Introduction

In the modern world, we are dealing with the fact that public administration systems are constantly faced with changes in the social environment, globalisation, and technological development, and the growing public demand for transparency and accountability of the activities of government bodies at all levels. In this context, public or public dialogue is an extremely important and effective mechanism that contributes to effective and barrier-free interaction between the government and the public, the balance of interests of different population groups, and increasing the efficiency of the entire public administration system. So, the research offered to your attention is devoted to analysing the main aspects of public dialogue, its meaning and influence in modern management systems, prerequisites and circumstances that determine its effective functioning. 

Basic aspects of public dialogue

Starting the research, the authors emphasise that public dialogue is a multi-component process. It includes a wide set of communicative and management cases, which, in turn, contain various forms of interaction between citizens, social groups, public organisations, businesses, and state authorities. The central element of public dialogue is the achievement of consensus on important public issues by taking into account different views and interests, as well as the participation of citizens in decision-making processes [1].

It should be noted that one of the important components of social dialogue is precisely that it is aimed at achieving mutual understanding and coordination of interests. This happens through the exchange of opinions, arguments and proposals, where participants express their own position with the subsequent opportunity to take into account the views of others. This approach helps to make decisions that are more balanced and justified and developed on the basis of the real needs and demands of society.

However, social dialogue also performs an important control function, ensuring the transparency and accountability of state authorities. Citizens' participation in administrative processes increases their trust in the state and its institutions and, in turn, their legitimacy and efficiency. In addition, the dialogue promotes civil society's development, stimulates citizens' activity, and increases government accountability [4].

Analysis of the problem of public dialogue in the modern system of public administration of Ukraine allows us to identify key aspects that significantly impact its effectiveness. The scientific novelty of this research lies in the comprehensive approach to studying the influence of public dialogue on the development of democratic tools, social integration and the effectiveness of state administration, particularly in the conditions of modern challenges caused by war.

Different forms of public dialogue can be applied depending on specific conditions.

Among them, you can highlight:

- public hearings,

- consultations with the public,

- working groups, committees, round tables, public councils, forums,

- implementation of online platforms for discussions and votes.

An important condition for the effectiveness of dialogue is compliance with the principles of openness, transparency, equality of all participants, mutual respect and tolerance.

Dialogue with citizens is an important element of modern public administration and ensures active participation of citizens in the decision-making process. Participation of citizens in dialogue with the state ensures consideration of different points of view, interests, and needs. Also, it increases citizens' satisfaction with state institutions and their trust in them. Thanks to such a dialogue, it is possible to identify and resolve conflicts of interest at an early stage. The dialogue also helps to determine priorities in solving socially significant issues, contributing to the rational use of resources and improving governance. In addition, public dialogue contributes to the development of democratic institutions and processes. It encourages the participation of citizens, increases the level of political culture and awareness of the population, and contributes to the formation of responsible and transparent governance. When citizens participate in state management through dialogue, they feel more involved in decision-making and responsible for the corresponding results [2].

Public dialogue also has great potential for solving social problems such as gender or social inequality, social isolation, and discrimination. It promotes mutual understanding between different social groups and allows them to find common solutions or compromises on important social issues. Thus, public dialogue is a tool for social integration and the stabilisation of society.

Despite the obvious benefits of public dialogue, it faces several challenges and obstacles that can limit its effectiveness.

Lack of trust in state institutions is a key factor limiting the effectiveness of public dialogue. Mistrust arises due to corruption, low transparency and insufficient communication on the part of the state. As a result, public dialogue often takes on a formal character, where citizens perceive their participation in decision-making as insignificant since they do not see the real results of their efforts. This undermines faith in the possibility of influencing political processes and reduces the level of public activity. An example of the lack of trust in state institutions, which limits the effectiveness of public dialogue, can be the situation with public hearings regarding construction in Ukrainian cities. For example, public hearings are often held in Kyiv, where residents can express their opinions on new construction projects. However, due to corruption and lack of transparency in the decisions of local authorities, such hearings are often perceived as a formality.

Residents may raise objections to development because of threats to green areas or increased strain on infrastructure, but their arguments are often ignored. As a result, the development is still approved, even if most citizens oppose it. This gives rise to the feeling that participation in public hearings does not make sense since decisions have already been made in advance, and the consultation process itself is only the appearance of considering public opinion. This leads to an even greater decrease in trust in local authorities and a decrease in citizen participation in future dialogues.

The next challenge is the inequality of participation in the public dialogue. It contributes to the marginalisation of certain social groups, in particular ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and socially vulnerable segments of the population. This distorts the results of the dialogue and limits its potential for social integration.

Another challenge is resource limitations. The lack of adequate funding, human resources and time to organise consultations and discussions reduces the effectiveness of the dialogue and its ability to solve important societal problems.

In addition to mistrust, other challenges need attention, including unequal access to the participation of different social groups and a lack of resources for organising quality dialogue. Let's consider these and other obstacles in more detail to better understand how overcoming them can strengthen public dialogue and increase its effectiveness.

Another obstacle to the development of public dialogue is the low level of citizen involvement and participation. This is due to many factors, including low political culture, a lack of interest in social and political life, and political fatigue. In such a situation, even a well-organized dialogue may not have the desired effect simply because citizens do not actively participate.

Sustainable development involves a balanced approach to the economic, social, and environmental aspects of development. This ensures that the needs of present generations are met without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In this context, public dialogue plays an important role, as it helps to consider all stakeholders' interests and ensure a balance between different aspects of development.

Thanks to public dialogue, combining economic, social, and environmental development priorities makes it possible to achieve sustainable and long-term results. Citizens' participation in decision-making processes allows consideration of their needs and expectations, which increases the population's satisfaction level and reduces the risks of social conflicts.

In addition, public dialogue promotes the development of environmental awareness and a responsible attitude to natural resources. By discussing environmental problems such as climate change, environmental pollution, depletion of natural resources, etc., public dialogue allows finding joint solutions that contribute to the preservation of the environment and sustainable use of resources [3].

In Ukraine, public dialogue is a relatively new phenomenon that has been actively developing over the past decades. For example, after the Revolution of Dignity in 2013-2014, the number of public initiatives and organisations that began actively interacting with the authorities through public discussions and consultations increased. One of the successful examples is the introduction of the electronic petition system, thanks to which citizens got the opportunity to initiate important issues for discussion at the level of state authorities.

However, the development of public dialogue in Ukraine faces some challenges. In particular, in 2016, a conflict arose in Odesa over constructing the Summer Theatre in the City Garden. Local activists opposed the development and organised protests and public hearings. Despite their efforts, the developer received a construction permit, which increased mistrust of local authorities and the perception of public dialogue as formal [5].

Another example is the decentralisation process that was started in Ukraine in 2014. It envisaged the active involvement of citizens in decision-making at the local level, particularly through the creation of public councils. However, political instability and the lack of systemic support from the state mostly led to the fact that the decisions of local communities were not properly taken into account.

The war on Ukraine's territory led to significant changes in society's structure, increased views of polarisation, and caused significant tension in relations between different social groups. Under these conditions, public dialogue becomes even more important as a tool for reducing social tensions, restoring trust, and promoting society's consolidation.

Overcoming the challenges caused by the war requires further development of democratic institutions, raising the level of public awareness and involvement, and ensuring transparency and accountability of state authorities. Integrating internally displaced persons, war veterans, and other affected categories of the population into public dialogue is also an important task. This will allow taking into account their needs and views in decision-making processes.

Civil society organisations can play an important role in developing public dialogue in Ukraine during the war. They can act as mediators between citizens and the state, provide informational support, and facilitate the participation of various social groups in dialogue. In particular, such organisations can help veterans adapt to a peaceful life, rehabilitate war victims, and solve social and economic problems arising as a result of war.

A demonstrative and relevant example of improving the integration of IDPs into public dialogue is the initiative implemented in the city of Zhytomyr in 2022. After the establishment of IDP councils, the city authorities organised regular consultation sessions with the participation of representatives of various departments of the city administration and IDP councils. These sessions discussed specific issues related to social adaptation, employment and access to health services for migrants. One of the notable results of these consultations was implementing a small business support program among IDPs. Thanks to the cooperation between the IDP council and the city's economic development department, a micro-grant fund was created to support the business initiatives of immigrants. Funds for the development of small businesses helped IDPs start or restore their entrepreneurial activities, contributing to their economic integration and stability [6].

       This example shows how already existing IDP councils can be used for specific actions that not only improve the living conditions of displaced people but also integrate them into the economic and social life of the community, contributing to long-term stability and development. Scaling up this project can show that the active participation of IDPs in business activities contributes to their integration and positively affects local communities' economic development [7].

In addition, it is necessary to make wider use of modern technologies and online platforms for organising and holding public debates, consultations, and votes. In times of war, such platforms can become an important tool for maintaining communication between citizens and the authorities and for ensuring safe and accessible discussion of important public issues.

The development of public dialogue in Ukraine is largely related to the development of decentralisation and local self-government. This creates new opportunities for citizens to actively participate in decision-making processes at the local level, contributing to more effective management and improving the quality of life. However, war also changes the emphasis in these processes, focusing on security issues, rebuilding infrastructure, supporting affected regions, and ensuring social stability.

Thus, the war's impact on the development of public dialogue in Ukraine is significant and multifaceted. At the same time, it opens up new opportunities for mobilising society, consolidating efforts to restore the country, and building a more sustainable, democratic, and just society. Public dialogue in these conditions becomes a tool for conflict resolution and an important factor in social unity and stability. 

Conclusions

Public dialogue is not an exclusive attribute of the modern public administration system but a harmonious and mutually reinforcing relationship between them, which causes trust in state institutions. This manifests itself as transparency and accountability on the part of institutions regarding their activities and the promotion of civil society in the agreement. Harmonising the interests of different social groups, this function is critical because it ensures that the needs and expectations of citizens (which are otherwise overlooked) are taken into account in the decision-making process.

But for public dialogue to function effectively, it must overcome these numerous challenges and obstacles: mistrust of state institutions, unequal access to dialogue, lack of resources, and low levels of civic engagement. It is necessary to develop democratic institutions with a high level of political culture, ensure the transparency and accountability of state authorities, and intensify citizens' participation in the management process.

Given the importance of public dialogue for sustainable development and democracy, it is necessary to continue its development at the national and local levels, thus contributing to responsible, transparent and effective public administration. 

Reference

1. On social dialogue in Ukraine: Law of Ukraine dated December 23, 2010 No. 2862-VI. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2862-17#Text
2. Tymtsunyk V. I. Public administration: study guide. https://studfile.net/preview/5118174/
3. The state of social dialogue in Ukraine and the positions of social partners. URL:http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ukraine/18189-20210903.pdf
4. On ensuring public participation in the formation and implementation of state policy: resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated November 3, 2010. No. 996. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/996-2010-%D0%BF#Text
5. Ukrainian Helsinki Union for Human Rights. (2020). Battle for the Summer Theater: how Odessa activists protect the architectural monument from development. URL: https://www.helsinki.org.ua/articles/biy-za-litniy-teatr-iak-odeski-aktivisty-oberihaiut-pam-iatku-arkhitektury-vid-zabudovy/
6. Stock community Zhytomyr . (2024). Program support micro-enterprises internally displaced​ persons and local communities in Zhytomyrska region : https://www.fondgromady.org.ua/events/microenterpreneurship-support-to-internally-displaced-people-program/
7. Chechel A. Social capital of Ukrainian universities as a source of post-war restoration of the historical, cultural and research potential of Ukraine // Scientific perspectives (Naukovì perspectivi). – 2023. – no. 10 (40).