CSO Consultations in Czechia

Participants stressed that there is still no mechanism for a general referendum at the national level in the Czech Republic and plebiscitary democracy is in its infancy. Local self-government is highly fragmented, but there is relatively extensive experience with referendums. Town halls in smaller municipalities sometimes function as non-governmental organizations or volunteer associations, where people contribute professional skills after working hours.

Respondents referred to participatory or community budgeting. It happened in municipalities where like-minded politicians supported the mechanism. The problem: municipalities are not guided or motivated. Some advocated financial incentives, including public meetings with citizens. Others emphasized prior analytical work to identify trends before decisions are made. Participatory budgeting should reflect real needs, not repeatedly support the same activities. In small municipalities, “if there was a football or hockey club, all the money always went to its activities.” Another respondent stressed the formality of innovations. Example: extensive repairs to a town square without discussion, citizens asked only at the end about flowers. Politicians often submit material but do not address comments, institutions only state that they “took note.”

Consultations were seen as useful when supported by data: questionnaire surveys prepared a background report, enabling effective meetings where municipal leadership could not easily argue against evidence. Experiences from Germany included on-site visits with citizen participation in brownfields designated for new activities.

Discussion focused on organizing meetings and consultations. A negative point: politicians moderate themselves, set agenda, and define “good” and “bad” solutions. Some supported facilitation by an experienced facilitator guiding participants through the process. One said: “This element of facilitation or preparation is very often underestimated. Consultations are moderated by city councillors who already know the wrong and right answer.” Another opposed this view, seeing actors between citizens and institutions as obstacles. NGOs often facilitate but are called in late, providing crisis management instead of prevention. This creates perceptions of them as part of the problem. A pilot “emergency” project at a ministry allowed local politicians to turn for answers beyond municipal scope, showing that participation is multi-level.

Respondents stressed the role of emotions. Fear and mistrust influence participation. Citizens may be negative at first, but with reasoned explanation “active negativists” can become “active volunteers.”

Citizen consultations should be accountable and mobilize lasting interest. All relevant stakeholders should be included, even people with a criminal record when establishing a prison. Conditional funding and projects can activate citizens. Combining questionnaires or meetings with something “pleasant,” like a local fair, was suggested.

Skepticism was expressed about citizens’ abilities and competencies on complex issues such as foreign or security policy. Yet there was support for plebiscites at local and regional levels as educational tools. Citizens are better informed about issues with direct relationship and access. Some issues, e.g., adoption of the common European currency, are not suitable for referendum.

Referendums were described as polarizing, based on emotions, difficult to revise, and often replacing consultation when communication is blocked. Different motivations among groups are a problem: some, typically pensioners, are always active, while young people are chronically absent.

Discussion also pointed to political and institutional culture. One respondent said: “This culture is not established in our country. If I fill something out or say something, I have no confidence that anything will change.” Passive citizens and “bad civil or uncivil society” reduce the impact of activation: “Activation must have some goal, or it might as well not happen.” Others noted that many active people take on several jobs and volunteer work, under constant pressure from a critical part of society.

The disappearance of physical meeting places such as pubs, accelerated by the pandemic, is seen as a significant obstacle. Online environments are not suitable for consultation. Despite support for evidence-based policies, respondents stressed emotions and the need to present politics through stories. Emotions are communication shortcuts in a complex world but carry risks of trivialization and anger. Social competence and functional literacy are key; without them, citizens rely on a “leader.”

Respondents disagreed on whether to introduce innovations during a crisis. Some saw the negative mood as harmful, others as a creative opportunity. One stressed: “Mistrust is closely linked to social status. It is necessary to first address basic needs, and then we can talk about trust.” Another opposed: even helping people in need does not guarantee support for democracy or NGOs. Trust is declining, but this decline is also a stimulus for innovation, since representative democracy is partially exhausted.

Optimistic voices pointed to advances in public administration, legislation, and NGOs, citing “small” things like the new definition of rape, compensation for victims, and protection of debtors.

Skeptical voices emphasized complicated processes, dire straits, and failing efforts to bring people out of marginalization.