1 / 8

Does e-participation enhance or undermine democracy?

Does e-participation enhance or undermine democracy?. Alina ÖSTLING alina.ostling@eui.eu. Background premises. An over-emphasis of positive results of e-participation Both in academia a in the practice rhetoric E-participation often claims to improve accountability and public engagement but…

damita
Download Presentation

Does e-participation enhance or undermine democracy?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Does e-participation enhance or undermine democracy? Alina ÖSTLING alina.ostling@eui.eu

  2. Background premises • An over-emphasis of positive results of e-participation • Both in academia a in the practice rhetoric • E-participation often claims to improve accountability and public engagement but… • who is engaged? (inclusiveness) • how are users influenced? (civic literacy) • what is the impact on policy-making? (pol. responsiveness) • What is the actual impact on democracy?

  3. Research definitions PROCESS • Inclusiveness: • Gender • Education • Digital skills OUTCOMES • a. Civic literacy: • understanding and interest in politics • stimulus for political participation • b. Political responsiveness: • State actors are responsive to citizens’ demands, and try to incorporate them into policy making

  4. Method and cases • Interviews and online user surveys (Author’s 2011): • Secondary data from Tobias Escher (2011): • Response rate 8-9%: • N = 99 NosDeputes • N = 397 OpenParlamento • N = 903 TheyWorkForYou

  5. Process INCLUSIVENESS • Many groups are underrepresented: • Women • Disabled/ill persons • People with lower education • PI are even less inclusive than other participation types i.e. petition, demonstrate, contact politicians/media • Participants are regular & advanced Internet users • much more than their co-nationals

  6. Outcomes RESPONSIVENESS • Little response, caused mainly by media visibility & civic mobilizations around issues • Dependent upon political support by MPs CIVIC LITERACY • A strong majority of users are more informed and interested in parliamentary affairs (72-90%) • Many users had never been politically active before (17-44%) • Catalyst-function (79-98% consider getting involved in politics in the future)

  7. Conclusions • Parliamentary informatics are boosting: • knowledge and interest in politics • stimulus to engage • But less inclusive than other forms of participation • Reinforcingtraditional biases in participation • Little political support & response, could cause frustration among citizens

  8. What can be done? • Survey users to find out which groups are missing • Technological solutions: • developing graphical interfaces (infographic displays) • interactive formats • simple language • multiple forms of communication: mobile, SMS, print, radio • involve users into all design-stages • Social solutions: • collaborate with NGOs that represent the absent groups • target PR campaigns towards the underrepresented What is your view?

More Related