Data democracy or deliberative democracy? Democratization paradoxes in the Dutch steering philosophy from taking care of to making sure that

The much observed legitimacy crisis in our Dutch representative democracy and the (assumed) gap between politics and citizenry has implied: (1) a shift towards more participatory and deliberative policy processes, and (2) an increased emphasis on output legitimacy of politics. Both trends are also captured by the steering philosophy from taking care of to making sure that (TCMS) of the Dutch government. This steering philosophy aims at smoothening policy processes and downsizing central government, while at the same time controlling and evaluating the performance of (participatory and deliberative) policy processes. Interestingly, both trends constitute democratic paradoxes on their own, while being a potential paradox themselves at the same time. Although participation enhances deliberative democracy, these processes often involve a shift in power to non-elected actors (NGOs, citizens), thus posing a threat to representative democracy (first paradox). Output legitimacy enhances democracy by putting more emphasis on policy performance. However, this approach easily becomes dominated by complicated scientific and technical data requirements and monitoring programs for assessing policy effects. As a result of such scientisation of output legitimacy, experts and technical procedures become the judges of whether democracy delivers or not, posing a similar threat to representative democracy (second paradox). Finally tensions also exist between deliberative models and data-based models of democracy. While deliberation puts good arguments of citizens to the forefront, data democracy is based on scientific input of the professional field (third paradox). It has remained unclear so far (1) what the actual democracy implications of this TCMS steering philosophy are, (2) whether and in what form the three democratization paradoxes can be observed and (3) how these might be dealt with in the field as to promote good governance. The proposed research aims to contribute to our understanding of these issues by analyzing the implementation of this steering philosophy in three different governmental ministries (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD). This directive is now being implemented in the Netherlands on the basis of this TCMS philosophy. Importantly, we conduct our research in close interaction with involved actors from each of the three ministries. Theoretically, this study builds on democracy, science-policy interface and discourse literatures. Methodologically, we will combine desk research with empirical case study research and participative observations. The cooperation of scientific departments (Wageningen UR and TU Delft) and governmental ministries (LNV, VROM and V&W) guarantees scientific quality as well as policy relevance.