Participation is often praised for strengthening democracy. In human rights policymaking, it is expected to enhance legitimacy and inclusion. However, recent scholarship questions whether more consultation necessarily improves outcomes, as emblematic constitution-making processes have fallen short of their intended goals. Does this also apply to understudied forms of participation, such as consultations on human rights? This article analyses public consultations in Chile’s Second National Human Rights Action Plan, proposing a myth-based evaluative framework for similar processes. It explores the conditions under which consultations generate meaningful social, economic and political outcomes, offering insights for designing more effective participatory processes worldwide.
AcuñaF.2022: ¿Y después de la consulta…? Factores que inciden para la implementación de las decisiones producto de la democracia directa: el caso de las consultas comunitarias y populares contra proyectos extractivos en América Latina (1996–2021). PhD dissertation, FLACSO Mexico. Available at: http://flacso.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/handle/1026/403 (accessed 3April2025).
2.
BanksA.2007: Challenging political boundaries in post-conflict states. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 29(1), 105–68.
3.
BrandtM. and GluckJ.2015: Participatory and inclusive constitutional making: Giving voice to the demands of citizens in the wake of the Arab Spring. Peaceworks.
4.
BuaA.2017: Scale and policy impact in participatory deliberative democracy: Lessons from a multi-level process. Public Administration, 95(1), 160–77.
5.
CaluwaertsD. and ReuchampsM.2023: Evaluating citizens’ assemblies: Criteria, methods and tools. In ReuchampsM., VrydaghJ. and WelpY., editors, De Gruyter handbook of citizens’ assemblies. De Gruyter, 241–56.
6.
Centro UC Políticas Públicas. 2020: Mapa de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil 2020. Available at: https://politicaspublicas.uc.cl/publicacion/mapa-organizaciones-sociedad-civil-2020/ (accessed 3April2025).
7.
ChalabiA.2018: National Human Rights Action Planning. Oxford University Press.
8.
ChalabiA.2025: Developments and challenges of designing National Human Rights Action Plans: 1994–2024. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2025, 1–20.
9.
CornwallA. and GaventaJ.2000: From users and choosers to makers and shapers: Repositioning participation in social policy. IDS Bulletin, 31(4), 50–62.
10.
de los Angeles Villaseca RebolledoM. and Azua HerreraE.2021. Plan Nacional de Derechos Humanos de Chile (2018–2021). In KandelV., GotteroL. and JaramilloV., editors, Planes nacionales en derechos humanos: Debates y reflexiones sobre experiencias latinoamericanas. CLACSO, 81–99.
11.
European Commission. 2023: Commission recommendation of 12.12.2023 on promoting the engagement and effective participation of citizens and civil society organizations in public policy-making processes.
12.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2019: National human rights action plans in the EU [Report of the National Liaison Officer Working Party on National Human Rights Action Plans]. Available at: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/2020_outcome-report-wp-national-human-rights-action-plans.pdf (accessed 3April2025).
13.
Fajardo-HeywardP. and CuestaJ.2024: Assessing the success of National Human Rights Action Plans from a political economy perspective: The case of Chile [Development Policy Review]. World Bank.
14.
García GuitiánE.2023: The meanings of deliberation and citizen participation: Representing the citizens in constitution-making processes. In ReuchampsM. and WelpY., editors, Deliberative constitution making. Routledge, 17–28.
15.
GaventaJ. and CornwallA.2006: Challenging the boundaries of the possible: Participation, knowledge and power. IDS Bulletin, 37(6), 122–28.
16.
Gobierno de Chile. 2015: Ley 20885, crea la Subsecretaría de Derechos Humanos y adecúa la Ley Orgánica del Ministerio de Justicia. Diario Oficial de la República de Chile. Available at: https://www.bcn.cl/leychile/navegar?idNorma=1086063
17.
GoldbergS.2023: Citizens’ assemblies and their effects on the population. In ReuchampsM., VrydaghJ. and WelpY., editors, De Gruyter handbook of citizens’ assemblies. De Gruyter, 271–82.
18.
GoldfrankB.2011: Deepening local democracy in Latin America: Participation, decentralization, and the left. Pennsylvania State University Press.
19.
GonzálezY. and MaykaL.2023: Policing, democratic participation, and the reproduction of asymmetric citizenship. American Political Science Review, 117(1), 263–79.
20.
HowardA. and BorensteinJ.2018: The ugly truth about ourselves and our robot creations: The problem of bias and social inequity. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 1521–536.
21.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). 2022: Situación de derechos humanos en Chile. Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos.
22.
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and Organization of American States. 2018: Public policy with a human rights approach. Available at: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/PublicPolicyHR.pdf (accessed 3April2025).
23.
JacquetV. and van der DoesR.2021: Deliberation and policy-making: Three ways to think about minipublics’ consequences. Administration & Society, 53(3), 468–87.
24.
KandelV., GotteroL. and JaramilloV. (Eds.). 2021. Planes nacionales en derechos humanos: Debates y reflexiones sobre experiencias latinoamericanas. CLACSO.
25.
LorionS.2022: National Human Rights Action Plans: An inventory (Part 1: Norm diffusion and state practice). The Danish Institute for Human Rights. Available at: https://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/document/Lorion%202022%20-%20nhraps%20an%20inventory_july_accessible.pdf (accessed 3April2025).
26.
LovonC., BlouinC. and BarnabyB.2021: El plan nacional de derechos humanos (2018-2021). Encuentros y desencuentro en el principal instrumento de derechos humanos Plotke, D. 1997. Representation is democracy. Constellations, 4, 19–34.
27.
MaykaL.2019: Building participatory institutions in Latin America: Reform coalitions and institutional change. Cambridge University Press.
28.
MinsartE. and JacquetV.2023: The impact of citizens’ assemblies on policymaking: Approaches and methods. In ReuchampsM., VrydaghandJ. and WelpY., editors, De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens’ Assemblies. De Gruyter.
29.
MutzD.2008: Is deliberative democracy a falsifiable theory?Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 521–38.
30.
OECD. 2020: Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. OECD Publishing.
31.
OECD. 2022: OECD guidelines for citizen participation processes, OECD public governance reviews. OECD Publishing.
32.
PlotkeD.1997: Representation is democracy. Constellations, 4: 19–34.
33.
PogrebinschiT. and RyanM.2018: Moving beyond input legitimacy: When do democratic innovations affect policy making?European Journal of Political Research, 57(1), 135–52.
34.
ReuchampsM. and WelpY. (Eds.). 2023: Deliberative constitution making: Opportunities and challenges. Routledge.
35.
RoweG. and FrewerL. J.2000: Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.
36.
SaatiA.2015: The participation myth: Outcomes of participatory constitution building processes on democracy. PhD Dissertation, Umea Universitet. Available at: https://umu.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A809188&dswid=-6406
37.
Sub-Secretaría de Derechos Humanos, n.d.: Segundo plan nacional de derechos humanos 2022–2025. Ministerio de Justicia y Derechos Humanos, Gobierno de Chile, Santiago de Chile.
38.
The Inspection Panel. 2017: Consultation, participation, and disclosure of information [Emerging Lessons Series No. 4]. World Bank.
39.
UN. 2018: Participation, consultation and engagement: Critical elements for an effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda.
40.
United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). 2017: Strengthening United Nations action in the field of human rights through the promotion of international cooperation and the importance of non-selectivity, impartiality and objectivity, Seventy-Second Session, 21 August 2017, A/72/351.
41.
United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNOHCHR)2002: Handbook on National Human Rights Plans of Action. UN: New York and Geneva.
42.
UrbinatiN.2006: Representative democracy: Principles and genealogy. University of Chicago Press.
43.
VlasceanuM. and AmodoD.2022: Propagation of societal gender inequality by internet search algorithms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Psychological Cognitive Sciences, 119(29), e2204529119.
44.
VrydaghJ.2022: Measuring the impact of consultative citizen participation: Reviewing the congruency approaches for assessing the uptake of citizen ideas. Policy Sciences, 55, 65–88.
45.
WarrenM.E.2001: Democracy and association. Princeton University Press.
46.
WalterM. and UrkidiL.2016: Community consultations: Local responses to large-scale mining in Latin America. In de CastroF., HogenboomB. and BaudM., editors, Environmental governance in Latin America. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-50572-9_12
47.
WelpY.2022: The will of the people: Populism and citizens participation in Latin America. De Gruyter.
48.
WelpY.2025: Referendos contra la desigualdad política: ¿Por qué no funcionan?Perfiles latinoamericanos, 33(65), 79–102.
49.
WelpY. and SotoF.2019: Más allá de modas y cortinas de humo: la deliberación ciudadana en cambios constitucionales. Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 50, 13–41.
50.
World Bank. 1996: The World Bank participation sourcebook (English).
51.
World Bank. 2014: Strategic framework for mainstreaming citizen engagement in World Bank Group operations.
52.
ZarembergG. and TorresWong, M.2018. Participation on the edge: Prior consultation and extractivism in Latin America. Journal of Politics in Latin America, 10(3), 29–58.
53.
ZarembergG., Torres WongM. and Guarneros-MezaV.2018. Descifrando el desorden: Instituciones participativas y conflictos en torno a megaproyectos en México. América Latina Hoy, 79, 81–102.
54.
ZarembergG. and WelpY.2020. Beyond utopian and dystopian approaches to democratic innovation. Recerca, 25(1), 71–94.
