The full-scale war has not only changed the forms of civic engagement, but has also demonstrated that different models of civic engagement emerge under different circumstances. Such is the conclusion reached by the authors of the study “Practices of Involving Residents in the Process of Formulating and Implementing Local Policy”, which covered 103 communities in Ukraine. The analysis showed that communities today respond to the challenges of war in different ways; accordingly, there is no longer a universal model of civic engagement.

Why there is no longer a universal model

One of the main conclusions of the study was that it is no longer possible to speak of civic engagement as a universal model. The analysis showed that the nature of the interaction between the authorities and residents depends directly on the conditions in which the community operates.

Therefore, for the purposes of the study, communities were grouped into four categories: rear communities, frontline communities, de-occupied communities, and communities operating in exile. Each has developed its own approaches to engaging residents, as the challenges they face are fundamentally different.

For communities operating in exile, civic engagement has become a way of maintaining contact with residents who were forced to flee their homes, and of sustaining the community as a unified whole. For de-occupied territories, it has become one of the key tools for restoring trust between the authorities and residents. Frontline communities are seeking a balance between openness and security, whilst communities in the rear continue to develop engagement tools, adapting them to the new conditions of war.

The authors of the study were able to draw one of their key conclusions precisely on this basis: there is no universal model of civic engagement today. Instead, communities are gradually developing different models of engagement, each tailored to specific conditions and needs.

The practice has adapted faster than expected

The quantitative findings of the study confirm that the full-scale war has not led to a decline in civic engagement, but has significantly altered its forms.

Nowadays, 85.8% of all recorded practices are conducted online, with a further 12.4% in a hybrid mode. Thus, remote interaction is no longer a temporary solution and has, in fact, become the primary means of communication between local governments, military administrations, and residents.

At the same time, the study showed that digitalisation does not mean standardisation. Online tools are used for a number of different purposes: from consultations on local decisions to maintaining regular contact with relocated residents, holding public discussions, conducting surveys, and even drafting strategic documents.

Current state of regulation

Meanwhile, the study identified another important trend. Despite the active development of new forms of interaction, most of them remain outside the scope of current regulatory frameworks.

Only 21.3% of the analysed practices are enshrined in legislation. The rest emerged as a response by communities to the new challenges posed by the war and have gradually become part of their daily activities.

This means that, at present, practice determines the direction of civic engagement, whilst regulatory frameworks are only gradually adapting to approaches that have already taken shape. Online consultations, hybrid public hearings, electronic surveys, and the involvement of relocated residents in discussions on local decisions are actively used by communities, regardless of whether they are provided for in local regulatory acts.

Therefore, one of the key tasks for the coming years is not to create new forms of civic engagement, but to develop common principles for their application, which will allow communities to retain the necessary flexibility whilst ensuring the transparency, trust, and legitimacy of the decisions taken.

Not a universal model, but a shared framework for development

The main conclusion of the study is not merely that there is no longer a universal model of civic engagement. It also shows that communities do not need identical solutions. Instead, they require a shared framework that will help them shape their own models of engagement in line with the local context, security conditions, and the needs of residents.

Therefore, the authors of the study propose focusing not on standardising tools, but on principles that should remain constant regardless of the specific mechanisms a community uses.

They propose building such a development framework according to three interrelated areas.

The first area involves creating a quality local regulatory framework for civic engagement. This does not mean mechanically copying standard provisions or identical lists of tools, but rather developing procedures that genuinely reflect the circumstances of a particular community and ensure clear rules for interaction between the authorities and residents.

The second area concerns the development of modern forms of engagement. This primarily involves the integration of digital and hybrid mechanisms, the use of different communication channels, and the creation of opportunities for residents to engage regardless of their location. This is of particular importance for communities whose residents have been forced to leave or are temporarily living outside their community.

The third area involves a shift from isolated consultations to systematic civic engagement, where interaction with residents becomes an integral part of local self-government. In this model, civic engagement ceases to be a mere formality and is integrated into the process of preparing, adopting, and implementing local decisions.

Regardless of which model of engagement a particular community chooses, the authors of the study recommend focusing on several key areas of development:

• to develop minimum standards for distant and hybrid civic engagement;
• to integrate engagement mechanisms with the national digital identification system;
• to take into account the specific characteristics of different types of communities when drafting legislation and local regulatory acts;
• to ensure mandatory feedback on the results of consultations;;
• to use the process of updating community charters as an opportunity to integrate modern models of engagement into the local regulatory framework.

Lessons from international experience

A separate section of the study is devoted to analysing the practices of countries with successful experience of digital democracy. Examples from Estonia, Iceland, Poland, France, and Spain have been examined.

Despite the differences between national models, the authors identify three common factors that contribute to effectiveness: reliable digital identification of participants, mandatory feedback from public authorities, and the legal recognition of the results of civic engagement.

The experts argue that these principles should form the basis for the further development of Ukraine’s system of civic engagement.

The authors of the study emphasise that its aim was not only to document the practices that emerged in Ukrainian communities during the war, but also to initiate a professional discussion on the future of civic engagement in Ukraine.

Iryna Haiduchyk, an analyst of the project “Establishing a Legal Framework and Strengthening Civic Engagement in the Restoration of De-occupied Territories”, notes:

‘This study was not simply intended to document existing practices of civic engagement during the war. For us, it served as a starting point for a broader conversation about how the interaction between the authorities and residents is changing, which tools already work, and which still need to be developed. Therefore, the study is not our final outcome. Our ultimate goal is to foster dialogue between communities, local governments, military administrations, experts, and the residents themselves. We want to jointly seek answers on how to make civic engagement more systematic, impactful, and adapted to the conditions of war.’

The next stage of the work will be the development of a practical guide to help communities integrate modern models of civic engagement into their own local decision-making processes. This guide will be developed through an open dialogue with representatives of local governments, military administrations, the expert community, civil society organisations, and active residents.

Association for Community Self-Organisation invites all those working to develop civic engagement to join this effort. If your community has its own practices, solutions, regulatory frameworks or examples of using digital, remote or hybrid formats of engagement, please share them with the Project team. The wider the range of communities involved and the greater the variety of practices represented, the more useful the future guide will be for the entire local self-government system in Ukraine.

This publication was prepared within the framework of the “Formulation of Conceptual and Legal Foundations for the Effective Post-War Recovery of Ukraine’s De-occupied Territories” Project, supported by the International Renaissance Foundation. The Project is implemented in cooperation with the All-Ukrainian NGO “Association for Community Self-Organisation Assistance”, NGO “Centre of Policy and Legal Reforms”, NGO “Civic Initiative of Luhansk Region”, and NGO “Association Revival and Development”.

This column reflects solely the views of its author. The author is responsible for the accuracy of the information. The views of the editorial board of the Decentralisation portal may not necessarily reflect those of the author.