In my consultations on global democracy over the past year, people repeatedly pointed to mistrust in institutions, a disconnect between elites and citizens, and the sense that democracy doesn’t deliver as key drivers of democratic erosion.

Participation is often presented as the magic bullet on the assumption that more participation naturally builds trust. To dig into when participation actually builds trust and when it fails to do so, I sat down with Josh Lerner, co-director of People Powered, who is the natural person to ask about participatory democracy.

How do you define participation?

There are lots of definitions, and they vary by region. People also often use other terms to talk about participation, like civic engagement, consultation, and participatory governance. At People Powered, we talk about participatory democracy, but use a broad definition: activities that enable people to make the decisions that affect their lives, together with government. Not just monitoring or giving feedback, but having real influence over public decisions.

What’s the relationship between trust and participation?

First, declining trust isn’t automatically a bad thing. In many cases, distrust is justified: it reflects real failures in government performance. If institutions don’t deliver, people shouldn’t trust them. In that sense, mistrust is a signal that change is needed on the supply/government side. Trust has to be earned.

When does participation actually increase trust?

Participation builds trust when governments both engage people meaningfully and follow through. Without follow-through, participation doesn’t work.

It’s also important to distinguish levels. Participation at the local level doesn’t automatically translate into trust in national institutions. That said, local elements – like community meetings – can still strengthen national processes. National-level participation is harder because of bureaucracy, but it can work if there’s real follow-through. France’s national citizens’ convention on climate is a good example – it had great promise, but because the government didn’t follow through adequately, the convention didn’t increase trust.

What does good follow-through look like?

It starts with clear, honest, and transparent communication. Governments need to explain what they have done, and just as importantly, what they can and can’t do and why.

Take participatory budgeting: if a proposed swimming pool goes over budget or a new park requires building on federal land, people need to understand the constraints that can make these projects challenging. Follow-through isn’t just about outcomes; it’s about explanations.

Communication also needs to be multi-modal – not just written documents, but oral and visual formats – and repeated over time. And timing matters. If governments wait
too long, trust erodes.

Can participation backfire and actually reduce trust?

Absolutely – when it’s poorly designed, or there’s no follow-through. Participation has to be meaningful, not symbolic or a box-ticking exercise. Governments need to be clear upfront about what participation is for.

It can also fail if the experience is negative: too antagonistic or boring. To avoid that, start with a clear, concrete question: how to spend a budget, what policy to adopt, what to do with a piece of land.

Design and facilitation matter a lot. That can be done by government alone or in partnership with civil society. There also needs to be measurable outcomes. Some processes use elements of game design (1) – points, levels, recognition – to make participation more engaging. Others focus on peer learning, where community members learn from one another instead of listening to experts talk at them.

How do you reach people who are marginalized or skeptical of participation?

You need targeted outreach, especially for people who don’t usually show up. One key lesson from the Inclusive Democracy Accelerator, for example, is that inclusion has to start at the design stage. That decision shapes everything that follows.

In New York, for example, we designed the participatory budgeting program with a steering committee that included issue-focused organizations, organizations serving marginalized communities such as immigrants and public housing residents, and city officials. This helped bring in communities of color through trusted networks. Boston did something similar through its Youth Lead the Change initiative, intentionally centering young people as budget decision-makers.

It also helps to offer different levels of engagement – from light-touch participation to deeper involvement – so people can move in and out over time. And showing impact quickly, within one or two years, is critical. Long timelines – especially for infrastructure projects – can be very frustrating, such as when residents vote to build a playground but don’t see it materialize for four or five years.

How do you enable people to actually make decisions?

The decisions have to matter to the people you want to engage. People show up when they care. For example, street beautification projects tend to attract more affluent residents, while youth programs bring in younger and more diverse groups. Relevance drives participation.

What about resistance from within government?

You usually see three groups: champions, opponents, and a middle group that’s open under the right conditions. The middle group is key: you can engage them by addressing their concerns.

Trust has to flow both ways. Officials need to trust the public, not just the other way around. One effective strategy is to bring officials into citizen spaces – schools, neighborhoods, workplaces – where residents are the experts. Think of a community that understands flooding on their own street better than any outside planner.

Positive feedback also matters. Officials are more likely to support participation when they’re rewarded for it, sometimes literally, like getting thanked or hugged in public.

Finally, vulnerability is crucial. Admitting mistakes and limits humanizes public servants and builds trust. Governments aren’t great at this, but it makes a huge difference.

(1) Josh Lerner, Making Democracy Fun: How Game Design Can Empower Citizens and Transform Politics (The MIT Press, 2014).

Soheila Comninos