Social Science and Human Research Bulletin

The expansion of public institutions, digital media, and governance techniques is occurring alongside a persistent gap betweenlegal rights and citizens' capacityfor substantive participation. This article aims to establish the theoretical foundations of shared public governance and clarify the role of education in the transformation from the right to political participation into a lived capability. The study adopts a human-sciences methodology and combines analytical, synthetic, deductive, inductive, logical, historical, critical, and structuralizing procedures. Its research materials include theoretical conceptions of participatory governance, collaborative governance, communicative rationality, civic education, participation rights, educational curricula, and school governance. The findings establish communicative rationality, the public sphere,citizenship, and co-creative power as constitutive elements of sharedpublic governance; identify the crisis of rationality and the erosionof agency as major constraints on substantive participation; position the school as a public sphere for forming civic competence; and develop a mechanism for institutionalizing participation rights through curricula, educators, school practices, family, community, and assessment. The article concludes that shared public governance ultimately depends on the capacity to transform legally recognized rights into autonomous, reasoned, and accountable action, thereby enabling citizens to participate meaningfully in shaping the shared conditions of collective life in contemporary public life.

shared public governance; communicative rationality; civic competence; political participation rights; civic education.

1. Abdollahi, J., & Esmkhani, M. (2026). Reasonable disagreement, the uniqueness thesis, and absolutism in advance. Journal of Philosophical Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5840/jpr202647233 
2. Ashford, S. J. (2026). Angleson agency: A research life betting on human initiative and potential. Annual Reviewof Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,13, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-020625-112038
3. Azevedo, R. (2026).Using real-time processdata of domain-specific learning processes to provide adaptivesupport for learning and instruction: Challenges and opportunities. Learning and Instruction, 104, Article 102363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102363
4. Barbosa de Moura,C., Guerra, A., & Heering,P. (2026). New histories of science as a startingpoint for a new science education. Science & Education, 35, 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-026-00743-7
5. Bengtson, A., &Nielsen, L. (2026).Having enough of a say. Economics& Philosophy, 42(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267125000124
6. Bubikova-Moan, J., Ferguson, L. E., &Andresen, A. (2026).The concept of critical thinkingin teacher education: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543261438479
7. Budairi, A. (2026).When silence speaks:Rethinking dialogue, voice,and learning. Changing English,33(2), 172–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/1358684X.2025.2589870
8. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2024).The psychological driversof misinformation beliefand its resistance to correction. American Psychologist, 79(8), 1017–1033. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001448
9. Enemuwe, C. A. (2026). Americandemocracy promotion in Nigeria: Strategic approaches and the centrality of political education. African Studies, 85(1), 28–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00020184.2026.2668377
10. Eyal, G., & Fu, Z. (2025). The work of legitimacy. Annual Reviewof Law and Social Science,21, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-062124-122722
11. Figueroa, A. (2026). Exploring collaborative communities for active learning: Enhancing engagement and critical thinking skills. The ClearingHouse: A Journalof Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas,99(3), 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2026.2655873
12. Gauthier, G., Guess,A. M., & Coppock, A. (2026). The political effectsof X’s feed algorithm. Nature, 647,627–634. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-026-10098-2
13. Germano, F., Gómez,V., & Sobbrio,F. (2026). Rankingfor engagement: How social mediaalgorithms fuel misinformation and polarization. Journal of Public Economics, 245, Article 105347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2026.105347
14. Hadi, S. P., Hamdani, R. S., &Roziqin, A. (2023).A sustainability reviewof the Indonesian Job CreationLaw. Heliyon, 9(2), Articlee13431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13431
15. Hertogh, M. (2024).Empirical approaches to the rule of law: Contours and challenges of a socialscience that does not quite yet exist. Annual Review of Law and Social Science,20(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-044308
16. Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald,L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig,R. (2023). A systematic reviewof worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digitalmedia and democracy. Nature Human Behaviour, 7,74–101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1
17. Madsen, J. K., Bailey, R. M., &Pilditch, T. D. (2024). Political microtargeting and voterautonomy: Effects of message fit and transparency. Political Psychology, 45(5), 1097–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12958
18. Saguin, K., &Bali, A. S. (2026). Collaborative governance in socialpolicy: Conditions, contexts,and everyday practice. Policy and Society, 45(3), 261–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puag016
19. See, J., McKinnon, K., & Placino,P. (2026). The strengths, gender,and place framework: A new tool for assessing community engagement. Community Development Journal, 61(1), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsaf026
20. Sejdiu, S., & Ramadani, R. (2026). Catalyticcommunication in sustainability education: Bridging the knowledge–action gap through affective engagement and strategic praxis. Education Sciences, 16(3), Article 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16030494