Articulo_1_EN_Doxa_28

is of interest in the sense that citizen participation is not so different from conventional participation. Interest groups (neighbourhood associations, shopkeepers and NGOs) are complementary instruments of participation in the political systems of representative democracies. Thus, it has been confirmed that the opening of such systems to other ways of participation is not a direct symptom of neighbours being more integrated, as individuals, in municipal decisions.

It should be noted that meetings proposed in the participatory budgets have focused on the exchange of opinions among citizens, or at least this is what has been stated, since given the characteristics of this work we have not attended any of them nor have we been able to find information on their development. In most cases, due to the fact that citizens are not generally experts in the subjects being debated, there is a situation in which certain points of view that may be of great relevance to the discussion are prevented from entering the process. This point deserves a substantial critique of the process, insofar as neighbours have the right to know the extent of their own initiative within the municipal legal framework, budgetary constraints, or the priorities of elected officials.

While it is true that the specialists evaluate the proposals once they have been presented, it has not been observed that they participate in the deliberation phase. This situation could be avoided with the presence of experts in the subjects of the debates in such a way that these meetings would serve both as debates as well as learning sessions, which would undoubtedly result in higher quality opinions, or in other words, opinions that are more well-informed. This could reduce the percentage of proposals that the specialists consider unfeasible, which was 28.77% in 2017 and 32% in 2016.

Therefore, as we stated in H3, participation requires a previous process of deliberation and a certain degree of expert knowledge in order for the results to be viable and sustainable, not just what is desired.

In summary, this work aims to contribute to the study of political communication at the municipal level in order to create a solid correlation between political participation, organized groups of neighbours who demand openness and transparency in the decision-making process, and the use of information technology. We should guard against falling into the trap of optimism, because access to information or the opening of participation processes based on the dissemination of public information does not guarantee per se a qualitative increase in participation. The results are in line with those identified by Liden (2016) and Baack (2015).

The experience of the Madrid City Council confirms that unfeasible initiatives might be promoted, others may not fall within the legal jurisdiction of the Madrid City Council, and others may generate undesirable external effects. For this reason, the function of public information, managed by the institution itself, has to explore ways to guide neighbourhood dialogue, predefine the topics and public issues that can truly be affected by participatory budgets, and diversify the channels through which real participation can be carried out. Only in this way can participation be united with substantial improvements in municipal policy.

5. Bibliographical references

Alfaro, C. y Gómez, J. (2016). “Un sistema de indicadores para la medición, evaluación, innovación y participación orientado a la Administración Pública”, Methaodos. Revista de ciencias sociales, vol. 4, n. 2, pp. 274-290. doi: 10.17502/m.rcs.v4i2.124