CSO Consultations in Slovakia

Democratic innovations must be planned in advance with clearly defined goals, roles, and frameworks. Transparency and legitimacy are essential. Transparency increases legitimacy and broader support even without full consensus. Legitimacy stems from inclusivity, communicated expectations, and the anticipated role of deliberative input. Citizens engage when they understand boundaries and how input will be used.

Institutionalizing innovations is important. Regular, recognized mechanisms such as citizens’ assemblies, participatory councils, or youth councils enhance stability, trust, and continuity. Ad hoc initiatives may address urgent issues but depend on strong institutional links and follow-up. Processes are lengthy: the closure of coal mines showed that participation grows slowly, first none, then two, then ten, and more.

Inclusivity is widely supported, but full consensus in large groups is unrealistic. Well-facilitated deliberation is more feasible, with disagreement acknowledged and decisions reached through majority consensus. Higher levels require stakeholders rather than ordinary citizens. Some topics, such as human rights, need structured deliberative tools to avoid oversimplification or populist influence. Forums deepen understanding and promote democratic learning.

Deliberative processes are preferred over direct or mass voting, especially for complex issues. Risks of misinformation, emotions, and lack of information reduce value. Structured, moderated forums led by neutral authority clarify misunderstandings and ensure diverse perspectives. Facilitators must define scope, avoid deliberation fatigue, and maintain focus. Success requires time, trustworthy leadership, and diverse viewpoints.

Practical suggestions: start small and local (classroom matters in schools and kindergartens), build a culture of participation. Use multiple communication channels (online, face-to-face, community-based). Address target groups appropriately: young people via social media or influencers, others via forums or meetings. Offer incentives and recognition: Financial or symbolic rewards, public acknowledgment, storytelling. Honorariums in Citizens’ Assemblies are modest, cover costs, and broaden participation. Compensation creates commitment and parallels elected representatives’ salaries. Accessibility is key: understandable language, clear explanations, and ongoing communication.

Examples include the Ministry of Labour: Stakeholder working groups, clear rules, timelines, open communication, written records, tangible outcomes, partnership with NGOs. A key theme was self-efficacy: Input must have meaning and impact. Too often participation is formalistic, a procedural formality disconnected from local needs.

Participation often remains within “silos,” inaccessible to citizens, leaving them vulnerable to misinformation. Participation must serve as learning for both citizens and institutions. It must be embedded within decision-making rather than parallel or after. If consultation comes only after decisions, influence is minimal.

Facilitators need education. Public administration professionals should be trained at university level in participatory tools and approaches. Many officials lack understanding, rely on questionnaires, or see participation as inefficient. Outsourcing to NGOs or professional firms is possible. Longer planning horizons are needed, with participation built into early stages of policy design.

At municipal level, local politicians often show more openness due to activist backgrounds but lack know-how. Policy formulation often begins without external input, weakening later participation. Some suggested independent, expert authorities to ensure fairness and transparency.

Encouraging citizens is challenging when protests are the most visible form. Protests are valid but attract mainly active individuals. Broader legitimization by elected officials is necessary to engage diverse groups. Debate arose on activism versus participation: participation should be inclusive and accessible beyond activists. Systemic solutions vary with political will. Without will, participants expressed frustration.

Three issues are raised:

• ability and willingness of people,

• obstacles from political leaders,

• and social media.

Engagement depends on trust toward organizers and previous experiences with tangible outcomes. Barriers include perceptions of organizers as elite, with university degrees and sophisticated language (jargon). Ordinary citizens feel excluded, lacking proper knowledge. Lack of education and lack of trust combine to prevent full participation.

Political leaders may resist incorporating participatory elements or outcomes. The Slovak case showed direct attacks from politicians against NGOs, attempts to limit their monitoring role, and amendments to NGO law challenged before the Constitutional Court. In a hostile climate, alternative methods, media attention, public interest campaigns, indirect advocacy become urgent.

Social media influences participation. Positively, it provides access to information on budgets or events. Negatively, it discourages offline participation by offering a space to vent frustration and anger. Long-term, it undermines deliberative skills, limiting constructive argument. 

Other barriers:

• Lack of regular involvement leads to skepticism and disengagement.

• Changes in political leadership (four / five-year terms) disrupt processes.

• Skepticism remains about engaging citizens in high-level EU policy.

A more targeted engagement by topic and scale was suggested.