is “over-participation” (Sweden);
Alienation of some voters because of the role of mayor linked to a political party (Portugal);
Disillusionment with corruption at lower levels of government (Georgia, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”);
Economic factors: difficulties (Germany) or changing socio-economic conditions (Ireland);
Negative role of media (the United Kingdom).

4.3 Measures to encourage participation:

4.3.1 Most countries have not developed any specific measures to encourage participation. Among the few that have, the following measures were adopted:

Greater publicity at time of elections (Austria, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Sweden [aimed at young and foreigners], the United Kingdom);
Policies to encourage civic engagement (Germany, Ireland);
Facilitating voting by incapacitated voters (Croatia);
Linking local to national elections (Czech Republic);
Youth council projects (Ireland);
In countries where only parties may present lists at municipal elections, allowing non-party lists levels (Latvia, Portugal).

4.4 Non-standard forms of voting:

4.4.1 11 countries only used the traditional method. Among the others the following methods were used:

By the far the most common were measures to allow incapacitated voters to vote: postal voting (France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain), proxy voting (France, Netherlands) or mobile urns (Azerbaijan, Romania, Slovenia);
Posting at airports for those working abroad (Turkey);
Only the United Kingdom seems to have adopted wider measures that go beyond simply facilitating incapacitated voters: lengthening the hours of voting on polling day, voting in shops, postal voting for everyone;
Electronic voting has not been adopted by any state although Ireland was quite advanced in setting up such a system in 2004 but this was abandoned following widespread fears of manipulation. Other countries are now considering it.

4.5 Vote for foreigners:

Countries where this is not allowed: Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Georgia, Latvia, Romania, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”, Ukraine;
EU countries allow other EU citizens to vote in local elections;
Some countries allow any foreigner, including non-EU citizens, to vote if they fulfil residency requirements: Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden;
Some include non-EU citizens but restrict this to specific categories: the United Kingdom (Commonwealth citizens), Portugal (countries that allow Portuguese citizens the same right).

5. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The picture that emerges from this study is that there has indeed been a decline in electoral participation but that this should not be exaggerated and, in some countries, the trend is being bucked either by increase or stability in turnout. On the other hand, there is not a widespread effort on the part of national or local governments to experiment with innovative methods of increasing electoral participation. The United Kingdom is probably the most creative in this regard and is seriously trying to develop experiments, with a certain amount of success. Electronic voting is still in its infancy and there are widespread fears that it will lead to corruption. In Ireland, the process of implementation of electronic voting was well advanced but it was abandoned at a late stage precisely because of these fears. Nevertheless, this is an area that deserves further attention as a potential means of increasing participation.

With regard to other forms of participation, it is clear that these have developed alongside electoral participation in most countries. Referendums have become increasingly popular as a way of involving the wider population and these are often binding. With regard to other forms of wider participation, these, again, are on the increase. More research is needed, however, to ascertain how successful these are in influencing local decision-making. Groups, too, of various kinds – socio-economic, territorial, user interests – are more and more included in the deliberations of local authorities although their exact constitutional status varies widely and, for the most part, their presence is at the behest of the local authority rather than a statutory right. But, again, it would be important to carry out further research as to the effectiveness of these groups.

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 The Council of Europe welcomes the trend toward greater participation by groups as complementing and enriching traditional electoral representation through the ballot-box.

6.2 Such participation, however, should be given constitutional and/or legislative recognition and control to avoid excessive influence over local authority decision-making by non-elected groups.

6.3 Measures should be adopted to encourage participation by those groups that are least involved in participation: women, young people, those who are less well educated and from less economically prosperous backgrounds.

6.4 Greater efforts should be made to halt the decline in electoral participation in those countries where this is the case as this weakens the legitimacy of local democracy.

Appendix 1

Table 1: Constitutional/legal situation of group representation at the local level

 

Constitutional provisions?

Statutory (legislative) provisions?

Definition of groups?

Constitutional obligation on local authorities to consult groups?

Statutory obligation on local authorities to consult groups?

Formal (F) or informal (I) procedures for granting recognition to groups?

Albania

           

Andorra

           

Armenia

N

N

N

N

N

I

Austria

Y

Y (Länder)

Y

Y

Y (Länder)

I

Azerbaijan

?

Y

Y

Y (indirectly)

 

F and I

Belgium

           

Bosnia & Herzegovina

           

Bulgaria

N

Y

Y

N

Y (limited)

F and I

Croatia

Y

Y

Y

 

Y (limited)

F and I

Cyprus

?

Y

N

N

N

None

Czech Republic

N

N

N

N

N

None

Denmark

Y

N

Y

 

Y (planning, etc)

F

Estonia

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

F & I

Finland

Y

Y

N

N

N

None

France

N

Y (rec. of association)

Y

N

Y (limited)

F

Georgia

Y

Y

Y

N

N

I

Germany

Y

Y (Länder)

N

N

Y (Länder)

F and I

Greece

N

         

Hungary

Y (nat. mins.)

Y

Y (nat. mins.)

N

Y

F and I

Iceland

           

Ireland

N

Y

Y

N

Y

F

Italy

           

Latvia

?

Y

N

N

N

I

Liechtenstein

Y

Y

N

N

N

?

Lithuania

           

Luxembourg

N

N

N

 

Y (foreigners)

I

Malta

N

N

N

N

N

N/A

Moldova

           

Netherlands

 

Y

Y (some)

 

Y

F and I

Norway

N

 

N

N

N

N

Poland

           

Portugal

Y

Y

Y

Y (limited)

Y (limited)

F

Romania

Y (?)

Y

N

N

N

N

Russian Federation

           

San Marino

           

Serbia & Montenegro

           

Slovakia

Y

Y

N

N

Y

F and I

Slovenia

N

Y

??

N

Y

I

Spain

Y

Y

N

Y

 

I

Sweden

N

N

N

 

Y (some)

I

Switzerland

           

"the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia"

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

F

Turkey

N

N

N

N

N

I

Ukraine

Y

Y

N

 

Y (limited)

F

United Kingdom

N/A (no written constitution)

Y (very limited)

N

N/A

Y (limited)

F and I

Appendix 2

Table Two: The effect of institutional design of local government on participation.

 

Institutional mechanisms for involving groups in decision-making?

Institutional mechanisms for involving the wider society in decision-making?

Are consultation mechanisms binding?

Does the institutional design of local authorities affect participation of the wider community?

Do the role and manner of election of mayor/leader affect wider participation?

Do supramunicipal and inframunicipal institutions affect participation?

What is the relationship between socio-economic variables and participation?

Albania

             

Andorra

             

Armenia

N

Referendums; citizens’ initiatives

N

?

?

N

No data

Austria

N but Länder may invite groups to consult

Länder regulate this. Referendums; petitions, public opinion polls

Referendums usually binding; other methods not.

Design excludes all who are not elected although loc. Authorities may invite opinions.

Länder may introduce this. Does widen participation.

No inframun. Institutions or supramunicipal institutions except the Land.

?

Azerbaijan

Y. community meetings, residents’ committees, users’associations, etc., some NGOs

Y informal citizens’ juries, local self-government of villages; public opinion polling.

N

Institutional design favours wide participation.

?

Infracommunal institutions exist.

Women are rare in local government.

63.7% of elected representatives and staff of loc. Auths are university graduates

Belgium

             

Bosnia & Herzegovina

             

Bulgaria

N

Citizens’ committees; referendums; general asssemblies of the population.

N

?

Y

N

No data

Croatia

Y associations, agencies, foundations; consumers’ associations; users’ groups.

Referendums; peace councils

Referendums Y; others N

Separation of representation and executive functions; doesn’t inhibit partic.

Mayor elected by council; no significant influence of wider comm.

?

More participation from better-off and better-educated. Women and young participation increasing.

Cyprus

N

Referendums on municipal existence or reorganisation

Referendums are binding

?

?

N

Majority of councillors are men.

Czech Republic

N

Referendums
Other forms exist but are rare

Referendums are binding

Too many small communes

Indirect election of mayor

Intercommunal cooperaton exists; neighbourhood councils set up to encourage part.

No data

Denmark

??

Public debate on planning projects Referendums on territorial changes

Not binding
.

Increasing use of “users groups”

Indirect election of mayor may be negative but no studies on subject

??

Higher social standing, education but also tradition associated with higher participation

Estonia

Y

Opinion polls, public initiatives and general meetings

Not binding

Not enough evidence available

Not enough evidence

Local gov. associations; district councils in Tallinan; small town and village meetings

Higher education will result in higher participation.

Finland

Y users’ or clients’ groups

Optional Referendums

Not binding

The participation is mainly channelled through the municipal council and committees elected by it.

Practically none

Several forms of inter-municipal co-operation are open for participatory input.

No empirical data available, but none of these factor s appears to correlate clearly with the quantity or quality of participatory activity.

France

Advisory councils; consultation of specific interest groups; foreigners advisory council (some towns)

Referendums (only for local authorities);
petitions;
public enquiries.

Y = referendums; all others = non-binding.

Predominant role of executive and weak position of councillors detrimental to wider partic.

N

Intercommunal assocations – limit public influence.
Neighbourhood councils – only effective when they are non-partisan

Middle-aged, better educated, stable family background, steady employment = more engaged.

Georgia

N

N = referendums bans to prevent secessionist movements

N

N

No effect

N

None

Germany

Y (Länder)
Advisory councils (e.g foreigners); planning, youth, experts; interest groups.

Local referendums (esp. south Germany); popular initiatives.

Y = referendums.

Germany has increasingly introduced dualism but it is not clear whether this has widened part.

Elected mayors – may reduce party influence but ambiguous

Germany has both supr and inframunicipal institutions giving greater opportunities for groups to exercise influence

There is a strong presence of liberal professions but this is balanced by trade unions. Women’s interests are institutionalised.

Greece

Y ?? CMC (?)

Consultation in communes below 10,000 inh.

N

Dualisation – direct elections of both assembly + executive may encourage greater part.

Direct election of exec. May encourage part.

Intercommunal assocaitons = encourage part.

Neighbourhood councils.

Most Greeks interested in national politics.
More men at local level but growing part. of women

Hungary

Y

Compulsory and advisory referendums;
Popular initiatives;
Public hearings of councils.

Only compulsory referendums

Directly elected mayors. Not clear if this affects participation.

?

Posssiblity

No data

Iceland

             

Ireland

Strategic Policy Committees; CDB’s; community and voluntary sector forum. ; youth councils.

Customer panels; customer surveys;

N but they have a strong influence on final decision of councils

Traditional committees represent some interests and exclude others; the new structures widen and complement these.

N = Leader = ceremonial.

Area committees established in some counties and cities.

Middle-aged, middle class, better education more engaged; women under-represented.

Italy

             

Latvia

Y at local level

Public hearings re. planning, construction.
No referendums

N

Councils may include non-elected and non-staff members in committees and working groups.

Mayor elected by council. Direct election might increase partic.

?

Positive correlation between higher education, socio-economic status and participation

Liechtenstein

 

Referendums and right of inititiative

Y

N

N

 

No data available

Lithuania

             

Luxembourg

N (except foreigners)

Referendums.
Informal consultations

N

Compulsory voting

Indirect election of mayor but difficult to answer question

N

Most active = better education.
Women more prominent in educational, environmental issues

Malta

N/A

Referendums

N

Non-elected citizens may chair sub-committees

Greatly. Depends on personality traits of mayor. Parish-pump politics may arise.

N

On the whole less involvement of professionals. Some increase in female participation.

Moldova

             

Netherlands

Y
Provincial and Municipal Commissions;
Neighbourhood Councils;

referendums;
Ad hoc consultations;
Open council meetings

N

More control of executive by assembly in order to increase public involvement

Mayor appointed by central government, although in reality it is the council which proposes its candidates

Provincial commissions and village communities

Men more interested/involved than women;
Older people more interested than younger.

Norway

Y = consultations; parents’ councils, etc.

Consultative referendums

N

?

N

N

?

Poland

             

Portugal

 

Obligation to consult on planning , environmental issues; Publication of information concerning council activities; limited use of referendums

Only on planning issues

Portuguese system of dualism encourages wider participation.

?

N

?

Romania

Y – legal provisions for consultation.

Binding and consultative referendums;
Referendum to depose mayor;
Citizens’ assemblies;
Initiatives.

Binding referendums and deposition of mayor referendums.

Difficult to measure any correlation.

Difficult to measure.

Some limited intercommunal cooperation;
Arrondissments in large cities.

Difficult to measure.

Russian Federation

             

San Marino

             

Serbia & Montenegro

             

Slovakia

Y defined by law

Binding and consultative referendums;
Petitions.

Only compulsory referendums.

?

No direct correlation.

Some intermunicipal associations;
Limited number of neighbourhood councils.

Women’s participation much lower than men; but higher at local than at national level.

Slovenia

Y territorial groups, parents, users.

Referendums
Popular initiatives
Citizens’ assemblies

Binding and consultative referendums

The referendum

Direct election of mayor = encourages part.

Associations of Loc. Auths important.
Possibility of creating lower levels of council which encourage part.

More educated sections.
Women active.

Spain

Y

Referendums
Popular consultation (regional laws)
Public meetings of council
Popular initiatives

Binding

CCLL strengthens part.
But general lack of interest by citizens in part.

No

Little part. At supracommunal level.
Neighbourhood councils

Data not available

Sweden

Y, Users’ panels.

Referendums;
Citizens’ proposals;
Opinion polling.

N

Boards may include non-elected members

Leaders of authorities mostly Social Democrats.

Local Government Association is influential;
Role of “self-run” bodies in operating some facilities.

Gender no longer relevant; better-off, educated, married people more involved.

Switzerland

             

"The former Yugoslav Republic
of Macedonia"

 

Public meetings; referendums; citizens’ initiatives .

Y = citizens initiatives, public meetings and referendums are binding

Non-elected and non-staff may be members of commission.

Directly elected mayors = strengthens participation.

?

More men than women; middle-aged; higher social status all more engaged.

Turkey

N

Formal vote if a small community wishes to become a municipality.

Except in this case all other consultation is not binding

Does not allow for wider participation

No

Assoc. of authorities = neglible
Some informal community organisations created to try to encourage part.

These are secondary to the lack of an effective system of part.

Ukraine

Y (at local level only)

Binding and consultative referendums, Public hearings, general meetings, local initiatives.

Binding referendums only

?

Directly elected mayor widens participation

N

No data.

The United Kingdom

Local Strategic Partnerships
Civic Forum (Scotland)
Statutory requirements to consult groups in certain areas of decision-making

Public enquiries; limited use of referendums; community councils (Scotland)

N

No clear answer in the United Kingdom experience

Too early to assess directly elected mayors

N

Higher education, socio-economic, male, more engaged.

1 This wider system of decision-making is sometimes referred to as “governance”, while “government” refers to the more restricted aspect of governing involving elected representatives and the executive branch.

2 From the following countries: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Republic of Croatia, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", Turkey, United Kingdom, Ukraine.