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