What is beyond the façade? Research program of e-participation in non-democracies
Keywords:
аuthoritarianism, e-participation, authoritarian consolidation, policy diffusion, civic participationAbstract
Currently, non-democracies are showing a significant interest in e-participation tools, i.e. in various online mechanisms for citizen participation in public policy, such as epetitions and e-consultations. Such instruments can be found in a vast range of countries from the post-Soviet space to the Middle East. This leads to new interpretations of the role ICT play in regime dynamics, and describes thepeculiarities of contemporary authoritarianism. While the Internet has long beenconsidered a liberation technology, it is currently viewed as providing stability of the authoritarian regime. In these circumstances, e-participation is becoming another pseudo-democratic institution, adapted as a tool for authoritarian consolidation. Although the number of works aimed at understanding this phenomenon is increasing, the research agenda is far from being complete. This paper, first, summarizes what we know and do not know about e-participation in authoritarian contexts, and second, outlines several prospects for further research. In this regards, the author considers e-participation as a policy, institution and process. As a policy, e-participation is the result of the global innovation diffusion and policy learning. The most likely recipient of this innovation among non-democracies is a regime dependent upon internal and external legitimation, as well as having sufficient state potential for reforms. Quite often, e-participation becomes a window-dressing for a repressive Internet-policy and does not go beyond websites. At the same time, e-participation can become a full-fledged institution of authoritarian consolidation, performing the same functions as other institutions, such as information gathering and monitoring the elites. For this, online mechanisms must have a certain institutional design and manipulation menu. It eventually helps dictators to channel Internet protests into the spaces that are fully controlled by the government. E-participation in non-democracies as a process remains an underexplored issue. The evidence prove that the use of such mechanisms indeed makes citizens consider the government to be more legitimate. However, it is to be further explained who, why and with what result is engaged into non-democratic e-participation. The author argues that a stronger integration between comparative authoritarianism and e-participation studies would be beneficial for both areas of research. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2018-3-50-66References
Богданова Е.А. Обращения граждан в органы власти как опыт отстаивания своих интересов в условиях позднесоветского общества (1960‒1970-е гг.): дис. … канд. социол. наук. СПб., 2006 [Bogdanova E.A. Obrashcheniya grazhdan v organy vlasti kak opyt otstaivaniya svoikh interesov v usloviyakh pozdnesovetskogo obshchestva (1960‒1970-e gody). Dis. kand. sotsiol. nauk [Citizens’ Appeals to Public Authorities as a Practice of Defending Interests in
the Conditions of the Late Soviet Society (1960-1970s). Cand. soc. sci. diss. St. Petersburg, 2006].
Сунгуров А.Ю. Функции политической системы и их изменения в процессе российского транзита. СПб., 2008 [Sungurov A. Yu. Funktsii politicheskoy sistemy i ikh izmeneniya v protsesse rossiyskogo tranzita [Functions of Political System and Their Changes in the Process of the Russian Transit. St. Petersburg, 2008].
Ambrosio T. Beyond the Transition Paradigm: A Research Agenda for Authoritarian Consolidation // Demokratizatsiya. 2014. Vol. 22. No. 3. P. 471–494.
Ambrosio T. Constructing a Framework of Authoritarian Diffusion: Concepts, Dynamics, and Future Research // International Studies Perspectives. 2010. Vol. 11. No. 4. P. 375‒392.
Åström J. et al. Understanding the Rise of E-Participation in Non-Democracies: Domestic and International Factors // Government Information Quarterly. 2012. Vol. 29. No. 2. P. 142‒150.
Bäck H., Hadenius A. Democracy and State Capacity: Exploring a J-Shaped Relationship // Governance. 2008. Vol. 21. No. 1. P. 1‒24.
Bekkers V., Homburg V. The Myths of E-government: Looking Beyond the Assumptions of a New and Better Government // The Information Society. 2007. Vol. 23. No. 5. P. 373‒382.
Berry F.S., Berry W.D. Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research // Theories of the Policy Process. Ed. by Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible. Boulder: Westview Press, 2014. P. 307‒362.
Bershadskaya L., Chugunov A., Trutnev D. E-government in Russia: Is or Seems? // Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM, 2012. P. 79‒82.
Best S. J., Krueger B. S. Analyzing the Representativeness of Internet Political Participation // Political Behavior. 2005. Vol. 27. No. 2. P. 183‒216.
Bimber B., Flanagin A. J., Stohl C. Reconceptualizing Collective Action in the Contemporary Media Environment // Communication Theory. 2005. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 365‒388.
Boix C., Svolik M. W. The Foundations of Limited Authoritarian Government: Institutions, Commitment, and Power-Sharing in Dictatorships // The Journal of Politics. 2013. Vol. 75. No. 2. P. 300‒316.
Brady H.E., Verba S., Schlozman L. Beyond SES: A Resource Model of Political Participation // American Political Science Review. 1995. No. 89. P. 271‒294.
Brancati D. Democratic Authoritarianism: Origins and Effects // Annual Review of Political Science. 2014. Vol. 17. P. 313‒326.
Chadwick A. The Electronic Face of Government in the Internet Age: Borrowing from Murray Edelman // Information, Communication & Society. 2001. Vol. 4. No. 3. P. 435‒457.
Chen J., Pan J., Xu Y. Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A Field Experiment in China // American Journal of Political Science. 2016. Vol. 60. No. 2. P. 383‒400.
Chen J., Xu Y. Authoritarian Governance with Public Communication // Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. 2014.
Croke K. et al. Deliberate Disengagement: How Education Can Decrease Political Participation in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes // American Political Science Review. 2016. Vol. 110. No. 3. P. 579‒600.
Curtin D., Meijer A. J. Does Transparency Strengthen Legitimacy? // Information Polity. 2006. Vol. 11. No. 2. P. 109‒122.
Dada D. The Failure of E-Government in Developing Countries: A Literature Review // The Electronic Journal of 21. De Mesquita B. B. et al. The Logic of Political Survival. MIT Press, 2005.
Diamond L. Liberation technology // Journal of Democracy. 2010. Vol. 21. No. 3. P. 69‒83.
Dimitrov M. K. What the Party Wanted to Know: Citizen Complaints as a “Barometer of Public Opinion” in Communist Bulgaria // East European Politics and Societies. 2014. Vol. 28. No. 2. P. 271‒295.
Distelhorst G. The power of Empty Promises: Quasi-democratic Institutions and Activism in China // Comparative Political Studies. 2017. Vol. 50. No. 4. P. 464‒498.
Dukalskis A., Gerschewski J. What Autocracies Say (and What Citizens Hear): Proposing Four Mechanisms of Autocratic Legitimation // Contemporary Politics. 2017. Vol. 23. No. 3. P. 251‒268.
Finkel S. E. Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis // American Journal of Political Science. 1985. Vol. 29. No. 4. P. 891‒913.
Gandhi J., Przeworski A. Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats // Comparative Political Studies. 2007. Vol. 40. No. 11. P. 1279‒1301.
Gel’man V., Starodubtsev A. Opportunities and Constraints of Authoritarian Modernisation: Russian Policy Reforms in the 2000s // Europe-Asia Studies. 2016. Vol. 68. No. 1. P. 97‒117.
Gerschewski J. The Three Pillars of Stability: Legitimation, Repression, and Cooptation in Autocratic Regimes // Democratization. 2013. Vol. 20. No. 1. P. 13‒38.
Gilley B. The Limits of Authoritarian Resilience // Journal of Democracy. 2003. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 18‒26.
Goebel C. The Innovation Dilemma and the Consolidation of Autocratic Regimes. 2013. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2287539.
Goebel C., Lambach D. Charting the Dark Side of the Moon: Regime Responsiveness, Authoritarian Consolidation and the (In-) Stability of Authoritarian Regimes. Available at: http://paperroom.ipsa.org/papers/paper_1073.pdf.
Goebel C. The Information Dilemma: How ICT Strengthen or Weaken Authoritarian Rule // Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift. 2013. Vol. 4. P. 385–402.
Grönlund Å. Connecting eGovernment to Real Government. The Failure of the UN eParticipation Index // International Conference on Electronic Government. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011. P. 26‒37.
Grönlund Å. ICT Is Not Participation Is Not Democracy – eParticipation Development Models Revisited // International Conference on Electronic Participation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. P. 12‒23.
Gulati G. J., Yates D. J. Strategy, Competition and Investment: Explaining the Global Divide in E-government Implementation with Policy Variables //Electronic Government, an International Journal. 2011. Vol. 8. No. 2‒3. P. 124‒143.
Guriev S., Treisman D. How Modern Dictators Survive: An Informational Theory of the New Authoritarianism // National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015. Working Paper No. 21136.
Hale S. A. et al. How Digital Design Shapes Political Participation: A Natural Experiment with Social Information // PloS ONE. 2018. Vol. 13 (4). P. e0196068.
Hall S. G. F., Ambrosio T. Authoritarian Learning: a Conceptual Overview // East European Politics. 2017. Vol. 33. No. 2. P. 143‒161.
He B., Warren M. E. Authoritarian Deliberation: The Deliberative Turn in Chinese Political Development //Perspectives on Politics. 2011. Vol. 9. No. 2. P. 269‒289.
Heeks R. Do Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Contribute to Development? // Journal of International Development. 2010. Vol. 22. No. 5. P. 625‒640.
Heydemann S., Leenders R. Authoritarian Learning and Authoritarian Resilience: Regime Responses to the ‘Arab Awakening’ // Globalizations. 2011. Vol. 8. No. 5. P. 647‒653.
Jho W., Song K. J. Institutional and Technological Determinants of Civil e-Participation: Solo or Duet? // Government Information Quarterly. 2015. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 488‒495.
Jiang M., Xu H. Exploring Online Structures on Chinese Government Portals: Citizen Political Participation and Government Legitimation // Social Science Computer Review. 2009. Vol. 27. No. 2. P. 174‒195.
Kabanov Yu., Romanov B. Interaction between the Internet and the Political Regime: An Empirical Study (1995–2015) // International Conference on Digital Transformation and Global Society. Springer, Cham, 2017. P. 282‒291.
Karlsson M. Carrots and Sticks: Internet Governance in Non–Democratic Regimes // International Journal of Electronic Governance. 2013. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 179‒186.
Katchanovski I., La Porte T. Cyberdemocracy or Potemkin e-villages? Electronic governments in OECD and Post-Communist Countries // International Journal of Public Administration. 2005. Vol. 28. No. 7-8. P. 665‒681.
Kenski K., Stroud N. J. Connections between Internet Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation // Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media. 2006. Vol. 50. No. 2. P. 173‒192.
King G., Pan J., Roberts M. E. How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression // American Political Science Review. 2013. Vol. 107. No. 2. P. 326‒343.
Kneuer M., Harnisch S. Diffusion of E-government and E-participation in Democracies and Autocracies // Global Policy. 2016. Vol. 7. No. 4. P. 548‒556.
Krishnan S., Teo T. S. H., Lymm J. Determinants of Electronic Participation and Electronic Government Maturity: Insights from Cross-Country Data // International Journal of Information Management. 2017. Vol. 37. No. 4. P. 297‒312.
Lee C., Chang K., Berry F. S. Testing the Development and Diffusion of Egovernment and E-democracy: A Global Perspective // Public Administration Review. 2011. Vol. 71. No. 3. P. 444‒454.
Lidén G. Technology and Democracy: Validity in Measurements of E-democracy // Democratization. 2015. Vol. 22. No. 4. P. 698‒713.
Linde J., Karlsson M. The Dictator's New Clothes: The Relationship Between EParticipation and Quality of Government in Non-Democratic Regimes // International Journal of Public Administration. 2013. Vol. 36. No. 4. P. 269‒281.
Lindner R., Riehm U. Broadening Participation through E-Petitions? An Empirical Study of Petitions to the German Parliament // Policy & Internet. 2011. Vol. 3. No. 1. P. 1‒23.
Lindner R., Riehm U. Electronic petitions and institutional modernization. International parliamentary e-petition systems in comparative perspective // JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government. 2009. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 1‒11.
MacKinnon R. China's “Networked authoritarianism” // Journal of Democracy. 2011. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 32‒46.
Maerz S. F. The electronic face of authoritarianism: E-government as a tool for gaining legitimacy in competitive and non-competitive regimes // Government Information Quarterly. 2016. Vol. 33. No. 4. P. 727‒735.
Magaloni B. Credible Power-Sharing and the Longevity of Authoritarian Rule // Comparative Political Studies. 2008. Vol. 41. No. 4‒5. P. 715‒741.
Magaloni B., Wallace J. Citizen Loyalty, Mass Protest and Authoritarian Survival // Conference on Dictatorships: Their Governance and Social Consequences, Princeton University. 2008.
Min S. J. From the Digital divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use // Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2010. Vol. 7. No. 1. P. 22‒35.
Nathan A. J. Authoritarian Resilience // Journal of Democracy. 2003. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 6‒17.
Norris P. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. NY: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Owen C. A Genealogy of Kontrol’ in Russia: From Leninist to Neoliberal Governance // Slavic Review. 2016. Vol. 75. No. 2. P. 331‒353.
Owen C., Bindman E. Civic Participation in a Hybrid Regime: Limited Pluralism in Policymaking and Delivery in Contemporary Russia // Government and Opposition. 2017. P. 1‒23.
Ruijgrok K. From the Web to the Streets: Internet and Protests under Authoritarian Regimes // Democratization. 2017. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 498‒520.
Santaniello M., Amoretti F. Electronic Regimes: Democracy and Geopolitical Strategies in Digital Networks // Policy & Internet. 2013. Vol. 5. No. 4. P. 370‒386.
Schedler A. The New Institutionalism in the Study of Authoritarian Regimes // Totalitarismus und Demokratie. 2009. Vol. 6. No. 2. P. 323‒340.
Schedler A. The politics of uncertainty: Sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Stier S. Political Determinants of E-Government Performance Revisited: Comparing Democracies and Autocracies // Government Information Quarterly. 2015.
Vol. 32. No. 3. P. 270‒278.
Stone D. Transfer and Translation of Policy // Policy Studies. 2012. Vol. 33. No. 6. P. 483‒499.
Teets J. C. Let Many Civil Societies Bloom: The Rise of Consultative Authoritarianism in China // The China Quarterly. 2013. Vol. 213. P. 19‒38.
Thorsen M., Grundholm A. T., Ulrichsen D. State Capacity, Democracy, and Human Development. Paper prepared for the Annual meeting of the Danish Political Science Association on October 27‒28, 2016.
Tomkova J. E-consultations: New tools for civic engagement or facades for political correctness // European Journal of ePractice. 2009. Vol. 7. P. 45‒55.
Truex R. Consultative Authoritarianism and Its Limits // Comparative Political Studies. 2017. Vol. 50. No. 3. P. 329‒361.
Von Soest C., Grauvogel J. Comparing legitimation strategies in Post-Soviet countries // Politics and Legitimacy in Post-Soviet Eurasia. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2016. P. 18‒46.
Wallin P. Authoritarian Collaboration. Unexpected Effects of Open Government Initiatives in China. Linnaeus University Dissertations. No. 200/2014. Linnaeus University Press, 2014. Available at: http://www.divaportal.org/smash/get/diva2:762016/FULLTEXT02.
Williams C. B., Gulati G. J. J., Yates D. J. Predictors of on-line services and eparticipation: a cross-national comparison // Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. ACM, 2013. P. 190‒197.
Yan X., Xin G. Reforming Governance under Authoritarianism: Motivations and Pathways of Local Participatory Reform in the People’s Republic of China // Democratization. 2017. Vol. 24. No. 3. P. 405‒424.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
The author grants the Publisher of the journal (Perm State University) the right to use their article in the journal, as well as to include the text of the abstract, the full text of the article and information about authors in the "Russian Science Citation Index" (RSCI).
The author agrees to the processing of personal data.
The right to use the journal as a whole belongs to the Publisher and acts indefinitely on the territory of the Russian Federation and beyond in accordance with cl. 1260 of the Russian Federation Civil Code.
There is no author's fee paid for providing the above rights by the author.
The author of the article included in the journal retains the exclusive right to it, regardless of the Publisher's right to use the journal as a whole:
a. The authors retain their copyrights to the article and transfer the right of the first publication along with the article to the journal, while also licensing it on the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows others to distribute this article with the obligatory indication of authorship of the article and reference to the original publication in this journal.
b. The authors retain the right to enter into separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the version of the text published by this journal (for example, post it in a university archive or publish it in a book), with reference to the original publication in this journal.
c. d. Authors are allowed to post their text on the Internet (for example, in a university archive or on their personal website) before and during the review process by this journal, as this can lead to a fruitful discussion and to higher number of the references to this published work (Please refer to The Effect of Open Access).
Submission of an article by the author implies that they agree for it to be used by the Publisher on the above conditions and to be included in the RSCI system. It also implicates that the author is aware of the terms of its use. The information about the author sent to the Publisher, including by e-mail, is also considered as such consent.
The editorial board posts the full text of the article on the Perm State University site: http://www.psu.ru and in the OJS system at http://press.psu.ru
The publication fee is not collected and fees are not paid. The author's copy is sent to the author to the address provided by them.
