This book analyzed the role and impact of citizen participation in the fight towards more inclusive societies and forms of government. With each chapter centering itself around a different movement, time period, and place, we learn the different ways participation can be approached and implemented. For the case of Guatemala, citizen participation during the ten years of spring was essential. It was specifically under the administration of former president Jacobo Arbenz Guzman that indigenous Guatemalans saw major improvements to their living conditions with the implementation of the Agrarian Reform Law. In order to execute his plan as efficiently as possible, Arbenz created a series of hierarchical organizations with different responsibilities surrounding the Agrarian Reform Law.  The top tier  of these organizations consisted of government officials, whose purpose was to oversee and manage specific sectors of the law’s implementation at the national level. Because of their function, minimal participation occurred. Therefore, the top tier organizations fall under Arnstein’s (1969) informing model of participation. The bottom tier organizations focused on the local implementation of the Agrarian Reform Law. Campesinos used these organizations as a direct way of accessing governmental power when they wanted land to be redistributed. Because campesinos dominated the decision-making processes of the bottom tier organizations, delegated power, as defined by Arstein (1969), was practiced. Campesino participation was necessary under the hierarchical organizations created by Arbenz’s administration. This also stimulated the sociological imagination of campesino workers, encouraging more social reform and citizen participation in Guatemala.

Similarly to Guatemala, citizen participation was used in India as an attempt to reduce the extreme inequalities of rural populations. While the potential for deliberative democracy is strong in India, there are many steps that can be taken to increase its efficacy. Specifying percentages of allocated funds that can be spent on specific development issues ensures that plans are focused and highlight areas of importance (as recognized by the designation of funds). Furthermore, the implementation of grassroots level outreach programs and development seminars fosters local involvement and encourages participation, working towards robust inclusion. Robust inclusion processes include concepts such as targeted outreach programs, general public awareness programs, and educational tools such as workshops on deliberation and moderation of meetings; they have great potential to solve issues of apathy and power asymmetry due to unequal opportunity or circumstance. Potential solutions to issues of power usurpation by political parties and the lack of inclusivity are articulated by the idea of counter-publics and critical mass or populations constituted by groups  marginalized from the status quo. Social movements as described by Castells have the potential to function in inciting counter-publics in reimagining their identity as empowered in institutional structures. The issue of failure to implement accountability might benefit from increased institutional structures put in place to bolster implementation (as seen in Guatemala). On one end the bureaucracy must be strengthened by more strict regulation for implementation and on the other end, social movements and the creation of effective counter-publics must work to resolve issues of apathy and create robust inclusion of marginalized groups in processes so that productive deliberative outcomes can be ‘co-produced’. Comparing India and Guatemala, we find that the key to robust citizen participation are a creative re-imagining of the role that citizens can play to redistribute power and an understanding that different political histories lend themselves to different potentially effective implementations of empowered deliberation.

After analyzing the case of India, we delved into Creative Placemaking, where residents of the community can influence the public places meant to be used by them rather than leaving it in the hands of the private sector, which is profit-driven. A transition from the more abstract concept of creating space for marginalized populations in institutional frameworks, creative placemaking pertains to the physical and tangible creation of space for sidelined communities. The Brookland-Edgewood case in Washington, D.C. is a perfect example of how Creative Placemaking is used to combat gentrification— by making sure resident voices were included in a four-way partnership between the neighborhood residents and the D.C. Office of Planning, Dance Place, and Bozzuto Development, Inc. By relating citizens and their governments, democratic governance and citizen participation is deepened. At the same time, the Brookland-Edgewood residents’ power is limited and is citizen power through partnership, just short of citizen control due to their lack of oversight over funds. Citizens must be given the knowledge and tools to critically engage with their communities and communicate concerns and suggestions with one another and with the government. They must be able to organize themselves according to their own needs in order to consider themselves citizens capable of creating change. Brookland-Edgewood became an active community of citizens who created public spaces for themselves through participation. Through partnership with the government, local nonprofits, and private developers, the residents gained oversight over the changes in their neighborhood that would directly impact the,  directly improving their quality of life through shared spaces and activities. Despite the many successes of this case, more work must be done in empowering and expanding citizen participation in local communities by giving them the resources and skills to do so. Dance Place continues to be accessible to all Brookland-Edgewood residents, a group with high rates of poverty. This case can be used as a model showing the positive effects of Creative Placemaking on citizen participation in low-income communities today.

Finally, we see how citizen participation has taken advantage of globalization. Though the movement is young, Fridays For Future is ever-growing and evolving. Greta Thunberg, as the leader of the movement, has been able to amplify her many project identities into resistance identities which she has used to advocate for greater climate justice. With calls for more radical climate policy focused on global sustainability and equity through the movement, Thunberg has created a platform of climate justice intertwined with social justice. By bringing her view of climate justice to the forefront of the discussion revolving around the climate crisis, Thunberg has expanded the political opportunity structure for minors and young adults not of voting age. This expansion creates space for minors advocating for various social justice issues to foster and grow similar transnational advocacy networks.  As of now, Fridays For Future has paused their in-person actions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the future of the movement is bright. Switching to a more educational model for the time being, Fridays For Future has remained active on social media. As its participants enter adulthood and become of voting age, their voices will not be ignored. Fridays For Future’s greatest potential comes from its room to grow and adapt with its participants.