CSO Consultations in Italy

Across the discussions, democratic innovations are seen as “positive in themselves” but often “forgotten,” “hidden,” or “bogged down” when institutions “do not consider or ignore them.” Participants point to platforms “easier from an administrative point of view” but “difficult to use” for people without advanced digital skills. At the same time, concrete experiences, local referendums, petitions that changed a lunch-break rule show that “with the right implementation” tools “are functional.” Digital formats can “promote horizontal dialogue,” moving beyond “a very passive thing” of just voting, by offering “the possibility of interacting.”

Local CSOs underline that petitions and popular legislative proposals are “fundamental” yet “end up buried,” and that “non-participation is not determined by disinterest, but by a lack of trust.” Referendums are “wonderful and fundamental,” but “delegitimized” by institutions and weakened by communication. Newer tools (participatory budgeting, mini-publics) are “unknown” in parts of southern Italy. Social media “increase visibility” but risk “debasement,” “trivialization,” and processes that “end up back where they started.”

National CSOs describe “the greatest crisis of democracy,” with mechanisms “underused” and “not particularly flourishing,” due to the “great deafness of institutional politics.” Still, “from below,” there are “interesting forms of collaboration” in energy, housing, food, and mobility, mainly at small scale, showing “a capacity for networking” among municipalities, associations, movements, and unions. Strong “alliances” among administrations, associations, movements for common goods, intellectuals, and trade unions are seen as needed.

Participants call for structured, transparent, and inclusive processes with a “clear place” in decision-making. A common sequence is “dialogue at the beginning and then a final referendum,” using referendums for ratification or guidance when issues are “technical or sensitive.” Political “filtering” should “respect the will of the people”, “filter but do not modify” with representatives acting as “guarantors” rather than autonomous decision-makers.

Institutionalization is recurrent: establish regular “dialogue on topics of common interest,” start “in schools,” dedicate time to “develop critical thinking,” and introduce “rules” that make instruments “stable and binding,” while recognizing some areas “could require consultation” and others not. Transparency and accessibility include “digital transmission and recording of municipal council meetings” and publishing decisions and consultation results on transparency portals.

Local CSOs stress integration “into the legislative and administrative process,” early, distributed involvement (“public meetings throughout the territory”), verification and “audit,” and “controlled digitalization” with “algorithm transparency.” Rebuilding intermediary bodies (neighborhood committees, associations, trade unions) is central, with a focus on “concrete issues” of daily life. National CSOs emphasize strengthening democratic culture, enhancing physical and digital spaces, ensuring continuity (not “occasional”), innovating tools (e.g., quorum, “propositional referendum”), supporting intermediary hubs (labor chambers), disseminating best practices, and “reducing the distance” between civil society and institutions.

Civic and political education “starting in primary school” (Citizenship and Constitution) and simulation projects (e.g., European Youth Parliament, political training schools) are viewed as practical steps. Digital accessibility requires “easy-to-use platforms,” “graphic guides or slides,” and interfaces “in the wake of Facebook” to reduce fear of making mistakes. Neutral “facilitators and moderators” should “guide the process without influencing it,” remaining impartial.

Transparency: “Broadcast on TV” and saved recordings of council meetings can reduce “lies” and increase trust. Participants link “non-participation” to “lack of trust” and call for communication that is “clear,” “timely,” and not “slogans,” especially for referendums and popular consultations.

Integrating innovations so they have a “real impact” (not “symbolic gestures”), recognizing minority views, and making “participatory budgets” visible were repeated points.

From the workshop strands: rebuild “intermediate bodies,” use technology responsibly amid concerns about manipulation, and keep a strong relation to representation so that “good laws” are written by “people… capable of writing them.” Young people are described as sensitive to “quality of life” but often face barriers and feel “not listened to.”

Limits recur at structural, cultural, and procedural levels. Processes can be “very slow,” with “great difficulty in producing a coherent and concrete synthesis,” and can amplify conflict where minority opinions feel “attacked and marginalized.” Many tools are “ignored,” used only “formally,” or “undermined” by bureaucracy; digital divides persist through “unintuitive interfaces” and lack of guides. A “lack of a widespread culture of participation” and fading “dialogue” hinder uptake. Mediation by representatives can slip from “adaptation” into “modification.”

Participants note referendum challenges: high costs, thresholds, and weak follow-up. “What happens to the referendum result” if higher bodies can “render it meaningless?” Low trust and perceptions of ineffectiveness create a “vicious circle.” Representation is weakened by “clientelism,” with “merit… a form of rhetoric,” and intermediary bodies “absent” or “weak.” Technology raises risks of “manipulation,” “oligarchic power,” and a language “of a few initiates,” alongside ideological polarization where slogans dominate. Young people often lack spaces to be “listened to,” and there is a broader “tendency towards abdication of responsibility,” making sustained participation harder.