Articulo_1_EN_Doxa_28

and can assess the impact of their participation and the listening capacity of their municipal representatives. Moreover, they are able to regain trust if their expectations are met.

1.2. Participation and public deliberation

Participation is one of the preferred topics in recent academic literature on democratic renewal, active citizenship, and political processes, especially in cities (McLaverty, 2017; Ammassari, 2010; Harvey, 2013).

Participation offers opportunities for innovation at the municipal level in counteracting “the deficiencies of representative democracy” and pointing out “the difficulties in building an alternative” (Pierce, 2010: 23). Bauhr and Grimes (2014) emphasize the value of transparency and accountability as mechanisms to improve “informed participation” by citizens. Baack (2015) believes that open data is not accessible on its own, but requires the active mediation of both activists and journalists. Activism, through participation processes, allows for the introduction of innovative, anti-hegemonic ideas (Carroll and Hackett, 2006). This is not a closed question. Michels and De Graaf (2017) point out the difficulties in linking participation to executive capacity in order to transform public policies, although the ability of participants to advise local institutions is valued positively. For his part, Rafael Rubio (2018: 25) links communication with the right to be involved in the decision-making process: “This includes the commitment of authorities to provide information on the issues, open channels of participation, take into account the contribution of participants, and communicate how this translates into decisions”. The author considers that such techniques are the mechanisms to “guarantee and broaden the opportunities for participation by individuals, non-governmental organizations, and civil society in general in the exercise of public authority as a means of strengthening trust and credibility in democratic institutions” (ibid).

In the area of deliberation, the information available and organized in digital format must be accompanied by face-to-face deliberative processes to improve the quality of the discussions. The aim of the collective and face-to-face process is to find arguments, even if it does not guarantee a viable and sustainable proposal. As Manin (2005: 239) states, “the well-argued discussion does not necessarily produce satisfactory collective deliberation”. This concept of communication of a public nature requires a political environment open to criticism and the submission of social proposals through citizen participation. Open government, transparency, participation and collaboration are on the agenda of municipal strategic management, which is why we find a multitude of initiatives of various types among Spanish city councils (Campillo-Alhama, 2013).

In the opposite way, in the absence of such professionalization, the quality of information available in digital formats from municipalities, public information services and press offices, or on the website itself as a repository of files and documents of public interest, is reduce (Manfredi, Corcoy and Herranz, 2017). Professional malpractice leads to the elaboration of informative pieces without order, of an anecdotal nature, and that cannot be used as reliable documents. (Herrero, Martínez, Tapia, Rey and Cabezuelo, 2017; Fernández, Trabadela, Garcés and Ruano, 2017). This model impoverishes the quality of the information and hinders guaranteed participation. There can be no neighbourhood participatory development if the free provision of public information is not organized according to these principles of quality.