Policy, Politics, Participation
Week 1..............................................................................................................................................................................0
Reading 1 - Van Reybrouck ch. 1+2..................................................................................................................................... 0
Reading 2 - Sarewitz (2004):............................................................................................................................................... 3
Week 2..............................................................................................................................................................................5
Reading 1 - Van Reybrouck ch. 4......................................................................................................................................... 5
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................... 7
Reading 2 - Welton & Mansfiel 2020.................................................................................................................................. 8
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 11
Reading 1 (focus group) - Ritchie & Lewis 2003................................................................................................................ 12
Week 3............................................................................................................................................................................14
Reading 1 - Mouffe 2002...................................................................................................................................................14
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 18
Reading 2 - Davies 2014.................................................................................................................................................... 18
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 21
Week 4............................................................................................................................................................................21
Reading 1 - Broerse & De Cock Bunning 2012.................................................................................................................. 21
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 26
Reading 2 - Kupper et al., 2007......................................................................................................................................... 27
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 29
Watching - Including the voice of the future.................................................................................................................... 29
Week 5............................................................................................................................................................................30
Reading 1 - Mykbalovski et al., 2019.................................................................................................................................30
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 31
Reading 2 - Escobar 2011..................................................................................................................................................32
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 34
Week 6............................................................................................................................................................................34
Reading 1 - Schön & Rein 1994......................................................................................................................................... 34
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 37
Reading 2 - Swyngedouw 2022........................................................................................................................................ 37
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 38
For exam......................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Essay zinnen...................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Key concepts and messages per reading.......................................................................................................................... 40
Per topic............................................................................................................................................................................ 44
Intro opbouw.................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Conclusie opbouw.............................................................................................................................................................47
Structure........................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Short overview.................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Week 1
Reading 1 - Van Reybrouck ch. 1+2
Van Reybrouck, D. (2016). Against elections: The case for democracy. Random House.
Chapter 1 – Democracy Is in Bad Health
,Van Reybrouck opens by arguing that democracy as we practice it today is suffering a deep crisis. Citizens are losing faith in
democratic institutions, while politicians struggle to govern effectively. This crisis shows up in three interconnected
symptoms: populism, technocracy, and apathy.
The Symptoms of a Sick Democracy
1. Populism
○ Many citizens feel ignored or betrayed by political elites and turn to populist leaders who promise to
“give power back to the people.”
○ Populists claim moral superiority — the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.”
○ But once in power, populists often centralize authority and weaken democratic checks and balances.
2. Technocracy
○ At the opposite extreme, some believe experts and specialists (economists, bureaucrats, EU officials)
should make policy because the problems are too complex for ordinary people.
○ Decisions become technical rather than political, alienating citizens even more.
○ Van Reybrouck sees technocracy and populism as mirror images: both express distrust in representative
institutions, but in opposite directions.
3. Apathy (onverschilligheid)
○ Voter turnout and party membership are declining across democracies.
○ People feel that voting makes no real difference; they are spectators rather than participants.
○ The gap between citizens and politicians keeps widening.
Together, these trends produce a vicious circle: citizens distrust politicians → institutions weaken → citizens disengage
further, and so on.
The Wrong Diagnosis
Politicians, journalists, and academics often say that citizens are “lazy” or “uninformed.”
Van Reybrouck flips this: the real problem isn’t the people — it’s the system itself.
Our current electoral model creates structural flaws:
● Short election cycles reward quick promises over long-term solutions.
● Politicians chase media visibility rather than substance.
● Parties polarize to win elections, making compromise nearly impossible.
He calls this “democratic fatigue syndrome.” Like a tired patient, democracy still functions, but it lacks energy and
legitimacy. = Efficiency crisis
Why Reform Matters
Van Reybrouck insists that the answer is not less democracy, but better democracy — one that genuinely involves citizens
between elections, not just every few years. He hints at the historical idea that will structure the rest of the book: sortition,
or selection by lot, as a forgotten democratic tool that could reinvigorate participation.
Chapter 2 – The Origins of Electoral Democracy
This chapter takes a historical turn. Van Reybrouck shows that elections were never originally a democratic invention.
In fact, for much of history, lottery (sortition) — not elections — was considered the true democratic method.
Athens and the Idea of Sortition
● In ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, public officials were chosen by lot, not by vote.
● The Greeks believed elections favored the rich, famous, and persuasive — therefore, oligarchic by nature.
1
, ● Drawing lots, by contrast, gave every citizen an equal chance to participate.
● For them, democracy meant rotation and equality of participation, not competition for votes.
Van Reybrouck stresses that democracy back then was not about choosing rulers, but about ruling and being ruled in turn.
The Rise of Elections
● During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when Europe rediscovered classical ideas, elites admired Athens but
rejected sortition.
● The founders of modern representative government — in the United States and post-revolutionary Europe —
chose elections precisely to avoid direct democracy.
● They wanted a system run by educated, property-owning elites, filtered from the “mob.”
For instance:
● The American Founding Fathers saw elections as a way to select “the best men,” not as a way for everyone to
share power.
● The French revolutionaries replaced the monarchy with elected representatives, but still believed ordinary
citizens lacked the competence to govern.
Thus, Van Reybrouck argues that modern electoral democracy was born out of aristocratic (emphasize governance by a
ruling class that is considered virtuous, wise, and capable, based on principles of honor, duty, and public service), not
democratic, ideals.
From Selection to Competition
Over time, elections shifted from a mechanism of selection (picking good elites) to a competitive struggle for power.
Parties, campaigns, and media made politics into a permanent contest rather than a collective deliberation.
The result: the spirit of democracy — citizen equality and shared governance — got lost behind the machinery of
representation.
The Forgotten Alternative
Van Reybrouck ends Chapter 2 by suggesting we’ve forgotten that democracy once meant governance by ordinary citizens,
not professional politicians.
He proposes that reintroducing sortition (citizen assemblies chosen by lot) could reconnect modern democracy to its
original roots of equality and participation.
Crisis of Democracy Populism, technocracy, and apathy reveal that representative democracy is losing
legitimacy.
Misplaced Blame Citizens aren’t the problem; the electoral system itself breeds fatigue and polarization.
Historical Insight Elections originated as an aristocratic tool, while sortition was the true democratic method
in Athens.
Van Reybrouck’s Goal To recover and modernize the principle of random citizen participation as a cure for
democratic fatigue.
2
, Reading 2 - Sarewitz (2004):
1. Central Thesis
Sarewitz argues that science often deepens environmental controversies instead of resolving them. Contrary to the
common belief that more research will clarify disputes and guide better policy, he shows that scientific inquiry — because
of its diversity, complexity, and embeddedness in social values — tends to amplify political conflict rather than settle it.
Environmental debates become “scientized,” meaning political disagreements are fought through competing claims of
scientific authority.
2. Key Arguments
A. Science as a political resource
Science supplies each side in a controversy with its own legitimate facts. Competing groups can select data and
interpretations that align with their values or interests. Thus, instead of converging on one “truth,” science provides
multiple, credible but contradictory narratives — a situation Sarewitz calls an “excess of objectivity.”
For example, in climate change debates, both advocates for emission reductions and their opponents can cite scientifically
valid data to support their positions.
B. Disciplinary diversity and embedded values
Science is not value-neutral. Different disciplines embody distinct ways of seeing the world, which reflect implicit normative
and ethical commitments.
● Example 1: The ATOC (Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate) project showed that oceanographers valued
global climate data, while biologists prioritized the well-being of marine mammals. Each interpreted uncertainty
in ways consistent with their disciplinary and moral perspectives.
● Example 2: The GMO (genetically modified organisms) debate illustrates how molecular biologists (focused on
crop benefits and controllability) and ecologists (focused on complex, unpredictable interactions) arrived at
opposing, yet scientifically legitimate, conclusions.
Thus, disciplinary perspectives themselves function as “conflicts of interest.”
C. Uncertainty as a political product
Scientific “uncertainty” is not just ignorance — it often reflects the lack of coherence among competing scientific
perspectives, magnified by institutional and political contexts.
Sarewitz uses several cases:
● The Parkfield earthquake prediction: scientists confidently predicted an earthquake that never happened —
revealing that uncertainty partly measures scientists’ confidence, not nature’s behavior.
● Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site: for years, government-affiliated scientists reported very low water infiltration
rates; later, new data (and political pressure) revealed much higher rates, expanding uncertainty.
● Climate change sensitivity: despite technological advances, the IPCC’s uncertainty range has barely changed in
decades — evidence that political negotiation stabilizes scientific claims as much as data does.
In short, the more politically charged a problem becomes, the greater its scientific uncertainty appears.
3
Week 1..............................................................................................................................................................................0
Reading 1 - Van Reybrouck ch. 1+2..................................................................................................................................... 0
Reading 2 - Sarewitz (2004):............................................................................................................................................... 3
Week 2..............................................................................................................................................................................5
Reading 1 - Van Reybrouck ch. 4......................................................................................................................................... 5
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................... 7
Reading 2 - Welton & Mansfiel 2020.................................................................................................................................. 8
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 11
Reading 1 (focus group) - Ritchie & Lewis 2003................................................................................................................ 12
Week 3............................................................................................................................................................................14
Reading 1 - Mouffe 2002...................................................................................................................................................14
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 18
Reading 2 - Davies 2014.................................................................................................................................................... 18
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 21
Week 4............................................................................................................................................................................21
Reading 1 - Broerse & De Cock Bunning 2012.................................................................................................................. 21
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 26
Reading 2 - Kupper et al., 2007......................................................................................................................................... 27
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 29
Watching - Including the voice of the future.................................................................................................................... 29
Week 5............................................................................................................................................................................30
Reading 1 - Mykbalovski et al., 2019.................................................................................................................................30
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 31
Reading 2 - Escobar 2011..................................................................................................................................................32
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 34
Week 6............................................................................................................................................................................34
Reading 1 - Schön & Rein 1994......................................................................................................................................... 34
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 37
Reading 2 - Swyngedouw 2022........................................................................................................................................ 37
Notes based on WG.................................................................................................................................................. 38
For exam......................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Essay zinnen...................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Key concepts and messages per reading.......................................................................................................................... 40
Per topic............................................................................................................................................................................ 44
Intro opbouw.................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Conclusie opbouw.............................................................................................................................................................47
Structure........................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Short overview.................................................................................................................................................................. 48
Week 1
Reading 1 - Van Reybrouck ch. 1+2
Van Reybrouck, D. (2016). Against elections: The case for democracy. Random House.
Chapter 1 – Democracy Is in Bad Health
,Van Reybrouck opens by arguing that democracy as we practice it today is suffering a deep crisis. Citizens are losing faith in
democratic institutions, while politicians struggle to govern effectively. This crisis shows up in three interconnected
symptoms: populism, technocracy, and apathy.
The Symptoms of a Sick Democracy
1. Populism
○ Many citizens feel ignored or betrayed by political elites and turn to populist leaders who promise to
“give power back to the people.”
○ Populists claim moral superiority — the “pure people” versus the “corrupt elite.”
○ But once in power, populists often centralize authority and weaken democratic checks and balances.
2. Technocracy
○ At the opposite extreme, some believe experts and specialists (economists, bureaucrats, EU officials)
should make policy because the problems are too complex for ordinary people.
○ Decisions become technical rather than political, alienating citizens even more.
○ Van Reybrouck sees technocracy and populism as mirror images: both express distrust in representative
institutions, but in opposite directions.
3. Apathy (onverschilligheid)
○ Voter turnout and party membership are declining across democracies.
○ People feel that voting makes no real difference; they are spectators rather than participants.
○ The gap between citizens and politicians keeps widening.
Together, these trends produce a vicious circle: citizens distrust politicians → institutions weaken → citizens disengage
further, and so on.
The Wrong Diagnosis
Politicians, journalists, and academics often say that citizens are “lazy” or “uninformed.”
Van Reybrouck flips this: the real problem isn’t the people — it’s the system itself.
Our current electoral model creates structural flaws:
● Short election cycles reward quick promises over long-term solutions.
● Politicians chase media visibility rather than substance.
● Parties polarize to win elections, making compromise nearly impossible.
He calls this “democratic fatigue syndrome.” Like a tired patient, democracy still functions, but it lacks energy and
legitimacy. = Efficiency crisis
Why Reform Matters
Van Reybrouck insists that the answer is not less democracy, but better democracy — one that genuinely involves citizens
between elections, not just every few years. He hints at the historical idea that will structure the rest of the book: sortition,
or selection by lot, as a forgotten democratic tool that could reinvigorate participation.
Chapter 2 – The Origins of Electoral Democracy
This chapter takes a historical turn. Van Reybrouck shows that elections were never originally a democratic invention.
In fact, for much of history, lottery (sortition) — not elections — was considered the true democratic method.
Athens and the Idea of Sortition
● In ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy, public officials were chosen by lot, not by vote.
● The Greeks believed elections favored the rich, famous, and persuasive — therefore, oligarchic by nature.
1
, ● Drawing lots, by contrast, gave every citizen an equal chance to participate.
● For them, democracy meant rotation and equality of participation, not competition for votes.
Van Reybrouck stresses that democracy back then was not about choosing rulers, but about ruling and being ruled in turn.
The Rise of Elections
● During the Renaissance and Enlightenment, when Europe rediscovered classical ideas, elites admired Athens but
rejected sortition.
● The founders of modern representative government — in the United States and post-revolutionary Europe —
chose elections precisely to avoid direct democracy.
● They wanted a system run by educated, property-owning elites, filtered from the “mob.”
For instance:
● The American Founding Fathers saw elections as a way to select “the best men,” not as a way for everyone to
share power.
● The French revolutionaries replaced the monarchy with elected representatives, but still believed ordinary
citizens lacked the competence to govern.
Thus, Van Reybrouck argues that modern electoral democracy was born out of aristocratic (emphasize governance by a
ruling class that is considered virtuous, wise, and capable, based on principles of honor, duty, and public service), not
democratic, ideals.
From Selection to Competition
Over time, elections shifted from a mechanism of selection (picking good elites) to a competitive struggle for power.
Parties, campaigns, and media made politics into a permanent contest rather than a collective deliberation.
The result: the spirit of democracy — citizen equality and shared governance — got lost behind the machinery of
representation.
The Forgotten Alternative
Van Reybrouck ends Chapter 2 by suggesting we’ve forgotten that democracy once meant governance by ordinary citizens,
not professional politicians.
He proposes that reintroducing sortition (citizen assemblies chosen by lot) could reconnect modern democracy to its
original roots of equality and participation.
Crisis of Democracy Populism, technocracy, and apathy reveal that representative democracy is losing
legitimacy.
Misplaced Blame Citizens aren’t the problem; the electoral system itself breeds fatigue and polarization.
Historical Insight Elections originated as an aristocratic tool, while sortition was the true democratic method
in Athens.
Van Reybrouck’s Goal To recover and modernize the principle of random citizen participation as a cure for
democratic fatigue.
2
, Reading 2 - Sarewitz (2004):
1. Central Thesis
Sarewitz argues that science often deepens environmental controversies instead of resolving them. Contrary to the
common belief that more research will clarify disputes and guide better policy, he shows that scientific inquiry — because
of its diversity, complexity, and embeddedness in social values — tends to amplify political conflict rather than settle it.
Environmental debates become “scientized,” meaning political disagreements are fought through competing claims of
scientific authority.
2. Key Arguments
A. Science as a political resource
Science supplies each side in a controversy with its own legitimate facts. Competing groups can select data and
interpretations that align with their values or interests. Thus, instead of converging on one “truth,” science provides
multiple, credible but contradictory narratives — a situation Sarewitz calls an “excess of objectivity.”
For example, in climate change debates, both advocates for emission reductions and their opponents can cite scientifically
valid data to support their positions.
B. Disciplinary diversity and embedded values
Science is not value-neutral. Different disciplines embody distinct ways of seeing the world, which reflect implicit normative
and ethical commitments.
● Example 1: The ATOC (Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate) project showed that oceanographers valued
global climate data, while biologists prioritized the well-being of marine mammals. Each interpreted uncertainty
in ways consistent with their disciplinary and moral perspectives.
● Example 2: The GMO (genetically modified organisms) debate illustrates how molecular biologists (focused on
crop benefits and controllability) and ecologists (focused on complex, unpredictable interactions) arrived at
opposing, yet scientifically legitimate, conclusions.
Thus, disciplinary perspectives themselves function as “conflicts of interest.”
C. Uncertainty as a political product
Scientific “uncertainty” is not just ignorance — it often reflects the lack of coherence among competing scientific
perspectives, magnified by institutional and political contexts.
Sarewitz uses several cases:
● The Parkfield earthquake prediction: scientists confidently predicted an earthquake that never happened —
revealing that uncertainty partly measures scientists’ confidence, not nature’s behavior.
● Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site: for years, government-affiliated scientists reported very low water infiltration
rates; later, new data (and political pressure) revealed much higher rates, expanding uncertainty.
● Climate change sensitivity: despite technological advances, the IPCC’s uncertainty range has barely changed in
decades — evidence that political negotiation stabilizes scientific claims as much as data does.
In short, the more politically charged a problem becomes, the greater its scientific uncertainty appears.
3
