e-Participation
e‐Participation: What are some new ways in which people are participating with/in government and are they effective?
Blogger: Noéma Caffa
As higlighted by Marc Holzer in is 2004 Report “ Restoring Trust in Government: The Potential of Digital Citizen Participation”, the confidence of the people in their government and their democratic institutions has been on the decline for forty years. According to Berman (1997), it is for example due to the feeling of a gap by the citizens between themselves and their elected representatives. This is reflected in particular in a decline in voter turnout, civic participation and engagement, and widespread cynicism about political institutions. Against this backdrop, the vision emerged that information and communication technologies (ICTs) could be a solution for re-establishing dialogue between citizens and their governments, and for increasing both direct citizen participation and transparency in political decision-making.
It is also in this context that the notion of ‘e-participation’ has emerged. As defined by Macintosh in 2004[1], e-participation refers to the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in government processes, with the aim of facilitating public engagement. For the United Nations, citizen engagement is at the heart of e-participation.[2] Over the decades, numerous e-participation initiatives have emerged across the globe, and in this blog we take a look at several of them.
Firstly, some internet-based applications allow citizens to contribute at their own level, for example by taking an active part in data collection, which is then passed on to the local authorities. There are several mobile applications that have been created to enable both citizens and local authorities to report anomalies they observe in public spaces, and which operate on the principle of participatory democracy. In France, and more specifically in Paris, “DansMaRue”, which can be translated to “InMyStreet”, enables people to report anomalies they encounter in public spaces so that municipal teams can intervene as quickly as possible. These anomalies include things perceived as incivilities or disturbing public order, such as tagging or graffiti that people want to see removed from certain walls, damaged street furniture, littering, etc.[3]
In addition, civic crowdfunding[4] allows citizens to take part in assemblies with the aim of making suggestions that could contribute to the satisfaction of common interests. Using a dedicated, secure Internet platform, the objective is to enable citizens to collectively identify projects which they can later finance directly through the online platform. Here, citizens take a more active role, proposing ideas, solutions etc.
Citizens also participate in governance through panels, assemblies, and consultations, both digitally and traditionally. The "Assises des Outre-mer," initiated by Emmanuel Macron in 2017, exemplify this approach. Over eight months, 26,569 participants from French overseas territories engaged in workshops, public meetings, and digital consultations to address key issues like youth, employment, and health. This process culminated in the Livre Bleu Outre-mer (2018), a policy roadmap outlining transformation plans and contracts tailored to each territory.
Finally, the participatory budget (PB), created in 1989 in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and its digital equivalent, the e-PB (2006), as studied in “The Digital Revolution and Governance in Brazil: Evidence from Participatory Budgeting.” by M. Touchton, B. Wampler, and P. Spada, complete our review of new means of citizen participation. The PB, which is mainly based on face-to-face meetings, was initially created so that the poorest social groups, often marginalized and absent from public debates, could have their say on the allocation of municipal budgets, i.e. on the projects to be funded and the priority locations for action, and thus contribute to the legitimization of municipal policies by highlighting issues that are specific to them and affect their everyday lives (Avritzer 2002; Baoicchi 2005). The e-PB adds the possibility of voting online, doing more research by searching for information on the municipal websites, chatting directly with officials, etc. (Peixoto, 2008; Best et al., 2010; Wampler, 2015, pp. 125-129). In some cases, computer equipment is made available in strategic locations with high public presence in order to reach a wider audience and expand the opportunity for online voting. For example, in Belo Horizonte in 2006, citizens were presented with a list of 10 projects drawn up unilaterally by the municipal government and asked to vote for 3 projects to be funded and implemented. In this case, citizens did not participate in the development of the projects, there was no popular input and no deliberation, apart from the possibility to leave comments around the time of voting.
However, while many e-participation initiatives have been launched, and were successful, several challenges that limit their effectiveness remain. The work of Mariani et al. helps identify some of these challenges. Decision-makers see certain forms of e-participation, such as citizens' consultations, as lacking legitimacy (Fung 2015), because although they help to inform the debate and give a voice to a more diverse cross-section of the population, they are perceived as too unrepresentative of the opinion of the majority, or even as representing only the voice of a vocal minority. Government responsiveness remains low, limiting any potential impact on the decision-making process.
In addition, there is a lack of capacity and resources, coupled with a significant need for expertise (Liu 2021). Civil servants need to develop new skills to adapt to internal changes within administrations: moving from more closed, unilateral action to collaborative action; and citizens, especially those who are not used to participating in their governments, also need to acquire new skills to participate as effectively as possible. The phenomenon of "digital illiteracy", described as "the lack of essential digital skills and competences among citizens, which hinders their ability to engage effectively in online government platforms".
E-participation systems also face barriers of representativeness, inclusiveness, equity and power relations between different social groups (Borge et al. 2022; Kang and Park 2018; Ruscio 1996). According to Macintosh (2004), e-participation initiatives tend to favor people who are already familiar with the various ICT devices (computers, smartphones, etc.) and who can access them more easily and quickly and exclude others. In addition, the samples of people invited to participate may be relatively small or lack diversity (social, ethnic, economic, generational, etc.) and therefore not very representative. With the "digital divide", some people have limited to no access to the internet and the necessary technology and therefore cannot participate in the processes (Thiel 2016), coupled with a lack of accessibility, for example, for people with a disability or who speak a foreign language.
Lastly, security and privacy concerns are an important factor, as citizens fear government surveillance and the misuse of their personal data, thus reducing their willingness to participate actively.
Questions:
1. In your opinion, what improvements can be made to make e-participation more effective?
2. Can you give me some other examples of e-participation initiatives and their limitations?
3. Does digital participation make democracy more inclusive?
References:
• M. Holzer, (2004), “Restoring Trust in Government: The Potential of Digital Citizen Participation,” IBM Center for the Business of Government, E-Government Series.
• A. Benlahcene, et. al., (2024) “Citizens’ E-Participation through E-Government Services: A Systematic Literature Review.” Cogent Social Sciences, Volume 10, No. 1 (2415526).
• I. Mariani, et. al., (2025), Chapter: “The Theoretical Background on E-Participation,” pp. 11-30. In Design Thinking as a Strategic Approach to E-Participation. Springer.
• M. Touchton, B. Wampler, and P. Spada, (2019), “The Digital Revolution and Governance in Brazil: Evidence from Participatory Budgeting.” The Journal of Information Technology and Politics, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp. 154-168.
• L’application DansMaRue. (n.d.). Retrieved February 28, 2025, from https://www.paris.fr/dossiers/l-application-dansmarue-65
• Outre-mer, M. des. (2017, October 4). Assises des outre-mer: Ultra-marins participez ! (France / 2017-10-04 - 2017-11-22) [Participation citoyenne grand public]. Ministère des Outre-mer. https://www.vie-publique.fr/consultations/21694-assises-des-outre-mer-ultra-marins-participez
[1] I. Mariani, et. al., (2025), Chapter: “The Theoretical Background on E-Participation,” pp. 11-30. In Design Thinking as a Strategic Approach to E-Participation. Springer.
[2] Ibid
[3] L’application DansMaRue. (n.d.). Retrieved February 28, 2025, from https://www.paris.fr/dossiers/l-application-dansmarue-65
[4] I. Mariani, et. al., (2025), Chapter: “The Theoretical Background on E-Participation,” pp. 11-30. In Design Thinking as a Strategic Approach to E-Participation. Springer.
The blog is complete. The author uses very varied examples to show the different types of possible participation: mobile application, civic crowdfunding, les Assises des Outre-mer... The author points out relevant limits to e-participation, however she explains that the initiatives "were successful" and that challenges remain. I think that this conclusion needs to be more nuanced, for instance by taking up the Livre Bleu example.
ReplyDeleteSince 2019, the government has announced that more than 85% of the projects in this book had been launched. One of the flagship measures was to fight against the high cost of living, by removing a tax called TVA (=value added tax). However, this tax has not been reduced following the Livre Bleu creation, and the National Assembly has adopted a law to remove it for only a few products in October 2024. In general, it had been shown that many projects had been set up but that they had not lasted. In fact, in many instances of online participation, although citizens are consulted, their opinion does not appear in the final result. Many political leaders such as Emmanuel Macron use this citizen participation to make people believe that dialogue is possible in times of crisis and to ease tensions. Mechanisms such as "Le grand débat national" (=the great national debate) during the Yellow Vest crisis or the consultations that took place during the protests against the high cost of living in the French Caribbean in 2024, were used by the State to involve citizens but in an extremely institutionalized and regulated framework, according to government rules. Thus, in certain e-participation initiatives, citizens can indeed participate in a more simplified way, but this is more of an illusion of participation than concrete active participation. This allows governments, in the manner of a"participatory washing", to prove their legitimacy through these mechanisms when in the end they do not really respect the words of citizens. But overall it is a good blog.
It's not clear if you were responding to a specific question posed by the blogger but do you think that limitations or challenges you present regarding e-participation is a function of democratic politics itself or something else?
DeleteIn Noéma's blog, good points and examples were brought fro e-participation.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, thanks to the creation of ICTs, e-participation is a good way of connecting citizens directly with those in power, and enabling them to have their say on projects. France is a good example of this, since it has brought a different approach to political decision-making. However, as the blog says, there are limits.
For the first question, I think that one of the solutions that could be useful is a more regular and rigorous monitoring of projects supported by citizens' contributions. This could improve transparency and, above all, show whether e-participation was useful.
It can be a transition for question 2 when talking about e-participation initiatives and their limits with the "Ka Nou Ka Fè" (What are we doing in english) project in Guadeloupe. This “Grand Citizen Forum” allows to give a voice to Guadeloupean citizens whether online or during local forums in each city where citizens are invited to discuss and give their opinions on the institutional organization of Guadeloupe. This initiative started from a good intention but somewhat failed to have enough participation and follow-up for a crucial question like this. This could be explained by lack of interest or trust from citizens because initiatives around institutional status were not knew for this population but never led to anything concrete plus the lack of clear explanations on the project. Another reason which leads to the third question is that given a digital fracture still present in this territory the use of digital participation does not always make it democratic since it includes a part of a connected population. Elderly, low-income (without digital resources), marginalized, psychologically or physically impaired people are often left out in these process and it can not allow a good representation of the population when opinion are expressed.
Ultimately, projects promoted through e-participation are without a doubt a good revolution for the people's participation in policy-making and to express their voices but they have their limits...
What methods/processes/initiatives would you propose that would allow citizens to monitor projects? And were you referring to all government projects or just projects that are e-partcipation oriented?
DeleteI find the blog quite complete and well written. Regarding the questions:
ReplyDelete1. I don't think that e-participation necessarily has to be more effective, because given the limitations that you have highlighted, it is more a question of governments really taking into account the electronic participation that already exists and of stopping hiding behind excuses that it only represents a minority. Because yes, it is obvious that those who will participate the most will be those who know how to use a digital tool. But the idea is not necessarily that everyone participates digitally but that participation in general is more inclusive and allows all classes of society to participate. So I think it is more a question of making different modes of participation available for all subjects and for all people. This would allow everyone to choose the mode of participation that suits them best. It is about having an equally effective communication channel for young people, for example, who will be more likely to be reached digitally than older people who will participate in a more traditional way. We see this particularly on social networks. A lot of politicians have started to address young people via TikTok, Instagram, YouTube in order to politicize them. So I think that improving the effectiveness of e-participation is more about improving the effectiveness of communication on subjects via different channels that can reach different strata of society. Because digital participation in itself makes it possible to include people who were originally far removed from subjects related to politics or life in society/community. I also think overall that e-participation can be made more effective by providing applications that are easy to use and understand. Often one of the problems encountered when using online government platforms is their "user-unfriendly" nature, particularly in France. When there are too many elements to understand before participating, people give up and ultimately it doesn't make things effective whether it's for the young, the middle-aged, or the elderly. People want things that are easy to use and understand, not to waste 3 hours of their life having to follow an administrative process. So efficiency also comes from that and perhaps also from education. Young people should be introduced from a young age to current political issues and to form an opinion on what is happening in their city for example and therefore to take a position in order to participate online when there are petitions to sign, declarations to make etc. Getting them used to using e-participation platforms as early as possible will also ensure that they don't grow up being distant from these subjects. This should also reduce the digital divide, since the more we move forward in time, the more improvements are made in terms of connectivity in rural areas. Therefore, the digital divide should normally be reduced, especially when the older generations, less familiar with digital technology, gradually disappear. So overall it is a question of valuing what already exists, improving the means and anticipating the future through the widespread digital education of the younger generations.
2. Unfortunately, I don't know of other forms of e-participation whose limitations would be significantly different from those already mentioned. As I just said, the problem isn't e-participation itself but rather the other issues that hinder it, such as the digital divide, the lack of digital education, or even the lack of communication about what already exists that could help overcome the limitations of excluding certain populations in particular.
3. So yes, in response to question 3, digital participation already makes democracy more inclusive than it was before. It allows the inclusion of people who are geographically distant or have reduced mobility. It also offers asynchronous participation options, allowing citizens to engage according to their availability. Finally, it can reduce certain psychological barriers linked, for example, to public speaking. However, as you said, this inclusion remains conditional on access to digital tools and their mastery. The transition to a more inclusive democracy via digital technology therefore needs to be accompanied by measures to reduce the digital divide, particularly education.
DeleteYour analysis on question 1 (which translates to the rest) hits some important points.
DeleteThank you Noema for summarizing the E-participation model, its advantages and remaining challenges. I just wanted to pick up on what you said about the French initiatives DansMaRue, that I didn’t know by the way.
ReplyDeleteFor me those plateforms, app or whatever systems that allows people to talk about what is happening on the other side of their window… scare me a bit.
DansMaRue, is maint to report anomalies including things we perceived as incivilities or disturbing public order. It can be very interesting and at the same time quite terrifying.
Indeed, because the approach of citizen participation is more focused on the delation and help the government to repress, rather than rely on the concrete investment of citizens in setting a priority order in the agenda and their impact on policy decisions taken. This kind of platform can quickly represent a source of voyeurism and ideological denunciation against behaviors in no way deviant but simply out of step with the rapporteur’s ideas (I am thinking in particular of the risk that this platform may represent in a country led by an extreme right party, where pacifist feminist collages in the streets could be denounced and removed for example).
Although the platform can be used wisely in a benevolent way to work for better public order, nevertheless, it appears to me as a cosmetic measure. A simple way to give citizens “responsibility” so that they feel invested, without actually involving them in the deep issues and decision-making processes.
The « Assises des Outres Mer » initiated by the French president Macron makes much more sens to me because French overseas citizens are really involved in key issues. They have the opportunity to express themselves, to debate and to be heard from the French government. Even if, I’m sure, this initiative is debatable, thanks for sharing it, it’s a really good example, that maybe other countries should get inspired from.
Of course and as you said, despite those good participation initiatives, the decisions made still under the expectancies in term of representativeness. Of course the main work that still to be done is about educating the people about those initiatives, helping the most remote of them to use ICTs and showing them how, thanks to them, they can get their chance to make their voice louder. I guess it gives my answer to your first and third questions.
You've made a good point about how initiatives that set out to provide/secure a public good (order and civility) can easily be used against those who challenge the status quo. Bad faith actors can make effective use of a "surveillance state" if guard rails aren't put in place at the outset.
DeleteThis blog gave insight into the mechanisms as well as challenges of e-participation.
DeleteHere are my responses to the following questions posed by Noema.
1. In your opinion, what improvements can be made to make e-participation more effective?
I think governments should provide sensitization training for both the public and the civil servants. This will allow both those who are providing the service as well as benefitting from services to use platforms online more frequently such as chatbots. In addition, I believe that governments should collaborate with citizens to create initiatives and programs that will boost e-participation just as we saw with Le Livre Bleu initiative in the french overseas teritories. This kind of deliberate consulation will also aid in finding solutions for digital illiteracy and the digital divide. Finally, maybe governments need to provide incentives for e-participation.
2. Can you give me some other examples of e-participation initiatives and their limitations?
In January 2023, Martinique's population voted online for a new flag that would represent the country. According to an article by La Presse entitled "Petit colibri, grand malaise" (2023), in english "Little Hummingbird , Big problems" speaks of the challenges regarding online voting for the new national flag. The official results stated that 72% of Martinicians voted for the flag with the hummingbird in the middle however there were technical problems during the voting period. In addition, there was no identification system set up to verify the nationality of those who voted. This is a prime example of e-participation; the citizens were able to voice their opions online through voting for the flag of their choice. However, there were some technical challenges and issues surrounding the legitimacy of the votes recorded. Another example of e-participation is the SPARK program in Jamaica. This has allowed citizens to send pictures via email, whatsapp, instagram message, send a dm on x or a tweet on x to inform the government about roads that need to be fixed in Jamaica. This iniative has sparked and engaged many citizens however some citizens may abuse the service or use as a mechanism to call the government's attention to other challenges in the country. According to Holzer, (2004), “Restoring Trust in Government: The Potential of Digital Citizen Participation, US provides citizens with the opportunity to comment on certain policies. While this promotes accountability and transparency, it may only benefit certain groups and businesses as they may incentivize participation from citizens for their benefit.
3. Does digital participation make democracy more inclusive?
I don't think digital participation makes democracy more inclusive. Although we have many persons sharing their opinions online and opportunities to participate, I believe at the end of the day, only those who were orginally engaged, engage via e-participation.
Chesine, you replied to my comment to Caroline rather than to the blog post, please be mindful of this in future as it clogs up the space and makes any potential back and forth with Caroline and you for that matter cumbersome.
Delete
ReplyDeleteAn essay of great reflective depth, part of a demanding and rigorous critical approach.
Here are my responses to the following questions.
1- I'd like to extend Noéma's comments on “the lack of essential digital skills and competences among citizens in online government platforms”.
This problem affects certain sections of the population with greater intensity, particularly the elderly, who sometimes find it difficult to adapt to rapid technological change.
It also has a significant impact on people living in rural areas, where there are major territorial inequalities in access to new technologies.
In this respect, the roll-out of awareness-raising campaigns and targeted support schemes could help these groups to take greater ownership of the new technologies. The aim is not just to teach them technical skills, but also to provide them with appropriate support to remove the psychological barriers and feelings of exclusion they may feel.
But above all, development policies must be put in place for the most remote areas to ensure equal access to technologies throughout the country.
However, beyond the issue of digital accessibility, the challenge lies in more comprehensive public policies for social inclusion, capable of strengthening civic engagement in all its forms.
Rather than limiting ourselves to thinking about e-participation, let's take a broader approach: first and foremost, let's think about social inclusion !
2 - One of the most widespread forms of e-participation is online voting. However, even Switzerland, which is often cited as a model of participatory democracy, makes only limited use of it, which illustrates the limits of this process.
As a direct democracy, Switzerland has been experimenting with e-voting since the early 2000s, mainly to facilitate the participation of Swiss citizens living abroad. The system was tested in a number of cantons, but its deployment was marked by interruptions and controversy, mainly due to concerns about the security and transparency of the electoral process.
IIn 2019, the Swiss authorities organised a public penetration test on the e-voting system developed by Swiss Post, in order to detect any flaws before wider implementation. The test revealed several critical vulnerabilities, leading to the immediate suspension of the project. One of the vulnerabilities identified would have allowed an attacker to modify the votes recorded without either the voters or the authorities being able to see it. In other words, digital electoral fraud was theoretically possible.
3. On this question, my opinion is quite clear-cut. Admittedly, there are successful examples of e-participation, such as the Decidim platform in Barcelona and the digital participatory budgets that are now widespread throughout the world.
However, in my view, e-participation is not yet a sufficiently mature response to be considered a credible and effective solution in the immediate future for strengthening the exercise of citizenship. The problem lies not so much in the systems themselves, which are often innovative despite certain shortcomings, but rather in the lack of political will to implement them.
I get the feeling that we're putting the cart before the horse. How can we expect effective digital participation in countries where territorial inequalities in digital access remain glaring? As a reminder, according to the United Nations, some 2.9 billion people, or 37% of the world's population, have never yet used the Internet. As long as these digital divides persist, e-participation will remain an incomplete and unequal solution.
Can a participatory democracy that excludes part of the population really be considered democratic….? Is there not a risk, on the contrary, of tipping over into a counter-democracy, where participation becomes a privilege reserved for some rather than a right accessible to all?
The 37% of the world's population who have never accessed the internet are not all living in democratic societies, which is the general focus of e-participation. Historically, "participatory democracies" have excluded groups of people and were/are considered democratic. Thinking and or working on social inclusion and e-participation initiatives are not mutually exclusive. E-participation is a meant to support/promote social inclusion.
DeleteThis was an insightful blog. Its abit frustrating to see how many opportunities technology has created that can be used for citizen engagement, yet we are still trying to solve old issues like accessibility and government responsiveness. I agree that digital tools have provided new opportunities for people to get involved though apps like DansMaRue; however, as you pointed out, those tools are along effective as the system thats behind them. So if governments are not listening or acting on the contribution of the people, then what is the point? Your question regarding whether digital participation makes democracy more inclusive had me thinking. In theory it doesm more people can have a say in the decision making process without being in a physical space...but in practice, i would say no. This is because if online participation is dominated by the same groups of people who are already active politically, then it does not strike a balance. I believe the challende is figuring out how to target and reach people who are not normally engaged in the political process or ensure that people's participation leads to real change.
ReplyDeleteEdited: This was an insightful blog. Its a bit frustrating to see how many opportunities technology has created that can be used for citizen engagement, yet we are still trying to solve old issues like accessibility and government responsiveness. I agree that digital tools have provided new opportunities for people to get involved though apps like DansMaRue; however, as you pointed out, those tools are along effective as the system thats behind them. So if governments are not listening or acting on the contribution of the people, then what is the point? Your question regarding whether digital participation makes democracy more inclusive had me thinking. In theory it does, more people can have a say in the decision making process without being in a physical space...but in practice, i would say no. This is because if online participation is dominated by the same groups of people who are already active politically, then it does not strike a balance. I believe the challenge is figuring out how to target and reach people who are not normally engaged in the political process or ensure that people's participation leads to real change.
DeleteAnnakay, there are different levels of engagement in the political process some obvious and some not so obvious, who is going to decide on which activities count so that the "appropriate" people can be targeted and targeted to do what? What does people participating in politics leading to "real change" look like?
DeleteYour essay provides compelling evidence to suggest that the decline in trust in government and institutions have given rise to new means of communication which improves upon traditional forms of government interaction with citizens. From the introduction it can be confirmed that ICTs and particularly e-participation maintains the capacity to improve government functions such as transparency and reduced citizen cynicisms. The effectiveness of e-participation tools are supported by country examples which strengthen claims made of the feasibility of utilizing e-participation tools to improve service delivery. The organization of the essay moves from a point of benefits of ICTs to the challenges which still linger with its utilization such as underrepresented groups through traditional and contemporary means of communication.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are sections in your essay which could be further developed. I do not believe you maintained the perspective of using ICTs, specifically e-participation tools to improve government. Rather the emphasis placed on the challenges of e-participation casts a shadow on the benefits which have accompanied their utilization. Though the general perception is that there is now a major shift toward e-participation premised on reaching far greater segments of society who become involve in direct communication with their representatives, there is no concrete evidence to suggest that this transition is happening
Thus, in concluding the expected position based on your thesis and research topic would be the promotion of e-participation tools to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the cocreation of policies which directly impact the lives of those represented. These tools it can be said, promotes good governance through transparency, engagement and accountability which are also crucial for a thriving democracy.
Bruce, Noema provided 3 questions to reflect on, which you don't address at all, instead, you focused your comment on evaluating the blog article, which isn't the task.
Delete