Instrumentalization or Democratic Potential? Political Uses of Hybrid Democratic Innovations

Democratic innovations are often designed to advance democratic ideals, including fostering deeper citizen participation, improving policy outcomes, developing civic skills, and enhancing legitimacy, transparency, and accountability (Elstub & Escobar, 2019; Michels, 2011; Smith, 2009). Yet, these innovations are not immune to instrumentalization, as political actors may employ them to achieve their own objectives, such as managing contentious decisions, enhancing public relations, or appearing responsive (Thompson, 2019; Klijn & Koppenjan, 2002). Instrumental uses can range from cherry-picking the outcomes of mini-publics (Font et al., 2018) to influencing referendum results (Fishkin et al., 2015) and even co-opting participatory instruments to undermine opposition to policies (Holdo, 2019; Lima, 2021; Lee & Romano, 2013). Recent scholarship has expanded the focus beyond individual democratic innovations to consider combinations of participatory forms. These include hybrid democratic innovations that integrate deliberative and aggregative forms (Hendriks, 2023), multichannel approaches with diverse types of engagement (Spada et al., 2016), and sequential processes that connect multiple participatory instruments within the policymaking cycle (Geissel, 2023). While these combinations hold significant promise to improve democratic processes, they may also be susceptible to instrumentalization by political actors, raising critical questions about their ability to balance democratic ideals and strategic political interests. This paper investigates how political actors use hybrid democratic innovations, combinations of aggregative and deliberative forms of participation, analyzing their use along a spectrum—from advancing democratic ideals to instrumentalization and outright co-optation, uses which can occur simultaneously. The analysis also examines this usage at two levels of political actors – at the micro-level of individual politicians as well as groups of political actors within the political system. Empirically, the paper presents a comparative case study of two municipalities in the Netherlands where aggregative and deliberative democratic innovations were combined: a referendum followed by a citizens’ assembly on the topic of waste policy. In both cases, municipal waste policies were rejected in referendums, prompting the organization of citizens’ assemblies to deliberate on the same issue. In both cases, the citizens’ assemblies issue advice that does not align with the original municipal policies. Data collection includes interviews with political actors conducted before and after the citizens’ assemblies’ outcomes, alongside analysis of municipal documents and public statements. By examining these cases, this exploratory research illustrates when and how combinations of democratic innovations are strategically deployed by political actors and identifies key factors influencing their use. Its findings emphasize the importance of factors such as the salience of the policy issue, citizen support for opposing policies, the degree of political division, and the alignment of citizens’ recommendations with existing political preferences in explaining the use of this combination by political actors. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of how combinations of democratic innovations can both advance and undermine democratic ideals within the broader democratic system.