For those unable to hold the content of a monthly newsletter doing a system’s change deep dive at the front of mind. Check out the archive for parts 0 - 7.

“We don’t have time to ask people.”

I have heard that objection more times than I can count, from commissioners, sceptics and myself.

The sentence arrives with the weight of obvious common sense. There is a decision to be made, the clock is running, and bringing more people into the room can only slow things down.

Participation, on this account, is a luxury good. Affordable when the stakes are low and the calendar is open, unaffordable the moment things speed up. The faster the world moves, the argument goes, the less time there is to decide together.

It is a reasonable-sounding objection, and one that has more impact than it pretends to.

Because folded inside that sentence is a claim about how long good decisions take, how fast the world moves, and who can be trusted to keep up.

We have reached the length of delays, ninth on Meadows’ list, below paradigms, goals, structural conditions, rules, information flows, and the feedback loops that the last two issues have covered.

By now you will know that further down the seesaw does not mean marginal. It means the work happens in concert with everything above it, rather than announcing itself as transformation.

Which is just as well, because it is only by delving into the unglamorous end of leverage points that we can determine whether anything upstream can accumulate at all.

The gap between acting and knowing

Anyone who has facilitated online will know the particular misery of a call with lag. Two people start speaking at once, both stop to let the other in, both start again, both apologise, both wait, and the silence stretches until someone risks it and the collision repeats.

Nobody is being rude and nothing is broken. Each person is simply responding to where the conversation was half a second ago, never to where it is now. Half a second of delay, in a system that moves at the speed of talk, is enough to turn two people who agree with each other into a pile-up.

That is what the length of a delay is. The time between an action and the feedback that tells you what the action did.

And once you start looking, the lag is in systems everywhere, most often stretched over years rather than half-seconds.

The lag between dumping a pollutant and finding it in the groundwater. The lag between cutting a service and the harm surfacing some years later. The lag between raising interest rates and the economy actually responding. The lag between a policy and its consequences arriving just in time for the next government to take credit.

In each case the system is stuck on that laggy call, responding to where things were, apologising, and starting again at the wrong moment.

The crucial thing is that speed is a feature not the answer. A delay only matters relative to the rate of change in whatever it is trying to control. A long delay is no trouble in a slow system. A short delay can be a catastrophe in a fast one. There is no good or bad length in the abstract. There is only matched and mismatched.

Slow compared to what

When we are talking about decision making, the need for speed is hiding at least four different delays, and they do not behave the same way.

1. The decision delay. The time it takes to reach a choice.

2. The implementation delay. The time between the choice and anything actually happening.

3. The correction delay. The time it takes to notice a decision was wrong and change course.

4. The reversal delay. The ease with which a decision, once made, can simply be undone by whoever comes next.

The complaint about participation is almost always a complaint about the first of these, and only the first. Deliberation does lengthen the decision delay; gathering people, giving them evidence, letting them argue it through and change their minds takes longer than a memo.

But a process worth the name tends to shorten the other three. It surfaces the objections that would otherwise have ambushed implementation later. It builds the shared understanding that lets people spot when something is going wrong and say so. And because the people affected helped shape the thing, it is far harder for the next administration, or the next restructure, to bin it.

So the honest version of the trade-off is not slow versus fast. It is a longer wait at the front in exchange for a shorter, stickier path to a stable outcome. A unilateral decree is quick to issue and quick to reverse. It’s noise without impact.

Participation is slow to begin and slow to undo, which is a polite way of saying it holds. For a public body, the only speed that finally matters is the time it takes to reach an outcome that survives contact with reality. Measured that way, the quick decision is frequently the slow one.

Take carbon taxes. Two neighbouring countries reached for the same instrument at the same moment and only the process differed.

In late 2018, the French government announced a fuel tax rise by decree, effective within weeks. The gilets jaunes filled the roundabouts, the increase was suspended, then scrapped, and France’s carbon price has been frozen ever since. One fast decision, and the entire trajectory stalled for the best part of a decade.

Ireland ran the same policy through its Citizens’ Assembly, where 80 per cent of members recommended higher carbon taxes; not because citizens enjoy paying more for petrol, but because they had sat with the evidence and the trade-offs. A cross-party committee carried the recommendation into law, and the tax has risen every year since, through an energy crisis, a cost-of-living crisis, and a change of government, on a legislated path to €100 per tonne by 2030.

The decree took weeks to make and weeks to die. The deliberation took two years and is still compounding.

The charge of slowness is real; it has just been pointed in the wrong direction all along. And finding where it actually belongs means dealing first with an assumption about where participation sits politically.

The slow architecture is the centralised one

There is a lazy assumption about where participation sits politically. That wanting more voices in more decisions is code for wanting more progressive policies, which gets filed, in the binary that swallows most political conversation, under ‘the left’, with the further insinuation that what is really being argued for is centralised state control.

The binary does not fit. Participation advocates are, of necessity, among the sharpest critics of centralised planning, and the reason is not ideological. It is delay.

A massive central planning system functions poorly for the same structural reason whether it is a Soviet ministry or a corporate headquarters. In centralised, hierarchical systems, information has to travel up through layers, get simplified at each one to stay legible, and travel back down again, by which point the situation it described has moved on.

Public institutions are the usual suspects here, and often deservedly so, caught in habits of internal dysfunction while their purpose points outwards. But this is not a disease of the public sector. It is a disease of distance, and it afflicts any organisation built as a tall pyramid with the deciding done at the top.

The centre governs through a stripped-down map of reality, because a map is the only thing it can hold, and the distance between the map and the territory is itself a kind of delay.

The forest looks healthy on the spreadsheet long after the soil has given out. The store looks profitable on the dashboard long after the customers have stopped coming back. The restructure looks rational at group level long after the people delivering the service could have told you which bits would break.

By the time the failure is legible at the top, it is no longer correctable at the bottom.

Distributed participation is, among other things, a way of shortening that distance. More people, closer to where the consequences land first, noticing the damp patch before the ceiling comes down. The frontline worker, the service user, the resident, the temporary citizen body convened on the exact question at hand; these are sensors, and a system with more of them feels its own mistakes sooner.

The thing routinely accused of slowing democracy down is one of the few mechanisms that lets a democracy detect, early, that it has been heading the wrong way. Centralisation is not the fast option, nor the effective option. It is the option that finds out last.

When shorter delays make things worse

The accusation is dead: participation is not the slow architecture. That’s centralisation.

The temptation now is to bank the win and campaign on the reverse, that deciding together is actually the fast option. That would be repeating the exact mistake we have just diagnosed. Speed was never the ‘right’ goal; it is the current system’s goal, smuggled into the argument as though it were neutral.

A system’s goal is whatever it actually optimises when trade-offs appear, and a participation movement that starts optimising for pace has adopted the priorities of the thing it set out to replace.

Which is why the participatory pitch is not, and should never be, “we are faster”. It is “we are correctly paced”. Deliberation is a delay on purpose. It is the stretch of time in which people can actually change their minds, which is the one thing a poll can never give you and the one thing a hard problem actually requires.

Correctly paced does not mean uniformly slow, either. The caricature has participation as a fixed-size machine, a hundred citizens and a weekend of flipcharts wheeled out for every decision regardless of scale or urgency. It is nothing of the sort. Participation adapts its form to the decision at hand.

Matching the depth of deliberation to the pace and weight of the decision is not a compromise of the principle. It is the principle. This leverage point has been about matched and mismatched delays from the start, and participation done well is the practice of matching them. Slowness is not a bug that participation has failed to fix. In the places where it appears, it is load-bearing.

Which delays to change, and in which direction

If this issue has a practical core, it is that not all delay is equal. The work is to tell the useful ones from the harmful ones, and then act on the difference. From my perspective, these are the three delays which we should be laser-focused on to push our participatory ambitions up stream.

1. Attack the response delay.

The harmful delay, the one to go after without mercy, is the time between someone offering their input and ever hearing what became of it. You might recognise this as the advisory graveyard from the information flows issue, the place where well-reasoned recommendations go to be technically received and effectively ignored. When the loop never closes, people do the only rational thing and stop sending signals.

This delay is entirely of our own making, which also makes it the most shortenable thing in the whole system. Part of it is simply deciding to close the loop. Part of it is retiring the machinery that keeps it open: the sixty-page report that takes three months to draft and lands on a desk where nobody reads past the executive summary is not a feedback mechanism, it is a burial rite.

The tools now exist to do better. Practically speaking, capture the response while everyone is still in the room, share back what was heard before people have gone home and stopped believing it mattered, then iterate, and iterate again. The response delay survives on the assumption that reporting has to be slow. It does not, and every moment shaved off it is a month in which the people who participated still believe their signal is in transit rather than in the graveyard.

Incorporating this with purposefully designed tech tools is something specifically we are working on at Sorted Collaboration.

2. Protect the learning delays.

Some delays buy learning, and these are worth defending, even lengthening, because they are precisely the ones that responsiveness culture attacks first.

The deliberation itself is the obvious one. The gap between hearing evidence and forming a view is where minds actually change, and it cannot be compressed past a certain point without becoming something else. I’d highly recommend reading recent publication by Democracy Next on “Deliberative Muscles & AI”, which explores the need for deliberation to not just produce recommendations, but cultivate citizens.

The rotation tempo of sortition belongs here too, and it is the counterintuitive one, because rotation looks like an interruption. Just as a group finds its feet, it is dissolved and replaced. But that turnover is a learning delay running at the level of the institution rather than the individual: it refreshes the process before any group can harden into a fixture, before the confident voices calcify into an informal hierarchy.

At the same time, be purposeful about which topics need these delays at all. Learning time is a budget, not a virtue to be applied indiscriminately. The contested, the irreversible, the morally loaded, the decisions people will live inside for decades: these earn the full apparatus. The routine and the reversible do not, and pretending otherwise is how deliberation gets a reputation for ceremony. Spending the learning delay where it is not needed is its own kind of mismatch, and it hands ammunition to the mistrusting commissioner

Strip these delays out in the name of responsiveness and you do not get a more democratic system. You get a faster one that knows less.

3. Slow the rate of change itself.

This is the move that sticks in the throat, particularly for those of us who came to this work impatient for transformation. Very often the wiser intervention is not to speed up the response at all. It is to slow down what the system is being asked to keep up with, so that the delays you cannot remove stop causing so much trouble.

Inside an organisation or a public body this is unglamorous and familiar: pilot before you scale, phase a reform instead of detonating it, build in an honest review point, keep a rollback within reach. It can feel like a betrayal of urgency, an admission that change should wait. It is the opposite. You are not trying to wish the delay away. You are making the system move slowly enough that its own feedback can keep up, which is the only speed at which change actually sticks.

For those of us who design these processes, the responsibility is sharper. The most important question at the end of any participatory process is not what people decided. It is what exists to receive the answer, and how quickly the people who took part will see that their signal landed. Build that, and the longer wait at the front pays for itself many times over. Skip it, and you have simply added a delay to a system that will punish you for it.

The point of all this

“We don’t have time to ask people” is rarely the conclusion of an argument. It is the sentence that stops one from happening. It arrives before the analysis, sounds like realism, and closes the question of how a decision should be made in the time it takes to say it. That is what makes it worth this much attention: not that it is wrong, though it usually is, but that it is never asked to show its working.

The laggy Zoom call oscillated not because anyone on it was foolish, but because each person was answering a conversation that had already moved on. That is the failure this leverage point describes, and it is the failure most of our institutions are living inside. A fast decision wedded to a slow correction is the worst combination there is, and it is precisely what decisive, top-down governance tends to produce.

So the next time the sentence arrives, and it will, there is a sequence of responses available, and you can go as far as the conversation allows.

Start with that participation is slower to decide and quicker to be right. Add up all four delays rather than just the first, and the understanding flips. Measured across the whole life of a decision, deciding together is the faster architecture.

If that lands, go further. Centralisation’s claim to legitimacy rests on speed and decisiveness, and it turns out to be slow precisely where slowness does the damage. A system that loses on its own headline metric deserves scrutiny on all the others.

And if you have the time, and the patience, question the metric itself. Ask whether the system as it stands can feel the consequences of its own choices soon enough to act on them. Usually it cannot, and the person across the table knows it.

The question was never speed. It is always whether a system can sense what it is doing to itself in time to stop.

What compounds quietly today is what becomes unthinkable to reverse tomorrow.

These reflections are very much a work in progress, often emerging as they are written. They are offered as provocations rather than prescriptions. Challenge, critique, and invitations to build something better together are wholeheartedly welcome.

Would love to hear from you, and if you know anyone who imagines a better, participatory future, please share.

Next month we move one more step down the seesaw, to the structure of stocks and flows: the physical plumbing of a system, and why some things are so much easier to pour in than to pour back out.

Until then,

Ben

Leave a comment

Participatory Future is one idea a month about how we make decisions together, worked through in public. It’s written from my experience of being in the room, not the library, and it’s free and will always be.

If you want to support the writing and keep it going into the future, you can buy me a coffee/beer. The gratitude will be realer than the caffeine hit.

Buy Me a Coffee

The negative feedback loop, the corrective mechanism, did the job.

The problem is this loop only runs one way. So, with recent record high temperatures in London hitting mid-thirties for days. The system which could warm a cold room beautifully, could not cool a hot one. So I’m left with patchy workarounds and sleepless nights.

British homes can’t deal with hot weather because they were never designed to. The architecture is built for a different goal.

And that, roughly, is where we find ourselves with its democracy.

-

So far, this journey through the leverage points it has been about what can be transformed to tilt a system towards participation. New goals to name. New rules to write. New loops to seed and let run.

From here on, the work changes character. We have crossed onto the lower half of the seesaw, where the leverage on offer is not about redirecting the system but about keeping it on the course already set.

This is also, not coincidentally, where most of what passes for modern politics actually happens. The reshuffle. The policy tweak. The headline initiative that nudges a number by a percentage point. Adjustments to a thermostat in a house which was never properly insulated in the first place.

Which is, I think, the undercurrent running through this whole series and why so much of contemporary governance feels like motion without movement. In an era defined by seismic shifts, the only available lever is to adjust the dial.

—

What is a negative feedback loop?

There is nothing inherently pessimistic about them. In systems terms, negative just means corrective.

A thermostat is the classic example, but there are many more familiar ones: hunger, a market price, and in theory, a democratic election. The system has a goal, measures reality against it, adjusts, and the loop closes.

The catch is that a negative feedback loop only knows how to serve the goal it was built for. Hunger is a brilliant corrective in a world of food scarcity. It is much less functional in a world of cheap calories and desk jobs. The mechanism has not changed. The conditions around it have.

Which brings us back to British homes and their one way architecture, built for cold winters and mild summers, and within those conditions doing the job well enough.

Democracy’s loops were primed for stability in a world where politics was encountered every few years rather than through a phone in a pocket every few minutes.

This is not to say these loops are unimportant. They serves a purpose, it is just that the purpose is to work in tandem with an existing system, not to seed one.

For our purposes, that means the work here is diagnostic first. Why the current control mechanisms no longer fit the needs of the system they are meant to serve.

Four of them, in particular, are worth mapping out in more detail.

The Four Corrective Loops that shape the current economic and political order

1. Market price signals: the loop that actually works, and the wrong one to copy

Demand rises, the price rises, the higher price rations supply and tells producers to make more, supply expands, the price settles.

The loop is continuous, specific, and immediate. This is what a properly functioning negative feedback loop looks like, which is precisely why “run government like a business” sounds so plausible to so many.

The trouble is not that markets correct badly. It is that they only correct for something that can generate a price signal in the first place. A lifesaving medicine that is profitable only at a high price reaches the people who can pay for it. The people who need it most but cannot pay are invisible to the loop, because the mechanism has no way of registering them at all.

Climate change is the same failure at planetary scale. The cost of emissions lands on future generations and ecosystems, neither of which can bid, so the signal reads “all fine” while the system overheats.

This is the fallacy sitting underneath “run it like a business.” A working market is evidence that negative loops can function well. It is not evidence that the same loop would function well for across all of society. Democracy exists precisely to make decisions about the things markets cannot price: public goods, intergenerational fairness, basic dignity, who gets heard when nobody is paying for the privilege.

Borrowing the market’s responsiveness as a model for democratic health mistakes one well-built smart meter for the entire house.

2. Elections: the loop democracy is built around, and the one most overworked

The government does things. Citizens vote. Different government, different things. The loop closes, in theory every four or five years.

The trouble is one vote is being asked to carry far too much. Economic management, foreign policy, social policy, leadership competence, hundreds of specific positions, local concerns, values alignment, all compressed into a single binary choice between two or three options.

What survives that compression is barely more than a thumbs up or thumbs down on the entire experience of being governed. You cannot tell the system what specifically went wrong. You can only register that you are unhappy, and by the time you do, several years of decisions have already compounded past the point where that signal can do much correcting.

The lag was tolerable when governance moved at a pace a four-year cycle could plausibly track. It no longer does. A correction this infrequent, applied to a system moving this fast, is not regulation. It is a lurch and hope.

The inevitable consequence is that the incentive for government is to manage the appearance of competence rather than the reality of it. Which always explains why they are entirely beholden to the next signal.

3. Polling: a faster read that nobody is obliged to act on

Polling exists to compensate for the election’s lag, a continuous read on opinion to fill the long silence between ballots. The trouble is that polling is more a temperature check not a considered judgement, which means the signal it produces is often noisier than the thing it claims to read.

Politicians who chase it end up overcorrecting in one direction, watching the public react against the overcorrection, then overcorrecting again, a feedback loop that degrades the relationship a little further each time it runs.

Petitions show the same pattern from the other end: hitting a hundred thousand signatures once felt consequential. It was once a functioning corrective mechanism where a threshold triggered a response.

It is now completely saturated. It reliably produces a templated reply and nothing else, and everyone involved knows it. Nothing obliges anyone to respond to what it reads.

4. Apathy: the signal the system blames you for sending

This is the one that should be the most obvious of the four, and the one the system is least equipped to hear. In the current architecture, the person who stops voting, stops answering surveys, stops turning up, is the apathetic one. The failure is theirs to own.

But apathy meets every condition of a negative feedback loop except the one that matters. A deviation occurs, a citizen tries the available channel and watches nothing change. A signal is sent, they stop participating. The only thing missing is a system on the other end capable of reading withdrawal as information rather than as the absence of it.

That misattribution is not a small error. If apathy is a character flaw, the fix is more civic education. If apathy is a signal, the fix is building somewhere for that signal to land before it curdles into withdrawal, which is a different and much harder bit to build.

A working thermostat does not blame the room for being cold. It treats the cold as information. Our democratic architecture is not currently plumbed to do the same.

In an era defined by seismic shifts, the only available lever is to adjust the dial.

What the picture actually shows

Run the four loops back together and a pattern holds across all of them. Governance has become faster, more layered, more contested. The signals it depends on are noisier, the drift between decision and consequence sharper.

The loops built to keep these systems on course are increasingly being asked to correct in directions they were never designed to register.

None of this is incompetence in the sense of nobody trying. Each loop is functional, just functional towards a single goal, stability, and largely blind to anything else.

The market signal stabilises price. The election stabilises the transfer of power. Polling stabilises the appearance of being heard. Even apathy, misread as it is, stabilises the system by removing the inconvenience of a citizen who keeps insisting something is wrong.

The trouble is that this single-mindedness has started to undermine the very goal it serves.

• A market that cannot price the climate is not stabilising anything, it is exporting the cost of instability to people who are not yet born.

• An election compressed into a four-year thumbs up or down is not stabilising governance, it is oscillating it.

• A polling industry chasing noise produces governments that lurch rather than steer.

• And a system that reads withdrawal as apathy rather than information loses the one signal that might have told it where the instability was actually building. Stability, pursued this narrowly, has started to sacrifice itself.

Which is the opening this series has been working towards. If the goal of these loops shifted from stability to participation, the same systems thinking lens that just diagnosed the failure can tell us what to build instead.

The loops built to keep us on course are increasingly being asked to correct in directions they were never designed to register

So what would a system with a different goal actually build?

If the underlying goal of the shifted from stability to participation, the architecture would change in three specific ways. It would be continuous rather than episodic. It would carry a structural requirement to respond, not just to receive. And it would route signals through deliberation rather than preference aggregation.

None of this is hypothetical. Each of the four loops already has a working, if early, counterpart somewhere in the world. The task is not invention. It is noticing what conditions let these counterparts survive, and then building more of those conditions on purpose.

1. The market signal gains company

The market still decides between options. Just people decide what options exist.

That is the shift. Not displacing the price mechanism, but fencing it. Let it allocate efficiently within a set of boundaries that someone, somewhere, has actually decided are acceptable, rather than treating whatever the market currently optimises for as the boundary itself. The parameters are the politics. The allocation is just maths.

Nest, the UK’s largest workplace pension scheme, gives this some shape. Early in 2026 it convened a Member Assembly: fifty two members, randomly selected and stratified by age, income, pot size, and attitude to risk, given two weekends and access to independent experts to deliberate on a single question. How should Nest invest in members’ best interests.

The recommendations landed on two themes. Invest for long term benefit, not just return. And give members a real voice in how that gets decided, not a one off. Nest committed to publishing a full written response to each recommendation, rather than filing the report and moving on.

Sixty billion pounds of other people’s retirement money is still allocated through markets. What changed is who got a say in what those markets are allowed to do with it, before the price signal took over.

Nothing exotic made this possible. A trustee body with a statutory duty to act in members’ interests. A chief executive willing to call it deliberation rather than a focus group. A team brought in to design the process properly rather than dress up a token consultation. Scale that logic to sovereign wealth funds, planning authorities, strategic investments portfolios and the same shift repeats.

2. Polling that surfaces solutions

The fix for polling is not a better instrument for taking the same kind of reading. A more frequent poll, a bigger sample, a sharper algorithm sorting the noise, all of that still asks people to register a position rather than work one out.

What changes the picture is depth. Giving people the tools to consider the evidence and to arrive at a view rather than report one they already held. And depth, done at scale, produces something a poll structurally cannot. Not just what people think, but where the tradeoffs actually sit. Which parts of a position hold under pressure and which move once people understand the cost of the alternative.

Camden Council’s trial of Demos’s Waves project is a useful sketch of what that looks like in practice. Rather than polling residents on social care priorities, it put a simple open question to people, gathered ideas at scale, then moved a smaller group into sustained deliberation to turn those ideas into proposals the wider group could respond to. What came out the other end was not a number but a structure. Where people agreed easily, where they only agreed once a tradeoff was made visible, and where no amount of further discussion was likely to shift the line.

Pol.is, used in projects from Taiwan to a county planning process in Kentucky, works on a similar premise at a different scale. People do not vote on a question, they write statements and see where agreement actually sits across a divided group, refining their thinking against views they would otherwise never encounter. The map that produces is not of opinion. It is of where the tradeoffs are, who feels them, and how much movement is genuinely available.

Imagine that running continuously, across services and policy areas, rather than as a one off exercise wheeled out when a decision needs legitimising. Each instance on its own is a detailed picture of one tradeoff. Brought together, the picture compounds.

A government, or a pension fund, or a council, stops asking what people think and starts holding a live, interactive model of what people are actually willing to trade against what. That is the version worth building towards. Not faster polling. Genuine intelligence about where the possibility is.

3. The Trigger Has to Be Wired In, Not Waited For

A tool that can finally see where the tradeoffs sit only does half the job if someone still has to decide whether to act on what it finds. That decision is the gap a consultation has always left open.

The fix is to make response automatic once a threshold is met, not discretionary. A few shapes this could take:

A planning application that crosses a calibrated disagreement threshold, detected through the kind of tools described above, triggers a citizens’ panel automatically, the way a project above a certain size automatically triggers an environmental impact assessment. Nobody has to decide it matters. Size decided that already.

A government policy that shows sustained, structured disagreement across a Pol.is style process triggers a binding deliberative process to resolve the very tension it highlights

In each case the trigger sits inside the body with the power to act, and that body has a defined obligation to respond in public.

This is the difference between deliberation as decoration and deliberation as governance.

A panel with no statutory link to a decision making body is a well-run conversation the system is free to set aside.

A panel wired into the mechanism that produces the outcome is something else. Deliberation the architecture cannot route around.

4. Apathy Becomes a Signal the Architecture Is Built to Read

Withdrawal stops being something the system blames the citizen for and becomes something the system is designed to notice early, while it is still cheap to respond to.

Falling turnout, a citizens’ panel that struggles to recruit, an assembly invitation nobody returns: each becomes a deliberative question rather than a closed file. Who is disengaging, why, with that reasoning surfaced and connected to a visible institutional response, rather than logged as a recruitment shortfall and moved past.

A citizens’ assembly invitation typically gets a response rate somewhere between three and ten per cent, in the same broad range as a modern poll. The Sortition Foundation’s own recruitment data shows that response runs consistently lower in poorer neighbourhoods than in more affluent ones. Their working explanation is not that people there care less. It is that people there have learned, from a long enough run of being asked and then ignored, that responding rarely changes anything.

The withdrawal is not apathy. It is an accurate read of a system that has not, until now, had any of the three previous mechanisms in place to prove otherwise.

Putting the first three points to work against a single neighbourhood’s response rate is itself a test of whether they hold. Detect the disagreement underneath the silence rather than just its absence. Trigger automatically rather than wait for someone to notice the numbers are bad. Respond in public, including to the people who never showed up, not just the ones who did.

Read this way, apathy is not the leverage point’s hardest problem. It is the one all three of the others were built to answer.

The task is not invention. It is noticing what conditions let these counterparts survive, and then building more of those conditions on purpose.

Bringing it all together

Run the four back together and the architecture comes into view. A market with deliberative input on how it can best decide. A polling apparatus that gives up the comfort of a single number for the harder, more honest picture of where people actually move. A trigger that fires on its own rather than waiting to be felt as urgent by whoever happens to be in the room. And apathy, finally read correctly: not the public giving up on participation, but participation giving the public every reason to.

None of these four are speculative. The future this issue has been describing is not a design brief. It is a pattern already running in scattered, underfunded, often accidental form, waiting for someone to notice it is a pattern and build the conditions that let it spread.

The four corrective loops we inherited, the market signal, the election, the poll, the shrug of disengagement, were built for a world with slower problems and a public asked to do less.

They have not failed through neglect. They are working exactly as designed, and the design has run out of road. What replaces them is not a better version of the same mechanism. It is a different relationship between sensing and acting.

A thermostat that can finally feel the room still does nothing until someone wires it to the AC.

Then the random invitation to join the UK climate assembly arrived through the door. Within the year, she had completed the climate assembly and was sitting on the parish council.

“Who knows what’s next,” she said. “But it’s definitely awakened me.”

This is the potential positive feedback loop of participation.

Positive feedback loops sit in the middle of Meadows’ seesaw, below paradigms, goals, structural conditions, rules, and information flows.

Which is a good moment to clarify something about the leverage ladder. And that’s not just to maintain interest in a newsletter that could get less impactful with every issue.

Lower leverage does not mean less important. The distinction is more useful than that. The higher leverage points are where systemic change begins, but they are also where institutional power is most concentrated. Rewriting rules, resetting goals, shifting paradigms; these require access that most people do not hold.

The leverage points interact with each other; they do not simply rank. What sits lower on the seesaw tends to be more accessible, more actionable, and more available to everyone else. They have their own systemic contribution to make.

And the distinction between this leverage point and the ones above it matters even less. Positive feedback loops are the most mobile intervention in Meadows’ framework; not the most powerful in isolation, but the most portable.

They do not require institutional permission to begin. They do not need a rule to change or a goal to reset. What they do is amplify; taking whatever progress has been made at the higher leverage points and compounding it, or in the absence of that progress, quietly building the conditions that make it thinkable.

Every paradigm that has ever shifted was preceded by people doing things that seemed, at the time, like small and peripheral experiments. It is only by looping into the power of positive feedback that becomes possible.

So what is a positive feedback loop?

It’s nothing to do with good intentions. Positive here means self-reinforcing. The more it runs, the more power it has to keep running. Wealth accumulates wealth. Exclusion breeds disengagement. Authority protects authority. These loops are already running in every political, organisational, and civic system; older, better-resourced, and with a significant head start.

The question this installment is concerned with is how the dominant loops can be interrupted, and which of the fragile generative ones can be deliberately seeded and amplified

The Matthew Effect

The counter-participatory loop predominant in our systems is all down to Matthew.

No, not an illuminati unmasking. It’s a label for the phenomena where small advantages lock systems into a specific and often unequal trajectory through self-reinforcing mechanisms. It’s name derives from the biblical gospel. It is also referred to as path dependence, or cumulative advantage. Although the name might be less familiar, the pattern it exerts in society will be immediately so.

Authority does not simply hold power. It accumulates it, through a mechanic that requires no bad intent from anyone involved.

The loop runs like this: authority attracts resources, because resources flow toward whoever controls decisions about their allocation. Resources buy access to agenda-setting, because the people who fund institutions have disproportionate influence over what those institutions consider worth addressing. Agenda-setting shapes the rules, because whoever frames the question largely determines the range of answers. And the rules protect authority, because the actors with the power to change rules are the same actors whose position depends on those rules remaining as they are.

The loop closes, and then runs again, slightly faster each time. The governance equivalent of compound interest, and nobody needs to intend it. Authority does not simply hold power. It accumulates it.

You can see it in democratic institutions where the same networks recirculate through positions of influence, not because they are uniquely talented but because prior access creates the conditions for further access. You can see it in organisations where the people who got promoted under a particular model of leadership are the ones deciding what good leadership looks like for everyone who comes after them.

The Sortition Solution

Regular readers will know I need little encouragement to talk about sortition. For the uninitiated: it is the practice of selecting participants randomly, stratified to reflect the population rather than the organised, the networked, or the already-convinced. It is how citizens’ assemblies are composed, how ancient Athens chose its officeholders, and what I think we should be doing rather a lot more of.

The case for it here is narrower than usual. Sortition matters not primarily as a fairness mechanism, though it is that, but as a loop-breaking one. Random selection severs the compounding link between prior access and future access at the point of entry.

The mechanism is simple and the effect is structural. The people who reliably show up to shape outcomes are replaced by people who were not expecting to be there at all. That is not a guarantee of better decisions. But it is a guarantee that the loop which usually decides whose reasoning counts has nowhere to attach.

Rotation, random selection, and genuine openness to people without prior positional power are not gestures towards inclusion. They are interruptions to a path that otherwise runs itself.

The transformation the existing loops absorb

Something happens inside a well-designed deliberative process that rarely makes it into the final report. And nuturing it effectively is the missing link to shifting participation from a technocratic method to a design for power.

Relationships form between people who would never otherwise have been in a room together. Disagreement stops feeling like a threat and starts functioning like information. People arrive uncertain, sometimes sceptical, occasionally convinced they have nothing useful to contribute to a question that feels beyond them. They leave as something else; not converts, but people who have discovered a capability they did not know they had.

Anyone who has been in one of these rooms will recognise the dynamic. It is experientially different from a consultation, a focus group, or a town hall. Something shifts, and it is not just the policy ideas.

I have facilitated assemblies at community, national, and global scale, and the pattern is consistent. I am not exempt from it either. Facilitating assemblies on food systems had me scanning labels in supermarket aisles, trying to trace where things came from. Although it was only a couple of weeks before the Peruvian avocados crept back into the basket. Less a confession of hypocrisy than an illustration of the point.

Without structures that receive and reinforce what the process unlocks, the energy does not disappear. It gets absorbed. The existing loops are not waiting to be defeated; they are just exceptionally good at bringing everything else into it’s orbit.

In the absence of pathways into collective action, into ongoing deliberative structures, into roles that carry the method outward, energy goes where the existing culture already points. Sue bought an electric car. A community panel wrote a letter to their MP which was ignored. The assembly ends. And the loops that were running before continue running, largely undisturbed.

Which is exactly why the loops described in the next section need to be seeded deliberately, rather than left to chance.

Without structures that receive and reinforce what the process unlocks, the energy does not disappear. It gets absorbed.

The loops worth building on

Not all self-reinforcing loops serve the Matthew Effect. Good participation generates its own, quieter ones; fragile at first, easily absorbed if left unattended, but capable of compounding in the opposite direction if deliberately nurtured.

The question is which ones are inherent to the participatory experience itself, and what it would take to stop them dissipating before they can begin to challenge the gravitational pull of the existing system.

1. The Sue Effect: cumulative doing

The loop: participation produces a visible effect, something changes in the place or situation the participant cares about, and that visible effect makes the next round of participation more likely. The more it produces, the more it attracts. Efficacy is self-reinforcing. The first turn of the loop is often the hardest one.

The East Marsh Community Trust in Grimsby illustrates the mechanic as clearly as anything I have come across. It did not begin with a grand assembly or a carefully designed process. It began with litter picking.

People who had largely written off the prospect of anything changing in their neighbourhood did something small, saw the difference, and came back. What started as tidying a street developed, over years, into a community-led regeneration programme where they now own social housing in their community. A neighbourhood that has materially changed because the people in it kept participating. Each visible effect created the conditions for the next more substantial one. Start small, think big. The litter pick was not a compromise on ambition. It was how the loop got its first turn.

For all of us, the instinct this loop asks for is simple: find the next smallest credible thing and do it. Share what happened with someone else. The loop does not need a grand design to begin; it needs a first step visible enough that it might attract a second.

For practitioners and advocates, the responsibility is more specific. Design the follow-up as carefully as the assembly itself. The most important question at the end of any participatory process is not what did people decide, but what infrastructure exists to receive the energy that has been generated.

That means commissioning organisers and community animateurs alongside facilitators, not as an afterthought but as a core part of the design. It means building in small, structured opportunities for participants to act collectively after the process ends; a working group, a neighbourhood meeting, a shared communication channel, something that keeps the relationships alive and gives the energy somewhere to go.

And it means resisting the temptation to move straight to the next group before the last one has had a chance to compound. Not everyone who attended will carry the energy forward. But some will, and the practitioner’s job is to make sure those people can find each other before the loop has a chance to stall.

2. From participant to protagonist

The loop: participation shapes how people understand themselves; not just what they did, but who they are. The shift is from I attended a process to I am the kind of person who does this. Once that identity is visible to others, it becomes socially contagious. Peers notice, and some of them begin to see participation as something people like them do.

The French Citizens’ Convention on Climate is instructive. After the convention concluded in 2020, a significant number of the 150 randomly selected citizens formed Les 150, a civic movement that continued to campaign, advocate, and organise around the recommendations the government had begun to quietly shelve. People who had arrived as randomly selected members of the public left as political candidates, media figures and movement leaders; not because anyone planned it, but because the process had done something irreversible to how they understood themselves and what they believed they were capable of.

To seed it deliberately: the most powerful investment a practitioner or advocate can make is in the people the process has already changed. That means prioritising training and development of facilitators, organisers, and animateurs from within rather than importing them. When someone from the community is visibly leading the process, the implicit message to everyone else is: this is something people here do. That message travels further than any facilitated discussion, and it compounds in ways a one-off process cannot.

It also means nurturing the participants who show political energy after a process ends; connecting them to power holders, supporting them into formal roles, and treating their development as part of the work rather than a happy accident. The person who has felt the transformation themselves is a more credible advocate than any practitioner ever will be. That credibility is an asset worth investing in deliberately.

3. Compounding Legitimacy

The loop: as participation grows in scale and visibility, it generates both the pressure and the justification for formal systems to create new institutional pathways for it. More roles become available. More powers are granted. Participation stops being a project running alongside the system and starts becoming part of how the system works.

The Irish Citizens’ Assembly illustrates what this looks like when the loop begins to run. What distinguished its most successful iterations was the deliberate decision to involve politicians in the process; not as decision-makers, but as observers and participants in the evidence-gathering. Politicians who watched citizens reason carefully through contested questions could not easily dismiss the outputs as uninformed or unrepresentative. The assembly created legitimacy that transferred into the formal system, and that legitimacy created space for future assemblies to be commissioned with broader mandates and stronger institutional connections. Each round generated pressure for the next.

To seed it deliberately: connect participatory processes to formal decision-making from the start, even modestly. Invite the people with institutional authority into the room as witnesses rather than chairs. Make the outputs impossible to quietly ignore.

This is also the loop most vulnerable to co-option. Institutional pathways can absorb the energy of growing participation without redistributing the power that makes it meaningful. A citizens’ assembly with no binding relationship to decision-making, a staff forum with no authority over the decisions it advises on, a community board with no control over the resources it nominally governs; these are the loop running in reverse, generating the appearance of institutional change while the stability loop continues undisturbed underneath.

The test is not whether participation has been institutionalised. It is whether the institution that now contains it has actually changed its goal.

Keep going. It is already working.

The research on participatory budgeting, cooperative governance, and community self-organisation consistently points to the same three conditions: participants need to be able to answer yes to whether this mattered, whether they can see it, and whether it will happen again. When all three are reliably met, participation shifts from something people do on invitation to something people expect.

And it is happening. When I first got involved with the Sortition Foundation about ten years ago, it was a group of dreamers in a pub, hypothesising scenarios in which randomly selected citizens might one day have a meaningful role in consequential decisions. Those scenarios are no longer hypothetical.

Sortition has shifted from historical quirk to government commission. The question is no longer whether it works; it is how to generate enough institutional pressure to make it the norm. These loops have been running for years, quietly compounding, and it is worth sitting with that for a moment before moving on.

But compounding takes time, and these loops are still young. This is not a mature movement with established infrastructure. It is alive, it is growing, and it will not survive without tending.

Which is why the distinction between this leverage point and the ones above it matters less than it might appear. Loops built successfully at this level do not stay.

Participation that produces visible effects changes what people believe is possible. Identity shifts change what communities consider normal. Sustained institutional pressure changes what formal systems are willing to accommodate.

The work here is not separate from the higher-leverage shifts discussed earlier in this series. It is, over time, how those shifts become thinkable. Every rule cluster, every paradigm that has ever changed was preceded by people doing things that seemed, at the time, like small and peripheral experiments.

At the same time, generative loops are harder to sustain without the structural conditions, rules, and information flows this series has already covered. A loop that depends on visible effects cannot run inside an institution designed to make effects invisible.

This series has been building the case for changing those institutions precisely because the loops we want deserve better ground to run in.

Every time someone participates, sees something change, and carries that experience back into their network, the conditions for the next round shift. Not dramatically. But in the direction that makes it more likely, more meaningful, and harder to undo. The loops we build now are the upstream pressure on the rules, goals, and paradigms we want to shift. They are not waiting for that shift to happen first. They are how it happens.

But the loops do not wait for the ground to be perfect. Neither should we.

There may be a sense that we are now tidying up around the edges of the real work. I want to push back on that, including my own previous framing of it. Lower leverage does not mean marginal. It means it struggles to do much without the higher-leverage shifts already in motion.

Think of the system we want to unlock as a jar with a very tight lid. The higher leverage work is the grip strength. Information flows are running the lid under warm water first. They do not open the jar alone, but without them even the strongest grip makes less progress than it should.

A participatory system that cannot see itself clearly will gradually lose the trust and engagement that makes participation viable at all.

This Is Not About the Media (Mostly)

There is a natural assumption, which I’d originally thought when working this over in my head. That information flows as a leverage point is primarily about media. Who controls the narrative. Which stories get told. Whose voices get amplified or buried.

That is not wrong. Media is an information flow. But this is about something more fundamental than journalism. It is about feedback loops. Whether information about the consequences of a decision travels back to the person who made it, in a form they can actually act on.

The media is one pipe. This leverage point is about the whole plumbing system, and more importantly, who gets to see the damp patch on the ceiling before the roof caves in.

-

Visibility is what turns information into a feedback loop. Without it, information exists in the system but cannot do its work. The media play a key role in creating visibility, but they are not the full story.

A whistleblower leaking internal data. A journalist publishing the findings. These are acts of visibility that can change behaviour. But they are episodic. They depend on someone deciding to look, and someone else deciding to publish.

They are more like someone occasionally checking for leaks than a system designed to show you the water pressure at all times.

Two stories to help illustrate how a visual feedback loop can change behaviour:

• In a neighbourhood of identical houses, researchers discovered that half the homes had their electricity meter in the basement and the other half had theirs visible in the front hallway. Turns out the people who could see their meter used thirty percent less electricity. The information was always there. Making it visible was what opened the loop to a difference in behaviour.

• In 1986, the American government introduced a simple rule. Any factory releasing hazardous pollutants had to publish its emissions publicly, every year. Within four years, pollution fell by forty percent. One company found itself on the Top Ten Worst Polluters list and cut its emissions by ninety percent. The consequence and behaviour shift did not come from a regulator. It came from the visibility itself.

Both stories turn on the same mechanism. Information that can be seen creates consequence. Information that cannot be seen, or that reaches the wrong person too late, does not.

Information flows in the current system

So using our previously established paradigms, we can sketch out how the most familiar information loops run.

The consumer loop runs like this: institutions broadcast options, people participate mainly as voters or survey respondents, and feedback is read as preference data rather than as shared reasoning. The information travels in one direction and is processed by the same people who generated the question.

The technocratic loop is adjacent: experts define problems, frame options, and filter relevant evidence, while lived experience enters late, if at all. Not because anyone has made a cynical choice to exclude it, but because the system was built around credentials and models, and public knowledge does not fit neatly into either.

And underneath both of these sits the stability loop: information about GDP, productivity, and market reaction dominates decision justification. Signals about trust, care, ecological limits, or the quality of democratic life are treated as background noise. They exist, somewhere, but they do not reach the people making decisions at a moment when those people might do something different.

Where signal goes to die

Think about how most organisations run consultations. Employees, residents, or citizens are asked for their views. Those views are collected, perhaps genuinely considered, and then a decision is made, often by the same people who were always going to make it. The information flows in, but it does not flow back. No one finds out what their input changed, if anything. No one knows if their voice landed.

That is not just bad practice. It is a broken feedback system. And broken feedback systems tend to unravel quietly until suddenly they do not. People stop turning up to meetings. Stop filling in surveys. Stop believing their participation means anything. Not because they do not care, but because the signal they sent disappeared into a void.

The advisory graveyard is one of the most reliably demobilising features of our current systems. Citizens’ assemblies, staff forums, community panels: they generate rich, well-reasoned recommendations and then watch them pile up at the door of formal authority, technically received, effectively ignored.

The previous newsletter argued that rules are needed to give participatory processes binding consideration. Information flows are what make that rule legible and enforceable. You cannot hold anyone accountable for ignoring input that was never made visible in the first place.

Information only has power when it creates a genuine connection between action and consequence.

What a Participatory Information System Actually Needs

The structural conditions piece in this series argued that participation needs recognised legal forms, pathways to scale, and protection from reversal.

The rules piece argued that those forms need to be as difficult to dissolve as constitutional provisions, and that participatory processes with defined quality standards should receive binding consideration.

Information flows are the nervous system that makes all of that function. Without them, even well-designed participatory infrastructure makes decisions in the dark; and a structure that cannot see its own impact cannot defend itself from being quietly dismantled.

Here are five key considerations:

1. Decisions Need Traces

Every assembly, council, and institution that shapes public life should publish a simple, standardised record of how each significant decision was made: how the problem was framed, which evidence was used, what options were discarded, who decided, and how dissent was handled.

But a trace is only useful if it is readable. A dataset or technical report handed to a citizens’ panel without interpretation is not useful. Accessible information and available information are not the same thing.

A decision trace is not bureaucratic overhead; it is the minimum condition for collective learning. Without it, the same mistakes repeat, the same voices get filtered out, and the same justifications get recycled without anyone being able to challenge them with evidence.

In practice: public bodies and organisations could start immediately, by requiring decision traces as internal policy before they are embedded in statute. What changes is not the legal framework but the assumption, from publishing that a decision was made to publishing how it was made, what it changed, and in a form that people outside the institution can actually interpret. This embeds trust and legitimacy to both the process and the outcomes it produces.

2. The Loop Needs to Close

Any decision that moves upward through the system, from neighbourhood to regional to national, should be pushed back down in plain-language summaries that include what changed because of local input. This sounds obvious. It rarely happens.

The rules piece argued that where participatory processes meet quality standards, their outputs must receive binding consideration: decision-makers must implement, provide a reasoned and public rejection, or escalate. That rule is only meaningful if the people who participated can see the response. Binding consideration without visible response is just a faster route to the advisory graveyard.

In practice: a procedural rule requiring public bodies to formally respond to participatory processes within a defined timeframe, with that response published in plain language and pushed back to the communities involved. Not a summary of the summary. The actual loop, closed. People need to know their signal landed, or they will stop sending signals.

3. Assemblies Need the Right to Pull Information

The first two points are about improving how information flows from institutions outward. This one is about reversing the direction. Participatory bodies, registered assemblies, worker councils, community panels, should have a collective right to request specific datasets, to demand impact reviews before large decisions are finalised, and to assign watchdog roles on specific policy areas. The capacity to trigger information flows, not just be subject to them, is where democratic power begins to become structural rather than performative.

The accessibility principle applies here too: data requested by an assembly should come with the context, narrative, and interpretive support needed to deliberate with it meaningfully.

In practice: extending freedom of information frameworks to include registered participatory bodies as collective requesters, with short statutory response times, clear refusal criteria, and an obligation to provide accessible summaries alongside raw data. In organisations, embedding equivalent rights in governance documents so that worker councils can request information relevant to decisions affecting members, before those decisions are made.

4. Building Knowledge That Survives the Rotation

Participatory systems are designed to rotate. That is one of their great strengths: no permanent power, no entrenchment, fresh perspectives brought into deliberation regularly. But rotation creates a structural amnesia. When assembly members leave, the knowledge they built through weeks of deliberation tends to leave with them.

This is a specific and solvable problem. The reasoning of one assembly needs to be available to the next: not just the conclusions, but the questions that were asked, the tensions that were not resolved, the minority positions that were held and why. A sustainable knowledge base is not an archive of minutes. It is a living record of collective reasoning, structured so that future participants can build on it rather than repeat it.

In practice: a requirement that participatory processes document not just outcomes but deliberative reasoning, in accessible form, as a condition of their recognised status. There is an opportunity to build a shared library of process, deliberation and outcomes, that exists across topic and jurisdiction.

Alongside this, investment in the facilitative and curatorial roles needed to maintain that knowledge, because a knowledge base that nobody tends does not stay useful for long.

5. The Civic Data Commons

All of the above depends on an infrastructure question that is easy to overlook: who owns the pipes? Pull rights, decision traces, proactive disclosure, and accessible knowledge bases are only as good as the data infrastructure underlying them. If that infrastructure is owned by private platforms, shaped by proprietary algorithms, or governed by actors whose interests diverge from those of the communities using it, the information flows can be shaped, filtered, or quietly withdrawn.

The civic data commons is the infrastructure answer to the participatory information question. Housing, energy, transport, public health, and the major platforms that mediate civic life should be required to treat operational data as part of a shared civic resource, governed by multi-stakeholder councils that include citizens. Algorithms that materially affect access to services or rights should be inspectable and subject to citizen oversight, with genuine power to require redesign.

This is not a proposal about open data in the abstract. It is about who governs the conditions under which information flows, and whether those conditions can be changed by the people the system is supposed to serve.

—

Connecting the Dots

There is an obvious objection to all of this. Traces, knowledge bases, proactive disclosures, data rights. These sound less like an invitation to participate and more like a compliance framework.

If the structural apparatus needed to protect participation makes participation feel like bureaucracy, something has gone badly wrong. The distinction that matters is where the obligation falls. Most of what is proposed here should land on the institution, not on the people participating. The meter in the hallway does not ask the homeowner to do any extra work, it just makes the consequence of their behaviour visible.

Regardless, it would be naive to pretend that better-designed pipes are sufficient on their own. A decision trace published by a system with no intention of changing is a well-formatted document that changes nothing. A closed feedback loop inside an institution that still treats participation as consultation will produce polite acknowledgements.

Information flows are warm water, not grip strength. The information asymmetries in our current systems are not oversights waiting to be corrected; they are features of a system organised to protect concentrated authority. Changing the information environment without also changing the goal, the structures, and the rules is the warm water running down the drain.

What information flows do is make the higher-leverage changes harder to quietly undo. A system that has to show its working is more difficult to dismantle. A participatory structure that can see its own impact is better placed to argue for its own survival.

So for anyone designing these possible futures - building the assemblies, writing the rules, creating the conditions - the information architecture is not an afterthought to sort out once the real work is done. It is part of what decides whether the real work persists.

We are today looking at the rules of the system. What is possible, what is permissible, and, critically, what happens when you step outside the line.

Understanding them is not a technocratic detour. It is where system goals become tangible on the ground.

So if the previous instalments have been about what a participatory system should want, this one is about the small print that decides whether it is allowed to want it.

Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not steal. And thou shall not ignore the recommendations of a Citizen’s Assembly. Or something like that.

What today’s rules are actually protecting

It takes roughly twenty-four hours and a small fee to bring a company into legal existence with full contracting rights, the ability to hold assets, and standing to sue.

It can take years of advocacy, political sponsorship, and ongoing budget fights to give a neighbourhood assembly any comparable status.

Inside most organisations, the asymmetry is just as stark, and encoded. A project can be initiated with a senior leader’s verbal approval. A cross-functional team with genuine decision-making authority over how work gets done requires months of governance redesign, stakeholder buy-in, and a risk assessment.

That asymmetry is not accidental. It is the rule-layer of structural authorship. And it points in a consistent direction.

Pick up almost any rule cluster, whether in a democratic institution or a private organisation, and you find the same pattern underneath. The rules are not neutral. They are written to optimise for the system goal outlined in part 2. Everything else, including participation, is tolerated where it does not meaningfully disrupt that goal.

So when exploring who rules are there to protect there are a few patterns to keep an eye out for:

1. Who gets recognised as a legitimate decision-making body

The rules that govern how rules get written are most often controlled by actors whose interests are served by keeping that power concentrated. In democracies, constitutional procedures and electoral law are typically authored and revised by legislatures, which means political parties effectively write the rules that determine who can challenge their authority. This is the same for most executive boards across most organisational types.

‍ ‍2. What counts as a binding decision.

Most participatory processes are advisory by design, not because someone made a cynical choice, but because the legal architecture of decision-making draws a hard line between bodies with delegated authority and bodies with consultative status. Citizens’ assemblies, community panels, staff forums, typically sit on the consultative side of that line. Their outputs can be ignored without legal consequence. The only cost is political or reputational, and those costs are optional.

Corporate law makes this particularly explicit. Fiduciary duties and shareholder primacy norms, embedded in statute and case law across most jurisdictions, define whose interests boards are legally required to serve. Workers and communities are stakeholders, not governors.

Even where leadership wants to treat them as co-equal decision-makers, the legal obligations of the organisation make it structurally difficult to do so. A board that privileges worker welfare or community benefit over shareholder return can be sued. A board that ignores a workers’ council proposal faces no equivalent legal sanction.

‍ ‍3. How well entrenched a law or rule is

The rules that protect concentrated power are backed by thick layers of law, domestic and international, with real sanctions for breach. Investor protections, property rights, and contractual standing attract lawsuits, credit downgrades, and treaty disputes. Procurement rules and audit frameworks carry penalties for non-compliance. These are not cultural norms or management fads. They are enforceable obligations.

The rules that protect participatory gains, by contrast, typically rest on simple policy, pilot funding, or individual leadership commitment. A citizens’ assembly can be discontinued after an election. A staff council can be dissolved in a restructure. Participatory budgeting can be defunded in a spending review. There is no legal barrier. There is no constitutional threshold.

Participation is tolerated where it does not disrupt the goal and protection is reserved for what serves it.

When rules make participation sensible

The point of tracing this architecture is not to produce despair. It is to locate where intervention would actually matter.

And the clearest pattern from the cases where participation has endured is this: institutionalisation matters more than enthusiasm. Political commitment without legal protection is temporary. Cultural change without structural embedding is fragile. When the rules do not change, participation lives or dies with the people who championed it.

One example, between 2015 and 2019, under Ahora Madrid, the city became a reference point for participatory innovation: participatory budgeting, citizen proposals, digital platforms for co-decision. The infrastructure was sophisticated. The commitment was genuine. But almost none of it was written into law or protected by statute. When Ahora Madrid lost the election, the new administration dismantled most of it within months. There was no legal barrier. Participation had been policy, not structure.

The counter-example is East Belgium. The German-speaking community embedded a permanent citizens’ council into its constitutional framework in 2019. The council, selected by sortition and convening regularly, has formal agenda-setting power and a legislated relationship with the regional parliament. Governments can choose not to act on its recommendations, but they cannot abolish the council without constitutional change. Participation became infrastructure, not innovation.

German co-determination law remains the clearest organisational example. Worker representation is hardcoded into supervisory board structures by statute, for example, companies with over 2,000 employees require over 50% employee representation. Joint decision-making becomes a legal requirement rather than a managerial choice.

When the ownership structure itself distributes governance rights, participation is not a programme. It is the operating logic.

Especially where the higher leverage points around paradigms or systems goals are not established. We rely on laws and institutionalisation to embed longevity.

Participation that does not have a rule underneath it is always one leadership cycle away from disappearance.

What the rules of a participatory system would actually need to say

The structural conditions piece part 4 named five things that need to exist for participatory forms to emerge, scale, and persist. Rules are what give those conditions teeth.

Below are five specific rules a system optimised for self-governance would need to write. Offered as anchors for the argument and as prompts for finding their equivalents in your own context.

Rule 1: Creating a participatory decision-making body should be as straightforward as incorporating a business

The current asymmetry is stark. Commercial entities can be conjured into existence with a template and a fee. Democratic or participatory bodies require years of advocacy, political sponsorship, and legal exceptions. This is not neutral. It is a choice about which forms of collective organisation the system makes easy.

What could this look like?

A statute establishing “Registered Participatory Bodies” with a standard legal template, similar to how Companies House registers businesses. Any group meeting a defined threshold, whether 500 residents in a neighbourhood or 10% of employees in a business unit, can register with automatic rights to request information and submit proposals. This would sit in primary legislation: a Local Democracy Act for citizens’ assemblies, or amendments to company law establishing employee governance circles with formal standing.

The legislative architecture already exists for commercial incorporation. Extending it to participatory forms is not radical, it is symmetrical.

Rule 2: Where participatory processes meet quality standards, their outputs must receive binding consideration

Most participatory processes are advisory by design. Their outputs can be ignored without legal consequence. The only cost is political or reputational, and those costs are optional. This is the interface problem. Recognition without a defined relationship to authorised decision-making is a gesture.

What could this look like?

An amendment to administrative procedure law specifying that where a participatory process meets defined criteria (sortition-based selection, minimum scale, facilitated deliberation, access to expert evidence, minimum duration), its recommendations must be tabled in the relevant decision-making body within 90 days. The authority must either implement, provide written justification for rejection published in the official record, or face judicial review for procedural failure. East Belgium’s constitutional provision establishing the permanent citizens’ council with formal agenda-setting power is the template.

Inside companies, this sits in shareholder agreements or governance manuals: where employee consultation processes meet defined quality thresholds, the board must respond formally within 30 days with implementation, reasoned rejection, or escalation to binding mediation.

“We’ll take it on board” becomes a breach of governance procedure, not a polite closing remark.

Rule 3: Established participatory structures should be as difficult to dissolve as constitutional provisions

The rules that protect concentrated power are entrenched. The rules that protect participatory gains are not. A citizens’ assembly can be discontinued after an election. A staff council can be dissolved in a restructure. There is no legal barrier.

What could this look like?

A constitutional amendment (requiring supermajority approval, typically two-thirds of the legislature plus ratification) establishing that once a participatory institution meets defined criteria for permanence, operating for two full cycles, demonstrated representativeness, documented influence, it can only be abolished through the same constitutional amendment process.

This mirrors the entrenchment given to independent electoral commissions or human rights bodies in many constitutions. In corporate law, this means writing participatory structures into articles of association, which in most jurisdictions require 75% shareholder approval to amend. Worker councils and employee representation bodies become part of the constitutional documents of the organisation. German co-determination law does this by statute: companies over a certain size must have worker representation by law, not by choice.

Rule 4: Time spent in participatory governance should carry the same legal protections as jury service

Participation is currently treated as volunteerism. People who take part do so in their own time, without statutory income replacement, childcare support, or job protection. This creates systematic exclusion. Time is a democratic asset. Treating it as a private resource means only those with flexible or secure employment can participate.

What could this look like?

Employment law amendment establishing that participation in registered participatory bodies is a protected civic duty. Employers cannot penalize employees for time spent in these roles, must provide paid leave equivalent to jury service, and face employment tribunal claims for retaliation. Public institutions running participatory processes must budget for income replacement, childcare, and accessibility support as mandatory line items, not discretionary spending.

Several jurisdictions already do this for jury service; the legislative template exists. The extension to participatory governance is mechanical, not conceptual.

Rule 5: The rules for changing participation rules must themselves be participatory

The goal is not to inscribe the right answer in stone but to build a system capable of writing better rules together over time. Some elements must be entrenched, minority protections and the binding force of participatory decisions, to function as guarantees. But the system must also retain adaptive capacity.

What could this look like?

A constitutional or statutory provision establishing that proposed amendments to participation frameworks must themselves go through a participatory process before adoption. Any change to the rules governing citizens’ assemblies, participatory budgeting, worker councils, or governance structures must be reviewed by a sortition-selected panel before legislative or shareholder approval. This applies whether the change is proposed by a government, a board, or a reform coalition. The rules of the game are not the exclusive property of the people currently winning it.

This is the hardest rule to get right, because it balances rigidity with flexibility. But the principle is clear: participation must be self-sustaining, not dependent on continuous defence.

Embedding new structures doesn’t need extraordinary circumstances or visionary champions. They require clear pathways and ordinary support.

None of this is complicated in principle. The resistance is not intellectual, and it is worth being honest about that.

Rules that redistribute decision-making power are resisted by the actors whose current power depends on the existing rules. That is as true inside a company as it is inside a parliament.

Rules are made to be broken (or changed), including foundational ones, just they require more sustained pressure. This becomes more pressing and possible under conditions when existing arrangements have begun to lose their legitimacy. The question is not whether it is possible. The question is where to start.

So: where are the rules in your context silently selecting against participation? Not the attitudes, which are often genuinely sympathetic, but the rules. The compliance criteria. The legal statutes. The codes of conduct. The definitions of what counts as a valid decision and whose process is allowed to produce one.

What would it mean to change one of them so that deciding together stops being a special project, and starts being the assumption the system is built around?

The north star is still the same. The question from today is which bits of small print gets us there.

We set the goal in this imagined system in the previous newsletter, along the lines - to maximise the capacity for self-governance.

You can think of the goal as a plant on the window sill. Now it needs specific conditions - light, water - to allow it to grow. But without the right conditions in place, like many prophesised possibilities, it will wilt and die. This is what we’re focusing on today. The conditions that allow the goal to withstand.

It is at this point where new possibilities and imagined futures often stall. Most of us can adapt to existing systems, but we cannot easily author new ones.

The real constraint is not whether people are capable. It is whether one holds the power to add, change, evolve, or self-organise the structures we live inside.

It is not just how rules are enforced, but who gets to invent new rules when the old ones no longer serve.

The classical way to do this is to claim a divine right and do the king thing.

However, not only would this new system be as insecure as what preceded it. In a complex society, built on infinite interactions, it is nigh on impossible. Even in highly authoritarian societies, people exist and organise themselves independently, just under narrower and stricter conditions.

All living systems rely on self-organisation.

Self-organisation in this context isn’t the participatory parable, that all forms of social organisation should be decentralised and emergent. It is a biological fact. It is because living systems survive not through perfect control, but through their ability to restructure themselves when conditions shift.

The challenge is that this self-organising capacity to adapt is currently scarce and unevenly held, regardless of its intention. It is largely dependent on political goodwill or institutional exception rather than embedded in how systems routinely evolve.

If we cannot shift who holds the power to make processes durable, scalable, and self-renewing. It will always be vulnerable to reversal. That is true for liberal democracies, authoritarian regimes and participatory futures.

How structural power self organises today

The system already self-organises. Just selectively.

A multinational corporation can establish a new subsidiary in weeks. Register it and give it legal standing. That structure can then contract with governments, employ people, and reshape markets at scale.

A community group trying to establish a neighbourhood assembly with decision-making authority faces a different reality. No clear legal template, no automatic recognition, no pathways to durable funding or formal standing in governance. The effort required is exponentially higher for a fraction of the institutional weight.

The capacity to invent and institutionalise new organisational forms, or structural authorship, concentrates around capital and state power.

This is not accident. It is design. And it takes us back to the step above - setting the goal of the system

Most people can organise informally. They can protest, innovate locally, or exit systems they find intolerable. But their ability to turn new forms of organisation into durable, recognised, legally protected structures remains constrained.

This explains why the system evolves readily when change aligns with capital accumulation or administrative efficiency. And why it resists evolution that redistributes power, ownership, or purpose. Not because the latter is impossible, but because the right to structural invention is held unevenly.

We adapt to systems far more often than we author them.

From goals to conditions

In addition to our overall goal, we explored three supplementary goals in support of a participatory future. Adaptive collective capacity over efficiency. Distributed provisional judgement over insulated authority. Collective responsibility for shared goods over abstract growth.

These goals describe what a participatory system optimises for. But as we have covered, goals do not build the architecture. We also need the conditions that allow participatory structures to emerge, adapt, and endure.

This is where leadership matters differently. Not just in naming the goal, though that remains essential. But in actively creating the structural conditions that make new forms of organisation possible.

When a leader says the purpose of institutions is to help people govern together, the next question becomes immediate. What structures enable that? What legal frameworks? What resource flows? What forms of recognition and durability?

A participatory society is not defined by how often people are consulted. It is defined by whether ordinary people have standing to co-create and revise the structures that govern them.

So the practical question becomes: what conditions allow this capacity to become ordinary rather than exceptional?

The shift is from participation as episodic input to participation as a permanent capacity for collective self-organisation.

Five structural conditions for participatory self-organisation

These are not policies to pass or programmes to implement. They are conditions that organisations, governments, and other institutions can actively create. Design principles that expand the system’s ability to reinvent itself from within.

1. Make it easy to create recognised collective forms

The condition: People can form assemblies, cooperatives, commons, and councils with the same legal recognition and institutional support currently reserved for corporations.

What this looks like in practice:

A city government creates a legal template for neighbourhood assemblies. Pre-approved with clear authority over specific decisions, like participatory budgeting allocations or local planning input. Formation requires only a basic threshold of resident participation, not years of advocacy.

A national legislature establishes first-class legal status for worker cooperatives and commons organisations. No requirement to mimic corporate governance structures. No penalty in access to capital, procurement, or regulatory treatment.

A philanthropic foundation shifts its funding model. Instead of requiring groups to fit pre-existing categories, it supports the legal and administrative infrastructure needed to make new organisational forms durable.

The principle is increasing structural diversity. When only a narrow range of organisational forms are legally viable and economically supported, the system’s capacity to adapt is constrained. Making it easier to establish new forms expands what can be tried.

2. Build pathways from local invention to system-wide change

The condition: Successful participatory structures can scale and federate without losing their character or requiring capital to do so.

What this looks like in practice:

A regional government creates a federation framework for neighbourhood assemblies. Assemblies that work well can replicate their model. They can share learning, coordinate on issues that cross boundaries without needing to centralise or corporatise to gain influence.

A national health service establishes a process for local care innovations to become system policy. When a participatory care council develops an approach that works, there is a clear pathway for it to be tested elsewhere and, if successful, embedded into standard practice.

A professional body, say for teachers or social workers, creates mechanisms for practitioner-led innovations to shape training and standards. Not as suggestions to a centralised authority, but as contributions to an evolving commons of professional knowledge.

Without these pathways, self-organisation remains trapped at the margins. Inspiring but peripheral. A thousand beautiful experiments that never reshape the default.

3. Create non-capital routes to large-scale structural change

The condition: Communities can initiate and sustain large-scale projects without requiring private investment that brings governance capture.

What this looks like in practice:

A municipal government establishes a public-commons partnership model. Communities can propose significant infrastructure projects, affordable housing developments, or care services and. There is in built access to patient public capital which is maintained through community governance.

A national government creates cooperative development banks which are member-owned. They are capitalised to support cooperative federations at scale. Lending criteria based on member governance and social purpose, not just financial return.

International development institutions shift funding criteria. Instead of requiring projects to demonstrate commercial viability, they support models that demonstrate governance viability. Funding follows democratic legitimacy, not just market potential.

This redistributes evolutionary power, not just economic outcomes. It changes who can afford to try new forms of organisation and see them through to durability.

4. Make system evolution visible and contestable

The condition: How systems are changing is transparent and open to collective interpretation, not just available to those with privileged access.

What this looks like in practice:

A government department makes all policy development processes public by default. Not just final consultations, but the full record of how problems are framed, options are developed, and decisions are reached. They are structured so citizens can participate in interpretation, not just review.

A corporate sector regulator requires companies above a certain size to publish not just financial results, but governance data. It is clear who makes decision and how decision-making authority is distributed. As well as, what changes to organisational structure have occurred and why.

A city establishes a civic data commons. Information about how public services are performing, how resources are allocated, how the built environment is changing, all governed as a commons. With deliberative forums where citizens can collectively make sense of what the data means.

When evolution is visible, it can be learned from. When it is opaque, it can only be endured.

5. Protect diversity, rotation, and renewal

The condition: Authority does not calcify. Successful structures do not automatically consolidate. Variety is actively maintained.

What this looks like in practice:

A public institution embeds rotation into its governance. Board members, including executive leadership, serve defined terms with mandatory gaps before re-appointment. No permanent positions. No accumulation of structural power through tenure alone.

A funding body actively supports multiple approaches to the same challenge. Rather than identifying one ‘best practice’ and scaling it, it maintains a portfolio of different models. Treats diversity as a hedge against unknown future conditions.

A legislative body establishes review mechanisms that prevent consolidation. Regular assessment of whether successful organisational forms are crowding out alternatives. Active intervention to maintain variety when concentration threatens adaptability.

Evolution depends on variation. A system that collapses towards monoculture, even a participatory one, loses its capacity to learn. Protecting diversity is not a moral preference, it is functional necessity.

The role of leadership in creating conditions

Away from the pulpit pronunciations. This is where leadership matters most. Not in heroic vision or persuasive rhetoric, though both have their place. But in the practical work of creating conditions that allow new structures to emerge.

When a leader names a participatory goal, the harder work begins immediately. What legal frameworks need to change? What funding flows need to redirect? What forms of recognition and durability need to become available?

A city mayor who commits to participatory governance faces a choice. Continue running engagement exercises that extract input without redistributing authority. Or begin building the infrastructure, neighbourhood assemblies with real standing, participatory budgets with meaningful scope, that allows participation to become structural rather than performative.

A foundation director who believes in democratic innovation can fund projects. Or they can fund the legal infrastructure, model templates, administrative support, that makes it possible for hundreds of communities to establish recognised participatory structures without needing foundation support.

A civil service leader who wants adaptive institutions can commission reports. Or they can establish processes that allow innovations developed through co-production to become standard practice, without requiring every change to fight through centralised approval.

This is unglamorous work. It does not announce itself as transformation. It looks like legal reform, administrative procedure, funding criteria. But it is how systems gain the capacity to self-organise.

When these conditions are in place, or at least are emerging, participation stops feeling like a heroic anomaly.

Embedding new structures doesn’t need extraordinary circumstances or visionary champions. They require clear pathways and ordinary support.

Participation as collective evolution

This newsletter is not a blueprint for implementation. It is an invitation to notice where the power to self-organise sits in the systems we are part of. And to recognise that redistributing that power is not optional if we want participatory goals to become durable realities.

Societies have reinvented themselves repeatedly. Sometimes through revolution. Sometimes through slow accretion of practices that eventually became institutions. Always through a redistribution of who could imagine, design, and institutionalise new structures.

A system that concentrates the power to evolve will remain brittle. Innovation happens, but only when it aligns with existing centres of power. A system that shares that power becomes capable of growing into futures no one could design alone.

The work is not distant or abstract. It begins with organisations and governments choosing to create the conditions that make new structures possible. Legal frameworks that recognise diverse forms. Funding that flows to governance, not just growth. Transparency that allows collective learning. Protection for variation and renewal.

These are decisions within reach. Not easy. Not politically neutral. But tangible.

The north star is not a fixed point. It is how we keep from getting lost as we navigate together.

Where do you see these conditions emerging? Where are they blocked? What would it take to shift one of them in the systems you are part of?

The next move down the systems see-saw starts the shift from abstraction to possible action. It is where politics starts to emerge. Not that of policy tweaks and tax adjustments. That comes later, much closer to the ineffectual end of the spectrum. At the level of goals, politics is about the big picture.

As Donella Meadows reminds us, the goal of a system is not what it claims to value. It is what the system is actually organised to maximise, especially when trade-offs appear.

You can begin to make out what this is by asking a few simple questions.

What consistently wins when values collide? What does the system protects when it is under stress? What kinds of behaviour, relationships, and forms of organisation are rewarded over time?

Goals function as selection mechanisms. They shape which technologies are allowed to scale, which behaviours are reinforced, and which forms of self-organisation are encouraged or quietly suppressed.

Goals do not prescribe action in detail. Instead, they create the conditions within which action can emerge. Seen this way, goals are not just about direction. They are about permission. They signal what kinds of futures the system is prepared to let grow.

After my last newsletter, I had an illuminating conversation with someone else working in the participatory space. She pointed out that I had missed an obvious paradigm. Financialisation. That everything, in the end, is geared towards making money.

She was right to name it. But I would draw a different conclusion.

Financialisation is not the underlying paradigm. It is the operative goal in action.

A more detailed description of financialisation is that it is set up to maximise stability through financial growth and insulation from uncertainty.

Focus on GDP growth, productivity, bond market stability are often mistaken for the goal itself. In reality, they are strategies in service of this deeper organising logic. They are the means through which the system protects itself.

Growth stabilises the system by expanding buffers against disruption. Hierarchy fixes responsibility and accountability in place. Efficiency minimises friction, deliberation, and dissent.

So , where does this leave our participatory ambitions?

The reality is it is tolerated only where it does not meaningfully disrupt stability. A Citizen Assembly that provides clarity on a morally contested topic is welcome. A Citizen Convention that demands a radical shift in government climate policy, less so.

Participation is not failing because it lacks advocates or stronger narratives. Both of which are true. It is being correctly deprioritised by a system optimised to contain uncertainty rather than distribute agency.

You’ll be pleased to hear, that I’m not going to use this space to try and to settle debates about the capitalism nor wade into binary political positions that tend to generate more heat than clarity.

That is neither my area of expertise nor really the point here. I just thought it was important to ground ourselves in today.

So I want to shift the focus. Away from what the system is failing to be. And towards how a system might be refigured so that participation is the goal, rather than a side line experiment

The role of leadership

Changing the players in a system is usually a low-leverage intervention, as long as those players are stepping into the same structure. The exception sits right at the top. Very occasionally, a single leader has the positional power to shift the goal of the system itself.

This is politics in its purest form. Rare moments where a new leader enters an organisation or a society, articulates a new goal, and suddenly hundreds, thousands, even millions begin moving in a different direction. Not because they were forced. But because the organising logic changed.

Margaret Thatcher is good example of this. Not because of a single quote or policy package, but because of the clarity and repetition with which she framed the purpose of government. Over and over, the message was that the issue was not how people should support government, or how government should support people. The goal was to reduce government’s role altogether. To get it off people’s backs.

Of course, broader structural shifts made her pronouncements possible. But the durability of the shift in public discourse is the point. The assumptions stuck. Therefore, institutions, incentives, and expectations reorganised themselves around a newly named goal.

That is the leverage Meadows is pointing to. Like a Spanish Football commentator. It is important to clearly articulate the goal. Repeat it. Insist on it.

Over time, the system does the rest.

So what might this look like when moving towards a participatory future?

A simple starting point might be this. That the purpose of our institutions is not to manage people, but to help people govern together.

To maximise the system’s capacity for collective self-governance under conditions of uncertainty and ecological limits.

Or for those more into snappy soundbites - “Ask not who will decide for you, but how we will decide together”.

Leaders cannot manufacture participation. But they can name the goal that allows it to grow. When they do, systems listen. Of course, this also depends on a whole host of other conditions such as charisma, luck and excellent communication strategy.

There are emerging signs that Zohran Mamdani as New York City Mayor is leveraging this to build something uniquely participatory. The systems cynic in me says wait and see.

However, if we are to take this overarching goal seriously. There is a need for complementary system goals that would operationalise a participatory future. I’ve listed three below. These are a few of the minimum conditions that would need to dominate when trade-offs appear.

1. From efficiency to adaptive collective capacity

Under the current system, stability is pursued through speed and scale, with success measured by how quickly decisions translate into expansion. Decisions are designed to be made fast and rolled out widely. This works reasonably well in stable environments where problems are predictable and solutions are known in advance.

A participatory system optimises for something else entirely. The capacity of groups to deliberate, adapt, and revise decisions over time. Not once. But repeatedly.

This shift also implies a different way of measuring progress. Not how much output has increased, but how well a system learns. How effectively it incorporates feedback. How capable it is of revising course without crisis.

Complex situations do not reward speed. They reward learning. When cause and effect are unclear, feedback is delayed, and problems evolve as soon as you intervene, efficiency becomes brittle.

Participation is slower and messier because it keeps multiple perspectives in play. It surfaces disagreement early. It allows decisions to be revisited as conditions change. Under a growth-and-efficiency goal, this looks like friction. Under an adaptive-capacity goal, it is how the system stays alive.

In other words, participation is not a moral preference. It is a functional response to complexity.

2. From insulated authority to distributed, provisional judgement

Under the current system, uncertainty is managed by concentrating expertise and authority in a professional bureaucracy. Durable hierarchies narrow who is allowed to decide on the assumption that fewer decision-makers reduces risk.

A participatory system optimises in the opposite direction. Judgement under uncertainty is made through distributed, temporary authority. Decision power moves to where the information is, and shifts as conditions change.

Expertise still matters. But it informs decisions rather than closing them down. Authority becomes conditional and rotated rather than fixed. This is not about eliminating leadership. It is about preventing certainty from hardening into entitlement.

Seen this way, citizens’ assemblies are not engagement exercises they are sense-making infrastructure. They are mechanisms for aggregating diverse knowledge, testing assumptions, and making collective judgement when no one has a full picture.

This goal selects against entrenchment in the same way competition law selects against monopolies. Not by moral appeal, but by design.

3. From growth targets to collective good

In the current system, decisions are most often justified by their contribution to growth or value creation. Optimisation appears straightforward because growth has a dominant proxy. GDP. Whether people feel connected to what is being decided, or responsible for its consequences, is largely treated as secondary.

A participatory system optimises for something harder to reduce to a single metric. Collective responsibility for shaping decisions and for living with their effects. The question shifts from whether an outcome contributes to abstract growth, to whether it strengthens shared goods people actually depend on. Trust, care, ecological stability, social cohesion, and the capacity to decide well together again.

When people are involved in making choices that affect their lives, those choices become commitments. Responsibility no longer sits with institutions as a distant burden. It is distributed across those implicated by the decision, including its costs, compromises, and long-term consequences.

This changes how disagreement and difficulty are handled. People are less likely to disengage when they recognise their role in the outcome. Trade-offs are faced more honestly because they are owned collectively, rather than justified after the fact by GDP figures.

This is what moves participation beyond performance and into purpose. Decisions are not simply delivered and measured. They are lived with, together.

Pushing this shift forward does not start with designing the perfect participatory process or persuading everyone to agree. It starts with paying attention to what goals are actually winning in the systems you are part of. And then choosing, deliberately, to interrupt them.

That might mean slowing a decision that is being rushed in the name of efficiency. It might mean refusing to treat people as stakeholders to be managed, and instead involving them as co-authors, even when that complicates timelines or unsettles authority. In public life, it might mean backing processes that redistribute judgement, not just amplify voice.

This work is rarely neat or dramatic. It is often awkward, occasionally unpopular, and almost always incomplete. But it is where system change can happen.

And it does not happen without leadership. Not leadership that promises certainty, but leadership willing to name a different purpose and stand by it. Leaders prepared to say, plainly, that the role of institutions is not to manage people more efficiently, but to help people govern together. Even when that slows things down. Even when it introduces uncertainty.

When leaders do this, they do more than endorse participation. They change what the system is allowed to optimise for. And that, as Meadows reminds us, is where real change begins.

This piece marks the start of a new series. I am stepping onto Donella Meadows’ seesaw and working through it one leverage point at a time.

Her framework on the “places to intervene in a system” has shaped systems thinking for decades. It offers a simple but demanding map. Not of where change looks easiest, but of where it truly begins.

We begin at the deep end. The mindsets or paradigms of the system. The system in this case being the current political and social reality preeminent in much of the modern world.

They are deep beliefs about how the world works. The assumptions so normal we barely notice them. They decide which ideas sound sensible and which sound unrealistic. They are also the reason we cling to the familiar even when the familiar stops working.

The eagle eyed among you would have noticed the leverage point above even that. The ability to step outside the paradigm itself. The moment you realise that no worldview has a monopoly on truth. The courage to say “I might be wrong” and treat it as an invitation rather than a threat.

Which brings us back to the original act of imagination. I might be wrong that a society built on participation is the answer. You might be wrong too. But for this audience, who can probably feel the possibility in it, the exercise is worth doing.

This series starts here because everything else hangs from this point. If we want a participatory future, we have to notice the stories that keep us from building it. The myths that shape leadership, knowledge, contribution, and fairness. Myths that feel natural only because they sit so deep in the cultural soil.

Touching paradigms sounds like an experimental electronic music duo. And playing them back can be both a powerful and uncomfortable experience.

Here are four of them. The ones I see most often in political life, organisational practice, and the day-to-day business of being human. I’ll explore in fleeting detail what they mean and what might happen when we start to unlearn them.

The Consumer Mindset

One of the most dominant assumptions shaping modern systems is the idea that our primary role is to consume. Services. Information. Things.

Jon Alexander in his book “Citizens”, which is a call for the named alternative, describes this as the Consumer Story. A worldview in which institutions provide and individuals choose. Agency is expressed through preference and responsibility sits elsewhere.

Once you start looking for it, the pattern is hard to miss. It goes way beyond our consumption habits. In politics, participation collapses into voting every few years. In public services, people become users rather than co-authors. In organisations, engagement means being consulted after the meaningful decisions have already been made. The system speaks and people respond.

This model is efficient. It simplifies design. It scales. But it also narrows what people are expected to do and, over time, what they believe they are capable of. When systems treat people as consumers, they train them to react rather than to shape. To optimise their own experience rather than to take responsibility for the whole.

The trouble is complex challenges do not respond well to choice alone. They require judgement, trade-offs, and collective learning. The consumer model struggles here because it is built for delivery, not deliberation.

Awareness of this preeminent paradigm starts with language. Customer. User. Audience. It continues with design. Who is invited in early. Whose knowledge counts. Where responsibility is assumed to sit. Shifting it means designing for contribution rather than feedback. Expecting people to participate not occasionally, but as a normal condition of belonging.

When people are treated as citizens rather than consumers, they do not just offer opinions. They help shape the question. They live with disagreement. They carry responsibility for outcomes they did not individually choose. The system gains depth, not efficiency. And in a world that refuses to stay simple, depth turns out to matter.

The Brilliant Man Theory

Another powerful assumption is that progress comes from exceptional individuals. The visionary founder. The heroic leader. The person who sees what everyone else has missed. It is a compelling story. Easy to tell. Easy to celebrate.

It is also misleading.

Default to this comes in every form. Shakespeare as the master of prose who shaped the English language. Marx as the architect of a worker’s revolution. Steve Jobs as the genius mind behind Apple. In each case, the figure is real and the contribution matters. But the story only works by erasing the conditions that made their work possible.

Shakespeare tuned into and put to paper a language already alive in London streets and theatres. Marx gave voice to political and economic tensions being debated across Europe. Jobs stepped into an ecosystem rich with engineers, designers, and decades of publicly funded research. None of them worked in isolation. Each became visible because they stood at the intersection of collective effort, cultural timing, and shared conditions.

Most of our institutions are still organised around this myth of individual brilliance. We reward visibility over contribution. Voice over listening. Leadership becomes something to perform, rather than a practice of creating the conditions for others to think well together.

This shapes how power is distributed. Authority concentrates around a few recognisable figures. Collective intelligence fades into the background. When progress is attributed to individuals, the systems that produced it disappear from view.

You can spot this paradigm by following the credit line. Who gets named. Who gets quoted. Whose learning is documented. And whose work remains invisible. Shifting it means designing for shared authorship and making collective insight legible. Treating collaboration not as a nice-to-have, but as cultural infrastructure.

Not being savvy to this paradigm becomes a real problem when seeking a participatory future. By refusing the logic of heroic leadership, acknowledging change does not arrive with a single face or voice. When it does show up, it is often dismissed as weak or unfocused.

The irony is that the absence of a central figure is the point. Participation spreads authorship deliberately. But in cultures trained to look for brilliance in individuals, that strength can easily be mistaken for a flaw.

When brilliance is understood as something that emerges between people rather than within them, leadership changes shape. Less spotlight. More scaffolding. And far more room for intelligence to surface from places we were not taught to look.

The Technocratic Worldview

Another deeply rooted assumption is that good decisions belong to experts. The people with the right titles and proximity to power. Expertise brings comfort. It reduces uncertainty. When the stakes are high, it feels safer to hand responsibility to those who appear to know best.

But when authority sits exclusively with experts, the lens narrows. Complex social problems are treated as technical puzzles. Human experience becomes anecdotal. Civic knowledge slips to the margins. What cannot be measured or modelled is quietly discounted.

This model rests on an unspoken belief that most people are not capable of meaningful judgement. That they lack the intelligence, discipline, or perspective to participate responsibly.

And yet this assumption rarely survives contact with well intentioned reality, let alone well-designed processes. What looks like ignorance is often the product of exclusion. When people are given time, access to evidence, and opportunities to learn from one another, their capacity expands rapidly.

Experts do matter. Just not in the way our systems usually ask them to. Their role is not to decide on behalf of everyone else. It is to contribute knowledge, clarify trade-offs, and strengthen collective sense-making. Experts have legitimacy as arbiters of evidence, not as owners of outcomes.

This distinction matters. Evidence can inform decisions. It cannot make them. Moral judgement, lived experience, and collective values do not sit within any single discipline. Governing well requires both forms of intelligence working together.

Citizens’ assemblies and co-production are examples of alternative models in practice where expertise is embedded rather than elevated. In these spaces, technical knowledge does not disappear. It becomes more accurate because it meets reality. It is tested, questioned, and grounded in lived experience.

The challenge, then, is not to reduce expertise. It is to reposition it. To move from authority to facilitation. From decision-making power to sense-making support. When expertise is woven into collective processes rather than placed above them, both knowledge and democracy get stronger.

The Myth of Meritocracy

This one is particularly resilient. It tells us that success is earned. That outcomes reflect effort and talent. That those at the top deserve to be there and those left behind simply did not try hard enough.

It is a reassuring story. It creates order. It makes inequality feel fair. Especially for those, including myself, who benefit from it of which I myself am a beneficairy

But it does not hold up well to scrutiny. Luck and circumstance shape our lives far more than we tend to admit. Where you are born. Who you know. The timing of opportunities. The structures you move through. When these factors are ignored, success is over-attributed to individuals and failure becomes a personal flaw.

This mindset quietly legitimises hierarchy. It allows power to concentrate while presenting itself as neutral. Those with advantage are over-credited. Those without are blamed. The system reproduces itself while claiming to reward merit.

You can see this paradigm at work in how leadership is selected, promoted, and justified. Credentials stand in for capability. Track records stand in for potential. The same profiles circulate through positions of influence, reinforcing the belief that talent is rare and unevenly distributed.

Approaches like sortition help puncture this illusion. By selecting people at random, they operationalise humility. They recognise that leadership potential is widespread, not scarce. That judgement does not belong to a single class or career path. And that nobody inherently deserves power over others.

When chance is acknowledged, governance shifts tone. Authority becomes provisional rather than earned forever. Participation becomes a responsibility rather than a reward. And humility replaces exceptionalism as a more realistic foundation for collective decision-making.

These mindsets do not operate in isolation. They reinforce one another. The consumer waits to be served. The genius is expected to lead. The expert is trusted to decide. Together, they produce a culture of control and deference. And they quietly define the edges of what feels possible.

Shifting this is not a quick fix. It is not a framework rollout or a policy tweak. It is a slow, reflective practice. Learning to notice the water we are swimming in. Catching ourselves when familiar assumptions slip back into place. Paying attention to what feels sensible, realistic, or inevitable, and asking who that serves.

If systems are made of stories, then systems change begins with imagination. Not the abstract kind, but the practical work of noticing. Noticing the mental models shaping your organisation, your team, your politics, or your practice. And noticing which of them no longer fit the world we are trying to build.

After drafting a few accompanying pieces which felt adrift. I felt compelled to set out what a participatory future might look like.

Motivated by the recent reading of “The Dawn of Everything - A New History of Humanity” where 5,000 years of revisionist history teaches us that social realities - systems, values and ways of organising - are numerous and open to reinvention.

The challenge is imagining that freedom as real. In an age where we are starved of agency, time and trust.

When a single citizens’ assembly feels “transformative”. Even a glimpse of shared power feels utopian.

But what if participation was the norm? What if it was the structure? Not a tweak within the system, but the system itself?

This isn’t a manifesto or a theory of change. It’s an act of imagination. The point isn’t whether this is plausible or practical. But that is stretches the horizon of what is possible. A north star of sorts.

So I set out, as with a phone camera on a cloudy night, to sketch a draft of what a participatory society might look like. From a notepad full of ideas and an ongoing conversation with my infinitely knowledgeable but socially incapable, co-intelligence partner.

Nested Worlds, Planetary Consciousness

In a participatory world, power doesn’t flow from the top down. It moves like a network, a web of self-governing communities linked through trust, dialogue, and shared responsibility.

At the base are local assemblies gatherings of residents who deliberate on everyday life: education, housing, local economies, care. They hold real authority, not just symbolic voice.

Those local groups connect into regional councils, where delegates coordinate things that cross community lines public transport, regional planning, and ecology.

Above that sit national or continental forums, bringing together insights from hundreds of local and regional assemblies to deliberate on larger policy questions that affect whole populations.

And finally, there are transnational assemblies, where randomly selected citizens from every part of the world deliberate on global commons - climate, migration, technology, and peace.

These layers don’t compete; they cooperate. Decisions flow upward when coordination is needed, and downward for confirmation and local adaptation.
Delegates rotate regularly and can be recalled at any time, preventing career politics or entrenchment of power.
Every conversation is public, traceable, and accessible in multiple languages.

The guiding idea is “dynamic subsidiarity” where decisions are made as close as possible to the people most affected. They are only passed upward when the challenge becomes too large or complex to solve locally. This keeps autonomy alive while still allowing collaboration on shared problems.

Conflict isn’t treated as failure but as feedback. Each level of governance has Justice and Reconciliation Panels. Groups of citizens trained to hold dialogue and transform conflict. Their job isn’t to suppress disagreement but to work with it, helping societies learn from tension rather than fracture under it.

All of this is held together by a digital layer. A global deliberation network that allows anyone to observe, learn from, or take part in discussions happening anywhere in the world. Every proposal and outcome is stored on a public, searchable record. Algorithms are open-source and reviewed by citizens’ juries to prevent bias or manipulation.

Over time, this way of organising dissolves the old line between local and global, national and international. Planetary co-governance doesn’t come from treaties between states, but from ongoing conversation between communities. Each one distinct, yet deeply connected in shaping the future we share.

The Shape of Everyday Governance

At the local level, each neighbourhood (roughly 5,000–10,000 residents) operates an Open Assembly. A hybrid digital–physical forum that meets monthly. Every assembly has:

• A rotating citizens’ council of 25-50 people, selected by sortition every six months, trained in deliberation, and supported by facilitators.

• Working circles (finance, infrastructure, wellbeing, ecology, culture) open to all residents who want to contribute to ongoing projects.

• Participatory budgeting authority, allocating a defined proportion of the local budget through citizen deliberation.

• Link delegates, chosen through deliberation to represent the assembly in regional coordination forums.

The goal is to normalise participation not as volunteerism but as public work, integrated into civic rhythms like voting or paying taxes.
Participation is supported, not demanded: childcare, accessibility, and digital inclusion are fully resourced. Citizens receive participation credits or paid leave for public involvement, recognising time as a democratic asset.

Digital platforms sustain continuity: transparent agendas, accessible archives, and participatory polling keep conversations alive between meetings. AI translation tools bridge linguistic divides, and open data dashboards track progress and spending in real time.

Crucially, participation isn’t limited to “safe” topics like parks or transport. Assemblies handle morally and politically complex issues - migration policy, policing, healthcare priorities - using structured deliberation methods.

They’re designed for disagreement with embedded conflict transformation panels and “deep listening” sessions ensuring that tension becomes learning, not fracture.

The effect is that governance becomes muscular capable of holding complexity without collapsing into bureaucracy or populism.

Institutions That Learn With Us

Public institutions become learning ecosystems. Each major institution from schools to hospitals operates under a principle of co-governance, blending professional expertise with citizen participation.

Education:

• Every school and university hosts a Learning Council composed of teachers, students, parents, and community members.

• These councils co-design curricula, ensuring education reflects both global knowledge and local context.

• Students are not recipients but co-researchers; schools partner with citizen scientists, artists, and elders to generate knowledge.

• Nationally, Participatory Education Forums link schools into a continuous feedback network, where curriculum evolution mirrors societal change.

Healthcare:

• Hospitals and clinics form Care Assemblies that deliberate on service priorities, ethical dilemmas, and community wellbeing.

• Patients sit alongside clinicians to discuss trade-offs and how to allocate limited resources, or balance prevention with treatment.

• Policy-level decisions are informed by Health Citizens’ Panels, ensuring reform reflects lived experience, not just bureaucratic efficiency.

Research & Innovation:

• Open science becomes the default.

• Citizen research cooperatives partner with universities to set agendas, analyse data, and translate findings into community practice.

• Ethics reviews are participatory. Citizens deliberate alongside scientists on the moral boundaries of emerging technologies.

Public Administration:

• Ministries evolve into Participatory Service Platforms porous organisations where citizens can propose, audit, and co-design programmes.

• Civil servants act as facilitators of collective intelligence, not gatekeepers of information.

Institutional legitimacy shifts from authority derived from office to trust earned through openness.
Accountability isn’t a compliance process; it’s a culture of reciprocal learning between professionals and publics.

An Economy of Contribution

Economic democracy grounds political democracy. In this system, ownership and governance are inseparable.

• Worker cooperatives become the standard corporate form. Each enterprise elects a council to make strategic decisions and share profits equitably.

• Multi-stakeholder cooperatives include workers, consumers, and communities, balancing financial and social goals.

• Commons enterprises manage shared resources — water, data, housing — governed by users and stewards, not shareholders.

Instead of basic income, Universal Participatory Income (UPI) recognises participation as contribution. People receive income for unpaid civic work such as caregiving, local governance, ecological restoration, mentoring. It ties economic security directly to public contribution, dissolving the boundary between labour and citizenship.

At local and regional levels, Economic Assemblies deliberate on resource use, investment, and sustainability. Decisions about food systems, housing development, or renewable energy are made collectively, supported by transparent data.

Banks become Public Investment Cooperatives, governed by savers and borrowers.

Taxation is partly deliberative: citizens can allocate a portion of taxes to causes they value.

Speculation is replaced by participatory capital allocation, where communities co-decide which innovations receive funding.

The economy becomes a vehicle for collective flourishing, not accumulation.
Efficiency is measured by wellbeing per unit of resource, not profit per share.

Culture That Makes It Possible

Every participatory system depends on a matching cultural operating system - values, myths, and rituals that make collaboration intuitive.

In a participatory utopia, the dominant myth is not the “brilliant individual” but the brilliant collective.

Cultural anchors:

• Rotating leadership: every public institution and cooperative embeds rotation into its design. Roles have time limits; no one holds power indefinitely.

• Deliberative literacy: facilitation, listening, and systems thinking are taught from childhood. Civic education becomes emotional education — learning to disagree, empathise, and synthesise.

• Celebration of care: public ceremonies honour caregivers, mediators, and facilitators as much as innovators and leaders.

• Storytelling platforms showcase participatory achievements: how communities resolved conflict, redesigned public services, or restored ecosystems.

Media evolves too.
Public broadcasting transitions into Participatory Media Cooperatives, where citizens help shape editorial priorities. Fact-checking is community-based, and public narratives emphasise complexity over outrage.

Culture becomes participatory because participation becomes cultural normalised through art, ritual, and education.
The message is consistent: we belong to what we co-create.

Bringing It All Together

Across communities and organisations, fragments of this future are already here. People are hosting neighbourhood assemblies, co-owning their workplaces, redesigning institutions to listen and learn. Each effort, however small, however imperfect, is one step in the right direction, one spark of what a participatory society could become.

But this is only one iteration. A sketch. The most inconceivable ideas today may soon feel inevitable, while the seemingly practical may fade away.

So let’s keep imagining and doing. Let’s test, adapt, and build toward the kind of democracy that grows by participation, not prescription.

I’d love to hear what resonated most for you. Which ideas felt alive, useful, or worth pursuing further?

The north star isn’t where we’re headed. It’s how we keep from getting lost.