The Invisible Crisis of Democracy: A Conceptual Inquiry into Civic Fatigue

Öz

Contemporary democratic theory frequently celebrates citizen participation as an ideal in which individuals are expected to be increasingly involved in decision-making processes at all levels. However, this article argues that the quantitative expansion of participatory calls does not necessarily enhance democratic legitimacy; on the contrary, it may in certain contexts generate political and administrative exhaustion among individuals. In this regard, the study introduces the concept of civic fatigue into the literature. Civic fatigue refers to a condition of political exhaustion that emerges when citizens are repeatedly invited to express opinions, provide feedback, or participate in decision-making processes that ultimately remain devoid of substantive content and fail to produce meaningful outcomes. Drawing on a critical theoretical framework—including Habermas’s deliberative democracy ideal, Gramsci’s conception of hegemony, Bourdieu’s notion of symbolic violence, and Byung-Chul Han’s critique of the neoliberal subject—the article examines the causes and consequences of civic fatigue. Employing a conceptual analysis methodology, the study substantiates the phenomenon through illustrative case examples from diverse contexts such as municipalities, digital participation platforms, social media activism, academia, and public institutions. The findings demonstrate that in environments where participation becomes instrumentalized and stripped of meaning, citizens gradually become more passive and their trust in democratic processes erodes. The primary contribution of the article is to challenge the widely held assumption in democratic theory that “more participation equals greater legitimacy,” and to foreground the qualitative dimensions of participation by bringing attention to civic fatigue as an invisible crisis of contemporary democracies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Civic fatigue
• Symbolic violence
• Political exhaustion
• Critical democracy
• Governance

Demokrasinin Görünmez Krizi: Kamusal Yorgunluk Üzerine Kavramsal Bir İnceleme

Öz

Güncel demokratik kuram, yurttaş katılımını bireylerin her düzeydeki karar alma süreçlerine giderek daha fazla dâhil olmalarının beklendiği bir ideal olarak sıklıkla yüceltmektedir. Ancak bu makale, katılım çağrılarının niceliksel olarak genişlemesinin demokratik meşruiyeti her zaman güçlendirmediğini; aksine, belirli bağlamlarda bireylerde siyasal ve yönetsel bir tükenmişlik üretebileceğini ileri sürmektedir. Bu doğrultuda çalışma, literatüre kamusal yorgunluk kavramını kazandırmaktadır. Kamusal yorgunluk, yurttaşların sürekli olarak görüş bildirmeye, geri bildirim sunmaya ya da karar alma süreçlerine katılmaya davet edildikleri, ancak bu süreçlerin nihayetinde içerikten yoksun kaldığı ve anlamlı sonuçlar üretmediği durumlarda ortaya çıkan siyasal bir tükenmişlik hâlini ifade eder. Makale, Habermas’ın müzakereci demokrasi ideali, Gramsci’nin hegemonya anlayışı, Bourdieu’nün simgesel şiddet kavramsallaştırması ve Byung-Chul Han’ın neoliberal özne eleştirisi gibi yaklaşımları içeren eleştirel bir kuramsal çerçeveden hareketle kamusal yorgunluğun nedenlerini ve sonuçlarını incelemektedir. Kavramsal analiz yöntemini benimseyen çalışma, belediyeler, dijital katılım platformları, sosyal medya aktivizmi, akademi ve kamu kurumları gibi farklı bağlamlardan seçilen temsili örnek olaylar aracılığıyla olguyu somutlaştırmaktadır. Bulgular, katılımın araçsallaştığı ve anlamdan arındığı ortamlarda yurttaşların giderek daha pasif hâle geldiğini ve demokratik süreçlere duydukları güvenin aşındığını göstermektedir. Makalenin temel katkısı, demokratik kuramda yaygın biçimde kabul gören “daha fazla katılım = daha fazla meşruiyet” varsayımını sorgulamak ve katılımın niteliksel boyutunu ön plana çıkararak kamusal yorgunluğu çağdaş demokrasilerin görünmez bir krizi olarak tartışmaya açmaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kamusal yorgunluk
• Simgesel şiddet
• Siyasal tükenmişlik
• Eleştirel demokrasi
• Yönetişim

Kaynakça

1. Araos, M. (2023). Democracy underwater: public participation, technical expertise, and climate infrastructure planning in New York City. Theory and Society, 52, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11186-021-09459-9
2. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. SAGE.
3. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
4. Baiocchi, G., & Ganuza, E. (2014). Participatory Budgeting as if Emancipation Mattered. Politics & Society, 42(1), 29-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329213512978
5. Barandiaran, X. E., Calleja-López, A., Monterde, A. & Romero, C. (2024). Decidim, a Technopolitical Network for Participatory Democracy Philosophy, Practice and Autonomy of a Collective Platform in the Age of Digital Intelligence. Springer.
6. Berg, M., & Seeber, B. K. (2016). The slow professor: Challenging the culture of speed in the academy. University of Toronto Press.
7. Bickerton, C., & Accetti, C. I. (2021). Technopopulism: The new logic of democratic politics. Oxford University Press.
8. Blair, E., & Noel, K. V. (2014). Improving higher education practice through student evaluation systems: Is the student voice being heard? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(7), 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.875984

9. Bohman, J. (1996). Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity, and democracy. MIT Press.
10. Borge, R., Balcells, J., & Padró-Solanet, A. (2022). Democratic Disruption or Continuity? Analysis of the Decidim Platform in Catalan Municipalities. American Behavioral Scientist, 67(7), 926-939. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642221092798
11. Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing performance: International comparisons. Routledge.
12. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.
13. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press.
14. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
15. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Harvard University Press.
16. Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.
17. Carson, L., & Martin, B. (1999). Random selection in politics. Greenwood Publishing Group.
18. Chadwick, A. (2011). Explaining the failure of an online citizen engagement initiative: The role of internal institutional variables. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2010.507999
19. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: Models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010
20. Cox, R. W. (1993). Gramsci, hegemony and international relations: An essay in method. In S. Gill (Ed.), Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations (pp. 49–66). Cambridge University Press.
21. Crehan, K. (2016). Gramsci’s common sense: Inequality and its narratives. Duke University Press.
22. Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Polity Press.
23. Cruikshank, B. (1999). The will to empower: Democratic citizens and other subjects. Cornell University Press.
24. Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.
25. Dalton, R. J. (2017). The participation gap: Social status and political inequality. Oxford University Press.
26. Davies, W. (2014). The limits of neoliberalism: Authority, sovereignty and the logic of competition. SAGE.
27. Dean, M. (2010). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society (2nd ed.). Sage.
28. Deetz, S. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. State University of New York Press.
29. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2007). The new public service: Serving, not steering. M.E. Sharpe.
30. de Vries, M. S. (2000). The Bureaucratization of Participation. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 66(2), 325-348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852300662008
31. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford University Press.
32. Eliasoph, N. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.
33. Elitok, F. & Saylam, A. (2023). Yerel Yönetimlerde E-Katılım: Türkiye Büyükşehir Belediyeleri Mobil Uygulamaları Üzerinden Bir Analiz. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25(2), 528-549. DOI: 10.21180/iibfdkastamonu.1333040
34. Foucault, M. (2020). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
35. Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media: A critical introduction. Sage.
36. Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00667.x
37. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361
38. Gaventa, J., & Barrett, G. (2012). Mapping the outcomes of citizen engagement. World Development, 40(12), 2399–2410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.014
39. Gerbaudo, P. (2019). The digital party: Political organisation and online democracy. Pluto Press.
40. Gigler, B.-S., Custer, S., Bailur, S., Dodds, E., & Asad, S., with Gagieva, E. (2014). Closing the feedback loop: Can technology amplify citizen voices? World Bank.
41. Gill, R. (2014). Academics, cultural workers and critical labor studies. Journal of Cultural Economy, 7(1), 12–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2013.861763
42. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. Nowell Smith, Eds.). International Publishers.
43. Gündoğdu, H. G. (2021). Web Sitelerinin e-Katılım Düzeyleri Üzerine Bir Araştırma: Türkiye Büyükşehir Belediyeleri Örneği. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 28, 338-367
44. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1, Reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon Press.
45. Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Vol. 2. Lifeworld and system. Beacon Press.
46. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press.
47. Hall, S. (1986). The Problem of Ideology-Marxism without Guarantees. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 10(2), 28-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/019685998601000203
48. Han, B.-C. (2015). The burnout society. (Trans. Erik B.). Stanford University Press.
49. Han, B.-C. (2017). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power. (Trans. Erik B.). Verso.
50. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press.
51. Harvey, L. (2003). Student feedback. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538320308164
52. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy (3rd ed.). Stanford University Press.
53. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x
54. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton University Press.
55. Kern, A., & Hooghe, M. (2017). The effect of direct democracy on the social stratification of political participation: Inequality in democratic fatigue?. Comparative European Politics, 16(4), 724–744.
56. Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social media innovations and participatory politics. Information, Communication & Society, 14, 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.592648
57. Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2017). Opportunities and challenges for digital governance in a world of digital participation. Information Polity, 22(2-3), 197-205. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170408
58. Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10. 10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265300
59. Mair, P. (2023). Ruling the void: The hollowing of Western democracy. Verso.
60. McComas, K., Besley, J. C., & Black, L. W. (2010). The rituals of public meetings. Public Administration Review, 70(1), 122–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1540-6210.2009.02116.X
61. Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: how does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399851
62. Michels, A., & De Graaf, L. (2010). Examining citizen participation: Local participatory policy making and democracy. Local Government Studies, 36(4), 477–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2010.494101
63. Moini, G. (2011). How participation has become a hegemonic discursive resource: towards an interpretivist research agenda. Critical Policy Studies, 5(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2011.576524
64. Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. PublicAffairs.
65. Morrison, C., & Dearden, A. (2013). Beyond tokenistic participation: Using representational artefacts to enable meaningful public participation in health service design. Health Policy, 112(3), 179–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.05.008
66. Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. https://doi.org/10.2307/259200
67. Mouffe, C. (1979). Gramsci and Marxist theory. Routledge.
68. Nabatchi, T., & Leighninger, M. (2015). Public participation for 21st century democracy. Jossey-Bass.
69. Norris, P. (2011). Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press.
70. OECD (2023), Digital Government Review of Türkiye: Towards a Digitally-Enabled Government, OECD Digital Government Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3958d102-en.
71. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley.
72. Palacin, V., Nelimarkka, M., Reynolds-Cuéllar, P., & Becker, C. (2020). The design of pseudo-participation. In PDC ’20: Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 – Participation(s) Otherwise (Vol. 2, pp. 40–44). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3384772.3385141
73. Papadopoulos, Y., & Warin, P. (2007). Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective? European Journal of Political Research, 46(4), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x
74. Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press.
75. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
76. Power, M. (1997). The audit society: Rituals of verification. Oxford University Press.
77. Pruin, A. (2022). How organizational factors shape e-participation: Lessons from the German one-stop participation portal meinBerlin. T. Randma-Liiv & V. Lember (Der.), Engaging Citizens in Policy Making içinde (ss. 107-123). Edward Elgar Publishing.
78. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
79. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The New Governance: Governing without Government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652-667. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x
80. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press.
81. Rowley, J. (2003). Designing student feedback questionnaires. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(3), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310488454
82. Royo, S., Pina, V. & Garcia-Rayado, J. (2020). Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative. Sustainability, 12(4), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041674
83. Saglie, J. & Vabo, S. I. (2009). Size and e-Democracy: Online Participation in Norwegian Local Politics. Scandinavian Political Studies, 32(4), 382-401. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2009.00235.x
84. Schou, J., & Hjelholt, M. (2018). Digitalization and Public Sector Transformations. Palgrave Macmillian.
85. Scott, J. C. (1990). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcripts. Yale University Press.
86. Sgueo, G. (2023). The Design of Digital Democracy. Springer.
87. Smith, G. (2009). Democratic innovations: Designing institutions for citizen participation. Cambridge University Press.
88. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2005.00129.x
89. Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Student Perspectives on Teaching and its Evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293022000009285
90. Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching: The State of the Art: The State of the Art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598-642. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870
91. Şahin, E. (2024). E-Participation in Urban Planning: Istanbul Senin Application. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 33(1), 435-453. DOI: 10.35379/cusosbil.1406561
92. Townley, C. & Koop, C. (2024). Exploring the potential and limits of digital tools for inclusive regulatory engagement with citizens. Government Information Quarterly, 41, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101901
93. Turner, A. H. (2014). Substantive Participation: A Model of Public Participation that Works for Citizens and Administrators. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(12), 885–894. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.928314
94. URL-1: https://istanbulsenin.istanbul/
95. URL-2: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/abb-e-demokrasi/id1602568374
96. URL-3: https://www.bizizmir.com/
97. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press.
98. Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02417.x
99. Wacquant, L. (2013). Symbolic power and group-making: On Pierre Bourdieu’s reframing of class. Journal of Classical Sociology, 13(2), 274-291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795X12468737
100. Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., Stough, C., Dua, J., Hapuarachchi, J., & Boyd, C. (2003). Occupational Stress in Australian University Staff: Results From a National Survey. International Journal of Stress Management, 10(1), 51–63. DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.10.1.51
101. Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017). Supporting learners’ agentic engagement with feedback: A systematic review and a taxonomy of recipience processes. Educational Psychologist, 52(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538
102. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.