4 =a mnmyvwx Cc Oo

mo Mm wm Hw

“We are in difficult and dangerous times. For
many years, we lived in a world that, despite
its problems, was nevertheless committed to
principles of democracy in which human rights,
fundamental freedoms, and opportunities for
personal development, were increasing. Today,
this picture has changed profoundly. There
are attacks on democracy in several countries -
including those where democracy had seemed
to be unshakable. Faced by these develop-
ments, we believe the design community should
take a stand, speak out, and act: practitioners,
researchers, theorists, students, journalists,
publishers and curators - all who are profession-
ally involved in design-related activities” [1].

This is the incipit of an Open Letter to the
Design Community Victor Margolin and I wrote
one year ago, March 2017. Since them several
things happened, several discussions took place
and several reflections have been done. The
following one is a contribution moving in this
same direction. It doesn’t deal with the whole
issue of democracy regeneration, but it focuses
on the one of participatory democracy. More
precisely, it proposes the following question: can
the experiences of social innovation in general,
and the ones of design for social innovation in
particular, help to update and upgrade the ideas
and practices of democracy (and, specifically,
those of participative democracy)?

In order to start this discussion a scenario
is proposed, i.e. a scenario of a project-centred
democracy. The idea is to extend the definition
of democracy by considering its ‘designing’
dimension: democracy as a hybrid, physical
and digital space, equipped to offer people
an increased possibility to meet, to start
conversations, to conceive and collaboratively
enhance their projects. That is, a democracy that
not only gives people the freedom to meet and

collaboratively design their lives and their world,
but that also has to be seen as a space equipped
to give these conversations and codesign
processes a better chance of concrete results [2].

LESSONS LEARNT FROM SOCIAL
INNOVATION

In recent years, the crisis of democracy has not
spared participatory democracy. But I think
it has affected it in ways that are different and
less disruptive than those we are witnessing in
representative democracy. Above all, it has left
space for significant signs of vitality and renewal.
More precisely, I think that, on this field too, as
in many others, social innovation, converging
with technological innovation, is indicating to
us a viable direction. That is, how to make new
forms of participation possible.

To discuss it, let’s start from some simple,
naive questions: why should people participate?
In other words, why should they invest time
and energy in participatory actions? Why
should they commit themselves, imposing
constraints on their own freedom of action?
The traditional reply is that they should do so
out of a sense of civic responsibility: because
it is right to take part in decision-making, and
in the actions this entails, when it concerns
the entire community. I think this reply is still
valid, but we should add to it another; one which
refers to the motivations and the capabilities of
active citizens, as they emerge - as I said- froma
perusal of recent social innovation.

For example, let’s consider people deciding
to live collaboratively. Why do they do it? The
experience says: they do it because they think
sharing residential spaces and services is
useful, feasible and economically advantageous.
Furthermore, they undoubtedly also recognize
value in sharing with their neighbours, and in

relational quality in general. Lastly, they very
probably think that what they are doing is also
positive for the neighbourhood and the whole
city (in that it produces a social commons
and feeds conversation on this theme with
innovative ideas about living better). The same
can be said for the farmers and local citizens
who create farmers’ markets, and for all those
committed to mutual help (in the general
frame of collaborative welfare) or who organize
neighbourhood cultural activities (such as local
initiatives of urban regeneration); or for makers
andthe newcraftspeople (when they are involved
in open production activities, distributed over
the local area).

All this highlights a first lesson that social
innovation teaches us: there is a ‘new kind of
civic sense.’ The civic sense of a person who
not only takes part in discussion about issues of
public interest, but who also puts into practise
and manages what he has discussed. He does so
for himself, for the people he collaborates with,
and for society as a whole.

PARTICIPATING AS CO-DESIGNING

The cases offered as examples also teach us
another lesson: they are forms of participation
in which decision-making is directly linked
with putting things into practice. It is not only
a question of talking about what to do, but also
of doing what has been talked about. In other
words, the people discussing must also be ina
position to actually do what has been discussed.
So, the second lesson to be learned from social
innovation is this: the composition of the group
collaborating to achieve a result defines the
field of possibility within which that result can
be imagined and achieved. Or to put it the other
way round, having established what we wish to
achieve, we must create a group that is able to