Citizen participation does not resolve political mistrust

In most cases, greater awareness of a participation process does not lead to greater political trust. Many citizens are, at best, only vaguely aware that participation is taking place. On average, around three-quarters of those surveyed had a broad awareness of it, but that awareness was often limited to the most visible part: the vote. The discussion that preceded it, the trade-offs and, above all, the outcomes remained largely invisible.

What is more, it is mainly citizens who are already politically engaged, or who already have greater trust in politics, who know about these processes. The anxious citizen who lost faith in politics long ago is barely reached at all. "Participation is often sold as a remedy for political distrust, but in practice it mainly reaches the people who already follow politics or already trust it," says Turkenburg. "Without better communication and visible follow-up, the very group participation is meant for stays out of reach."

To reach this conclusion, Turkenburg examined four Dutch case studies: participatory budgeting in Amsterdam-East, Amsterdam-South and Enschede-South, and a citizens' assembly in the province of Drenthe. His central question: do processes like these reach the wider public, and if so, do they build political trust?

His research uncovered a second risk. When citizens get a say only on minor matters while the real decisions are made elsewhere, participation quickly comes to feel like a sham. "Some of the people I interviewed called it pseudocracy," says Turkenburg. "One spoke of having a say over 'a patch of grass'; another hoped that future rounds would deal with bigger sums and more important issues. Choices like these do nothing to change how citizens see politics as a whole."

None of this means citizen participation is worthless. Citizens who understand how a process works, and what becomes of it afterwards, do judge it more favourably. But those favourable judgements do not translate into greater political trust across the wider public. For that wider public, the democratic gains stay limited. Without good communication and visible follow-up, nothing changes for most people.

Turkenburg sees real potential when local and regional authorities use participation for clear, meaningful decisions and explain in advance what citizens can and cannot influence. "If you use participation on issues that matter, with enough funding, clear follow-up and good communication, it can contribute to democratic renewal," he says. "But that means treating it as a credible part of decision-making, not a standalone project bolted onto business as usual."

Jelle Turkenburg was awarded his PhD on 29 May 2026 at the University of Twente. He conducted his doctoral research in the Public Administration section of the Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS). His thesis, The Best of Both Worlds? The Effects of Hybrid Democratic Innovations on Public Political Support, grew out of research within the REDRESS project. His supervisors were Prof. M.J.G.J.A. Boogers (Utrecht University) and Prof. B.J.R. van der Meulen (University of Twente). His co-supervisors were Dr M. Rosema and Prof. H. van der Kolk, both at the University of Twente.