C2.4 Democratic Participation
Human Autonomy. Does the system maximize human freedom and self-determination?
Pass threshold
≥70% participation in democratic processes, ≥35% citizen proposals adopted, ≥65% satisfaction with responsiveness
Clause by clause:
- ≥70% participation in democratic processes
- ≥35% citizen proposals adopted
- ≥65% satisfaction with responsiveness
What it asks
Genuine citizen voice in governance, not just voting rights. Economic democracy matters as much as political democracy.
Why it matters
Systems concentrating decision-making—whether in state bureaucracies or corporate boardrooms—cannot claim to maximize human autonomy regardless of material outcomes. Democracy requires actual capacity to shape policy and influence outcomes.
How it is measured
Clause 1 (participation): turnout as a share of the voting-age population in national elections (International IDEA Voter Turnout Database), or, where the system takes its binding decisions otherwise, participation in those processes; binding economic-domain decisions (workplace democracy, community asset governance) count. Clause 2 (influence): the share of citizen-initiated proposals (popular initiatives, petitions with a right to a decision, participatory-budgeting proposals) reaching a binding decision that are adopted, from the official record of the process; where no such process exists the clause is not met. This is the one home of the proposal-adoption quantity; C4.4 no longer measures it. Clause 3 (responsiveness): the share answering that the political system allows people like them to have a say in what the government does (OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, or the equivalent European Social Survey item). For a design, each is projected on the same measure.
Indicators
International IDEA Voter Turnout Database; official records of initiative and participatory processes; OECD Trust Survey external-efficacy item.
How scores are anchored
1.0, pass
Structural mechanisms for continuous, substantive citizen influence over both political and economic decisions. Participatory Economics (1.0): "Comprehensive economic democracy through nested councils. Everyone participates in planning affecting them."
0.5, partial
Formal democratic rights exist but influence is diluted by concentrated economic power. Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): "Average citizens have 'near-zero independent impact' (Gilens & Page, 2014)."
0.0, structural failure
No meaningful participation mechanism, by design or suppression. Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): "Single-party rule eliminated meaningful democratic participation... political dissent suppressed systematically." FALC (0.0): "Governance structures largely unspecified. Who controls the machines?"
Normative roots
From N7 (Governance Legitimacy) + N1 (Human Flourishing).
How the systems score
0.5, partial
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Participatory Economics, Integral, Degrowth Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Market Socialism, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, Georgism / LVT, Ostrom Commons, Islamic Finance, Mutual Credit / LETS, State Capitalism / Singapore, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, MMT + Job Guarantee, Status Quo Market Capitalism, Stakeholder Capitalism, Doughnut Economics, Libertarian Minarchism
0.0, structural failure
State Capitalism / China, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, State Capitalism / Qatar, Centrally Planned Socialism
Sources
Definition: Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V). Anchors: Paper Appendix H.7.