I developed the following wark for Democratic Society, within the framework of the AI for Democracy working group, a collective effort under the NETS4DEM project.

Join the Workgroup

Here, we explore the erosion of digital democracy in the age of corporate AI, where algorithms and extractive platforms have turned public discourse into a monoculture of outrage and dependency. But rather than surrendering to centralized control, we propose a path forward: federated networks, local AI, and productive friction as the foundations for reclaiming civic space. This article synthesizes our reflections on how to design democratic technologies that serve people, not platforms.

The Trap of “Zero Friction”

We were sold a future where everything would be instant: a click to participate, an algorithm to decide, an AI to govern. But behind this promise of convenience lies a trap: the systematic delegation of our agency to systems designed to maximize corporate control. The “frictionless” user experience is not neutral; it’s the design of a dopamine cage, where civic participation is reduced to emotional reactions, likes, and shares, while genuine deliberation—necessarily slow, uncomfortable, and complex—disappears.

How Did We Get Here?

Let’s turn to the Greek myth of Heracles at the crossroads to understand it better:

• Kakia (the path of comfort): Promises a life without obstacles. In the digital world, this translates to platforms that eliminate friction to retain our attention, designed for addiction, not reflection. Democracy in this scenario becomes passive, vulnerable to manipulation, and ultimately a game of algorithms that prioritize conflict and engagement over the common good.

• Arete (the path of virtue): Requires effort. In digital democracy, this means productive friction: slow debate, long documents, consensus built over time and conflict. Friction is not a defect but a requirement for the resilience of institutions and collective cognition.

Enshittification: How Platforms Become Cages

Between the promise of comfort (zero friction) and the surrender of power to corporations (the Control Plane), there’s a process the activist Cory Doctorow calls “enshittification”: the systematic degradation of digital platforms, which shift from being useful to extractive, from attracting users to enslaving them, and from prioritizing the common good to maximizing profit for a few. This cycle is not accidental; it’s designed to make platforms indispensable, and once they achieve that, to exploit that dependency until the public sphere is emptied of everything that made it valuable.

The Three Phases of Enshittification

Doctorow describes a pattern that repeats across centralized platforms in almost every digital sector:

Phase 1: The Trap of Attraction (Initial Losses)

Corporations enter a market by offering services at a loss or with seemingly generous conditions.

Example 1: Blogs vs. Social Media
In the 2000s, blogs were spaces for deep reflection and digital sovereignty: they required effort (writing, reading long texts, maintaining servers with tools like RSS), but allowed citizens to control their own voices and data. Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) arrived promising instant visibility and for free. At first, bloggers used these platforms as megaphones to redirect traffic to their blogs (e.g., sharing links on Twitter). Convenience won: people stopped reading full articles, stayed in headlines, and eventually abandoned their blogs to publish directly on social media.
Result: Social media gained traffic, but blogs lost autonomy and depth.

Example 2: Amazon and E-Commerce
Amazon started with rock-bottom prices, free shipping, and an apparently unlimited selection, destroying local bookstores and small competitors. For consumers, it was a blessing: everything cheaper and faster. But behind this facade, the platform captured purchase data, habits, and preferences without users’ knowledge.

Phase 2: Capturing Attention (Value Extraction)

Once platforms have addicted users and eliminated competition, they change the rules to extract value.

Example 1: Social Media and the Algorithm of Conflict
Facebook and Twitter stopped being places to share links and became machines for emotional engagement. Their algorithms prioritize conflict, outrage, and virality because they generate more screen time and, thus, more advertising. What was once a diverse public space became a monoculture of outrage.
Impact on democracy: Debates are reduced to 280 characters, news is shared without context, and polarization is monetized. The public sphere degrades.

Example 2: Amazon and the Enslavement of Sellers
Once Amazon had centralized demand, it forced sellers to use its marketplace to survive. Today, small businesses pay up to 50% of their profits in commissions and advertising within the platform. The most visible products are not the best, but the ones that pay for advertising.
Result: A degraded catalog where sponsored products drown out the relevant.

Phase 3: Total Exploitation (Monoculture and Maximum Extraction)

In the final phase, the platform no longer needs to hide its extractive nature because users and sellers have no alternatives.

Example 1: Social Media as “Attention Extractors”
Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube reduce organic content to show only ads and sponsored content. Creators depend on opaque algorithms that decide who gets visibility and who doesn’t, with no transparency. The sovereignty of the creator disappears.
Consequence for democracy: Citizens stop being political subjects and become objects of advertising.

Example 2: Amazon and the “All-Inclusive” Model
Today, Amazon doesn’t just sell products; it controls logistics, payments, storage, and even advertising. Sellers can’t escape because there’s no viable alternative. Consumers can’t either, because Amazon is the only option for many products.
Result: An ecosystem where everyone loses except Amazon.

Why Does This Matter for Democracy?

Enshittification isn’t just a problem for social media or e-commerce platforms; it’s a mechanism that repeats in corporate AI. When public administrations adopt tools like Google Workspace, Azure AI, or “AI-driven governance” systems from private providers, they’re ceding control of their processes to infrastructures designed to extract value, not to serve the common good.

• Phase 1: Governments use these tools because they promise efficiency and automation (e.g., chatbots for citizen services).

• Phase 2: They discover that algorithms prioritize conflict and advertising over transparency (e.g., predictive justice systems that reinforce biases).

• Phase 3: There’s no turning back: the system depends on a corporation that isn’t accountable.

AI as Infrastructure of Power: The “Control Plane”

The real battleground isn’t the sophistication of language models, but the Control Plane: the infrastructure where data, processes, and decisions are orchestrated. Companies like Google no longer sell chatbots; they sell the operating system where autonomous agents govern bureaucracy. If public administrations adopt these systems without scrutiny, we’ll surrender decision-making power to corporations that answer to no one.

At events like Google Cloud Next 2026, the corporation has shifted from positioning itself as an AI tool provider to presenting itself as the operating system of the “agentic organization”: an environment where models like Gemini stop being chatbots to become layers of orchestration, governance, and connection. In this architecture, traditional tools like Google Workspace are no longer the main product, but merely a canvas where users supervise the agents operating in the background.

If a public administration adopts this model without restrictions, it will delegate decisions, information scrutiny, and bureaucratic execution to a proprietary environment. The result is clear: the corporation becomes the absolute arbiter of the public sphere.

Democratic Hormesis: The Dose That Strengthens

Democracy needs friction. But not just any friction: the kind that strengthens, not the kind that paralyzes. The concept of hormesis, borrowed from biology—where small doses of a stressor (like exercise) strengthen the organism—may be the key to designing resilient civic systems in the digital age.

What Is Democratic Hormesis?

It’s the principle that controlled exposure to productive tensions (such as rigorous debate, reading complex texts, or negotiating consensus) strengthens a society’s ability to withstand crises and manipulation. In the 21st century, this translates to:

• Productive friction:

  • Slow debate: Spaces where time isn’t a luxury but a resource for depth (e.g., citizen assemblies with prior documents and human moderation).

  • Accessible but not simplified documents: Clear public information, but one that demands cognitive effort to be fully understood (e.g., participatory budgets with detailed data).

  • Consensus building: Processes where disagreement isn’t resolved with instant polls, but with iterative deliberation.

• Technology as a facilitator, not a substitute:

  • Tools that reduce technical friction (e.g., intuitive interfaces for accessing public data) but preserve civic friction (e.g., forums where arguments develop in long threads, not in 280-character responses).

• Auditable and local systems:

  • Open-source AI models, hosted on community servers, allowing citizens to verify how decisions are made without delegating that responsibility to opaque algorithms.

The Risk: From Hormesis to Asphyxiation

The principle of hormesis is clear: the dose makes the poison. If friction is excessive—if participating in digital democracy requires being an AI engineer—we’ll push most citizens toward corporate platforms out of sheer usability needs. This doesn’t just exclude; it fuels populism, which promises to eliminate friction (and with it, democratic complexity) in exchange for emotional loyalties.

The Role of Professionals: Architects of Sovereignty

The solution isn’t for every citizen to become an AI expert; it’s for professionals and organizations dedicated to civic design to take an active role:

• Designing local AI tools that are accessible but protect spaces for human decision-making.

• Auditing language models (such as Small Language Models) to ensure transparency and privacy.

• Building “Dark Forests”: federated and local networks that act as shields against corporate extraction.

The Dark Forest: Federated Networks and Digital Sovereignty

The metaphor of the “Dark Forest”—inspired by science fiction, where dark forests are spaces where predators don’t enter—applies here as a strategy to protect digital sovereignty. It’s about:

• Federated local networks: Decentralized systems (like Mastodon, PeerTube, or Matrix) where communities host their own servers, avoiding the concentration of data in the hands of tech giants.

• Community AI: Small language models (SLMs) trained on local data and hosted on community infrastructure, ensuring that algorithms reflect the values of the community, not the interests of shareholders.

• Resistance perimeters: Digital spaces where data extraction is impossible because there’s no centralized Control Plane to be captured.

This approach isn’t a utopia; it already exists. Projects like Lemmy, WriteFreely, or ActivityPub demonstrate that building decentralized alternatives that prioritize privacy, transparency, and autonomy is viable. The key is to stop seeking global solutions and start building local, resilient, and connected networks.

Open Source as a Safeguard

The viability of this ecosystem isn’t a utopia but a reality within reach of administrations and civil society. Current open-source models (like Mistral or Qwen) already compete in sophistication with proprietary systems. The difference: they allow auditing, modification, and local hosting of AI, ensuring confidentiality and autonomy.

Final Reflection: What Democracy Do We Want?

Beyond technology, there’s a fundamental question: What kind of society are we building when we delegate our capacity for decision-making to opaque systems designed to maximize profit?

Democracy is not an algorithm. It’s not an AI that synthesizes opinions in real time. Democracy is a slow, uncomfortable, and collective process where conflict, negotiation, and consensus are its pillars. When we eliminate friction, we don’t just lose sovereignty; we lose the very essence of what it means to govern ourselves.

Technology can be a tool of liberation or oppression. Everything depends on who controls the infrastructure and for what purposes. Today, power isn’t disputed in Silicon Valley’s servers, but in our ability to imagine—and demand—a future where AI serves democracy, not the other way around.

Democratic Hormesis: The Dose That Saves

Democratic hormesis isn’t an abstract concept; it’s a survival strategy. In a world where algorithms promise democracy without effort, friction becomes the antidote to manipulation and apathy. But for it to work, it must be:

• Deliberate: Not left to chance, but designed into civic processes.

• Inclusive: Accessible to all, without falling into technical elitism.

• Auditable: Transparent in its functioning and its limits.

The challenge isn’t choosing between technology and democracy, but designing technologies that understand their ultimate purpose is to serve democracy, not replace it. As the philosopher Ivan Illich said, “The quintessential tool of man is man himself.” AI is not a magic solution, but a mirror: it reflects the questions we ask it, but not the answers we need.

What do you think?

• How could we apply the “Dark Forest” concept in your community or professional environment?

• What forms could Democratic Hormesis take?

• Do you see any insurmountable obstacles to building these federated networks?

AI for Democracy: The Group’s Roadmap

The AI for Democracy working group is a collective effort to redefine the role of artificial intelligence in civic processes, ensuring that technology serves democracy, not the other way around. Our roadmap is structured around three pillars: Infrastructure, Education, and Advocacy, with the goal of building resilient, transparent, and participatory digital ecosystems.

Work Plan and Future Perspectives

The development process for this contractual shield will follow the quarterly planning outlined below for the year 2026:

First Quarter (April–June): Risk Identification

• Typify technical and socio-political risks, with a focus on auditability deficits, technical elitism, and vulnerabilities stemming from outsourcing orchestration to third-party platforms.

Second Quarter (June–September): Regulatory Compilation

• Formulate usability and interoperability standards for local AI.

• Draft clauses requiring public administrations to retain data sovereignty without compromising citizen accessibility.

Third Quarter (October–December): Instrument Synthesis

• Consolidate the study into a concise evaluation tool for standard and mandatory integration into public procurement processes.

Join the Workgroup

I’ve always liked experimenting and sharing my thoughts.

Writing, however, has never felt like the thing I do best.

I’ve never seen myself as a particularly gifted writer in the conventional sense. What comes more naturally to me is exploring ideas, connecting dots, observing patterns, and trying to articulate things that still feel unfinished. In that sense, writing has often been less a performance and more a way of thinking out loud.

The arrival of artificial intelligence has changed that process for me quite significantly.

It has allowed me to experiment much more, both with thinking and with writing. I’ve been able to activate many conversations with different chatbots, test perspectives, challenge my own assumptions, organise fragments of text more clearly, and move from intuition to structure much faster than before. Not because AI replaces the work of reflection, but because it gives me more ways to stay in dialogue with it.

Public Mesh was born precisely out of that experimentation.

Right now, it is probably the place where I am experimenting the most. That is also why it keeps shifting. I am still refining it, still tuning its voice, still understanding myself through the process of giving it form. Public Mesh is not a finished editorial product with rigid boundaries. It is, for now, a living space where I am trying to understand what kind of publication this needs to become.

So today I want to share where I currently am with it.

Not as a final definition, but as a map of its present direction.

Public Mesh as an editorial field

Public Mesh is an editorial project about the infrastructures that shape public life.

It lives at the intersection of democracy, technology, civic design, culture and collective life. It is less interested in reacting to the latest headline than in understanding the deeper transformations that sit underneath the visible surface of current events.

The intuition behind it is simple, although its implications are not.

Many of the crises we are living through are not only political or ideological. They are also infrastructural.

They have to do with the weakening of the spaces where people meet.
The acceleration of rhythms that make collective life harder to sustain.
The concentration of technological systems in the hands of a few actors.
The erosion of those everyday practices that once made democratic life more tangible.

Public Mesh is my attempt to study those shifts and to ask a recurring question:

What infrastructures are needed for democracy to remain alive in the twenty first century?

This does not mean only institutions, laws or policy frameworks. It also means softer layers that are often harder to name. Shared spaces. Cultures of collaboration. Civic rituals. Public trust. Learning environments. Digital infrastructures. Local networks. Collective memory. The forms that allow people not only to coexist, but to make sense of life together.

The current shape of the project

As I try to understand Public Mesh better, I keep returning to a group of recurring themes. They are not separate categories in a strict sense. They overlap, feed one another and sometimes blur into each other. But together they are helping me understand the editorial identity of the project.

1. Democracy as infrastructure

One of the strongest ideas shaping Public Mesh is that democracy is not only a formal system. It is a lived infrastructure.

Democracy rarely disappears in one dramatic moment. More often, it erodes when the conditions that sustain it slowly weaken. Institutions may remain in place, elections may continue, procedures may still exist, but the deeper fabric that allows democratic life to function becomes thinner.

That fabric includes trust, public spaces, civic capabilities, readable institutions, cultures of participation and the possibility of shared meaning.

This is why I am increasingly drawn to the idea that democracy has to be understood infrastructurally. Not only in its visible architecture, but in the softer layers that make participation, deliberation and collective responsibility possible.

2. Spaces where democracy actually happens

A second theme is the importance of the places where democracy is practiced in real life.

Much of political discourse still focuses almost entirely on formal institutions, while paying far less attention to the ordinary environments where public life actually takes shape. Today, the spaces where we most often encounter people different from ourselves are rarely the ones traditionally described as civic. More often, they are the everyday settings of urban life: bars, cafés, gyms, supermarkets, corner shops, public transport, markets, waiting rooms, parks, playgrounds, pharmacies, bakeries, and all those shared spaces where strangers briefly but repeatedly move through the same world.

These places are not usually designed for democratic life, yet they quietly sustain some of its most basic conditions. They expose us to people we did not choose, habits we do not share, accents we do not know, rhythms that are not our own. They force small negotiations, minor frictions, fleeting recognitions and forms of coexistence that are easy to overlook but politically significant.

This matters because democracy does not depend only on institutions, rights or procedures. It also depends on whether a society still contains enough spaces where difference remains visible, ordinary and tolerable. When everyday life becomes too segmented, too personalised or too filtered, public life begins to lose thickness. People no longer meet across difference except through media, ideology or conflict.

This is where the idea of Spaces for Encounter becomes central for me.

I keep returning to this idea because one of the deepest democratic losses of our time is the shrinking of ordinary spaces where different worlds still meet without needing to agree. When those spaces disappear, democracy is left with procedures but loses texture. Public life becomes thinner, more abstract, and far easier to capture through polarisation, fear or spectacle.

3. From platforms to public infrastructure

Another foundational concern of Public Mesh is the transformation of the internet and of digital life more broadly.

The web once carried the promise of an open and distributed infrastructure. Over time, however, it became increasingly absorbed into platform logics based on extraction, dependency and control. What we call the digital public sphere is now often structured by private incentives that are fundamentally misaligned with democratic life.

This shift matters enormously.

It shapes how attention flows, how knowledge circulates, how conversations are framed and how social behaviours are rewarded. It affects not only communication, but the very conditions of collective life.

So one of the questions Public Mesh keeps asking is what it would mean to move from platform dependency toward something closer to public digital infrastructure. Not as nostalgia for an earlier internet, but as a necessary horizon for democratic renewal.

4. Artificial intelligence and sovereignty

Artificial intelligence has become another key terrain of exploration.

What interests me here is not the hype itself, although the hype is impossible to ignore. It is the way AI has made visible an underlying question that was already there: who controls the infrastructures through which intelligence, knowledge and decision making are increasingly mediated?

The current AI boom is driven to a large extent by corporate narratives, speculative capital and geopolitical competition. But beneath that there is a deeper question of sovereignty.

Can societies rely on cognitive infrastructures controlled by a handful of private actors?
What would open, auditable and collectively governable AI ecosystems look like?
What kinds of public capacity are needed if institutions want to orient these technologies rather than merely adapt to them?

Public Mesh is becoming one of the places where I explore these questions, especially through the lens of open source ecosystems, public infrastructure and democratic governance.

5. Civic Design beyond participation

Civic Design is another core pillar of the project, although I am increasingly interested in framing it in a more ambitious way.

Too often civic design is reduced to facilitation, consultation or participatory methods. Those things matter, but they do not capture the full depth of the discipline.

What interests me more is civic design as a way of shaping the conditions under which democratic life can happen. A discipline of mediation between citizens, institutions, technologies and territories. A practice that works not only on interfaces or workshops, but on relationships, legibility, coordination and collective capacity.

In that sense, civic design becomes inseparable from the question of democratic infrastructure.

6. Attention, culture and the erosion of the public sphere

The crisis of democracy is not only institutional. It is also cultural and psychological.

The infrastructures of communication shape attention, and attention shapes public life. When communication systems reward speed, outrage, oversimplification and constant stimulation, the consequences are not merely individual. They affect the collective ability to listen, think, deliberate and remain present to complexity.

This is one reason I have become so interested in slower forms of communication and in the broader question of how technologies shape subjectivity.

Public Mesh is partly an attempt to understand that erosion. But it is also an attempt to build a different rhythm around thought and exchange. Less reactive. Less optimised for visibility. More oriented toward depth and continuity.

7. Why local experiments matter

Even though many of the forces I am exploring are global, I keep returning to the importance of place.

Cities, neighbourhoods and local ecosystems remain some of the most important laboratories for democratic experimentation. They make it possible to prototype other ways of governing, meeting, learning and organising. They give concrete form to ideas that otherwise remain abstract.

This is why local initiatives matter so much to me. Not because the local is pure or inherently better, but because it offers a scale where infrastructures can be tested, relationships can be built and forms of public life can be made visible again.

Public Mesh will likely continue to be rooted in those situated experiments, especially where they connect local practice with broader democratic and technological questions.

A first editorial season

As I’ve been reflecting on all this, I’ve realised that Public Mesh may need a first foundational season of articles. Not a random collection of posts, but a coherent sequence that defines the field of inquiry.

At this stage, I imagine that first series around seven essays.

The first would explore democracy as infrastructure.
The second would focus on the spaces where democracy actually happens.
The third would examine the transformation from open web to platform dependency.
The fourth would address artificial intelligence through the lens of sovereignty.
The fifth would define civic design beyond participation.
The sixth would look at the attention crisis and the erosion of the public sphere.
The seventh would return to the local scale and ask why democracy still needs places.

Together, these pieces would not offer a complete theory. But they would establish the intellectual territory of Public Mesh and make clearer what kind of publication it is becoming.

Still in motion

Perhaps the most honest thing I can say is that Public Mesh is still in motion.

It is not a finished brand or a perfectly defined editorial object. It is a practice of inquiry. A way of thinking in public. A place where I am trying to make sense of the infrastructures that shape democratic life today, while also experimenting with new ways of writing, organising and sharing that reflection.

AI has helped me move further and faster in that process, but the project is still deeply human in its uncertainties. It is built through trial, conversation, revision and the slow work of recognising what keeps returning.

So this is where I am with it for now.

Not at the end of the definition, but somewhere in the middle of it. Which, in many ways, feels like the right place to begin.

We have framed it as a competitiveness issue, a race we are supposedly losing against Silicon Valley and its endless supply of capital, platforms and scale. We keep asking why Europe has failed to produce its own Google, Amazon or OpenAI, as if the absence of tech giants were the real sign of weakness.

It isn’t.

Europe’s real vulnerability lies elsewhere: in the quiet outsourcing of its digital infrastructure to actors that are neither democratically accountable nor aligned with European values. Cloud services, operating systems, collaboration tools, data platforms and now AI systems form the invisible architecture of everyday life — and most of it is governed from outside the continent.

This is why the European Commission’s recent turn towards what it calls European Open Digital Ecosystems matters. Not because it promises another industrial miracle, but because it finally treats technology as what it truly is: a political and democratic question.

Dependency is not a technical accident

Europe’s digital dependency is often portrayed as inevitable, the natural outcome of global markets and technological efficiency. That narrative is convenient, but false.

Dependency is a political condition. It determines who sets the rules, who extracts value, who can audit systems and who decides what is technically possible. When public administrations, schools, hospitals and municipalities rely on opaque, proprietary systems, democratic oversight does not collapse overnight, it slowly dissolves.

The Commission’s diagnosis is unusually direct. Reliance on non-EU technologies, it argues, reduces user choice, undermines European competitiveness and creates systemic security risks by placing critical infrastructure beyond democratic control.

This is an important shift in language. Digital infrastructure is no longer treated as a neutral tool but as civic infrastructure, as consequential for democracy as transport networks, energy systems or public space.

Ethics and strategy are not opposites

Open source is often framed as a moral stance: collaboration versus extraction, openness versus corporate secrecy. That framing is incomplete, but it is not wrong.

What makes open source strategically important is not only its ethics, but its structural properties. In the European tradition, ethics are not decorative values; they are long-term strategic commitments about how power should be organised, limited and shared.

Open source embodies this dual logic. Ethically, it aligns with transparency, accountability and collective stewardship. Structurally, it enables:

• auditability instead of blind trust

• adaptability instead of lock-in

• shared governance instead of unilateral control

• resilience instead of dependency

These are not technical preferences. They are democratic qualities embedded in code.

Seen this way, open source is not merely an alternative way of producing software. It is a way of designing power relations in the digital sphere. It determines who can inspect systems, who can modify them, who can maintain them and who decides their future.

Europe’s paradox: building value without capturing it

Europe does not lack digital talent. It hosts one of the world’s most vibrant open-source ecosystems, and much of the global digital economy rests on code written or maintained by European developers.

Yet the economic value generated here often flows elsewhere.

This is not a failure of innovation. It is a failure of institutional design. Open technologies without supportive governance, funding and infrastructure become raw material for extraction. Communities build; platforms monetise. Public money funds development; private actors consolidate control.

If Europe wants digital sovereignty, it cannot stop at producing open code. It must also invest in:

• long-term maintenance, not just innovation cycles

• governance models that protect commons

• public procurement that rewards openness

• infrastructure layers, cloud, hosting, data - that do not recreate dependency under a new label

Otherwise, “open” risks becoming another resource Europe gives away for free.

This is not another GDPR moment

European tech policy is often associated with regulation after the damage is done. GDPR remains essential, but it is fundamentally defensive.

This initiative is different.

It is not primarily about limiting Big Tech, but about building alternatives. It does not ask how to constrain platforms, but what kind of digital foundations democratic societies need in order to function.

That distinction matters. Democracies cannot regulate their way out of structural dependency. They must construct shared infrastructures, patiently, publicly and with long-term commitment. Infrastructure is never fast, glamorous or frictionless. But it is what makes agency possible.

A familiar European choice

There is a recognisable pattern here.

Europe has historically invested in public systems, healthcare, education, welfare, that prioritise collective resilience over maximum extraction. These systems are imperfect and contested, but they exist because of a political decision: some things should function as commons, not markets.

Digital infrastructure is now facing the same choice.

Either it remains privately governed, with public institutions adapting themselves to corporate architectures, or it becomes a shared foundation: collectively maintained, democratically accountable and aligned with public values.

Open source is not a silver bullet. But without it, the idea of digital democracy is hollow.

Democracy needs material support

One of the most striking aspects of this process is public engagement. Hundreds of organisations and individuals responded rapidly to the Commission’s call for evidence, many repeating the same simple claim: software built with public money should belong to the public.

This is not ideology. It is democratic common sense.

Democracy does not survive on values alone. It requires material infrastructures - tools, protocols and systems that make participation, oversight and collective action possible.

Open source, in this sense, is not just a technical choice. It is a commitment to keeping the digital foundations of society legible, governable and shared.

The question Europe now faces is not whether it can afford to make this shift, but whether it can afford not to. Because democracies that do not control their infrastructure eventually stop controlling their future.

There is a stubborn idea that refuses to disappear from European policy debates. Certain places are described as no longer viable. Inner areas, small towns and peripheral neighbourhoods are framed as unproductive or fragile, or more bluntly as territories of market failure. What usually follows is a mixture of nostalgia, emergency funding and quiet resignation.

And yet, across Italy, a different story has been unfolding for more than a decade. Quietly, without grand narratives or glossy slogans, community cooperatives have been taking root. Not as social add ons or temporary fixes, but as economic institutions created and governed by citizens themselves.

According to the most comprehensive mapping to date, carried out by Aiccon with Legacoop, there are now 321 community cooperatives active across more than 70 Italian provinces. The data and stories were recently presented in a national report and clearly summarised in an article by Chiara Ludovisi published in Vita.it, which is the primary source for this reflection.

These are not symbolic experiments. They are functioning enterprises that generate employment, services and social cohesion in places where little else remains.

Beyond welfare, citizens building institutions

Community cooperatives are often described as responses to vulnerability, and many do emerge in fragile contexts. But that framing is incomplete. What the research shows is something more politically significant. These cooperatives are mechanisms of self organisation that appear when citizens decide not to wait for external solutions.

In some cases they respond to unmet social needs. In others they activate dormant resources such as abandoned buildings, unused land, overlooked skills or under valued relationships. The cooperative form becomes a tool not only for delivering services, but for reclaiming agency over the local economy.

The story of Melpignano, in southern Italy, illustrates this shift. In 2011 a group of citizens invested collectively in photovoltaic panels. The revenues were reinvested locally, first in maintenance and education, then in social services, tourism, agriculture and cultural activities. Today the cooperative counts hundreds of members and plays a central role in the life of the town.

What matters here is not the specific sector. Energy could easily be replaced by food, culture or mobility. What matters is the logic. Value is generated locally and reinvested locally. The economy stops being something that happens to a place and becomes something shaped by those who live there.

An economy of proximity

One of the most revealing findings of the Aiccon and Legacoop mapping concerns economic relationships. The main economic interlocutors of community cooperatives are not large corporations or distant markets, but citizens themselves. Nearly half of all exchanges of goods and services involve local residents directly.

Revenue streams are diverse, ranging from the sale of goods and services to public tenders, agreements with municipalities and membership fees. Yet the underlying structure is one of proximity and trust rather than extraction. This is not an economy designed to maximise margins. It is one designed to maximise continuity, care and presence.

This helps explain why institutions such as the CNEL have begun to recognise community cooperatives not only for their social value, but also for their economic role. In fragile territories they function as multi service anchors, making broader public investments more effective and reducing dependence on external actors.

Democracy that takes spatial form

From my personal perspective, the relevance of community cooperatives goes beyond economics. These are democratic infrastructures, even if they are rarely described in those terms.

Membership is plural. Workers, users, volunteers and investors often coexist within the same organisation. Decision making processes are frequently open or partially open to non members. Co design with local communities is common, as is the contribution of voluntary time alongside formal employment.

In practice, these cooperatives translate democratic participation into durable organisational forms. They move democracy away from one off consultations and into everyday governance, shared risk and long term responsibility.

This is where the connection with Spaces for Encounter becomes explicit. Community cooperatives are never abstract. They are anchored in physical places such as renovated buildings, shared facilities and reactivated public spaces. These places function as civic nodes where economic activity, social life and collective decision making intersect.

Spaces for Encounter are not simply venues. They are conditions that allow democracy to be practised, sustained and renewed. Community cooperatives show what happens when those spaces are coupled with real economic agency.

The policy gap

Perhaps the most paradoxical aspect of the Italian case is that this ecosystem has grown without a coherent national legal framework. Community cooperatives operate across regions with fragmented regulations, limited fiscal recognition and little structural support.

As Paolo Venturi of Aiccon has argued, these are institutions of a new generation. They are agile, adaptive and often heroic in their early stages. But heroism is not a policy. Without supportive environments that include legal clarity, patient finance and ecosystem level thinking, their potential remains constrained.

Recognising community cooperatives does not mean standardising them or diluting their grassroots nature. It means treating them as strategic civic and economic actors and designing policies that enable their long term sustainability.

A different idea of development

The lesson of community cooperatives is not that every territory should replicate the same model. It is that development does not begin with attraction, but with attachment. With people who care enough about a place to organise, invest and remain.

At a time marked by democratic fatigue and ecological uncertainty, these experiences offer something rare. Proof that democracy can still generate institutions, not only demands. Proof that economies can still be rooted, not only scaled.

They remind us that the future of democracy may depend less on grand reforms and more on our capacity to build, inhabit and govern shared spaces together.

Source
Chiara Ludovisi, “Cooperative di comunità, quando i cittadini diventano impresa. E salvano i territori”, Vita.it, 2024.

This reflection began after reading a post by Enrique Dans. Not because of the specific episode he mentioned, a video generated with artificial intelligence falsely announcing a coup d’état in France,but because of what that episode reveals when viewed from a distance. The video matters, of course. Yet it matters mainly as a symptom, an entry point into a deeper and older problem that we have been quietly normalising for years: digital infrastructures that present themselves as spaces of freedom while operating, in practice, as private systems designed to extract attention.

There is no need to dwell on the news cycle to recognise the pattern. Emotionally charged content circulates, spreads quickly, reaches millions, and only later, once its economic value has been fully extracted, is it moderated or removed. This is not a malfunction. It is a model. And when a model repeats itself consistently, it stops being anecdotal and becomes a form of undeclared governance.

The reaction of Emmanuel Macron to that episode expressed a concern that goes far beyond France. What we are facing is not a series of moderation mistakes, but infrastructures with the power to shape democratic climates while operating without responsibilities proportional to that power.

Infrastructure that governs without being elected

Large platforms are not neutral intermediaries. They function as political architectures in practice. They decide what is visible, what is amplified, what fades away, and with what emotional intensity reality is presented. When infrastructures with this level of influence are designed to maximise retention and reaction, the degradation of public debate is not an unintended side effect. It is the expected outcome.

For years, we accepted a reassuring narrative. Social networks were framed as tools that expanded freedom of expression, while their negative effects were treated as unavoidable consequences of technological progress. That narrative no longer holds. Not because technology itself is harmful, but because the dominant business model is fundamentally incompatible with a healthy public sphere.

A shopping mall can feel like a public space. People meet there, walk, talk, spend time. But its architecture is designed around consumption, not deliberation. Behaviour is subtly guided. Presence is tolerated only insofar as it serves a commercial logic. Democracy can pass through such spaces, but it cannot live in them. The same is true online.

Stepping away changes how things look

My own experience helped make this clearer. Over a year ago, I deliberately left the social networks designed to push impulsive consumption of stimulating content. Infinite scroll, constant notifications and the emotional reward of outrage were no longer part of my daily rhythm. Once outside, something became uncomfortably obvious. I was not the one deciding. My attention had been shaped by an architecture built to keep me inside for as long as possible.

From the outside, the mechanism is easier to recognise. Speed, simplification and emotional stimulation are not secondary effects. They are the core of the system. And when that core becomes the main infrastructure for democratic conversation, what erodes is not only the quality of information, but the very possibility of sustaining complex disagreement without sliding into caricature or permanent confrontation.

The free speech trap

For a long time, I also fell into a powerful rhetorical trap. I equated these platforms with freedom of expression. Any critique sounded like censorship. Any attempt at regulation felt like authoritarianism. Today, that framing seems deeply misleading.

Expression is not the same as dependence on centralised platforms that follow their own objectives, defined by financial incentives, with little concern for their broader social or democratic consequences. Defending the unchecked operation of these infrastructures is not defending free speech. It is accepting that a small number of private companies act as invisible architects of the public mood.

This dynamic has been described by Cory Doctorow as enshitification. Platforms attract users with promises of value and openness, then progressively degrade the experience to extract value from every layer of the ecosystem. What once felt like a service slowly turns into a toll. Polarisation is no longer a risk. It becomes a resource.

From e-government to public digital infrastructure

For years, the digital transformation of the state was framed as a question of efficiency. Paper forms became online forms. Ministries spoke the language of optimisation. This phase of e-government focused on isolated services.

What is emerging now is something different. Public digital infrastructure represents a shift from services to foundations: shared, interoperable systems on which public institutions and civic actors can build. In a geopolitical context marked by dependence on proprietary platforms and hyperscalers, technology has become a strategic asset of sovereignty rather than a neutral commodity.

Countries across Europe and beyond are reclaiming control over their digital foundations. Spain’s ALIA project treats artificial intelligence as public capacity, trained under public jurisdiction, with an explicit commitment to openness, linguistic diversity and European legal frameworks. Rather than replacing private innovation, it establishes a public baseline that guarantees sovereignty over data, computation and values.

Democracy also needs infrastructure

If ALIA addresses sovereignty in computation, Decidim addresses sovereignty in decision making. Born in Barcelona and now used globally, Decidim is an open source participatory platform designed not to capture attention, but to structure deliberation, participation and accountability. Its architecture allows citizens to follow decisions from proposal to implementation, closing a gap that often undermines democratic trust.

This logic aligns with recent work on digital civic infrastructure developed by the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation, which frames healthy democratic systems around three functions: connecting people and institutions, enabling civic learning, and supporting meaningful action. Democracy requires not just expression, but pathways.

Investing in the commons

The economist Mariana Mazzucato has repeatedly shown that the public sector has historically played a decisive role in shaping markets and building shared infrastructure when collective goods were at stake. Roads, libraries and public spaces were not by-products of private investment. They were political decisions.

The digital public sphere deserves the same treatment. Leaving it entirely to private platforms is not neutrality. It is abdication.

The choice ahead

The fake coup video is not the centre of this story. It is a mirror. It reflects how far we have gone in accepting dependence on infrastructures we do not control as inevitable.

Defending democracy today is not only about regulating private platforms. It is about rebuilding the material conditions of democratic life in a digital age. Democracy cannot live in a shopping mall. If it is to survive online, it must be grounded in shared digital infrastructures designed for presence, accountability and collective ownership.

Every few months, the same argument resurfaces. Universities are too slow. Academia is disconnected. Knowledge should move faster, adapt quicker, become immediately relevant.

This time, the trigger was a LinkedIn post by David Criado, forcefully defending universities and the academy against a growing fashion of public disparagement. His target was not criticism as such, but the casual contempt with which complex institutions are dismissed in favour of shortcuts, credentials and marketable certainties.

He is right to defend them.

What struck me, however, was not only the need for that defence, but how often the debate itself rests on a fundamental confusion. University and academy are collapsed into the same caricature. Slowness is equated with irrelevance. Critique slides easily into delegitimisation.

I recognise this because I have been there myself.

For a long time, I treated university and academy as interchangeable symbols of an outdated model. Compared to civic labs, hybrid spaces and practice based learning, they felt misaligned with the present. That judgement felt reasonable at the time.

It was wrong.

Not because universities should be immune to criticism. They should not. But because dismissing them as obsolete accepts the very framing that weakens them. It turns a political question into a technical one. Speed versus slowness. Agility versus inertia.

And in doing so, it obscures what is really at stake.

What is under pressure today is not a sector or a profession. It is the idea that knowledge can be produced, contested and validated collectively, over time, and in public.

University and academy are not the same

Precision matters here.

The university is an institution. It is a public structure with continuity, governance and social obligations that extend beyond individual learners or labour market demand.

The academy is a collective practice. It is about methods, peer disagreement, genealogies of thought and shared criteria that allow us to say that some claims are better grounded than others.

Both are flawed. Both have been eroded by market logic, managerialism and metric obsession. But treating them as interchangeable, and therefore equally disposable, is not a neutral diagnosis. It is a political move that weakens one of the few remaining infrastructures designed to sustain collective reasoning over time.

Slowness as political resistance

This shift in my thinking crystallised while listening to the podcast Mitos y memes, by Toni Blanco Gracia and Sergio Salgado, where they explore heuristics and the value of things that endure.

Not everything that lasts deserves to last. But endurance is rarely accidental.

Institutions that persist tend to do so because they have developed ways of absorbing conflict, adapting to context and resisting volatility. Universities are slow because they were never designed to follow demand in real time. Their slowness allows them to host questions without immediate answers, to withstand intellectual fashion, and to preserve disagreement without turning it into spectacle.

In political terms, this matters.

In a culture dominated by reskill or disappear, learn this in six weeks and reinvent yourself every year, slowness is framed as a defect. But democracy does not function well at the speed of the market. Judgment, responsibility and dissent require time.

Lifelong learning and the retreat of responsibility

Learning throughout life is not the problem.

What is troubling is how lifelong learning has become a convenient narrative for dismantling collective guarantees. When instability is reframed as opportunity and precarity as motivation, responsibility quietly shifts from institutions to individuals.

The promise of freedom masks a retreat of the social contract.

In this context, the university’s role is not nostalgic. It is structural. It remains one of the few places where knowledge is not validated by popularity, disagreement is not reduced to performance, and legitimacy is not produced by speed.

Undermining it does not empower citizens. It fragments the epistemic ground on which democracy depends.

Spaces that resist optimisation

Universities also matter because of what they produce beyond content. They produce context.

They bring together people who would otherwise never meet.
They force disciplines to coexist.
They protect time that is not immediately productive.

This makes them fundamentally different from digital environments optimised for engagement, emotional acceleration and simplification. That difference is not accidental. It is political.

In a public sphere increasingly shaped by feeds, metrics and outrage cycles, spaces that resist optimisation are not luxuries. They are safeguards.

Spaces for Encounter as democratic continuation

This is where Spaces for Encounter belong.

Spaces for Encounter are kitchens, libraries, neighbourhood hubs, civic labs and reimagined classrooms. They are places where academic knowledge, practical expertise and lived experience can meet without being reduced to profiles, credentials or data points.

They are closer to everyday life than universities. More porous. More relational. But they are not substitutes. They depend on the deeper infrastructure that institutions like universities provide. Shared criteria. Continuity. Public legitimacy.

Without that grounding, encounters risk becoming fleeting, performative or easily captured by ideology and market logic.

The false choice between institutions and encounters is itself part of the problem.

Institutional realism, not nostalgia

Democracy does not thrive on speed alone. Nor does it survive on permanence detached from society.

It requires slow institutions to stabilise meaning and spaces of encounter to keep those institutions alive and accountable. Remove one, and the other either ossifies or dissolves.

Learning fast will not replace institutions.
Innovation will not generate legitimacy by default.
Agility will not protect democracy.

If we want societies capable of thinking together, not just reacting together, we must stop treating slowness as a flaw and start recognising it as democratic infrastructure.

Not as temples.
Not as start ups.

But as places where complexity is allowed to exist, disagreement can be held, and democracy is practised, imperfectly and in common.

On a warm evening in May 2011, I found myself standing among thousands of strangers in Madrid’s Puerta del Sol. The square pulsed with a quiet electricity. No leader had summoned us, no party banner framed the moment. And yet, we were unmistakably together, moved by a shared intuition that something had broken, not only in politics, but in the deeper architecture of our lives.

The 2008 crash had already shaken the foundations: jobs evaporated, savings vanished, and the institutions meant to protect us seemed paralysed. But the real damage was more intimate, the sense that the promises structuring ordinary life had dissolved. The “normality” we depended on was gone.

Then came the cry: “¡No nos representan!” It echoed through the square not as a rejection of democracy, but as a plea for it to mean something again. For democracy to feel like a lived and tangible experience, not a distant mechanism managed somewhere far away.

Looking back, the 15M movement wasn’t merely a protest. It was a democratic awakening, a moment when we discovered what it meant to act not as voters or consumers, but simply as people. There, in the square, we experienced multipertenencia: the rare feeling that we belong to many communities at once without needing to choose between them.

It was, in many ways, the moment when I began to understand democracy not as a system, but as a practice.

The Human Fault Lines Beneath Political Crises

For years, many commentators have treated the crisis of democracy as a failure of institutions or policy. But these explanations often skim across the surface. To grasp why democracies feel fragile today, we have to look deeper, into the very mechanics of human behaviour.

The Italian geopolitical analyst Dario Fabbri argues that human societies are shaped not only by rational calculation, but by deep emotional forces: fear, belonging, the pull of territory, the need for dignity. When political systems lose contact with these currents, the result isn’t apathy, it’s disorientation. People don’t stop caring; they stop recognising themselves in the political order.

Then there is philosopher Luciano Floridi, who offers one of the clearest diagnoses of the misunderstandings feeding today’s democratic malaise. The biggest misconception, he argues, is thinking that democracy simply means “the majority decides.” If that were true, a narrow victory would give a government unlimited moral authority to impose its will, which is precisely how democracies slide into majoritarian tyranny.

Floridi insists on a fundamental distinction:

• Sovereignty belongs to everyone, always.

• Governance is merely a delegated task, temporary and reversible.

When political actors begin to collapse sovereignty into governance, claiming to “embody the people”, the democratic fabric tears. Consensus-building becomes impossible. Politics becomes a permanent state of mobilisation, where opponents are treated as enemies rather than fellow members of a shared community.

In other words, democracy is not the moment of voting; it’s what happens afterward, when the difficult work of cooperation begins.

Three Alignments: A Framework for Democratic Agency

If democracy is to be renewed, we need to rethink where it actually lives. For me, it exists in the alignment of three overlapping dimensions:

1. The I (Autonomy): our personal intentions, desires, dignity.

2. The We (Interdependence): the relationships and networks through which we make meaning.

3. The Whole (Ecodependence): the territory we inhabit and the ecological limits that shape our possibilities.

Political institutions tend to treat these as separate categories. But in everyday life, they are inseparable. Real democratic agency emerges where the personal, the relational, and the ecological overlap, where solutions don’t force us to choose between self, community, and planet.

And that overlap rarely emerges in formal institutions. It appears instead in the informal spaces we create together.

The Rise of Extitutions and Living Civic Energies

The philosopher Michel Serres coined a term that has become increasingly resonant: extitutions. While institutions operate through hierarchy, formal rules, and durability, extitutions are fluid, adaptive, decentralised, built around the needs and relationships of the moment.

Think of a neighbourhood that organises food distribution without being asked. A group of parents redesigning a school courtyard. A collective experimenting with renewable energy. A civic hub where people meet without needing to justify why they are there.

These are not minor anecdotes. They are what I call living civic energies, the quiet, everyday expressions of collective intelligence that arise when people decide to improve their shared world. They are spontaneous, messy, and profoundly democratic. And they prove something essential: people can govern aspects of their lives directly when given space to do so.

The challenge is not generating these energies. They already exist everywhere. The challenge is connecting them without suffocating them.

The Civic Realm and the Need for Superinfrastructures

Over the past years, in cities and villages across Europe, I have seen a new democratic ecosystem taking shape, not designed by institutions, but emerging organically from communities. I call this the Civic Realm: a space where public institutions, civil society, market actors, and ordinary citizens collaborate as peers to solve shared problems.

It’s an ecosystem that resonates with:

• Elinor Ostrom’s work on governing commons,

• Eric Klinenberg’s insights on social infrastructure,

• and traditions of prefigurative politics.

But even the most vibrant ecosystems need structure. Not the heavy machinery of traditional governance, but lighter frameworks, Superinfrastructures for Democracy, that connect local initiatives with institutional support without absorbing or standardising them.

Public policy expert Annibale D’Elia puts it beautifully:

“The primary role of public administration is to create opportunities for people to meet.”

This is not a poetic metaphor. It’s a governance strategy.

To work, these superinfrastructures must follow a rhizomatic logic, borrowing from Deleuze and Guattari: networks that grow sideways rather than upward, decentralised by design, resilient because they spread rather than concentrate power. They encourage cross-pollination instead of uniformity.

Europe, with its layered identities and overlapping political systems, is uniquely suited to this approach. It is not a single democracy but a constellation of democratic experiments.

Civic Transitions: From Protest to Proactivity

In recent years, together with my colleague Adolfo Chautón, I’ve been reflecting on how these energies and structures converge. Our conversations led us to a concept we call Civic Transitions, the idea that transformation emerges when people act simultaneously as autonomous individuals, interdependent communities, and ecological beings.

This framework grew from looking back at 15M and connecting it to countless local actions since then. Civic Transitions recognise that:

• Individuals hold purpose.

• Communities hold relationships.

• Territories hold limits and possibilities.

Democracy only flourishes when these three dimensions reinforce each other rather than compete.

It also requires a quieter virtue: letting go of the assumption that innovation must be expert-driven, competitive, or endlessly scalable. The future will be built by people who connect purpose with place, not by territories chasing rankings or trying to imitate Silicon Valley.

Democracy Must Be Lived

If populism spreads today, it is not because it offers solutions but because many citizens no longer experience democracy as something that affects their daily lives. We defend democracy abstractly but rarely feel it concretely.

A democracy we cannot feel is a democracy we cannot trust.

Its renewal will not come only through institutional reform, though such reform matters. It will come in the spaces where people meet: community hubs, schoolyards, food cooperatives, encounter spaces, civic labs. It will come from living civic energies connected by superinfrastructures that allow them to thrive.

Democracy begins when people discover each other.
It grows when we act with purpose.
It lasts when we build shared futures across our differences.

If democracy is to survive, it will not come from stronger rhetoric or new institutional engineering alone. It will emerge from a civic turn, a shift in how we inhabit our neighbourhoods, workplaces and shared spaces. The next democratic horizon will not descend from above; it will rise from the ground, woven through the everyday actions of people who choose to care for the places they share.

This is the work of living democracy: patient, relational, purposeful. And it spreads not as a monument but as a mesh, a fabric formed by local experiments, civic energies and the superinfrastructures that help them connect. No institution can weave this alone. But every community can contribute a thread.

What will grow from these threads will not resemble the democracies we inherited. It will be lighter, more relational, more attuned to our interdependence. A democracy built horizontally, node by node, encounter by encounter, not designed to be admired from a distance, but lived from within.

A democracy we can feel.
A democracy we can practice.
A democracy we build together.

The Living Democracy Activation Kit

I have structured this as the “Living Democracy Activation Kit,” designed for activists, civic designers, urban planners, and public administrators to apply the theory directly to the territory.

I. The Practitioner’s Manifesto

Before intervening in a territory, the practitioner must internalize a fundamental mindset shift: Democracy is not a system to be administered; it is a practice to be lived.

• From Voting to Habit: Do not design for isolated moments of decision-making (voting); design for continuous cooperation (living together).

• From Institution to Extitution: Value fluidity, adaptation, and decentralization over rigidity and permanence.

• Shared Sovereignty: Remember Floridi’s distinction. Governance is temporary and delegated; sovereignty belongs to everyone, always. Your goal is not to “represent” the people, but to enable their capacity to act.

II. The Framework: The Three Alignments

For a local intervention to be democratically healthy, it must not force a choice between the individual, the community, or the environment. It must align all three dimensions simultaneously.

Use this model to evaluate any project or initiative:

1. The I (Autonomy)

• The Focus: Personal intentions, desires, and dignity.

• The Key Question: Does this space allow people to feel capable and recognized as individuals?

• The Risk: Without this, there is alienation. People will not participate if they do not recognize themselves in the process.

2. The We (Interdependence)

• The Focus: Networks of trust and the creation of shared meaning.

• The Key Question: Are we facilitating multipertenencia? Can people belong to multiple communities at once without conflict?

• The Risk: Without this, there is isolation or polarization.

3. The Whole (Ecodependence)

• The Focus: The physical territory and ecological limits.

• The Key Question: Is the solution respectful of the place we inhabit? Does it understand its limits?

• The Risk: Without this, the intervention is abstract and unsustainable.

Civic Agency = Autonomy <> Interdependence <> Ecodependence

III. Conceptual Tools for Action

To activate democracy from the local level, the practitioner must build light infrastructures, not heavy machinery.

1. Detect and Connect “Living Civic Energies”

Do not try to generate participation from scratch; it likely already exists.

• The Principle: People are already organizing food banks, caring for parks, or sharing energy.

• The Action: Your job is not to create the energy, but to identify it and avoid suffocating it. Value the spontaneous, the “messy,” and the informal.

2. Build “Superinfrastructures”

The role of administration and civic design is to create the “scaffolding” that allows things to happen, without dictating what must happen.

• Definition: Light frameworks that connect local initiatives with institutional support without standardizing them.

• The Golden Rule (Annibale D’Elia): “The primary role of public administration is to create opportunities for people to meet.”

• Strategy: Design spaces (physical or digital) where citizens, institutions, and market actors meet as peers.

3. Rhizomatic Logic

Avoid pyramidal structures.

• Sideways Growth: Foster networks that grow sideways (connecting neighborhoods, groups, topics) rather than upward (seeking unique leaders).

• Resilience: If one node fails, the network survives because power is distributed, not concentrated.

IV. Territory Diagnostic Checklist

Before launching an initiative, answer these questions to ensure you are strengthening the “intimate architecture” of democracy:

1. Is it Felt? Is this initiative something neighbors can “touch” and feel in their daily lives, or is it a bureaucratic abstraction?

2. Does it Generate Encounter? Does the design of the space or process force different people to interact and discover one another?

3. Is it Extitutional? Is it flexible enough to adapt if the community changes its mind, or is it trapped in rigid rules?

4. Does it Recognize the Emotional? Does it address people’s fears, need for dignity, and sense of belonging, or does it only speak of “data” and “policy”?

A Final Thought for the Practitioner

“Democracy begins when people discover each other. It grows when we act with purpose. It lasts when we build shared futures across our differences.”