Concerns about the state of democracy and participation date back several decades. In the 1990's, there were concerns about declining political party membership and voter turnout, and a general political fragmentation. This trend has been strengthened and made visible throughout the 2010's, with increased polarization and populism, and countries moving away from democratic ideals. Democratic innovations, including digital democracy initiatives, are introduced to ”fix” democracies and renew interest, but is the public, especially the younger generation, interested? In this paper, we present the findings of a Swedish survey of youth sentiment towards innovations in local democracy. Our findings indicate that young people generally are supportive of local democratic innovations, but that levels of support vary across age groups as well as between diferent types of democratic innovations. Surprisingly we find that the youngest cohort in our study (16-19) is less supportive of online democratic innovations compared to other groups.
Europe and Scandinavia has been concerned with the state of democracy dating back at least
to the 1990’s, when the power and democracy project [
However, the late 2010’s indicated that fragmentation and populist politics continued, with
Trump’s election and Brexit being the most well-known examples [
This seeming rise in protest-based voting can perhaps in part be explained by the increasingly complex definitions and workings of democracy, as shown by Dingwerth (et al) who point out that the number of actors is increasing and democracy is becoming more international, leading to complexity and uncertainty about whom to hold accountable for decisions.
Especially among young people, there is an alienation and a strong feeling of distrust towards
political institutions [
On the other hand, a survey among Norwegian youth provides a more positive outlook. 75%
report they are somewhat or very interested in politics, and 92% report being interested in
society/social afairs When it comes to participation, they are reluctant to engage in discussions
in public fora such as social media. They prefer to discuss with close friends, family and in
school. Reasons for not participating include not knowing enough about politics, being afraid
of negative feedback and losing friends over political disagreement. 18% report having negative
experiences as a direct result of sharing political opinions, reflecting earlier research claiming
that hateful speech and harassment is limiting the political debate climate [
This indication that young people are interested in politics, but reluctant to share one’s
opinions outside what is considered ”safe spaces” can be considered problematic in the participatory
liberal model of democracy [
Democratic innovations are forms of citizen participation initiated by government institutions,
yet at the same time innovative in relation to existing formalized channels of participation
in politics (e.g., voting in elections, party membership, contacting politicians etc.) (cf. [
Democratic innovations are often aimed at increasing civic participation among citizens who
are other vice inactive in politics (cf. [
In this study we will investigate young citizens sentiments towards four types of democratic
innovations in local democracy (see table 1 below). This typology of democratic innovations is
neither meant to be exhaustive or representative in relation to what democratic innovations are
most commonly implemented in Swedish local democracy. Rather the typology attempts to
reflect important distinctions between diferent types of innovations and their implications for
local democracy. Agenda setting and discussion-oriented innovations are complementary to
and non-threatening towards the strongly party oriented representative democracy of Swedish
local government. Referendums however pose a clear alternative to the process of democratic
decision-making in representative democracy and is much more controversial in the Swedish
context (cf. [
The analyses conducted are based on the SOM (Society, opinion and media) survey conducted by SOM-institute at Gothenburg University, in the autumn of 2020. The survey questions regarding support for democratic innovations were added by the authors (as well as the primary Agenda setting Discussion E-participation
Democratic innovations geared towards influencing the political agenda of democratic institutions rather than their decisions.
Most often by giving citizens the opportunity to place issues on the agenda for local councils and boards.
Democratic innovations geared towards generating discussion around local issues and policies.
Such innovations can (but must not) adopt ideas from deliberative democracy Democratic innovations granting citizens the opportunity to decide or advice the decision of democratic institutions by way of voting on alternative policy directions.
Online democratic innovations can take on any of the characteristics of the types described above but are utilizing ICTs and the internet.
Citizens can participate through digital technology such as computers or smartphones.
This type of democratic innovation is often referred to as e-participation.
Examples Petitions Citizens´questions to policy- makers Public hearings Mini-publics Policy-forums Local referendums either initiated by the public (citizens initiative) or by government institutions E-petitions Online discussion forums E-voting in referendums investigator of these survey questions Joachim Åström). All other items used in the analysis belong to the standard set of questions in the SOM-surveys. The survey was conducted via a combination of postal and online surveying, and sent to a random sample of 3750 swedes and received 1875 responses (response rate: 50%).
The analyses conducted in this study are descriptive crosstabulations. The variables used in these analyses can be divided in two categories: (1) demographic variables, and (2) support for democratic innovations. Demographic variables are restricted to the respondents’ age. We make comparisons of level of support for democratic innovations across age groups using a categorical variable dividing the respondents in 8 age groups. This variable is devised to create a nuanced division among young people distinguishing between 16-19 year old, 20-24 year old and 25-29 year old.
The variables measuring support for democratic innovations are based on four survey questions asking the respondents to what extent they find it desirable that their local government initiate more democratic innovations of four diferent types: (1) innovations aimed to give citizens influence over the political agenda, (2) innovations oriented towards generating political discussions around local policy, (3) innovations that gives citizens say over decisions (specifically in the form of referendums) and (4) innovations that utilizes information and communication technology. Each question is answered on a scale from 1 (very desirable) to 4 (not at all desirable).
As is evident from table 4 below, the level of support for democratic innovations is generally strong among Swedish citizens. The table displays the share of citizens in each age group that ifnd each form of democratic innovation either very or somewhat desirable. More than 60% of citizens in all age groups are supportive of all four types of democratic innovations. In some age groups and for some types of innovations the share of respondents supportive is even over 80%. However, beneath this general pattern it is also evident that the level of support is varying across age groups. For agenda setting innovations and innovations geared towards political discussion, the most common forms of democratic innovations, support is generally higher among middle aged and older adults than among the younger groups.
Notes: underscore signifies the type of DI most supported within each age group. Bold signifies within which age group the support for a type of DI is strongest.
Regarding support for referendums and online innovations, the pattern is reversed.
16–19yearolds are the group most supportive of referendums (the least popular form of democratic
innovation across the whole population), and what is more, referendums is even the most widely
supported out of the four forms of democratic innovation in this age group. This result may
reflect a greater tendency towards supporting direct democracy in younger segments of the
population found in earlier research. Similar findings in earlier studies have been discussed as
potentially related to greater dispersion of post-materialistic values in younger generations as
well as reflecting that young people have weaker attachments to established political institutions
such as political parties [
Lastly, as might be expected, the level of support for online democratic innovations is much
stronger in younger age categories (20-49 years old), while less supported by older middle-aged
citizens and older citizens (50-85). For citizens in their 20s and 30s this form of democratic
innovation is the most widely supported among the four types analysed. There is however, one
exception from this age-related pattern, within the youngest group (16-19) support for online
innovations is quite sparsely dispersed as only 62,5% of the respondents in this age category
ifnds initiating online democratic innovations very or somewhat desirable. This is a somewhat
puzzling result given that this is a group of citizens in which ICT use is widely disseminated and
frequent. For instance, the Swedish survey of internet habits from 2021 found that computer
and smartphone use was most widely adopted among citizens between 15 and 19 [
Our results indicate that not only is online innovations the least supported form of democratic
innovations within this age category but also that online innovations are more widely supported
in a majority of the other age groups. While it might seem logical to assume that a group
of citizens in which ICTs are almost universally adopted would be supportive of democratic
innovations utilizing such technologies, their attitudes tell a somewhat diferent story. This
result contrasts greatly with earlier evidence on the relationship between age and e-participation
that generally show that young people are more likely to participate in e-participation (cf. [
Notes: Bold signifies within which type of democratic innovation has received the highest frequency of answers within each answer category.
In table 5 above, we will look more closely at the support for democratic innovations among
young people (age 16-19). The analyses presented in table 4 makes it evident that beneath the
pattern of broad support for all four types of democratic innovations, there are some important
variations between the diferent types of innovations. Discussion oriented innovations and
referendums garners less strong support (”very desirable”) as well as less strong antipathy (”very
undesirable”) compared to the other categories of democratic innovations. Hence, sentiments
towards these types of innovations are less polarized, and evoke a broad yet ”lukewarm” support.
This is expected for discussion-oriented innovations that earlier studies have shown to be less
polarizing, among citizens [
The share of young citizens who find each type of democratic innovation ”very undesirable” is worthy of extra attention. As is evident from table 4 above, online innovations are found very undesirable from a larger share of young swedes (9.7%) compared to other types of innovations. This is important since democratic innovations generally engage only a fraction of the public in actual participation. The support for such innovations among citizens who are not likely to participate is therefore important for the democratic legitimacy of democratic innovations. It is thus important to pay attention to the antipathy towards democratic innovations as a way of measuring the legitimacy of such innovations among citizens who are likely not to participate themselves.
The evidence concerning online innovations points to a need for caution. The youngest cohort of citizens are, as we have shown above, less supportive of online democratic innovations compared to most other age groups. Further, the antipathy towards online innovations is non-negligible as about one in ten young citizens finds this form of democratic innovation very undesirable. This finding should be taken into consideration in relation to the common practice of using online channels of citizen participation in eforts to reach and mobilize young citizens (cf. [21]: 51-52).
This study aims to further our understanding of young peoples sentiments towards democratic innovations in local democracy by way of analysing survey data among Swedish citizens. Democratic innovations ofer important channels for citizen participation in local politics alongside traditional channels of participation: both government initated (voting, party membership etc.) and citizen iniated (protest, demonstrations, civil society organizations etc.). However, local democratic innovations seldom reach a scale of participation that supports legitimate claims of representing the view of the whole citizenry. Rather, such processes often engage only hundreds or even dozens of citizens. Threfore the democratic legitimacy of democratic innovations rests heavily on two factors: (1) the representativeness of those who participate in relation to the whole demos and (2) the level of support for democratic innovation among non-participants. This study ofers new insights into the latter of these factors.
We generally find broad support for local democratic innovations among Swedish citizens across innovation types as well as age groups. There are however important variations to consider. Young citizens are found to be more supportive of referendums, a more radical form of democratic innovation that challenges the logic of democratic policy-making in representative democracy, compared to older citizens. Further, and more surprisingly, we find that the youngest cohort in our study (age 16-19) are less supportive of online democratic innovations compared to most other age groups. This finding contrasts with earlier studies that have found young age as a strong determinant of online participation. While our finding does not directly contradict earlier studies: a lower support for online participation could theoretically emerge in a group of citizens where online participation is high, it might put them in a new light.. What our ifndings indicates is that the support for online participation among young people who do not participate in online democratic innovations may be relatively low. This finding puts the legitimacy of online democratic innovations among young people in question and should be taken into consideration when designing democratic innovations targeting young citizens.
This work is partially funded by the the Research Council of Norway, project number 310122: Konsept for styrket demokratimedvirkning (”Consept for strengthening democratic influence”). councillors in sweden, Local Government Studies 38 (2012) 795–815. [21] A. Khan, S. Krishnan, Social media enabled e-participation: Review and agenda for future research, E-service Journal 10 (2017) 45–75.