Europe 2050

Civic Fridays: Reclaiming democracy as a shared practice though dedicated citizens’ time

By 2050, democracy could be embraced by Europeans as a weekly shared practice instead of something they mostly criticize from the sidelines. Imagine a Friday morning: across the continent, millions step into their civic role for the week. In Lisbon, an accountant joins a citizens’ assembly on healthcare priorities before starting her weekend. In Warsaw, a student deliberates climate policy with peers from Athens and Helsinki on an EU-wide digital platform. In Berlin randomly selected citizens review tax policy proposals providing inputs to a parliamentary working group. By then, Europe has embedded public participation into weekly life through a four-day workweek paired with dedicated day for civic duties called simply as Civic Fridays or citizens’ time. As a result democracy is no longer a distant ritual of elections or a noisy clash on social media, but a lived practice: shared, regular and tangible. Citizens trust their institutions, politics draws people from every walk of life, polarization has declined and authoritarian populism is a relic of the past. Stronger democracy has also translated into better governance, longer-term decision-making, stability and greater prosperity for all.

In 2025 however democracy is facing a legitimacy crisis across Europe despite delivering unprecedented levels of prosperity, peace, and well-being. Europe remains the leading region worldwide, with 18 of the world’s 25 most peaceful and prosperous countries located here. These rankings take into account multiple dimensions such as safety, personal freedom, governance, economic quality, education, healthcare, and living conditions. The US is the 19th while China is only the 54th. According to the World Happiness Report, European countries consistently dominate the top spots „highlighting Europe's overall well-being leadership” . Still, satisfaction with democracy has fallen since the 1990s. Only around four in ten Europeans now trust their national governments, with trust lowest among the young and the economically insecure. This might be tied to political underrepresentation of these groups. The Trust-in-Europe project highlights that among those with low institutional trust, satisfaction with democracy typically plummets creating fertile ground for disillusionment and populist or authoritarian appeal. Indeed, surveys show a worrying openness among some young Europeans to authoritarian rule under certain circumstances. The paradox is stark: democracy delivers, but it no longer inspires.

The core issue in my opinion is partly a design problem, an institutional lag that can be overcome. Our political institutions and processes were designed for a less educated, industrial-era electorate and they were never fundamentally retooled to match the society we live in today. They are under pressure due to the volatility generated by the current stage of technological development and global interdependence. Public and political institutions still mostly offer infrequent, top-down participation for citizens in the form of elections and rare consultations. These institutions, which were built for slow, mediated public discourse now operate in a chaotic, unfiltered and fast-paced environment. Climate disasters, AI breakthroughs, pandemics, and financial shocks can evolve in days or hours. Deliberating how we handle these changes can no longer take decades or even years. Politics feels outdated, bureaucratic, and unresponsive compared to how communication and problem-solving works in other parts of life. This mismatch makes people feel alienated, frustrated and mistrust the political system leading to the temptation of strongman leadership. Populists frame democracy’s checks and balances as obstacles to getting things done and promise speed over safeguards, deliberation and process. Currently these narratives manage to capture the hearts and minds of citizens even if data confirms that authoritarian populists do not deliver.

“I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand.” As a Hungarian I experienced the downfall of authoritarian leadership first handed since 2010. The lack of oversight, transparency and deliberation breeds instability, incompetence and corruption. Even if I had my own frustrations with democratic governance beforehand, I understand now why it delivers better governance and social outcomes. My own experience also taught me that doing is the key to understanding and trusting democratic leadership. As a student, I was furious at the leaders of my association who seemed slow and indecisive. When I was elected to the board myself, I discovered the missing pieces: the additional information, the trade-offs and limited resources. Later, as a policy analyst, I found myself frustrated again with lack of political will to enact structural reforms. I became the policy director at a party and learned first-hand how constraints, compromises and path dependencies shape decisions. I still think there is space and opportunity for more bold reforms and brave, value-driven decisions, but things came into perspective. With experience came more understanding, and with that came more trust. I wonder what would it mean for our societies if everyone could go through similar experiences? Dedicated citizens’ time could close that gap by letting millions live the realities and responsibilities of decision-making. I believe if people do democracy, not just watch it, they will trust it, and protect it much more.

To renew democracy’s appeal for 2050, we must go beyond defending it—we must reimagine it. Europe could lead by piloting a four-day workweek, reserving the fifth day for civic duties akin to jury duty in the US, but devoted to democratic contribution in various forms. Shared responsibilities, regular participation, and a deeper understanding of governance would help rebuild trust, improve representation, and reduce polarization. Research shows that citizens who take part in assemblies or participatory processes report stronger support for decisions, higher trust in democratic institutions and greater confidence in their fellow citizens. Civic Fridays would also foster social cohesion by creating shared spaces, where people from very different backgrounds work together on common challenges. By widening decision-making beyond a narrow political elite, such models amplify the voices of underrepresented groups, making outcomes fairer and more legitimate. Such a reform would also make institutions more effective by establishing faster feedback loops, enabling clearer communication of trade-offs and improving transparency. At the same time, regular civic practice would strengthen people’s democratic skills, making them more capable of judging parties, manifestos, and policy proposals, and less vulnerable to populist easy fixes. Dedicated citizens’ time would not only connect people with democracy but also deliver better representation, better outcomes, and better governance.

Civic Fridays would not be introduced overnight, but gradually developed over the next 25 years until they became a fully-fledged part of European democracy. Participation would take many forms. Citizens might serve for two to three months on assemblies tasked with shaping policy on local, national, or European challenges. Randomly selected working groups could sit alongside parliaments to provide input, while supervisory bodies of citizens could oversee government spending or state-owned companies. The intention is not to replace elected representatives but to complement them. Politicians would continue to negotiate, legislate and lead, while citizens would provide informed perspectives, oversight, and legitimacy. These citizen bodies would remain consultative but empowered: participants would receive clear information, time to deliberate, and a structured process to form recommendations. Crucially, they would also receive feedback on how their input was incorporated. Responsibilities would rotate, mostly by random draw ensuring real diversity and preventing gaming or lobby activities. To ensure universality, citizens would be compensated and supported with childcare, transport, or translation. Doctors and business leaders would take part just as students or retirees would with adjustments for different life circumstances, but equally bound by the shared duty.

Citizens’ time would be a flexible platform for both democratic input and public solidarity. The design would balance responsibility and reward: part civic duty, part free day. There would be breaks between the assignments, making sure the additional non-work day also be used for rest and leisure. To introduce efficacy and the element of choice, every second or third assignment could involve community service for example helping the elderly, tutoring, or serving meals in schools. Even retraining programs could be part of the scheme in areas of social need such as childcare, healthcare or digital skills. In a labor market reshaped by automation and rapid change, citizens’ time could also be used for adult education, improving both personal prospects and Europe’s competitiveness. And while Friday captures the one day a week idea, participation could be spread across the week wherever more practical. The result would be a system at once ambitious and simple: a Europe where democracy is not distant or occasional, but woven into the weekly rhythm of life.

Like any bold reform, Civic Fridays would face practical questions that must be addressed for the idea to succeed. The most immediate question is perhaps the finances: how can participation be fairly rewarded without reducing people’s income or overburdening employers? Funding could come from a mix of national budgets, integrating costs into social insurance schemes, or earmarked EU resources. A dedicated Citizens’ Time Fund could be created to support pilots across member states. Another innovative revenue source could be a robot tax that would tie democratic renewal to the gains of automation. Some might worry that involving “ordinary” citizens could dilute expertise. Experience from past assemblies shows that with accessible information and professional facilitation, citizens are more than capable of grappling with complex issues. Another concern could be the impact on economic competitiveness. Trials of the four-day workweek show that reducing working time does not necessarily reduce output. Moreover the most competitive countries are typically the ones with the highest institutional quality suggesting that strengthening democratic participation, trust and stability could ultimately improve competitiveness through improved efficiency and good governance. Innovation in how we organize work and civic life can enhance, rather than undermine, economic performance. Finally, there is the question of public acceptance. Would people want to do this? Evidence suggests yes: despite falling party and union membership people are in search of meaningful ways to participate in democratic decision-making. Surveys show that for example many young people express a desire to engage in politics but cannot find suitable channels.

Elements of Civic Fridays already exist in familiar institutions across Europe and beyond that could serve as examples. Institutions we now take for granted faced similar doubts when first introduced. People questioned whether ordinary citizens could judge court cases fairly, or whether conscription would ever be accepted as a civic duty. Over time, both became normalized and respected, precisely because they were universal and rooted in the idea of shared responsibility. Jury duty in the US shows how millions of citizens can be randomly selected, temporarily relieved from work, and compensated - albeit modestly or with the contribution of employers - while fulfilling a civic obligation that is broadly accepted. Compulsory military service, still in place in several European countries, is one of the oldest and most widely recognized examples of state-organized civic duty. It offers a clear precedent for making such obligations a legal requirement, with adults stepping out of the labor market to fulfil a responsibility financed and coordinated by the state - sometimes for extended periods. Finally, Austria’s paid adult education leave provides a model for how the state and employers can cooperate to grant financial support and temporary leave from work for upskilling purposes. The Bildungskarenz program allows workers to take up to a year off for education and reskilling, with state-funded allowances covering lost income. Taken together, these examples show that every core aspect of citizens’ time - compensation, legal obligation, protected time off, fair selection, and state support - already has a tested analogue. The challenge is to combine and adapt these existing mechanisms into a new democratic institution fit for the 21st century. Civic Fridays could be a bold innovation today, but a democratic common sense tomorrow.

Citizen participation in public decision-making is gaining real momentum across Europe and there is ample evidence of its benefits. In Belgium’s German-speaking region, the parliament has constitutionally embedded a permanent Citizens’ Council and recurring assemblies to advise lawmakers, making it among the most advanced cases of institutionalized deliberative democracy in Europe. This demonstrates how deliberative processes can be given a clear legal status and a defined in relationship to elected representatives. Initiatives like participatory budgeting in Paris strengthened community ownership as it lets residents directly allocate part of the municipal budget. At the EU level, the Conference on the Future of Europe engaged thousands of randomly selected citizens across all member states, producing concrete proposals on climate, digital transformation, and democracy, many of which are now under discussion by EU institutions. Citizen participation has been building since the 1980s but gained significant momentum from the 2010s onward. More than a dozen different formats exist, ranging from citizens’ juries to large-scale assemblies, with many of the most trusted approaches using random selection to create diverse, representative groups of citizens. Evaluations consistently show that such processes foster informed, thoughtful policy recommendations, increase legitimacy, reduce polarization, and rebuild trust in democratic systems. Still, challenges remain: deliberative processes are often costly, require considerable time commitment from participants and not well-integrated into policymaking. This is precisely where dedicated citizens’ time could add value, by lowering participation costs, ensuring time availability for everyone, and embedding citizen voices alongside elected institutions in an impactful way.

The four-day work week is a credible policy direction, that could be the foundation for extending time toward civic and democratic engagement. Such schemes usually reduce hours from around 40 to 32 without cutting pay, focusing on reorganizing workflows and trimming inefficiencies instead of squeezing five days of work into four. Trials across Europe confirm it works. A key trial in Iceland between 2015–2019 that involved over 2,500 workers found that productivity held steady or improved, while well-being rose and burnout declined. The UK’s 2022 pilot with nearly 3,000 employees showed similar results: 92% of companies continued with a 4 day workweek even after the trial, reporting stable or higher performance, a 57% drop in resignations, and 65% fewer sick days. In Germany, the IG Metall union has championed a 32-hour week as a fair way to share work in industries reshaped by automation. More broadly, debates from France to South Korea highlight that as AI and robotics lift productivity, societies must choose whether the gains concentrate at the top or are redistributed for example as more free time. The benefits of shorter workweeks are clear: better health, stronger work–life balance, and lower turnover, with firms maintaining or boosting output. Challenges remain in sectors with rigid schedules like healthcare or manufacturing and for small businesses, but phased support could ease the transition. Shorter weeks free the time; Civic Fridays give that time a democratic purpose.

What will Europe look like in 2050 with Civic Fridays? In this vision, Europe reclaims its role as a global leader of democratic innovation, showing the world that liberal democracy can renew itself for the challenges of the 21st century. Europe would spearhead a new democratic model, where people are not just consumers or occasional voters but active shapers of public life. Citizens’ time would anchor this transformation, giving every European a structured role in deliberation, oversight, and solidarity. Once a week, Europe would meet itself - nurses and engineers, students and shopkeepers - deliberating, deciding, and serving together. That is freedom with substance, democracy as a shared practice and prosperity with purpose. The effect would be democracies that are both stronger and more faire: representative of society’s diversity, trusted by its citizens and capable of addressing crises with legitimacy and resilience. Creative reorganization of work and civic life would enhance economic performance, social cohesion, and liberal freedoms. Such a Europe would no longer be a fertile ground for authoritarian populism, because its citizens would know from experience that democracy delivers. Civic Fridays may sound bold today, but by 2050 they could be as natural as weekends or jury duty: a weekly reminder that democracy belongs to all of us, and only thrives when we all take part in it.