The democratization of planning would be helped by a democratization of theory

In her comment to my paper (Zakhour, 2020b), Nurit Alfasi takes issues with a tendency in planning discourse to view public participation in planning as a vehicle for democratization. Her concern proceeds from a twofold argument: first, that there are considerable obstacles towards achieving genuine and meaningful participation in planning. Second, one such obstacle—if not the foremost—is the fact that planning itself is an undemocratic activity. Alfasi thus urges planning scholars to explore more favorable avenues for democratizing planning than what can be expected from participation. Let me start by saying that I fully agree with Alfasi’s assertion that participation in planning is found wanting. I also welcome her call for new ways to understand the linkage between planning and democracy. I was therefore surprised that she read my paper as an example of the tendency to equate this relationship with public participation—a theme already, as Alfasi rightfully notes, “burdened with theorization and demonstration.” My intention was never to demonstrate (or discredit) the democratic merits of participation in planning, nor to add more theory to the equation. On the contrary, the paper proceeded from the reasoning that the effects of participation upon the democratization and legitimacy of planning are highly ambiguous and directly contingent on what meanings, standards and normative ideals one chooses to fit under the concept “democracy.” The aim of the paper was therefore to explore some of the meanings and expectations of democracy among those we vest with the task of actually conferring trust and legitimacy towards planning as part of participation—that is, the public. Interestingly, many of the citizen voices foregrounded in the paper also pointed to an understanding of planning and democracy that went well beyond participation. So, since I agree with Alfasi’s first argument and her broader sentiment, I want to take the opportunity to discuss some of the interesting implications raised by her second assertion: that planning itself does not constitute a democratic action. It is interesting