CSO Consultations in Romania

Most participants referred to the local level, because the local level is where citizens can actually “see” and “learn” democracy. Others argued that democratic innovations at levels higher than the local one take time to learn because a critical mass of citizens who act democratically at local level must be formed and for the moment this mass is missing in Romania. Implementation at the local level, where the community can be mobilized more effectively, is key. Several participants argued that it is an overstretch and maybe counterproductive to speak about innovations when the basics are still missing; participatory debates should be a mandatory step before any democratic innovation project.

All participants considered that organizing participatory acts requires involvement of so-called facilitators who are very important in encouraging people to participate and communicating the importance of this participation for the functioning and development of the local community. These facilitators can come from public institutions or civil society. Participants believed that someone or institutions must take responsibility and oversee the whole process, and the organizer must communicate effectively the “political” aspect of such acts.

Many participants emphasized the importance of reaching the spaces where people gather: Online (there is a need of quality content; specific communities in Romania such as Reddit, Facebook); Clubs for retired people; students’ associations; youth centers. The existence or creation of community centers at the level of neighborhoods may also result in higher engagement. Some participants noted that increasing competition for resources and target groups undermines genuine civic spaces and multiplies bubbles. Rather, partnerships and collaboration should be encouraged.

Participants mentioned that only having referenda every now and then increases the risk of manipulation and disinformation is high when referenda focus on sensitive topics and when people do not have the exercise of regularly participating. While online democratic innovations are important, efforts need to involve those not yet “digitalized.” Therefore, a mix of online and offline options is preferable.

The idea of low trust in public institutions re-surfaced; participants argued that civil society is often heavily involved and public institutions should ensure a legal framework and access to necessary resources, while sometimes allowing civil society, NGOs, and action groups to take the lead. Civic engagement works best when there is a level of education; population better educated in civic participation is very important. There is a strong need for credible information sources (legacy media, not social media). Especially for smaller communities, the three essential elements are facilitation + empowerment + know-how transfer. Financing should be extended to local projects and to culture and arts. A significant proposal was the “translation” of technical documents into a format easy to understand; one participant proposed creating a national authority with this role. Transparency requirements should ensure documents for public consultation are more accessible; legal requirements to make documents accessible, allow citizens to access their input, and sanction those who hinder public access were also proposed.

Participants mentioned that the public administration does not want to implement democratic innovations because they “disrupt regular activities”, are not included in the functioning procedures, and are extra-work for over-worked and under-paid people. Public administration needs additional funding. Similarly, politicians involved in promoting and implementing democratic innovations need to be rewarded, at least as a symbol.

There is overreliance on social media for popularizing participatory processes, but social media is not a neutral or objective channel. AI profiling users and feeding them only certain information should be addressed by reducing technological dependence on the US and China and promoting alternative digital tools that support democratic processes. Similarly, instead of using online platforms designed for commercial goals, platforms designed primarily for civic participation should be developed. Civic communication must not be limited to social media; alternative spaces and more responsible behaviour (e.g., identity verification) are needed.

There is lack of knowledge about the proper needs of the community. Solutions include mapping the needs of the community; existing successful models such as community foundations, the European Youth Village, micro-grants (~1000 EUR); consultations to identify what people are concerned with when clearly explained at local level. Increasing geographical, social, and economic inequalities are exploited for political gain solutions: addressing puzzles of inequality more frequently in public space.

There is lack of proper funding for democracy and human rights activities. Solutions include increasing funding, diversifying types, and sources, increasing civic education funding in schools. In small communities, people are afraid to speak their minds solutions: external empowerment, improving local media quality and credibility, saving legacy media. Lack of imagination in public interest campaigns. Solutions: Better research needs of communities, stop cloning others’ campaigns, invest in analysis and feasibility, recruit more diverse people. Finally, lack of incentives and sanctions for public authorities. Solutions: assume institutional responsibility for public projects, reward engaging staff, make communication platforms more accessible and updated, and engage with political parties on such matters.