DIGITAL DEMOCRACY

By Enzo Floris

September 21, 2020

“In the strict sense of the term, a true democracy has never existed and never will exist”. In the work of prominent Enlightenment thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “true democracy” is synonymous with direct deliberative democracy. Direct deliberative democracy refers to an unmediated democratic system in which consensus and deliberation, rather than majority rule, are the policy output’s primary sources of legitimacy. At the time of the penning of those words, only independent European city-states like Rousseau’s native Geneva came close to fitting such definition, but ultimately fell short. Indeed, the Swiss political philosopher believed the spatial, temporal, demographic and societal constraints on full democratic practice to be unsurmountable. Three centuries later, as digital technology achieved previously unthinkable feats in terms of connecting people, one of Europe’s largest and most influential online participatory platforms bears his name. Founded by the Italian political party Five Star Movement (FSM) in its quest to introduce elements of direct democracy in Italian institutional life, the Rousseau platform fulfils various purposes. It runs primary votes, serves as a public forum discussing salient political issues, and organizes referendums on policy proposals. 

A success born of the public’s disillusion

The success of the Rousseau platform is partly ascribable to dwindling trust in representative democratic institutions. Data gathered in Italy shows that as of 2019 the share of the population having faith in the Parliament and public officials reached a low of 15%. For parties, the situation is even more dire as they enjoy the trust of a measly 9% of respondents. Arguably, the rise of online deliberative platforms is also influenced by a pervasive democratic deficit. The current systems of democratic representation date back to a time when technology did not allow to overcome space and time distances. As new possibilities open, the public’s expectations of further involvement in the public sphere increase. Indeed, the Italian trend fits into a wider global picture of dissatisfaction with representative institutions, the ruling class and politics as a whole. 

Making an impact in Italian politics

FSM’s Rousseau aims to answer this expanding need for alternative and better systems of representation and for greater democracy within party structures. The platform offers registered users the right to weigh in on important issues, which traditional political organizations reserve to party elites. The significance of the users’ preferences reflects clearly in recent Italian political history, as several key decisions for the party as well as the country were taken within such framework. Remarkably, in 2018 Rosseau determined the birth of a coalition government between FSM and Salvini’s League, after an overwhelming online vote in favor of it. The platform will also likely play an important role this autumn in the crucial upcoming regional elections, as FSM’s governor candidates are chosen through the same online voting process.

Enhancing political participation

By investing in the public’s ability to have a say on party policies and nominees, Rousseau bolsters political participation and introduces tools of direct democratic practice in the Italian political system. The platform also provides its users with e-learning material concerning the functioning of political institutions and the democratic process. By doing so, it raises civic and political awareness among previously disenfranchised voters, which constitute a sizable part of FSM’s electoral basin.

Proper deliberative democracy is still out of reach

Despite Rousseau’s numerous positive contributions to the system, the platform has yet to reach its proposed goals of democratic egalitarianism and inter-party democracy. As a matter of fact, there are critical issues that paint the FSM as hardly more democratic than traditional parties. The decision-making process appears plebiscitarian rather than deliberative as the voting system values preference aggregation over debate. Deliberation, notwithstanding the presence of vibrant policy discussion threads, seems to be de facto left entirely to the party’s leadership. Indeed, users for the most part can only decide on proposals that were previously crafted by FSM officials. In addition, there appears to be no transparent standard or explicit rule on how to call an online referendum and the weight of users in shaping the questions in such consultations appears to be limited.

A modest pool of users

Moreover, as a result of scandals surrounding FSM and the platform’s own flaws, participation in online voting and discussions has been steadily decreasing over the last few years. As of 2017 the percentage of members participating in online voting dropped to 13%, down from an initial height of 68% in 2013, back when votes took place on FSM founder Beppe Grillo’s blog. This process hinders Rousseau’s legitimacy as a democratic tool. Only a few months ago the selection of FSM’s candidate governor for the Marche region (where more than 1,5 million people live) with a mere 454 votes, casted doubts on the relevance of such choice and of the platform as a reliable indicator.

Improving online participatory democracy moving forward

Other smaller European decision-making forums like Podemos’ Participa in Spain and the Pirate Party’s LiquidFeedback in Germany platforms share some of Rousseau’s problems. In light of these problematic aspects, FSM and other parties which employ online participatory platforms should implement adequate changes. In order to balance a system that relies on top-down decision making, more importance should be given to the deliberative process and to grassroot initiatives. Such a perspective shift would ensure that members feel more included in party politics and that their participation has a more meaningful impact. Furthermore, the relationship between platform and party leadership needs critical rethinking. On one hand, the management of forums should be less centralized and more independent from internal elites. This would restore credibility as well as legitimacy. On the other, party narratives around digital democracy should recognize the existence of hierarchies and power structures even within “digital” political organizations.

Digital innovation’s promise of unmediated democratic practice and rejection of traditional schemes of representation has incredible potential. However, in their current incarnations, digital democracy platforms have had both successes and shortcomings. While the introduction of instruments of direct participation has strengthened popular involvement in the political system, their influence has mostly been limited to plebiscitarian online consultations and subject to the filter of party leadership. It is imperative that endeavors are made to increase the trust in such forums and to ensure that the users’ deliberative input actually matters. Otherwise, true direct and deliberative democracy, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau predicted, runs the risk of remaining just a utopia.