This paper examines six fundamental dilemmas that constrain direct citizen participation in public administration, as identified by Nancy Roberts in her 2004 study. The dilemmas covered include the challenge of scale in modern bureaucracies, the systematic exclusion of marginalized groups, the imposition of technological risks without public consent, the dominance of expert knowledge over lay participation, the time pressures created by accelerating crises, and the difficulty of ensuring that direct participation genuinely serves the common good. Together, these dilemmas serve both as recurring themes in citizen participation literature and as benchmarks for evaluating the effectiveness and future potential of direct democratic engagement.
There are a number of limitations, or dilemmas, inherent to direct citizen participation in public administration. If direct citizen participation in the administrative process is to be taken more seriously, these dilemmas must be addressed. As identified by Roberts (2004) in her study of public deliberation, the dilemmas are summarized here for two purposes: first, they are significant recurring themes in citizen participation literature, and comprehending them makes it easier to understand the wide range of perspectives on citizen participation; and second, they serve as benchmarks for assessing the effectiveness of direct citizen participation to date, and how well it may fare in the future.
The first dilemma is the dilemma of size. Size is a genuine challenge for direct citizen participation because the modern administrative bureaucracy is massive and complex. Implementing direct citizen participation therefore requires including many groups and individuals. Roberts points out that direct democracy was originally conceived for smaller groups meeting in an intimate setting, addressing issues within public domains of relatively limited scale. The central question this dilemma raises is: "How can direct citizen participation overcome the limitations of scale?" (p. 326).
The next dilemma is the dilemma of excluded or oppressed groups. There have always been members of the public who have been systematically excluded from direct democracy. The dilemma is straightforward: there exists a pressing need for the voices of "ethnic and religious minorities, indigenous peoples, women, the old, gays and lesbians, youth, the unemployed, the underclass, and recent immigrants" to be included in the participatory process (p. 326). Without their inclusion, the process cannot be considered truly democratic. Political exclusion of this kind undermines the legitimacy of any participatory framework that claims to represent the public as a whole.
The third dilemma is the dilemma of risk. Modern technology is often highly complex and can present serious threats to individuals, communities, entire countries, and even the world at large. Roberts notes that imposing risks on people without their tacit consent constitutes a form of tyranny. The number of individuals subject to these risks on a daily basis is very large, and this creates a significant political tension. How do we mitigate technological risks — chemical, radioactive, and biotechnological — when those exposed to them are numerous enough to "threaten the stability of the political-economic order, and thus place legitimation at issue"? (p. 326).
Closely related is the dilemma of technology and expertise. Because governance issues are often directly shaped by technologies that are best understood by specialists, the general public frequently cannot compete with the depth of experts' knowledge, information, and technical fluency. In fields affected by complex technologies, experts tend to be over-represented in policymaking while the public is greatly under-represented. As Roberts asks, how can citizens meaningfully participate in decisions regarding complex technologies, "especially when there can be wide disagreements among the experts, and the costs of gaining the knowledge, information, and expertise to stay current in these debates can be prohibitive?" (pp. 326–327).
"Crisis urgency and deliberation quality problems"
The final dilemma is the dilemma of the common good. Direct participation does not automatically produce outcomes that serve the broader public interest. As Roberts observes, "power to the people does not necessarily produce thoughtful deliberative power." The challenge, then, is designing participatory mechanisms that motivate those who engage to think more seriously and fully about the issues at stake — rather than simply amplifying narrow or self-interested preferences. This question sits at the heart of deliberative democracy theory and remains one of the most difficult to resolve.
Taken together, these six dilemmas — size, exclusion, risk, technological expertise, time and crises, and the common good — highlight the structural and practical barriers that prevent direct citizen participation from achieving its democratic ideal. Roberts presents them not as reasons to abandon participatory governance, but as critical challenges that must be openly confronted if direct participation is to serve as a viable and legitimate force in modern public administration.
Roberts, N. (2004). Public deliberation in an age of direct citizen participation. American Review of Public Administration, 34(4), 315–353.
You’re 85% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.