Co-creation has become a familiar response to Europe’s democratic malaise. Marjan Marjanović argues that inviting citizens into policymaking is not enough. As Europe navigates its green and digital transitions, the democratic value of co-creation depends on whether institutions share influence, allow disagreement to emerge, and remain accountable for the decisions that follow
Europe's green and digital transitions will reshape economies and everyday life. They will also test whether public institutions can govern profound societal change democratically. Co-creation can help, but participation has to affect decisions, not merely how governments present them.
The green and digital transitions redistribute costs, opportunities, mobility, land, jobs, and control. Yet the decisions shaping these changes are scattered across local, regional, national, and EU levels. People experience their consequences in everyday life while often remaining far from the institutions where choices are made. That distance exacerbates Europe’s broader democratic problem.
Co-creation promises to mitigate it by bringing citizens, communities, public institutions, experts, and civil society into the process before key choices are settled. Participants can help define problems, test options, and evaluate results, not merely respond after decisions have largely been made.
This can widen participation and bring forms of knowledge into policymaking that formal institutions may otherwise miss. It can also make decisions more responsive to everyday realities.
Participatory exercises are too easily taken as evidence of democratic quality. Bringing more people into the room does not, by itself, make the process more democratic. A workshop is not democratic just because it has sticky notes. A digital platform is not democratic simply because it collects feedback. A citizens' forum is not democratic merely because people were invited.
The real test is what participants can actually influence. A credible process has to make clear who sets the agenda, who is included, which choices remain open, and who ultimately decides. Participants should also be able to see what happened to their contributions after the process ends.
A credible participatory process has to make clear who sets the agenda, who is included, which choices remain open, and who ultimately decides
Without this, co-creation can become democratic theatre. Such processes may favour people with time, confidence, connections, or professional knowledge. Citizens can become unpaid information providers while strategic choices remain untouched, and communities may take on responsibilities without corresponding authority. Recent Loop analysis similarly cautions that participation and good governance do not automatically go hand in hand.
Real influence also means being able to disagree. Public policy creates conflict because decisions about housing, mobility, energy, digital systems, and land use distribute costs and benefits unevenly. Some groups gain opportunities or resources that others do not, while some face new constraints. These are political choices, not neutral design problems. Co-creation has little to no democratic value when participation is used mainly to secure buy-in for decisions that have already been made. Under those conditions, participation manages disagreement rather than giving it political expression.
Co-creation has little to no democratic value when participation is used mainly to secure buy-in for decisions that have already been made
A democratic process must allow competing interests to be articulated and contested. Work on technical democracy, for instance, makes a case for spaces for dissensus in which experts and non-experts can confront different understandings of a problem. Dissent does not necessarily show that co-creation has failed. It may suggest that participants have reached choices with real consequences.
Co-creation should therefore allow disagreement to shape deliberation and decision-making while keeping public authorities accountable for the decisions that follow.
Many co-creation processes happen locally, and for good reason. Cities and neighbourhoods are where services are delivered, where policy impacts become visible, and where trade-offs are experienced most directly. They also offer room for experimentation.
Yet local participation can achieve little when it remains institutionally isolated. A neighbourhood forum may produce strong proposals, only to find that regional budgets, national rules, or EU frameworks restrict their implementation. The democratic value of participation therefore depends partly on whether locally generated proposals can enter the wider systems in which relevant decisions are made.
The democratic value of participation depends on whether locally generated proposals can enter the wider systems in which relevant decisions are made
This means that co-creation needs institutional routes that connect local participation to the arenas where budgets, rules, and implementation decisions are controlled. It also suggests that co-creation should complement rather than substitute for elections, parties, parliaments, and public administration. Instruments like participatory budgeting, citizens’ assemblies, living labs, and co-design workshops can make representative institutions more responsive, but only when participation is clearly connected to formal decision-making and when public authorities explain what they accepted, what they rejected, and why.
Designing co-creation around these connections means designing it around power. Governments need to reach beyond the usual participants and state clearly what is genuinely negotiable. People need enough time, information, and resources to contribute, and institutions need to show how that contribution enters decision-making.
They must also be willing to change course. If every strategic choice has already been fixed, co-creation amounts to little more than window dressing.
The political temptation is to adopt the language of co-creation while retaining control. Co-creation sounds modern, inclusive, and constructive. Meaningful participation is more demanding because it may alter priorities, expose conflicts, or constrain decisions that public authorities might otherwise have taken on their own.
Citizens know the difference between being heard and having influence. Co-creation can strengthen European democracy only when participation can change decisions, and institutions are willing to share power.
