Page - 191 - in Critical Issues in Science, Technology and Society Studies - Conference Proceedings of the 17th STS Conference Graz 2018

In summary, participation exists in several forms and the literature reveals controversies according to what participation means and when participation is in contradiction to the existing representative democracy model in Germany. In reference to German law the implementation of elements of direct democracy is, especially at national level, critical. For example, referenda at national level are not compatible with the parliamentary system, because the federal assembly would be leveraged out (Decker 2014; Linden 2016). Moreover, elements of direct democracy can be problematic in terms of legitimacy, because of the selectivity of participants, which might have a negative effect on the equality of all interests. This argument is based on findings that participation in referenda is more unequal than in elections (Decker 2014; Schäfer & Schoen 2013). Concerning deliberative elements, it is easier to meet the criteria of legitimacy within the scope of representative decision-making. In other words, if a decision is still made in parliament, which means that deliberation outcomes are only recommendations, then deliberation can be evaluated as not in competition with representative standards. Still, this form of participation is criticized as no real participation, as participants are only allowed to have a say but not to decide. Participation in the StandAG is still within the representative democracy model (see also Hocke & Smeddinck 2017). However, it is a trial to embed the participatory informal procedures envisioned in the StandAG in a formal normative frame which means that the StandAG gives the possibility to implement informal participatory formats that are at the same time not essential if the minimum requirements of formal participation are fulfilled (Haug & Zeccola 2018, 79-80). In Germany, different ideas prevail on the type of participation wanted. Actors highlight different challenges in the debate such as who is responsible, how legitimacy can be ensured or how to prevent decision-making behind closed doors. 4. Conclusion With regard to radioactive waste governance there is a clear demand for participation in the decision-making process; otherwise the conflict will go on and on. Based on this knowledge, ways of integrating participation in decision-making have to be found which are sufficient and satisfactory to participants, stakeholders and the interested public. It is still open whether the StandAG, the BfE and the NBG will be effective in enabling an acceptable standard of participation. Acceptability does also mean that participatory elements have to be in line with the representative democracy model and its decision-making structures. In summary, decisions which are based on participatory processes are not necessarily improved, for instance in terms of content it might mean that not the geologically best site will be chosen but a site which is acceptable for other reasons, such as its closeness to already existing nuclear infrastructure, as has happened in Sweden and Finland (Forsmark/Sweden and Olkiluoto/Finland) (Kåberger & Swahn 2015; Lehtonen et al. 2017). Another example is that it might not be better in terms of representation, because equal representation of all social groups has not been guaranteed, but still participants and the interested public might value the participatory process in terms of transparency, inclusion of more views and enhancement of knowledge rendering decisions more accountable and legitimate. As a result, both procedural fairness and outcome fairness are important for the acceptability of decisions. Establishing procedural fairness might be easier than having an effect on attitudes towards nuclear energy and radioactive waste governance in order to achieve outcome fairness (Visschers & Siegrist 2012). Subsequently, the first step should be the implementation of a fair process which then 191