Around the world, billions are invested in strengthening democracy.
Governments, foundations and civil society organisations are experimenting with citizen assemblies, public consultations and new forms of participation. The ambition is clear: to rebuild trust, strengthen communities and bring people closer to decision-making.
But there is a fundamental problem.
We still know surprisingly little about what actually works.
What kinds of democratic processes create trust? Which forms of participation strengthen engagement — and which might have the opposite effect? And what, if anything, do large democratic events like election campaigns actually do to the societies they unfold in?
A new tool developed in Denmark is an attempt to answer exactly those questions.
A blind spot in how we measure democracy
Today, most democracy metrics focus on institutions.
They measure voter turnout, civil rights, corruption and the functioning of political systems. These indicators are essential — but they tell only part of the story.
“They are very important, but they are also very ‘hard’ measures,” says Zakia Elvang, managing partner at We Do Democracy, a Danish organisation working with citizen engagement and democratic innovation.
As a result, countries like Denmark consistently rank at the top of international democracy indexes — while at the same time experiencing declining trust, lower participation and increasing polarisation.
“How can we be top performers on all these measurements, while trust is falling and fewer people are participating?” asks Simone Klint, who has been part of developing the tool.
“It’s a paradox we don’t understand well enough — and therefore struggle to address.”
A Danish experiment with global ambitions
The new model has been developed by We Do Democracy in collaboration with Analyse & Tal, a data and analysis consultancy, and TrygFonden, one of Denmark’s largest philanthropic foundations.
It emerges from a context where democratic participation has become a growing field of investment.
How the tool works
The model is designed to be used both before and after a democratic process.
Beforehand, it functions as a strategic tool.
Organisations can use it to clarify what kind of democratic value they actually want to create — whether the goal is to strengthen trust, build relationships or give more people experience with participation.
Afterwards, it works as an analytical tool.
It allows organisations to assess whether the intended effects have actually been achieved — not only in terms of outcomes, but in terms of learning, relationships and behavioural change.
The model has been developed through a process that combined three perspectives:
* a group of researchers
* a deliberative citizen panel reflecting the population
* and practitioners working professionally with democracy and participation
Together, they contributed to defining ten areas of democratic impact, each with its own subcategories.
Across Europe and beyond, citizen assemblies, deliberative processes and public engagement initiatives have become increasingly common — not least supported by foundations seeking to strengthen democratic resilience.
But while the number of initiatives is growing, knowledge about their actual impact remains limited.
“There are many people doing many different things. But we lack knowledge about what actually works on what,” says Simone Klint.
The ambition behind the model is to change that.
Measuring what happens between people
Unlike traditional approaches, the model does not only look at formal democratic structures.
It focuses on what happens between people.
Conversations. Relationships. Shared problem-solving. The everyday interactions that, over time, shape how democracy actually functions.
“Much of what keeps a democracy alive happens between people,” says Zakia Elvang.
The model therefore measures democratic impact across four levels:
- the individual participant
- the specific activity or process
- the organisation behind it
- and, over time, society as a whole
This means that a citizen assembly or a dialogue process is not only evaluated based on whether it leads to a political decision.
It is also assessed on whether participants learn something, whether organisations change their way of working — and whether new relationships or communities emerge.
Because, as Zakia Elvang puts it:
“Democracy is all of us. The way we think, speak, act and make decisions — that is what creates the democracy we have.”
From counting participants to understanding impact
In many democratic processes today, success is still measured by counting participants.
How many people showed up?
This model goes further.
It looks at who participates, how they participate — and what they take away from the experience.
Among other things, it examines:
- participants’ democratic competences
- the quality of dialogue
- the level of representation
- trust between participants and towards institutions
- and whether a process leaves lasting traces in society
Because democratic impact is not only about political outcomes.
It can also be about something less visible – but just as important.
For example, shaping the language we use to talk about complex issues like climate change.
When impact is invisible
Zakia Elvang points to the Danish Climate Citizens’ Assembly as an example.
Research has shown that its direct influence on climate policy has been limited.
But its impact has appeared elsewhere.
“If it has contributed to shaping the language we use when we talk about climate – a new understanding of what climate is and why it matters – then that is a very clear democratic impact,” she says.
These kinds of effects are often invisible in traditional evaluations.
Can we measure a campaign?
If the model proves robust, its developers hope it can eventually be used to measure the impact of large-scale democratic events.
Such as an election campaign.
“My dream is that after an election, we could take the temperature,” says Simone Klint.
“What did the campaign actually do? What did it change? What kind of value did it create?”
The answer is not necessarily positive.
“We hope that election campaigns don’t make people less willing to participate,” says Zakia Elvang.
“An election campaign should be an opportunity to bring more people into the democratic conversation.”
If the opposite turns out to be true, it could raise uncomfortable questions.
“Then maybe we need to rethink how we do election campaigns.”
A tool still in the making
The model is still under development.
In 2026, it will be tested across 12 different organisations and types of democratic processes. The results will be used to refine the tool before a broader rollout.
Measuring democratic impact at the societal level will require larger amounts of data over time.
“It’s complex,” says Zakia Elvang.
“But if we believe that learning, community, networks, trust and hope matter for democracy, then we need to find a way to work with it systematically.”
