Direct Digital Democracy

DDD

I now want to introduce what is currently the most innovative development in political science: digital democracy. In a preliminary definition, digital democracy can be described as the use of information technologies and communication strategies in political, social, and governmental processes.

It is important to distinguish the concept of “digital democracy” from “digital government.” Digital government, or E-government, can be said to have already been implemented in most developed countries. It allows public administrations, both local and central, to use the Internet to communicate with citizens and provide services, information, and communication, enabling direct online interaction with citizens, effectively making them “online citizens,” largely thanks to recent digital identity protocols with level 2 security tied to passwords that interact with mobile phones.

“The term digital democracy is widely used today to describe a broad range of practices involving online participation of the public in decision-making and opinion formation. Regarding theoretical concepts of democracy, digital democracy is primarily based on participatory and deliberative democracy models. However, after two decades of digital democracy, high expectations regarding a substantial reform of modern democracy through online tools for political participation and public debate remain debated. It is certain, though, that digital democracy will add new modes of communication among citizens and between actors of representative democracy and their constituencies. These changes not only affect online political processes but also influence, in many ways, offline political processes. They depend on the wide variety of digital democracy tools applied, the nature of the democratic process in which they are integrated, and the skills, requirements, and expectations of those involved in their application.” — Prospects of Digital Democracy in Europe, 2018 (STOA – European Parliament Service) Authors: Iris Korthagen, Ira van Keulen (Rathenau Institute); Leonhard Hennen (KIT/ITAS); Georg Aichholzer, Gloria Rose (ITA/OEAW); Ralf Lindner, Kerstin Goos (Fraunhofer ISI); Rasmus Øjvind Nielsen (DBT Foundation) PE 603.213.

Another internationally recognized definition of digital democracy, also called electronic democracy (E-democracy), incorporates 21st-century information and communication technology (ICT) to promote democracy. “These technologies include governmental communication and information technologies, proposing forms of direct democracy in which all adult citizens are presumed to be able to participate equally in proposals and the development of local and central government policies.” — Hosein Jafarkarimi, Alex Sim, Robab Saadatdoost, Jee Mei Hee (2014). The impact of ICT on Reinforcing Citizen’Role in Government Decision Making.

From my perspective, if we pause to reflect on what 50 years ago seemed like a utopia—the ability to consult millions of citizens within a few hours at negligible cost—we realize that progress toward what I call Direct Digital Democracy (DDD) has been enormous. Until now, the integration of IT into political and electoral-referendum consultations has been limited by obvious security concerns over potential fraud. Today, however, this barrier could be overcome, not only due to new firewalls (although technology teaches us that absolute security will never exist) but also thanks to new digital identity security protocols, with advanced type 2 controls and type 3 if necessary.

Modern democracies are generally representative, in which citizens elect representatives to manage the formulation of laws, policies, and regulations on their behalf, as opposed to direct democracies where citizens retain this responsibility themselves. They can be considered more or less “democratic” depending on how well the government represents the will or interest of the people. A shift to direct digital democracy would, in effect, transfer political power from elected representatives to individuals.

The free flow of information via the Internet has encouraged freedom and human development. The Internet is used to promote human rights, including freedom of speech, religion, expression, peaceful assembly, government accountability, and the right to knowledge and understanding, supporting democracy. It would be interesting to propose an experiment in direct digital democracy through a global question of crucial importance to all humans in the 21st century: “As citizens of planet Earth, would you give up certain goods and privileges to prevent the climate from changing so rapidly?” This is already technically feasible with current applications. The main challenge for a global consultation would be to provide computers and networks capable of connecting, in a short time, all people on the planet who have Internet access (5 or 6 billion, or even more?). In theory, these technologies could make it possible.

In Italy, digital democracy is rarely discussed, except for experiments by the Five Star Movement (M5S), which until 2020 used the so-called Rousseau platform to consult its members on certain political decisions, including selecting candidates in local and parliamentary primaries. Beyond its value as a direct democracy tool, Rousseau is not owned by the M5S party, which does not ensure essential transparency. In 2012, the nascent Five Star Movement selected its candidates for Italian and European elections through online voting by registered members of Beppe Grillo’s blog. Through the digital platform accessible online, registered users discussed, approved, or rejected legislative proposals presented in Parliament by the M5S group. For example, the M5S electoral law was shaped through a series of online votes (“Here is the M5S electoral law preannounced by Casaleggio”).

When the Conte I government collapsed, a new coalition between the Democratic Party and M5S was approved after online voting. “Yes won. This was the result of the Rousseau vote, where 79,634 of 117,194 members voted from 9 am to 6 pm to decide whether to approve the agreement with the PD for the formation of a new government led by Giuseppe Conte. The M5S base thus said yes to the agreement with 79.3% approval—a true plebiscite. No votes were 20.7%.” — La Repubblica, 3 September 2019.

The partnership with the UK Independence Party was also decided online, although the options for choosing the European Parliament group for M5S were limited to Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD) and European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR). Joining the Verts/ALE group was discussed but unavailable due to prior refusal by the M5S group.

The Internet has attributes that make it a powerful tool for democracy expansion. Its decentralized nature makes censorship difficult. Its culture of free expression permeates nearly all aspects of Internet use. Unmediated mass communication online, through newsgroups or chat rooms, bypasses traditional media boundaries. As a vast digital network with open standards, the Internet can, in principle, provide universal and affordable access to diverse communication forms and models.

Practical issues for direct digital democracy include effective participation, equality of voting in decision-making, informed understanding, agenda control, and inclusiveness. Systemic issues include cybersecurity and protecting sensitive data.

In the USA, politics has become dependent on the Internet because it is the primary source of information for most Americans. The Internet educates people about democracy, keeping them informed about their government. Online advertising is increasingly used by political candidates and groups to promote opinions on various proposals.

The DDD can be seen as a remedy for the distance between elected officials and voters, concentrated power, and lack of post-electoral accountability in traditional party-centered democracy.

It is important to distinguish between the concept of “digital democracy” and “digital government.” “Digital government,” or e-government, can be considered largely implemented in most developed countries. It allows public administrations, both local and central, to use the Internet to interact with citizens and provide services, communications, and information, turning them into “online citizens,” particularly through recent digital identity protocols with level 2 security, linked to passwords interacting with mobile phones.

“The term digital democracy is widely used today to describe a broad range of practices involving the online participation of public opinion in decision-making and opinion formation. Regarding the theoretical concepts of democracy, digital democracy is mainly based on models of participatory and deliberative democracy. However, after two decades of digital democracy, high expectations regarding a substantial reform of modern democracy through online tools for political participation and public debate remain under discussion. It is, however, certain that digital democracy will introduce new modes of communication between citizens and representatives of representative democracy and their constituencies. These changes do not only concern online political processes but also significantly influence the modalities and conditions of offline political processes. They depend on the wide variety of digital democracy tools applied, the nature of the democratic process in which they are integrated, and the skills, requirements, and expectations of the participants involved.” — The Prospects of Digital Democracy in Europe, 2018 (STOA – European Parliament service) Authors: Iris Korthagen, Ira van Keulen (Rathenau Institute), Leonhard Hennen (KIT/ITAS), Georg Aichholzer, Gloria Rose (ITA/OEAW), Ralf Lindner, Kerstin Goos (Fraunhofer ISI), Rasmus Øjvind Nielsen (DBT Foundation), PE 603.213.

Another definition of digital democracy, internationally known as electronic democracy (e-democracy), incorporates 21st-century information and communication technology (ICT) to promote democracy. “These technologies include communicative and informational government tools, proposing forms of direct democracy in which it is assumed that all adult citizens can participate equally in policy proposals and development at both local and central levels.” — Hosein Jafarkarimi, Alex Sim, Robab Saadatdoost, Jee Mei Hee (2014), The impact of ICT on Reinforcing Citizen’ Role in Government Decision Making.

From my point of view, if we pause to reflect on what seemed a utopia fifty years ago—the ability to consult millions of citizens in a few hours at minimal cost—we realize that progress toward what I call Direct Digital Democracy (DDD) has been enormous. Until now, the introduction of computing into political-electoral or referendum consultations has been limited by obvious security concerns regarding potential fraud. Today, this situation could be overcome, not only through new firewalls (although technology shows us that absolute security will never exist), but thanks to new digital identity security protocols, with advanced level 2 and, if necessary, level 3 checks.

Modern democracies are generally representative, in which citizens elect representatives to handle lawmaking, policies, and regulations on their behalf, in contrast to direct democracies where citizens retain this responsibility personally. Governments can be considered more or less “democratic” depending on how well they reflect the will or interest of the people. A shift to direct digital democracy would, in effect, transfer political power from elected representatives to the individual.

The free dissemination of information via the Internet has encouraged freedom and human development. The Internet is used to promote human rights, including freedom of speech, religion, expression, peaceful assembly, government accountability, and the right to knowledge and understanding, supporting democracy. It would be interesting to propose a direct digital democracy experiment through a global question of crucial importance for all humans in the 21st century: “As citizens of planet Earth, would you give up certain goods and privileges to prevent the climate from changing so rapidly?” This could already be feasible with current applications. The difference for a global consultation would be making technology available—computers and networks capable of connecting everyone on the planet who can access the Internet (5–6 billion or more?). Such technologies appear theoretically possible.

In Italy, digital democracy is rarely discussed, except for the experiments of the Five Star Movement (M5S), which until 2020 used the so-called Rousseau platform to consult its members on certain political choices, including the selection of candidates in primaries for local and parliamentary elections. Beyond its undeniable value as a tool for direct democracy, the Rousseau platform is not owned by M5S, which does not guarantee essential transparency in its use. In 2012, the nascent Five Star Movement selected its candidates for Italian and European elections via online voting by registered users of Beppe Grillo’s blog. Through the web-accessible platform, registered users discuss, approve, or reject legislative proposals presented in Parliament by the M5S group. For example, the M5S electoral law was shaped through a series of online votes. Support for the abolition of a law against immigrants was decided online by M5S members, even though the final decision opposed the views of Grillo and Casaleggio.

When the first Conte government dissolved, a new coalition between the Democratic Party and M5S was approved through an online vote. The partnership with the UK Independence Party was also decided online, though the options were limited to certain European Parliament groups.

The Internet has several features that encourage its consideration as a means of expanding democracy. The lack of centralized control makes censorship difficult. Its strong propensity for freedom of speech and a culture of sharing permeates almost all aspects of Internet use. Unmediated mass communication online, such as through newsgroups and chat rooms, bypasses the boundaries established by traditional media like newspapers and radio. Since the Internet is a vast digital network with open standards, universal and affordable access to a wide variety of communication means is possible.

Practical issues involving direct digital democracy include effective participation, equality of voting, informed understanding, agenda control, and inclusiveness. Systemic concerns include cybersecurity and protecting sensitive data from third parties.

In the USA, politics has become dependent on the Internet because it is the primary source of information for most Americans. The Internet educates people about democracy and helps them stay informed about their government. Online advertising is increasingly popular among political candidates to influence opinions.

For many, the Internet is now often the main source of information, especially among younger voters, because it is easy to use and reliable if employed correctly, reducing individual workload. Search engines like Google facilitate citizen engagement in research and political issues. Social networks allow people to express their opinions anonymously. Due to the Internet’s scale and decentralized structure, any individual can potentially go viral and influence many others.

The network and social media enable citizens to obtain and share information about politicians and allow politicians to gather advice from multiple people. Collective decision-making empowers citizens and helps politicians make decisions more efficiently, creating a more productive society. Receiving feedback from the public is crucial, and the Internet allows politicians to engage with more opinions.

DDD can bridge the gap between elected officials and voters, countering concentrated power and post-election unaccountability in traditional processes organized around political parties. The goal is to provide citizens with active participation in decision-making, facilitated by ICT tools.

Digital democracy supports decision-making processes by organizing and informing citizens, promoting active participation, and enabling collaboration between stakeholders. ICT creates opportunities for a government that is simultaneously more democratic and more knowledgeable, fostering online cooperation between professionals and the public. Increased public participation enhances democratic decision-making. ICT also promotes pluralism, bringing new issues and perspectives.

Younger people under 35 have been noted for political disengagement. Digital democracy has been proposed as a method to increase voter turnout, democratic participation, and political knowledge among youth. Programs like Highland Youth Voice in Scotland aim to increase youth engagement by understanding their opinions, experiences, and aspirations, providing a platform to influence local decision-makers.

Civil society associations play a crucial role in the democratic process, providing citizens with access to public affairs and power outside the state. The Internet enables easier mobilization, outreach, and fundraising for social and political causes. It also supports deliberative democracy by providing access to diverse perspectives and facilitating communication between citizens and government.

Challenges include technological divides, cybersecurity, digital literacy, and ensuring inclusive participation. Electronic voting requires strong authentication and privacy measures, as illustrated by Estonia’s system. Governments must ensure that online engagement is meaningful, secure, and accessible to all.

DDD has the potential to overcome traditional trade-offs between participation scale and depth of expression. Web 2.0 and social media show that large-scale participation and expressive depth are possible, though expressions online are often unstructured. New information processing techniques, including big data analysis and semantic networks, offer ways to harness these possibilities for future digital democracy.

Currently, digital democracy relies on email lists, peer-to-peer networks, collaborative software and apps, wikis, forums, and blogs, supporting information provision, deliberation, and participation. Its development depends on pervasive changes such as increased interdependence, multimedia technology, partnership governance, and individualism. Integrating open social network communication with structured communication among experts and policymakers—such as modified Delphi methods—enhances the democratic process by reconciling distributed knowledge with accountability and decision-making.

Civic engagement encompasses political knowledge, trust in the political system, and political participation. The Internet facilitates civic engagement by providing new avenues to interact with government institutions, promoting informed participation, and enabling collective problem-solving.

In sum, DDD is the use of ICT to support democratic decision-making processes, enhancing citizen organization, participation, collaboration, and pluralism, while addressing generational and social inclusiveness challenges.