=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2797/paper33
|storemode=property
|title=Stealth Democracy? Searching for a Democratic Middle-Ground
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2797/paper33.pdf
|volume=Vol-2797
|authors=Marius Rohde Johannessen,Lasse Berntzen
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/egov/JohannessenB20
}}
==Stealth Democracy? Searching for a Democratic Middle-Ground==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2797/paper33.pdf
Stealth Democracy? Searching for a Democratic
Middle-Ground
Marius Rohde Johannessen*, Lasse Berntzen**
*School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, marius.johannessen@usn.no
**School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, lasse.berntzen@usn.no
Abstract: In this paper, we present a reflection on the need for an in-between, low-threshold
type of democracy for involving the so-called "silent majority" of citizens. Based on our findings
from various cases, we find indications that this type of system can contribute to what we call
stealth or "implicit democracy", i.e., citizen feedback on particular issues raised by politicians.
In a recent study, both politicians and participating citizens report that they were happy with
the pilot results and would like to continue using the system. The second round of testing, with
an extended version of the system, is planned for 2020/21.
Keywords: eParticipation, implementation, survey, pilot study, implicit participation, evaluation
Acknowledgements: The work presented in this paper was partially funded by the Oslofjord
regional research fund, project 289252.
1. Introduction - eParticipation Systems and Complexity
In this reflection paper, we ask the question "What is the 'correct' fit between system complexity and
democratic outcomes?", as we over the years have observed issues with existing eParticipation
systems:
Many technological systems have been, and are being, developed to enhance democracy and
participation. In the 1990s, open discussion forums were popular but had limited success (Sæbø,
Rose & Molka-Danielsen, 2010). In later years, we have seen a number of complex and advanced
systems, designed top-down for decision-makers to receive input on concrete issues. EU FP7 had
several calls for the development of participation systems, and in the early and mid-2010s many
different tools were presented in academic journals and conferences (See, i.e., Porwol, Ojo & Breslin,
2014)), along with evaluations of pilot projects (Taudes & Leo, 2014). The evaluations seem to
conclude that these types of systems provide excellent feedback but are also complicated and time-
consuming and therefore struggle to attract enough participants. In social media, the threshold for
participation is lower and more people discuss politics (Elvestad & Johannessen, 2017; Enli &
Copyright ©2020 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
340 Reflections & Viewpoints
Skogerbø, 2013), but the quality of communication is lacking, and it is difficult to extract meaningful
information and handle the conversation (Majumdar, 2017).
As a middle-ground between complex tailored systems and the anarchy of social media, authors
such as Hibbing and Theiss-Morse argue for what they call "stealth democracy" (Hibbing & Theiss-
Morse, 2002), claiming that most people want to heard, but are not interested in taking the time to
understand and read up on complex issues. Instead, they argue that a feasible approach to
participation is to ask simple questions about issues where citizens can form an opinion without
having to read hundreds of pages of documentation.
While stealth democracy is an idea situated in a different context from the European and
Norwegian democratic tradition, it nonetheless provides a starting point for discussing the merits
of polling-type systems as a bridge between traditional deliberation and involvement and the
sarcastic comments found in social media and news.
The purpose of this reflection paper is thus to throw up some ideas regarding a third
way/implicit/entry-level type of democratic participation, which could aid in providing a voice to
the often silent majority of citizens who choose not to participate in traditional politics. We aim to
develop these thoughts into a robust theoretical viewpoint on levels of participation and how
different technological systems can act together to strengthen democracy in a time of fake news,
post-truth, and polarization. We hope our reflection can contribute to some discussion at the
conference and also provide feedback for further work.
2. Democracy and Participation
Signs are indicating that liberal democracy is struggling. The 2015 refugee crisis in Europe, populists,
being elected for president or prime minister, yellow vests in France, and "illiberal democracy" in
Eastern Europe. The Norwegian paper Morgenbladet, in collaboration with the "breaking bad"
research project, has created a map of authoritarian changes in the legal systems of European
nations, which shows that several countries, including Western European ones, are moving away
from liberal ideals (Reinertsen, Jakobsen & Belgaux, 2019). This trend is aided by social media
polarization, fake news, bots spreading propaganda, and an increasing number of activist web sites
positioning themselves as alternatives to mainstream media (Sunstein, 2018). The so-called alt-right
find each other on online platforms such as 4chan, Tumblr, and 8chan to coordinate campaigns
against political opponents, and disinformation is an issue high on the EU's agenda (Comisión
Europea, 2019).
In Norway, most of us still report high levels of trust in the political system and institutions, but
a significant minority is less trusting, and choose not to vote in elections (Kleven, 2016). Voter
turnout is lower among the young, and few are actively trying to influence policy. Those who do
tend to be in the high income/higher education demographic, which typically would be labelled as
elites (With, 2017). As trust is an essential determinant of intention to use eParticipation systems, a
socio-technical approach to eParticipation is necessary (Naranjo Zolotov, Oliveira & Casteleyn,
2018). Earlier research has shown that eParticipation systems need a clear purpose and form
Reflections & Viewpoints 341
(Hurwitz, 2003), concretization of the outcomes of participation (Kolsaker & Kelly, 2008) and
feedback mechanisms, so citizens see the impact of participation (Kolsaker, 2005).
2.1. Models of Participation and Democracy
Democracies should involve citizens through elections, political parties (Dewey, 1927; Oppenheim,
1971), and citizen/politician dialogue in various channels and media within the frames of
representative democracy (Brooks & Manza, 2007). While the meaning of the term "citizen" has
varied over time, with restrictions based on gender, land-ownership, age, and social class (Schreiner,
1992), modern definitions include every adult in the nation. Contrary to proponents of elitist
democracy, Dewey (1927) argued that "only the public can decide what public interest is". Dewey
and later Habermas emphasized the need for dialogue in order for "such a thing as public opinion
to be formed (Habermas, 1991). For practical reasons, most democratic countries follow some
representative model, where citizens elect representatives to look after their interests, accompanied
by rights such as freedom of information, association and expression, and a universal right (for
adults) to vote in elections (Urbinati, 2011).
Even within a representative democracy, there are several idealized models, with different
normative criteria for participation. One example, from Ferree and colleagues (Ferree, Gamson,
Gerhards & Rucht, 2002), describes four different models of democracy; Representative liberal,
Participatory liberal, Discursive, and Constructionist. The models outline the amount of citizen
participation, based on « who should speak, the content of the process (what), style of speech
preferred (how), and the relationship between discourse and decision-making (outcomes) that is
sought (or feared)." (s.290). While some countries focus mostly on the act of voting, others, such as
Norway, see it as a democratic value that citizens engage in dialogue and are involved in decision-
making between elections (participatory liberal model), and participation in the public debate is seen
as a value in and of itself (Habermasian discursive model). The Norwegian constitution (§100, part
6) states, "government is required to facilitate open and rational public discourse". Even so,
membership in political parties is in decline, with only 7 percent of the adult population being
members of a political party, according to Statistics Norway. Thus, there is a need to find new ways
of communicating between politicians and citizens.
3. eParticipation Complexity and Activity
eParticipation as a field is defined as a range of different activities with varying outcomes and effects,
targeting different democratic ideal-types (Sæbø, Rose & Skiftenes Flak, 2008). This means that when
discussing specific systems and applications, researchers should be clear about the type of
democracy the system supports.
342 Reflections & Viewpoints
Figure 1: eParticipation Actors, Activities and Outcomes. Based on (Sæbø et al., 2008)
Citizens voting Civic engagement
Activities
Actors
Outcomes
Politicians political discourse Deliberation
Government decision-making Democratic
institutions eActivisim
Voluntary eConsultation
organizations
eCampaigning
ePetitioning
The activities identified can be set on a scale based on the potential democratic outcomes and the
effort needed for participation. In the 1960s, Arnstein addressed this issue and created a "ladder of
participation", showing the democratic outcomes of various activities (Arnstein, 1969). While we
have yet to develop the full theoretical argument, section 2.1 is a beginning towards this end - finding
a normative distinction between the outcomes of different eParticipation activities. Future work on
our framework will extend this.
Deliberation or political discourse, as Sæbø (et al., 2008) defines it, is a time-consuming and
demanding process, requiring us to understand the facts and arguments from all sides and them
engaging in reasoned debate about the best possible outcome (Habermas, 1991). On the other hand,
voting or rooting for a party or a politician requires less of the citizen. In voting campaigns, the work
lies with the politicians who have to argue and campaign for the citizens to cast the votes in their
direction (Hooghe & Dassonneville, 2018). Simplified, one can argue that eParticipation systems
aimed at more demanding activities such as deliberation require more of the user in terms of
handling complex arguments and spending more time, while activities such as choosing whom to
vote for requires less from the citizen (table 1), as we have seen in section 1.
Table 10: Political Activity and System Complexity
Political activity
Voting Deliberation
System complexity Low complexity/time High complexity/time
4. Stealth/Lightweight/Implicit/In-Between Democracy?
Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 2002) found that many citizens were tired of
politics and political debates as they play out in the media and do not wish to become too involved.
At the same time, citizens want to be able to express their opinion and be heard. They are happy to
participate in surveys or contribute in other ways, such as through FixMyStreet-type services related
to their areas of interest (Berntzen, Johannessen, Böhm, Weber & Morales, 2018).
Over the past few years, we have participated in several studies examining how lightweight
participation can contribute to democracy. Based on these, and the findings from evaluations of both
more and less complicated and structured systems, we argue that systems for rapid feedback have
the potential to be a missing link between the open and unstructured debate found in social media
Reflections & Viewpoints 343
the form of surveys, data analysis through sensors or apps such as FixMyStreet and similar allow
citizens to participate in a way that gives valuable insights to decision-makers, without having to
spend too much time and effort.
In 2019, we evaluated a system built for this purpose. A mobile app designed as a tool for
consultation, where politicians ask questions, and citizens answer. The outcome is both increased
civic engagement and general democratic effects, depending on how the politicians decide to use
the system. After a pilot study in five municipalities, we found that a vast majority of citizens were
happy with how the system was applied, and they felt politicians were hearing them without them
having to spend too much time or effort on politics.
The question is if this can facilitate a new form of participation, situated between voting and
deliberation in terms of participatory outcomes, and low/high complexity and time on the system
side. Also, future testing of the app will examine if and how this can lead citizens towards investing
more time and effort in deliberative political activities.
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4),
216 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Berntzen, L., Johannessen, M. R., Böhm, S., Weber, C., & Morales, R. (2018). Citizens as sensors: Human
sensors as a smart city data source. In SMART 2018 : The Seventh International Conference on Smart
Cities, Systems, Devices and Technologies.
Brooks, C., & Manza, J. (2007). Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies.
Chicago: University of Chigaco Press.
Comisión Europea. (2019). Joint Communication to the European Parliament, the European council, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Report on
the Implementation of the Action Plan Against Disinformation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-
0173-7.2
Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and its Problem. Athens: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press.
popularity. Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook, 15(1), 33 50.
https://doi.org/10.1386/nl.15.1.33_1
Enli, G. S., & Skogerbø, E. (2013). Personalized campaigns in party-centered politics: Twitter and Facebook as
arenas for political communication. Information Communication and Society.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782330
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four models of the public sphere in modern
democracies. Theory and Society. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016284431021
Habermas, J. (1991). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An inquiry into a category of
bourgeoise society. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
344 Reflections & Viewpoints
Hibbing, J. R., & Theiss-
Should Work. Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hooghe, M., & Dassonneville, R. (2018). Explaining the Trump vote: The effect of racist resentment and anti-
immigrant sentiments. PS: Political Science & Politics, 51(3), 528 534.
Hurwitz, R. (2003). Who needs politics? Who needs people? The ironies of democracy in cyberspace. In H.
Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds.), Democracy and new media (pp. 101 112). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Kleven, Ø. (2016). Nordmenn på tillitstoppen i Europa. Samfunnsspeilet, 2.
Kolsaker, A. (2005). Third Way e-Government: The Case for Local Devolution. In E-Government: Towards
Electronic Democracy (pp. 70 80).
-government and e-governance: a UK study.
International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(7), 723 738.
Majumdar, S. R. (2017). The case of public involvement in transportation planning using social media. Case
Studies on Transport Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2016.11.002
Naranjo Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2018). E-participation adoption models research in the last
17 years: A weight and meta-analytical review. Computers in Human Behavior.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.031
Oppenheim, F. E. (1971). DEMOCRACY CHARACTERISTICS INCLUDED AND EXCLUDED. The
Monist, 55(1), 29 50. https://doi.org/10.2307/27902204
Porwol, L., Ojo, A., & Breslin, J. (2014). A semantic deliberation model for e-Participation. In Innovation and
the Public Sector. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-429-9-40
Reinertsen, M. B., Jakobsen, H. Ø., & Belgaux, C. (2019). F-ordet. Morgenbladet.
Sæbø, Ø, Rose, J., & Molka-Danielsen, J. (2010). eParticipation: Designing and Managing Political Discussion
Forums. Social Science Computer Review, 28(4), 403 426.
Sæbø, Øystein, Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging
research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400 428.
Schreiner, J. H. (1992). Antikkens historie. Oslo: J.H. Schreiner.
Sunstein, C. R. (2018). Republic divided: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Taudes, A., & Leo, H. (2014). Determinants of the willingness to contribute to an eConsultation. In
Innovation and the Public Sector. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-429-9-13
Urbinati, N. (2011). Representative democracy and its critics. The Future of Representative Democracy
With, M. L. (2017). Politiske ressurser og deltakelse. SSB.
Reflections & Viewpoints 345
About the Authors
Marius Rohde Johannessen
Marius Rohde Johannessen is associate professor in Information Systems at the University of South-Eastern
Norway. His research interests lie in the areas of digital democracy, social media and citizen participation
in Smart Cities. Examples of projects include studies of the Norwegian elections, comparisons of political
communication in traditional and new media, and how Smart cities can facilitate and benefit from including
citizens. His work mostly lies on the crossroads between Information Systems and media studies.
Lasse Berntzen
Lasse Berntzen is professor of Information Systems at the University of South-Eastern Norway. His research
interests are focused towards the broader eGovernment area as well as Smart Cities and sensor technology.
Examples of projects include benchmarking studies of eGovernment through the eGovMon project, business
models and blockchain in Smart grids and citizen participation through sensor use in Norwegian
municipalities, as well as Government innovation in general. Berntzen is also employed as the international
coordinator for the department, and is always looking for new partners and new projects.