In the framework of the European Capital of Democracy, I was invited to speak at the ACT NOW Mayors' Conference, hosted this year by Cascais in Portugal. As Brussels will take over the title next year, it was only natural for the city's Alderman for Citizen Participation to contribute. The ACT NOW Mayors' Conference brings together city leaders to translate global challenges, such as climate change, inequality, and democratic pressures, into concrete local action. After all, cities are where these challenges are felt most directly, but also where solutions can be tested and implemented in everyday life.

What is the right scale for participation? For the first session, 'democracy at scale' I was invited to give my thoughts on the challenges of local democratic resilience we face today as cities. The notion of scale may sound abstract, but it is in fact crucial. In Brussels, finding the right scale for participation is both one of the most important and one of the most difficult questions we face. Cities have become highly complex ecosystems, and participation cannot be approached with a one-size-fits-all model. The question is no longer whether we involve citizens, but how, where, and at what level meaningful engagement actually takes place.

Should it happen at the level of the street, the neighbourhood, or the city as a whole? There is no single answer. Participation must be designed in a tailored and contextual way. It depends on the objective of the process, the type of decision to be made, and the level of influence that is envisaged, from informing citizens, to consulting them, to engaging in dialogue and collaboration, and ultimately to co-production or even co-decision. Each of these levels requires a different scale, and a different relationship between citizens and institutions.

Scale is not only an operational question, it is also a democratic one. If we want to build democratic resilience, we must also strengthen the capacity of citizens to participate meaningfully. Too often, we see debate replaced by confrontation, listening replaced by shouting, and dialogue replaced by monologue. But this is not inevitable. It is the result of choices. Choosing to involve citizens, to give them a real say in shaping their city, is a way to counter these trends and to rebuild trust in democratic processes.

In Brussels, this reflection on scale has been an ongoing process of trial, learning, and adaptation. One of the key lessons we have drawn is that participation is always limited in time and space. It must remain tangible. For many types of engagement, the neighbourhood level proves to be particularly effective, as it allows citizens to relate directly to the issues being discussed and to the territory in which they live. At the same time, it is also the scale that raises the most questions. When is a neighbourhood too large, or too small, for people to truly engage?

To address this, we started from a simple but fundamental question: what do people themselves consider to be their neighbourhood? Participation is not just about inviting people to a process; it is about ensuring that they feel legitimately connected to what is being discussed. Citizens are often described as "experts", but experts of what exactly? They are experts of their lived environment. If we expect them to co-create their neighbourhood, they must be able to recognise it as their own. When the scale becomes too large, this sense of ownership risks disappearing, and with it, the quality of the participation itself.

This is why we have fundamentally rethought the territorial basis of participation in Brussels. We have worked to redraw neighbourhood boundaries not solely on the basis of administrative logic or planning data, but also through engagement with residents themselves. This has led to the creation of 13 neighbourhoods, each with its own local assembly. These boundaries are the result of a careful balance between feasibility, budgetary constraints, administrative capacity, and the existing participatory dynamics on the ground.

Neighbourhood Assemblies

This reflection on scale has also led us to critically reassess some of our existing tools, in particular participatory budgeting. The City of Brussels has invested significantly in participatory budgeting over the past years, and it has been an important mechanism for involving citizens in decision-making. However, our experience has also revealed structural limitations. One of the key challenges was precisely the issue of scale. In some cases, the territories concerned were simply too large, covering tens of thousands of residents. As a result, projects became abstract, and citizens struggled to relate to them. Participation lost its concreteness.

There were also important questions of capacity and sustainability. Participatory budgeting is an intensive process. It requires coordination, technical analysis, facilitation of workshops, and follow-up in implementation. Ensuring high-quality participation demands significant administrative resources, which are not always available. Financial constraints have also become a factor. Today, we no longer have the means to organise participatory budgets at the same scale as before, which has forced us to rethink our approach.

The introduction of Neighbourhood Assemblies marks a new phase in our approach. These assemblies are conceived as more continuous, more grounded, and more realistic forms of participation. They operate at a smaller scale, over shorter cycles, and focus on regular exchanges between residents, civil society, and the city. The underlying principle is simple: start from what already exists. Inspired by the methodology of Asset-Based Community Development, this approach recognises that every neighbourhood already contains knowledge, skills, and resources. Neighbourhood Assemblies create a structured space for this knowledge to be expressed, shared, and connected to public decision-making.

Session Two: Translating Human Rights into Local Action

The second day, it was time for the big stage. During the opening Talk I had the opportunity to join the discussion on translating human rights into local action brought the debate back to a fundamental question: what does it actually mean, in practice, to make human rights real in the everyday life of a city? In Brussels, this question is not theoretical. Every year, the city hosts thousands of demonstrations. Voices are raised in our streets, around institutions, and very concretely in our public space. People come from all over Europe to make themselves heard. Because of its role as European capital and the presence of major international institutions, Brussels has become a symbolic place for the right to protest and for freedom of expression. In many ways, it has grown into one of the most vibrant democratic arenas on the continent.

Of course, this comes with challenges. Just recently, following a farmers' protest, the city had to clear an entire container of potatoes from the Grand Place. But this is part of the democratic reality we embrace. As long as protests remain non-violent, respectful, and do not endanger others, they are not a problem, they are a sign of a healthy democracy. They are the concrete expression of fundamental rights being exercised in public space. Even the potatoes found a second life, redistributed to prepare meals for people in need. At the same time, there are limits. When protests become aggressive or violent, the city must intervene. But these situations remain exceptions. The starting point is always clear: public space belongs to citizens, and it must remain accessible as a space for expression, debate, and contestation.

More broadly, the City of Brussels, like many other cities, translates human rights into local policy through what is often described as human rights mainstreaming. Our political programme is not framed as a separate "human rights policy", but is deeply infused with these principles across all domains. A key pillar of this approach is the Equal Opportunities Department, supported also by the regional administration equal.brussels. This service works in a very concrete way on combating discrimination, racism, and sexism, promoting equal rights, implementing action plans against racism and antisemitism, and supporting initiatives such as Pride. In that sense, it embodies the local translation of the right to non-discrimination.

Mind the gap

Yet Brussels is not only a city that implements human rights policies, it is also a city where these rights are constantly tested. As one of the most diverse cities in Europe, Brussels combines extraordinary cultural and linguistic richness with significant socio-economic challenges. Issues such as affordable housing remain acute, and too many children still grow up in households without income from work. This dual reality makes Brussels both a frontrunner in diversity and a city at risk of deep inequality and social exclusion.

This creates a fundamental tension: the gap between rights that exist on paper and rights that are actually experienced in daily life. In Brussels, this gap becomes very visible. It appears in access to housing, where discrimination still persists. It can be felt in interactions with public services or with the police, where the balance between security and equality is sometimes fragile. It is reflected in broader patterns of socio-economic inequality that limit people's real access to opportunities.

This reality teaches us an important lesson: human rights cannot be separated from social and economic conditions. Housing policy, climate policy, and social inclusion are deeply interconnected. A climate policy that fails to take into account vulnerable populations risks reinforcing existing inequalities. The democratic challenge is therefore also a social one: ensuring a just transition in which no one is left behind.

Ultimately, the discussion on translating human rights into local action leads to a simple but essential insight. Democracy and human rights are not separate domains. They are mutually reinforcing. Democracy creates the space where human rights can be protected and exercised. Human rights, in turn, give people the tools to participate in democracy. It is in this continuous interaction, between rights and participation, between institutions and citizens, between principles and practice, that democratic life in our cities truly takes shape.

https://actnow.capitalofdemocracy.eu/

https://capitalofdemocracy.eu/

https://fairebruxellessamen.be/

Quoi de neuf ?