| Teresa Balduzzi | |
| Doctorante (2e année) à l’Université Roma Tre | |
| Livia Siclari | |
| Doctorante (3e année) à l’Université Roma Tre | |
| Le présent article entreprend une analyse des plateformes numériques pour la démocratie délibérative et participative, évaluant leur efficacité dans la « démocratisation» de la démocratie. Au début du travail nous soulignons les concepts de démocratie délibérative et participative, enracinés dans la science politique, et en précisant leur signification d’un point de vue juridique. Le concept plus large des « innovations numériques démocratiques » est ensuite introduit avec un cadre pour les classifier. Par la suite, l’étude décrit le cadre juridique actuel de la participation numérique dans l’Union européenne et les États membres concernés (Italie, Allemagne et France). Ensuite, nous détaillons et comparons les principales caractéristiques de cinq plateformes aux niveaux local et national, qui servent d’études de cas. L’article évalue la qualité de la participation citoyenne rendue possible par ces plateformes, en examinant spécifiquement deux indicateurs : le sens de la participation et le niveau de délibération numérique. Lorsque l’on tire des conclusions sur la participation observée dans les études de cas, des pistes de recherche supplémentaires sur la participation civique numérisée sont suggérées. | The paper undertakes an analysis of digital platforms that facilitate deliberative and participatory democracy, assessing their effectiveness in ‘democratising’ democracy. It initiates by outlining the concepts of deliberative and participatory democracy, rooted in political science, and specifying their meaning from a legal standpoint. The broader concept of ‘digital democratic innovations’ is then introduced, along with a framework for classifying them. Subsequently, the study describes the current legal framework of e-participation in the European Union and the relevant member states (Italy, Germany and France). Following this, we detail and compare the principal characteristics of five platforms at local and national levels, which serve as case studies. The paper assesses the quality of citizen participation enabled by these platforms, specifically examining two indicators: the meaningfulness of participation and the level of digital deliberation. When drawing conclusions on the observed participation in the case studies, potential directions for further research on digitised civic participation are suggested. |
| Purpose of the paper is to analyse digital platforms that facilitate deliberative and participatory democracy, offering insights into the efficacy of these tools in enhancing democratic processes. It begins by providing a thorough overview of the concepts of deliberative and participatory democracy, tracing their origins in political science (§ I A) and examining their meaning from a legal standpoint, particularly in relation to institutes of representative and direct democracy (§ I B). Furthermore, the paper introduces the broader concept of ‘digital democratic innovations’(§ I C) and adopts a framework for classifying these innovations (§ II). The study proceeds to investigate the current legal framework of e-participation in the European Union, focusing on three member states, i.e. Italy, Germany and France (§ III). This comparative analysis sets the stage for a detailed examination of five digital platforms operating at both local and national levels, which serve as case studies. Through a systematic evaluation of the key features and functionalities of these platforms, the paper classifies those platforms according to the classification framework of digital democratic innovations (§ IV A-E). It also assesses the quality of citizen participation facilitated by each, specifically exploring two indicators: the meaningfulness of participation and the extent of digital deliberation fostered (§ IV F). In drawing conclusions based on the observed participation in the case studies, the paper also suggests potential avenues for further research into digitised civic participation (§ V). | |
| It is a truth universally acknowledged that democracies all over the world are not in excellent shape. Widespread abstentionism, low levels of trust in politicians and decline in membership of political parties and trade unions are three visible effects of public disillusionment and disaffection with democratic institutions. Whilst these indicators characterise our contemporary “age of distrust”, the need to democratise democracy through greater citizen participation has been long felt. | L’avis du Comité scientifique
L’article de Livia Siclari et Teresa Balduzzi touche au problème de l’évaluation de l’impact concret des systèmes digitaux visant au renforcement de la participation citoyenne. En se concentrant sur les cas italien, français et allemand, encadrés au niveau théorique à partir d’une taxonomie qui prend en compte les fonctions achevées par chaque système analysé, l’article souligne les limites pratiques de ces systèmes du point de vue du renforcement de la légitimation démocratique à travers la participation (input legitimacy). Il indique au même temps des pistes de recherche intéressantes et qui méritent d’être approfondies quand il s’agit de la capacité de ces systèmes d’intercepter les besoins des citoyens dans la définition des politiques publiques (output legitimacy). Simone BENVENUTI Professore associato en Droit public comparé – Université Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza |
| In the 1960s and 1970s, amidst student protests, some authors suggested introducing ways to enhance citizens’ empowerment and self-government. It was “the glaring disjuncture between the popular movements […] and academic demands for ‘realistic’ democratic theory” which gave rise to the idea of ‘participative’ or ‘participatory’ democracy: this theory emphasises the importance of citizen participation in decision-making processes at all levels of government beyond and next to institutes of representative democracy (elections at all territorial levels, participation through political parties) and institutes predominantly labelled as direct democracy (e.g. referendums). However, it was in the 90s that the term ‘participative/participatory democracy’ and its translations and transliterations (Bürgerbeteiligung, démocratie participative, democracia partecipativa, democrazia partecipativa) spread among western political theorists all around the world, in the wake of Porto Alegre’s experience of participatory budgeting. In the meantime, the picture of doctrines and practices was further expanded by the rise of deliberative democracy. This theory “emerged as a corrective to the perceived focus on aggregative forms of democracy” and “provided a powerful theoretical critique [to such] tendency within democratic theory and practice to focus on the aggregation of preferences as the fundamental mechanism of legitimation”. Then the Internet came along and the entire debate over new forms of democracy could not but being affected by it. But let us take a short step back.
|
|