Democratic innovations in Serbia: a misplaced trust in technology

Multi-stakeholder initiatives, policy learning and institutionalization: the surprising failure of open government in Norway

“…A significant body of research suggests that this is not categorically the case however, as is described in section 2.3. notes comparable presumptions in the study and practice of e-participation, including the assumption that "direct democracy is the ideal value for eParticipation [and] that increased sophistication in technology use leads to increased sophistication of participation" (p. 13). There is little evidence that technology is improving the quality of participation or that e-participation is significantly improving the quality of democratic governance in any systematic way, however, and several scholars have noted a bias towards success in the design and sampling strategies of e-participation research (Damnjanović, 2019;Geissel & Newton, 2012;Spada & Ryan, 2017).…”

“…As with the normative presumptions surround civic participation more generally, assumptions regarding the utility or appropriateness of technological approaches to participation may not be sound. Over-attention to technology in civic participation can distract from more traditional and more meaningful methods of facilitating participation offline (Damnjanović, 2019;, and the enthusiasm for digital is sometimes deliberately used to distract from the absence of more traditional participatory mechanisms (Åström et al, 2012, p. 148;Jeff Gulati, Williams, & Yates, 2014, p. 530). Over-emphasis on digital can also exacerbate inequalities in representation and access to government (Rumbul, 2015), facilitate political disengagement, and discredit other forms of civic feedback and participation (Mcgee, Anderson, Hudson, & Feruglio, 2018, p. 10).…”

Integrating citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in eastern Europe and central Asia: scoping study and future research priorities

“…While large and culturally heterogeneous, much of the EE/CA region shares a common political legacy which influences the relationship between citizens and the state [ 39 , 42 ]. Most countries in the region are officially considered democracies; however, some are described as “hybrid regimes” [ 56 ] due to the curtailing of certain freedoms usually expected in modern democratic societies [ 39 , 57 ].…”

“…A range of direct democratic innovations in the region imply that this may be occurring, with referendums being the most common means of engaging the electorate. However, the introduction of democratic mechanisms must be matched with commensurate encouragement of a participatory political culture, to ensure an enhancement of the engagement and influence of citizens [ 39 , 59 , 60 ]. For example, political actors have been accused of the “colonization” [ 57 ] or “hijacking” [ 61 ] of democratic exercises, resulting in a lack of genuine improvements to CE [ 60 ].…”

“…The second objective is to place this new understanding in context, and focus specifically on the potential to implement CE in EIP in one particular region. For reasons outlined in the subsequent section, this will focus on the “new democracies” of eastern Europe and central Asia (EE/CA) (where participatory and deliberative democratic innovations remain under-researched [ 39 , 40 ]) to assess context-specific considerations for the implementation of CE in EIP.…”