In today’s world, our lives are pretty much intertwined with the internet. Let us just think about all the time we spend on social networks chatting with friends or liking, sharing and commenting on the posts of others. The tendency is that the impact of the internet on our everyday lives will increase in the future; it will influence the ways how we do our jobs and how we spend our free time.
It is, therefore, no surprise that the work of organisations like parliaments and governments is also altered by ever-increasing digitisation – the internet obtains that kind of overarching power that changes the nature of almost all social, political and economic processes.
In the following, we want to focus on one specific aspect that is subject to the power of the internet: public participation. However, do not think of this article as holding the truth and solution on how to solve current challenges in public participation; it is rather to provide you with ‘food for thought’ on what a digitised approach towards participation can look like.
Why talk about public participation and inclusion on the internet ?
The goal of public participation is to overcome challenges and inequalities by offering engagement opportunities. In the best case these engagement opportunities – online as well as offline – are designed in an open and inclusive way so that everyone interested can join. Yet, participation possibilities these days often present difficulties that hinder parts of the population to engage and to voice their opinion.
This points, for example, to obstacles connected to personal, financial or time resources and eventually, crucial parts of citizens are being left out in debates also revolving around matters that are relevant for them. People then feel excluded from processes and maybe even as not being considered a part of the society they live in. That particularly relates to marginalised social groups, like LGBTQI+, ethical or religious groups, disabled persons or immigrants.
This issue leads us to the bigger topic of social exclusion and social belonging in a digital media context: We all know that as human beings, we crave interaction and connection to other people to feel good and healthy. Of course, not everyone needs the same amount of human interaction to live a happy life, but it is a crucial part of our nature. Now imagine you are being cut off from your social surroundings or at least you have a hard time getting in contact – how would that make you feel?
Social exclusion and social belonging do not only relate to ‘real life’ interactions with people. It also includes the aspect of the overall connection of public life through various media tools. Again, think of social networks and its possibilities to communicate or the internet as a valuable news source – this way, the internet works as a bridge to create community and social connection, and eventually “invoke[s] a sense of belonging and ‘togetherness’” (Swart et al. 2017: 191).
The digital era in which we live offers us many advantages and seemingly reaching a vast amount of people has never been so easy. In this regard, digital engagement platforms can provide an easier entry point for establishing contact between different groups of citizens, and enable them to communicate, learn and grow with each other. Especially the flexibility of these platforms in terms of access and availability is a plus for public participation possibilities.
Furthermore, the diverse apps and web pages are a low-threshold opportunity to get involved for people who otherwise might be hesitant to voice their opinion; as well as the language translation that many tools include automatically promote the inclusion of individuals in public online forums and debates.
All is not gold that glitters – some critical thoughts on digital engagement platforms
As we have learned in the previous section, digital engagement platforms can increase a feeling of community between citizens. However, this is not just important for the citizens themselves, it is also of interest to various stakeholders.
Let’s just take political institutions as an example: For years politicians have been confronted with a rising distrust towards media as well as political and democratic practices. This leads to tensions amongst citizens and politicians, and difficulties in creating effective policies that are supposed to solve identified issues. Of course, this also relates to other aspects than public participation; yet, “[t]here is full consensus that democracy needs people’s participation” (Dahlgren 2013: 11).
Nevertheless, this reveals one of the major challenges of participation opportunities. Even though institutions and people want to be included and participate, not everyone is automatically ensured to do so. Instead, our current democratic systems are structured in a way they provide a varying degree of access for different social groups.
In this context, a lack of representation or difficulties in reaching out to respective authorities is not the fault of missing efforts of specific social groups. Rather this is the result of structures of power, legitimacy and dominant narratives which are inherent in society and affect the possibilities for participation. This is also true for digital participation. The internet and its participation and engagement offers are not a sphere of its own; they are not disconnected from debates and practises in the offline-world.
On the contrary, apps and the like are created because of an identified need and are thus deeply embedded in the structures and discussion of the ‘real world’. This furthermore bears the risk that, for example, hierarchies of the real world are just replicated in the online setting; meaning that already powerful voices and opinions are reinforced, and neglected minority groups continue to go unseen.
Another aspect that needs to be considered is that digital tools are based on the availability of access to these offers. This implies somewhat of a taken-for-grantedness of technical devices and access to the internet. While it is true that the majority of people these days have the necessary means, some parts of society are still cut-off. Although digital solutions are aimed at an audience that obtains the required tools, to be regarded as truly inclusive this circumstance must also be considered.
Moreover, discussions on public participation platforms carry the risk of the emergence of ‘bubbles’ on the platform. On one hand, this refers to conversations only taking part in a specific group without including other parties. On the other hand, attention needs to be drawn towards debates remaining only in the online setting and without ‘real’ impact.
Hence, participation platforms also need to be aware to reach out and include respective decision-makers to prevent the communities’ aspirations from remaining symbolic contributions.
The last issue we want to address here is the general question to what extent digital engagement platforms can establish inclusive practices. Many apps and web pages provide the possibility to create groups and participation offers as well as they encourage exchange between users.
However, the degree of inclusion oftentimes is beyond the control of the providers of the respective tool; they created the application but lack the features to measure or monitor the activities towards inclusiveness. Thus developers as well as persons in charge of creating respective activities, strongly rely on the feedback of their community to examine the success of their practices and to improve the processes.
The future of digital participation
So what now; should we stop the usage and development of digital engagement platforms? Definitely not! Although there are some gaps in current digital participation practices, they come with a lot of advantages that we should not ignore. The remarks on the flaws of engagement platforms are not meant to diminish the relevance of and interest in tools that provide easy access towards participation.
It rather highlights the complexity of public participation itself; especially the power to change current exclusionary and discriminatory structures cannot be underestimated. If people are willing to be part of discussions and practices that are aimed at improving the livelihood and not just of themselves, but also of individuals who are often overlooked, digital participation platforms can support a growing understanding and awareness of differing social realities.
References :
- Dahlgren, P. (2013): Democracy, Participation, and Media Connections. The Political Web. Palgrave Macmillan UK. 9-35
- Froomkin, A.M. (2004): Technologies for Democracy. Democracy Online. The Prospects for Political Renewal through the Internet. Routledge. 3-20
- Schwanholz, J.; Graham, T. (2017): Digital Transformation: New Opportunities and Challenges for Democracy? Managing Democracy in the Digital Age. Springer International Publishing. 1-7
- Swart, J.; Peters, C.; Broersma, M. (2017): New Rituals for Public Connection: Audiences’ Everyday Experiences of Digital Journalism, Civic Engagement, and Social Life. Managing Democracy in the Digital Age. Springer International Publishing. 181-199
- WeSolve (2021): Survey on decision-making processes in Danish municipalities
Elizabeth Steglich
MA in Cultural Encounters & International Development Studies, focused on market research and strategy development to enhance public participation as well as to facilitate inclusive and transparent civic engagement within democratic processes and possibilities and benefits of increased public participation in particular for Danish municipalities. My research interests range from feminism, gender equality, equality of opportunity, diversity and inclusiveness to sustainable development in various contexts.