=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3049/paper1
|storemode=property
|title=Decisive Factors for Success or Failure of e-Democracy Initiatives in the Information Era
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3049/Paper1.pdf
|volume=Vol-3049
|authors=Panagiotis Keramidis,Yannis Charalabidis
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/egov/KeramidisC21
}}
==Decisive Factors for Success or Failure of e-Democracy Initiatives in the Information Era==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3049/Paper1.pdf
Decisive Factors for Success or Failure of e-
Democracy Initiatives in the Information Era
Panagiotis Keramidis*, Yannis Charalabidis**
*University of the Aegean, Karlovasi, Samos, Greece, icsdm620013@aegean.gr
**University of the Aegean, Karlovasi, Samos, Greece, yannisx@aegean.gr
Abstract: The context of e-Democracy provides a wide variety of concepts, methodologies,
initiatives and case studies. Implementing an e-Democracy project with relevant success involves
dealing with a large spectrum of knowledge aspects, the political, the societal, the technological
and the managerial being among them. Although there is a plethora of implemented e-Democracy
initiatives, the necessity of the depiction of best practices and potential threats in the process
of designing, developing, implementing and managing an e-Democracy application is still there.
This study attempts to draw significant and reusable conclusions on the decisive factors that are
hidden behind the success or failure of an e-Democracy application or initiative, through a
combination of literature research and case studies analysis.
Keywords: e-Democracy, e-Participation, Information Era, Digital Governance, Digital
Government.
1. Introduction
When the terms of e-Democracy or e-Participation are used in literature, they are usually conceived
as sets of practices, methodologies, technologies and activities of online engagement of the public in
political decision-making process, in various levels (United Nations, 2016) . Policy making process
in the relevant e-Democracy initiatives has shifted in the past decades, since there is strong evidence
supporting a more citizen-centric model of governance that involves the usage of ICT (Hujran, Abu-
Shanab & Aljaafreh, 2020). This is due to the perception that the citizens' involvement is
advantageous for the democratic prossesses in terms of aspects like effectiveness, legitimacy, social
justice and others (Fung, 2015).
In order to analyze the aspects of e-Democracy in the context of the Information Era the
conceptual model of the analysis should take into consideration the various participatory models,
the ICT infrastructure that supports such applications, the organizational or social particularities
and the further development of the democratic process. That requires a multilevel approach, since
the models need to be studied both theoretically and practically. It also requires a deep
understanding of the sociopolitical, the organizational and the technological aspects of the projects.
This study aims to extract the different e-Democracy facets' contribution on related applications'
Copyright ©2021 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
12 Ongoing Research
success or failure. It provides a literature review in the aspects of e-Democracy and it also provides
discussion, based on case studies, answering the question: “What are the Decisive Factors of success
or failure of e-Democracy initiatives that are being mentioned in the literature and in case studies?”.
The study is structured as following: Chapter 2 provides the classified results of the literature
review. Chapter 3 analyzes the research methodology that was conducted. Chapter 4 provides the
findings from the relevant case studies. Chapter 5 provides the discussion over the case studies.
Chapter 6 concludes the study while setting the basis for further discussion concerning e-
Democracy. The last Chapter states the references of the study.
2. Literature Review
There are several categorizations of e-Democracy applications. Some of them focus on the
participatory models implemented (Lindner, & Aichholzer, 2020). Some others classify the
applications on the purpose of their electoral procedures (Wirtz, Daiser & Binkowska, 2018), while
others according to their most typical function in citizens' involvement (Aichholzer & Rose, 2020).
The participatory models of the initiatives are classified based on several factors – e.g., the actors
(Kassen, 2018), the consensus level (Van Bouwel & Van Oudheusden, 2017), the agenda setting
(Lindner, & Aichholzer, 2020). The usual models are the Direct and Indirect, while there are some
hybrid models, with the Liquid Democracy model being the most prominent (Blum & Zuber, 2015).
Having the participatory model clarified is one of the key aspects of the application.
Once the model is decided, the usage of the initiative defines its type. The most prominent types
based on the usage of the initiative are the ones that inform, consult, involve, collaborate with and
empower the citizens (Wirtz, Daiser & Binkowska, 2018). The different literature terms concerning
each of them are e-Government Portal, e-Discussion, e-Participation, e-Voting and e-Election. Each
one of them represents different levels of both complexity and citizens' involvement.
Another aspect of a successful e-Democracy system is its technological infrastructure. Zheng cites
that technological means are the mediation tools between citizens and administration (Zheng, 2016).
However, even with having the ICT solutions perfectly harmonized with the aforementioned
aspects, it is still uncertain that the e-Democracy initiative will be successful. There are managerial,
organizational, educational and even ethical aspects that should be considered. One of the most
aggregate set of those aspects categorizes them into two groups of prerequisites, technical and
political, each containing different levels of necessity (Berntzen & Karamagioli, 2010).
This study does not analyze every one of those prerequisites. Instead, it presents case studies,
both of successful and unsuccessful paradigms of initiatives in the context of e-Democracy in order
to provide experimental results on best practices and “lessons learned”.
3. Methodology
The research methodology is the one of a case study analysis with a qualitative perspective on the
results. The results, meaning the factors emerged from the case studies, pose similarities and
Ongoing Research 13
differences with the already existing factors that are mentioned in the literature. The most
commonly-mentioned factors lead to some best practices. The methodology examines a wide variety
of factors that consequent to either the success or failure. The examination needs to be precise in
each situation, due to the heterogeneous nature of the case studies. In some instances, success means
more legislative proposals resulting from the initiative, in some others success means more
engagement with specific target groups. The selection of the case studies was based on several
criteria, namely the need of covering different types of e-Democracy applications, within different
regional scope, targeting different range of citizens and having different levels of management.
The first step of the methodology is to search the literature and credible Internet sources in order
to understand the e-Democracy landscape and the initiatives that concern it. More specifically,
studying the e-Democracy models, the ICT usage, the main actors and the prerequisites, the research
process is enhanced with indicators. The examination of each case study should be conducted
according to these indicators. Having the case studies analyzed, the next step includes the gathering
of the most common factors that lead to success or failure and present them. In this scope there are
also presented some best practices and some “lessons learned” from failed initiatives, as stated in
similar literature studies. Finally, this study sets the ground for future research initiatives, providing
holistic view of exemplary e-Democracy case studies that could guide future attempts.
4. Results and Analysis
4.1 The Case of mitmachen.at
The first case study is this of mitmachen.at. The project was project led by the Austrian Federal
Computing Centre with the aim of getting young people to participate in a political discussion about
important topics (Edelmann, Krimmer & Parycek, 2008). The project was innovative and provided
a “Four phases” model. Those phases were: Information and communication, where the participants
were informed about the schedule and the topics while being able to rate them and to propose their
own ones, Analysis, where experts evaluated the participants’ contribution and provided some
concepts, Validation, where the concepts were posted in the project’s site, and participants could
evaluate them, and, Publication, where the final results were presented in the Parliament
(Edelmann, Krimmer & Parycek, 2008).
The results were positive from both the participants and the experts. It engaged the young
Austrians, it fulfilled the expectations of the experts and the Parliament took into consideration the
results of this project, announcing the initiation of other similar projects. The mitmachen.at project
stands as a helpful example of how an e-Democracy project should be executed. Starting with a clear
model for the participatory system, mainly representative, having a well-defined e-Discussion type,
aiming for a specific target group and with proposed but not exclusive topics it reached out its goals
and provided the Parliament a clear view of the participants' opinions. Furthermore, the
technological infrastructure was used without unpleasant surprises and provided a steady
discussion platform where the results are visible even today.
14 Ongoing Research
4.2 The Case of osale.ee
Osale (osale.ee) was Estonia’s one-step e-Participation portal covering two basic fields: the citizens’
engagement on draft legislation and the crowdsourcing of new policy proposals. The main
participants were the Government Office, several Civil Society Organizations and citizen
engagement coordinators. Osale targeted three kinds of users: government officials, organized
interest groups, and individual citizens.
The project faced significant challenges. Officials' reluctance (Toots, 2019), insignificant
awareness amongst the citizens, initial coordinators leaving position, new government policies that
did not favor e-Participation, a competitor system and other reasons led to its termination (Praxis
Center for Policy Studies & Pulse, 2015). Aside those events, there were also some not so definite
factors. The absence of clear goals, the system's structural arrangements, the non-adoption of new
technologies, such as smart phones or social media, were some of them. Another factor concerns the
public sector itself. The system was not designed to face such complexity, regarding the
administrations and their processes. That complexity affected the users' consultation, since the
system did not include simple, citizen-friendly content. Additionally, the lack of political support,
the lack of the cultural maturity and the vague regulatory context also posed challenges.
What is crucial in studying the Osale’s case is to understand the initiative for what it is. A socio-
technical system with involvement in the democratic process. In such systems, the combination of
technological changes, social directions, public administrations' processes and political and cultural
shifts might raise difficulties.
4.3 The Case of abgeordnetenwatch.de
The German parliamentary monitoring website abgeordnetenwatch.de is an online platform where
citizens can monitor their representatives, ask them questions and sign petitions (Korthagen, &
Dorst, 2019). In 2016 there were recorded over 1.5 million users, over 193,000 questions – 80% of
them being answered (Parliamentwatch, 2015). Its model includes interaction between the citizens
and the Parliament members and not the citizens between each other. Both the quantity (Edwards,
de Kool & van Ooijen, 2015), and the quality (Albrecht & Trénel, 2010) of the questions in the
platform are considered advantageous towards the communication between the citizens and the
representatives. The transparency, the reshaping of the representative system and the increase of the
citizens' involvement in politics are the major benefits from using the system (Pautz, 2010).
Overall, the initiative was successful. It assisted the citizens in the creation of the culture
demanding transparency, accountability and communication concerning the politicians. However,
the citizens were not actually involved in the policy making process, partially because of the
parliamentary system of Germany (Korthagen, & Dorst, 2019). Another challenge that the initiative
faced is the political reluctance to openness, more specifically for lobbying (Korthagen, & Dorst,
2019). This initiative is an exemplary case of succeeding in the provision of a functional system with
a strong adoption from citizens, but facing difficulties in persuading the political establishment to
follow its vision.
Ongoing Research 15
4.4 The Case of Finnish Avoin Ministeriö
The online platform Avoin Ministeriö aimed to advocate well-functioning citizens’ initiative
processes and to support individual citizens’ initiative campaigns (van Keulen & Korthagen, 2019).
It was used to collect ideas for discussion and give those ideas and initiatives publicity (van Keulen
& Korthagen, 2019). This is often referred as crowdsourced lawmaking (Edwards, & de Kool, 2016).
The main procedure consisted of five steps: submission of the users’ ideas and engagement, creation
of legislative proposal based on the ideas, submission to the official website in order to collect at
least 50000 expressions of support, submission to the Parliament for consideration and finally the
Parliament debates over the proposal. The platform started as a success story. It reached mainly
younger demographics, which was a tough goal to achieve (Aitamurto & Landemore, 2016). It led
to the legislation changes resulted from a citizens’ initiative, namely the one concerning the gender-
neutral marriage. That had advantageous impact on the citizens’ view towards the platform, since
they saw that their opinions mattered to the legislation process (Bria et al. 2014). There were also
initiatives that led indirectly to the legislation process, due to their popularity (Christensen,
Karjalainen & Nurminen, 2015). The citizens’ views on the system were largely (83% to the national
election survey) positive (Christensen, Karjalainen & Nurminen, 2015).
However, the platform lost its momentum. The Avoin Ministeriö failed to maintain its service,
most likely due to lack of financial support (Heikka, 2015). The lack of legislation expertise from the
political personnel was also factor to its downfall. The comprehensive review of that particular case
highlights the importance of maintenance of the technological and procedural structure of the
initiatives over time and not rely on the initial success.
4.5 The Case of European Citizens’ Initiative
The European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) is the first supranational instrument of participatory
democracy in the European Union (Rose, van Keulen & Aichholzer, 2019). Its goal is to give the
citizens the opportunity to participate in the law-making process of the EU through the submission
of a proposal. There was recorded only a small percentage of citizens’ submissions that gained the
necessary signatures, more specifically 3 from the 59 gathered the required 1 million signatures
(Rose, van Keulen & Aichholzer, 2019). The instrument included several types of civil society
organizations, who promoted or supported citizens' initiatives (Organ, 2014). The procedure of
submitting an initiative included European Union’s citizens forming a citizens’ committee that
launched the initiative to the website (Rose, van Keulen & Aichholzer, 2019). One considerable
challenge of the instrument is the demanding number of signatures needed, with the procedure of
raising the signatures being also expensive, thus creating inequalities between citizens’ committees
and large organizations (Rose, van Keulen & Aichholzer, 2019). Other challenges like the lack of
citizens’ feedback, lack of actual legal outcomes and mismanagement concerning the promotion of
ECI as well as technical difficulties led to the unremarkable results of the instrument (Rose, van
Keulen & Aichholzer, 2019).
Overall, in the period of 5 years, although the instrument assisted the citizens’ mobilization, it fell
short concerning the citizens’ involvement in the legislation process. The instrument has shown
great potential in enhancing the European legislation system, but until it resolves the certain aspects
16 Ongoing Research
mentioned above it will continue to contribute only to issue-specific discourse and mobilization
rather than reshaping the law-making process.
5. Discussion
The case studies reveal a wide set of factors that seem to fall under different categories. It is
reasonable to classify the factors under their technological, administrative and socio-political
origins. The technological factors seem to be present in both the positive and the negative outcomes
of the initiatives. The utilization of new technologies and the maintenance of them are the most
obvious technological factors leading to both the success and the failure of the projects. The
administrative factors are also prominent in the outcome of the project. Clear goals, appropriate
participatory model, specific target groups are only few aspects that are apparent factors. Also, the
active involvement of the citizens is also an indicator of the success of the project. Lastly, the political
atmosphere surrounding the initiative seems also to be a major factor. Political reluctancy in reforms
and collaboration pose major barriers in the success of the project. The legal inabilities of the system
to transform the results of the e-Democracy initiative to proposals also plays a significant role.
However, one last but not easily tackled issue is the failure of some of the initiatives presented to
find the needed acceptance from the citizens, which could be considered an aspect more related to
the society.
6. Conclusions
The coherent definition of the appropriate e-Democracy model, the application type, the
technological specification and the precise purpose of the proposed system are fundamental aspects
of the success of an e-Democracy application. That being stated, it is important to take into
conisderation the societal, administrative and political context where the application will be applied
to. The collaboration between the technological specialists, the government administratives, the
citizens’ communities, the political parties, the media and the relevant scientists is an integral part
of the implementation of that kind of initiatives. Academia, Government, Private Sector and
Citizens, should cooperate in order to lead our societies into future progress in the context of the
decision- making process and the Citizens’ awareness and involvement.
References
Aichholzer, G., & Rose, G. (2020). Experience with digital tools in different types of e-participation. In
European E-Democracy in practice, 93-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_4
Aitamurto, T., & Landemore, H. (2016). Crowdsourced Deliberation: The Case of the Law on Off-Road
Traffic in Finland. Policy & Internet, 8(2), 174–196. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.115
Albrecht, S., & Trénel, M. (2010) Neue Medien als Mittler zwischen Bürgern und Abgeordneten? Das Beispiel
Abgeordnetenwatch. de. https://www.tab-beim-bundestag.de/de/pdf/publikationen/berichte/TAB-
Diskussionspapier-dp012.pdf
Berntzen, L., & Karamagioli, E. (2010). Regulatory Measures to Support eDemocracy. 2010 Fourth
International Conference on Digital Society. https://doi.org/10.1109/icds.2010.74
Ongoing Research 17
Blum, C., & Zuber, C. I. (2015). Liquid Democracy: Potentials, Problems, and Perspectives. Journal of
Political Philosophy, 24(2), 162–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12065
Bria, F., et al. (2014). D 5.1 Pilot implementation of open social web for participatory democracy. D-CENT
Project no. 610349. https://dcentproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/D5.1-Pilot-Implementation-
of-Open-Social-Web-for-Participatory-Democracy.pdf
Christensen, H. S., Karjalainen, M., & Nurminen, L. (2015). Does Crowdsourcing Legislation Increase
Political Legitimacy? The Case of Avoin Ministeriöin Finland. Policy & Internet, 7(1), 25–45.
https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.80
Edelmann, N., Krimmer, R., & Parycek, P. (2008). Engaging youth through deliberative e-participation: a
case study. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 1(4), 385.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeg.2008.022068
Edwards, A., de Kool, D., & van Ooijen, C. (2015). The information ecology of parliamentary monitoring
websites: Pathways towards strengthening democracy. Information Polity, 20(4), 253–268.
https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-150372
Edwards, A., & de Kool, D. (2016). Digital democracy: Opportunities and dilemmas. The Dutch Parliament
in a Networked Society. Den Haag: Rathenau Instituut.
Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its
future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513-522. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12361
Heikka, T. (2015). The Rise of the Mediating Citizen: Time, Space, and Citizenship in the Crowdsourcing of
Finnish Legislation. Policy & Internet, 7(3), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.98
Hujran, O., Abu-Shanab, E. and Aljaafreh, A. (2020), Predictors for the adoption of e-democracy: an
empirical evaluation based on a citizen-centric approach, Transforming Government: People, Process
and Policy, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 523-544. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-03-2019-0016
Kassen, M. (2018). E-participation actors: understanding roles, connections, partnerships. Knowledge
Management Research & Practice, 18(1), 16–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/14778238.2018.1547252
Korthagen, I., & Dorst, H. (2019). Parliamentary Monitoring. European E-Democracy in Practice, 151–162.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_6
Lindner, R., & Aichholzer, G. (2020). E-democracy: conceptual foundations and recent trends. In European E-
Democracy in Practice, 11-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_2
Organ, J. (2014). Decommissioning Direct Democracy? A Critical Analysis of Commission
Decision-Making on the Legal Admissibility of European Citizens Initiative Proposals. European
Constitutional Law Review, 10(3), 422–443. https://doi.org/10.1017/s157401961400131x
Parliamentwatch. (2015). Annual report and activities overview 2014.
https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/sites/abgeordnetenwatch.de/files/aw_annual_report2014_engli
sh_web.pdf
Pautz, H. (2010). The Internet, Political Participation and Election Turnout: A Case Study of Germany's
www.abgeordnetenwatch.de. German Politics and Society, 28(3), 156–175.
https://doi.org/10.3167/gps.2010.280309
18 Ongoing Research
Praxis Center for Policy Studies & Pulse. (2015). Osalusveebi ja valitsuse eelnõude infosüsteemi kasutatavuse
analüüs. Lõpparuanne. https://vv.riigikantselei.ee/sites/default/files/content-
editors/Failid/AVP/Osalusveeb%2C%20EIS%20lopparuanne_8-05-15.pdf.
Rose, G., van Keulen, I., & Aichholzer, G. (2019). Formal Agenda-Setting (European Level). European E-
Democracy in Practice, 209–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_9
Toots, M. (2019). Why E-participation systems fail: The case of Estonia's Osale.ee. Government Information
Quarterly, 36(3), 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.02.002
United Nations (2016). United Nations e-government survey 2016. https://www.un.org/en/desa/2016-un-
e-government-survey
Van Bouwel, J., & Van Oudheusden, M. (2017). Participation beyond consensus? Technology assessments,
consensus conferences and democratic modulation. Social Epistemology, 31(6), 497-513.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2017.1352624
van Keulen, I., & Korthagen, I. (2019). Informal Agenda Setting. European E-Democracy in Practice, 163–175.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27184-8_7
Wirtz, B. W., Daiser, P., & Binkowska, B. (2018). E-participation: A strategic framework. International Journal
of Public Administration, 41(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1242620
Zheng, Y. (2016). Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Usage. Administration & Society, 49(3), 423–442.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399715593313
About the Authors
Panagiotis Keramidis
Panagiotis Keramidis is currently studying in the University's Master Programme of "Digital Government" as
a Postgraduate Fellow. He holds an Integrated Master in Engineering in Information and Communication
Systems Engineering Department of the same University.
Yannis Charalabidis
Yannis Charalabidis is Full Professor in the University of Aegean, in the area of e-Governance Information
Systems, coordinating policy making, research and pilot application projects for governments and
enterprises worldwide. A computer engineer with a PhD in complex information systems, he has been
employed for several years as an executive director in Singular IT Group, leading software development and
company expansion in Eastern Europe, India and the US. During the last 15 years he has been the coordinator
or technical leader in numerous FP6, FP7 and National research projects in the areas of eBusiness and e-
Governance.