Interviews
Stefano Sotgiu From Ballot Boxes to Courtrooms: Rethinking the Right to Participate
For over 25 years, Stefano Sotgiu has worked at the intersection of public policy, legal innovation, and deliberative democracy. As President of Prossima Democrazia and a partner in the Horizon Europe project INSPIRE, he brings a sharp legal perspective to the evolving landscape of citizen participation. In this interview, he unpacks what it truly means to have a “right to participate” and why democracy needs more than votes; it needs infrastructure, strategy, and courage.
One of the core concepts in this field is the right to participate. Could you define it for us?
The right to participate is a fundamental human right, recognized by key international frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as by many national constitutions. It is most commonly associated with the right to vote for elected representatives, but its scope is much broader—it includes the right to take part directly in shaping public policies, particularly those related to the environment. This right was significantly reinforced with the ratification of the Aarhus Convention in the early 2000s, which obliges states to inform and involve citizens in environmental decision-making processes.
What are the tools that enable the exercise of this right?
The instruments vary across legal systems. In Italy, for instance, we have Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). These mechanisms are not only legal requirements but also opportunities to include citizens in the evaluation of public projects and their ecological consequences. Importantly, these tools can be redesigned or adapted to be more inclusive and participatory.
What actions can citizens take to assert their right to participate?
There’s a wide range of actions available to citizens: they can form committees, organize citizens’ assemblies, propose popular legislative initiatives, gather signatures for petitions, or promote referenda. These instruments can also be combined to create more impactful and informed participation processes. The key is to activate these rights collectively and strategically.
Can legal action; such as litigation against the state or a company, also be considered a form of participation?
Yes, absolutely. In some cases, legal action becomes the final and most decisive form of participation.
Strategic litigation can elevate public issues to the judicial level, leading to the recognition of new rights or the annulment of illegitimate actions through case law.
Strategic litigation can elevate public issues to the judicial level, leading to the recognition of new rights or the annulment of illegitimate actions through case law. It’s a powerful tool when all other participatory avenues have been exhausted or ignored.
Let’s talk about citizen organization. In Barcelona, members of the Citizens’ Climate Assembly are forming an association to increase their impact. What do you think about these kinds of associations created by randomly selected citizens?
This is a natural and encouraging evolution of active citizenship. We’re seeing similar developments in Bologna, where members of the Citizens’ Assembly for Climate Change are also establishing an association to monitor local regulations. These initiatives show a growing awareness and long-term commitment among citizens. It’s a positive sign that deliberative experiences are not isolated events but the beginning of sustained civic engagement.
Can you tell us about the Social Parenthood Citizens’ Assembly in Milano?
Yes, it was a significant initiative carried out within the framework of a European-funded project, in collaboration with the Associazione Luca Coscioni and Humans. We created a citizens’ assembly to address the topic of social parenthood, deliberately including a diversity of perspectives—secular and religious alike. The recommendations generated by the assembly are currently being reviewed by the relevant institutions. Importantly, we observed real shifts in participants’ opinions over the course of the process—a strong indicator of meaningful dialogue and mutual understanding.
Do you think this experience could serve as a prototype for addressing political and social polarization?
Absolutely. It was a bold and democratic experiment, involving civil society organizations with strong and sometimes opposing views. Rather than avoiding difficult conversations, the process placed democracy at the center. It demonstrates how participatory and deliberative formats can enrich democratic life and allow civil society organizations to play a constructive public role.
How can we foster a democratic culture amid so many different initiatives and experiments?
First and foremost, we need to fund participatory and deliberative processes adequately. Institutions must support (not only tolerate) the autonomous initiatives of citizens, and that includes providing financial backing. We must invest in spaces and human resources dedicated to democracy. Participants should be compensated for their time and contributions, as they are performing a public function. Currently, resources are scarce or concentrated in the hands of a few institutions. We need broader, fairer public investment in civic participation to ensure that more citizens are truly included in democratic processes.
We agree that litigation can represent the final and most decisive form of citizen participation. Could you expand on how it becomes not just a legal tool, but a political and even poetic gesture of democratic action? Can courts serve as new deliberative arenas?
Strategic litigation is not merely a legal mechanism but could be a vibrant, public, and sometimes poetic act of democratic assertion. Courts, through their deliberative structures, can indeed serve as new arenas for democratic contestation, reasoned debate, and the ongoing reimagining of justice and community. They can’t replace political arenas but can establish rights and help opening to a broad discussion on hot and controversial democratic topics.
What happens when a citizens’ assembly produces powerful recommendations, but institutions fail to act? Do you see potential in combining assemblies with legal follow-up mechanisms; such as citizen-led litigation or independent ombudspersons tasked with monitoring the institutional response?
While citizens’ assemblies alone cannot guarantee institutional action, combining them with citizen-led litigation and independent oversight—such as ombudspersons tasked with monitoring responses—offers a promising path to strengthen accountability and democratic renewal.
These mechanisms can transform assemblies from advisory exercises into catalysts for meaningful change, ensuring that the collective voice of citizens is not only heard but also acted upon as a result of exemplary judgements.
These mechanisms can transform assemblies from advisory exercises into catalysts for meaningful change, ensuring that the collective voice of citizens is not only heard but also acted upon as a result of exemplary judgements.
Young people are increasingly turning to the courts when politics fails to respond to the climate crisis. How do you see the relationship between youth-led climate litigation and participatory democracy? Could citizens’ assemblies serve as a launching pad or complement for such legal strategies?
Youth-led climate litigation and citizens’ assemblies are not competing approaches but mutually reinforcing pillars of participatory democracy. Assemblies can empower and inform legal strategies, while litigation can enforce and elevate the outcomes of citizen deliberation. Together, they offer a dynamic response to the democratic deficits exposed by the climate crisis, ensuring that young people have both a voice and a means to demand accountability and action
In a context where authoritarian tendencies are advancing, what role can deliberators (citizens who engage in structured and inclusive participation) play? Can deliberative processes offer a form of democratic resistance or resilience?
Deliberators can indeed be vital agents of democratic resistance and resilience when authoritarianism advances. Through structured, inclusive participation, they keep the spirit and practice of democracy alive—challenging domination, sustaining public reason, and building the civic foundations necessary for eventual democratic renewal. While not a panacea, deliberative processes offer both practical and symbolic tools for defending and reimagining democracy under pressure.
In the Alghero pilot of the INSPIRE project, local residents are confronting a conflict between climate goals and spatial justice: renewable energy companies are occupying public buildings and land without meaningful citizen involvement. What are your expectations for this process? Can it become a model for reconciling environmental urgency with democratic legitimacy and local control?
The Alghero pilot of the INSPIRE project stands at a crossroads: it can either reinforce existing patterns of top-down development or become a pioneering model for reconciling environmental urgency with democratic legitimacy and local control. Success will depend on the depth of citizen involvement, the robustness of oversight mechanisms, and the ability to balance climate goals with the rights and aspirations of local communities. Prerequisites are the municipality effort and the third sector commitment in involving citizens and city users at a first stage in the public debate and then in the monitoring and implementation of adopted measures.
