Why public participation isn’t a tool for democratizing planning. A comment

The trigger for this comment is Zakhour’s (2020) paper published in Planning Theory earlier this year. Zakhour searches for ways to grant democratic legitimacy through practicing public participation in planning. His subject, linking public participation in planning with democracy and particularly with the democratization of planning, is a central theme in planning discourse, one that is burdened with theorization and demonstration. My aim here is to challenge the common understanding, reflected in this paper and many others, that public participation in planning is a tool for democratization.

Let me start by stating the suppressed truth: Planning is not a democratic action. In most countries, planning institutions and processes are modeled in a way that negates the basic principles of liberal democracy, forming a non-democratic system within the democratic state. Democratic governance ought to be based on publicly-articulated rules legislated by elected parliaments that lay substantive legal foundations, thus providing stability and impartiality. In the field of planning, however, the rules are mostly procedural; they delegate the authority to specify substantial principles and guidelines to non-elected professionals, often governmental officials. In this regard, Moroni (2007, 2010) and Slaev et al. (2019: 454) distinguish between a teleocratic governmental approach that is “organized, detailed and strict, focusing on specific ends (e.g. drawing up a detailed plan or project)” and nomocratic governance, which is based on universal rules and adherence to the rule of law. Defining planning as a form of teleocratic professionalism relates to land-use ordinances as the main planning tool, and to the detailed, result-oriented, local nature of this type of ruling. Even in places where stated principles are the basis for planning decision-making (i.e. NPPF in the UK; Upton, 2019), these principles are articulated—and importantly, authorized—by governmental officials. Planning thus violates at least two of the main pillars of democratic regimes: first, those who authorize planning rules and principles are not elected representatives; second, planning rules and principles are specific and focus on the end-result rather than being general, universal and impartial.

Against this background, the contribution of public participation to the democratization of planning must be judged differently than in other fields of governance—a point that Zakhour (2020), like so many other writers, tends to neglect. His paper expands on the distinctions between the optimistic and the critical strands of participation; that is, between the idea of deliberative democracy, which encourages the public to converse with established institutions and indirectly enhance issues of trust, and radical ideas of democratization that use confrontation as means for self-determination, interest clarification and political influence. The abundant literature provided in this regard makes it clear that writers of both strands ignore the essential fallacy typifying planning. Consistent with the common view, every interaction of non-professional individuals and groups is considered “participation” and its potential contribution to democracy is therefore examined.

The lack of an accepted framework and professional definition of its purpose and management obstructs creating democratic legitimacy through public participation in other fields of governance as well. The old tricks are described by Slaev at al. (2019) with respect to planning and development: local governments know that it is better to organize participation sessions at early stages of planning projects when the main motivation is information gathering, and restrict them at later stages when the plans are being designed; planners know they must hear the participants but always remember they are not obliged to listen to them, let alone implement what is said. In other words, leaving the concept of public participation in planning open and undefined means that participation can be controlled and maneuvered. Indeed, this is point made by Sherry Arnstein (1969) in her famous Ladder of Citizen Participation. Arnstein’s (1969) sole mistake was her use of the word “ladder,” which sometimes blurred the detailed description of most rungs as anything but participation. Zakhour (2020: 353) assesses this understanding saying that the ladder “bluntly conveyed the idea that activities which do not entail actual delegation of power to citizens only serve as ‘manipulation’ of public trust.”

Thus, despite creating an illusion of direct democracy, substantial obstacles prevent public participation from being a genuine tool for democratization. Various questions arise, for example, with respect to the issue of representation. First, it is impossible to engage with the entire population, and therefore many will be excluded from the meeting rooms: people who are too busy, uninterested or shy, and those who do not fully understand the meaning of participation. Who represents them during the ostensible public participation? Clearly, their voices are absent—a point which casts doubt on the project of democratization. Second, since individuals are essentially unorganized, established communities and NGOs have a substantial advantage when presenting their cases. It is easier for them to articulate their needs, to obtain professional assistance and attend all relevant events. This may create a bias toward their case, even though they are devoted to specific agendas and interests and do not presume to represent all stakes. Third, as pointed out also by Metzger et al. (2017), some actors are easily accepted at participatory sessions as “legitimate stakeholders” while others are not, and some claims are accepted as “legitimate concerns” while others are not. The embedded bias is again shading on the degree to which participation is a democratic event.

This last point leads to another dubious matter, namely the question of how information gathered from the public during participation activities is processed. This stage is inevitably full of biases and distortions. Non-professional individuals usually articulate themselves in words. Sometimes, they are invited to express their views on planning materials, like maps and visual images or relate to data presented to them. Planners may hold various sessions, each time with different participants. In the end, they need to collect the entire body of data created through these engagements and embed it in plans and policies. Information processing of this kind must involve numerous decisions, evaluations and assessments. In most cases, there is no direct way to convert participants’ views into integrated and coherent planning documents. Finally, it is not the public that sits behind the desk, despite the direct-democracy atmosphere these sessions may create; it is again the planners, with their views, understandings, constrains and capabilities, but lacking articulated principles for planning. The degree to which the public is represented in the final product remains out of the public’s reach.

The local, specific and one-time nature of planning decisions also weakens the scope of public participation. In the absence of general, universal principles, the interaction between planners and the public, successful as it may be, has no direct influence on other cases. As long as public participation deals with a specific place, focusing on its unique requirements and conditions—as opposed to developing general criteria, guidelines and principles regarding the qualities of the desired built-environment—the contribution to democracy remains marginal. Different publics gain different advantages from engaging in a public participation session, thereby highlighting the fundamental lack of equality created by planning.

Planners’ engagement with individuals and groups is a necessary part of the planning process. Such engagement is necessary for gathering information, informing the public of future actions, consulting with those who agree to spare their time and assist, and explaining, persuading and mitigating objections. Marking these meetings as “public participation” and moreover, suggesting they contribute to democracy generally, and to the democratization of planning in particular, delivers a mistaken message. It overloads the encounter with misleading connotations, primarily being the illusion of creating conditions for direct democracy. The facts are, first, that the public is rarely a genuine participant in planning, and second, considering the teleocratic structure of planning institutions and regulations, the contribution of these events to the democratization of planning remains doubtful.