Of the four classic governance strategies, none regards power balance as a challenge requiring ongoing adjustment. The hierarchical strategy assumes people will accept power differences as a fact of life, and not seek to usurp the order of things. The minimalist takes it that without a central authority amassing power, nobody else would either. The egalitarian believes the issue can be resolved once and for all with everyone having the same power, even though that can only be secured paradoxically by a very powerful authority. And the disciplinarian threatens severe punishment for anyone not submitting to the uneven distribution of power that will sustain the regime in control. The meta-strategy of democracy, however, seeks to respond to the dynamic changes of power relations by engaging the people themselves in adapting policies, personnel, and practices to maintain an overall equilibrium so that none can come to dominate others. In this chapter, we will look at why participatory decision making has a vital role to play in attaining democratic power balance, what superficial or counterproductive forms of participation should be avoided, and how participatory involvement in decision making can be improved.

Why decision making needs members’ participation

Disillusionment breeds irrationality. When things go wrong, the proverbial baby is never far from making an untimely exit with the bathwater. Whenever some voting arrangements have, for example, led to outcomes that are detrimental to a large number of people, democracy is blamed.

The Brexit outcome of the UK's EU Referendum and Trump's win in the 2016 US presidential election have both raised questions for many observers about where opening up decision making to all may lead us. Meanwhile, authoritarian regimes cite the turmoil engendered to illustrate the pitfalls of allowing the public a say in matters that should be left to those in charge (Phillips, T., 2016). But as civic-communitarian critics have consistently warned, if the democratisation of our governance arrangements does not advance and continuously improve, dangerous fault lines may remain. Instead of dismissing democracy, we should be asking how it can be strengthened further to prevent its current weaknesses from being exploited.