Free, open-source participatory platforms like Decidim or Consul were designed by the 15M’ citizen activists in Spain. Initially implemented in Barcelona and Madrid, these platforms are spread in many countries. Castells has not examined the institutionalization of the 15M’s offspring, and thus we aim to contribute by studying the rollout of the Decidim platform in Catalan municipalities. We examine its disruptive potential along three democratic dimensions: transparency, participation and deliberation. Our study combines in-depth interviews and an online questionnaire administered to public officials in charge of the platform and analyses the levels of participation on the platform. The research shows elements of managerial continuity: the most valued goals are transparency, organisation of information and the collection of citizen proposals, rather than deliberation and transfer of sovereignty towards citizens. However, the platform forces administrations to consider individual citizens’ inputs, increases citizens’ proposals and initiatives, and brings in new participant publics. Furthermore, democratic innovation is being pushed ahead by a networkof activists and technological experts that continuously improve the platform and function as a counter-power (Castells, 2015, 2016).
AnttiroikoA.-V. (2003). Building strong e-democracy: The role of technology in developing democracy for the information age. Communications of the ACM, 46(9), 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1145/903893.903926
3.
AragónP.KaltenbrunnerA.Calleja-LópezA.PereiraA.MonterdeA.BarandiaranX. E.GómezV. (2017). Deliberative platform design: The case study of the online discussions in Decidim Barcelona. In CiampagliaG. L.MashhadiA.YasseriT. (Eds.), Social informatics: 9th International Conference. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 277–287). Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67256-4_22
BennettW. L.SegerbergA.KnüpferC. B. (2018). The democratic interface: Technology, political organization, and diverging patterns of electoral representation. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11), 1655–1680. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1348533
6.
BhererL.Fernández-MartínezJ. L.García EspínP.Jiménez SánchezM. (2016). The promise for democratic deepening: The effects of participatory processes in the interaction between civil society and local governments. Journal of Civil Society, 12(3), 344–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2016.1215957.
BorgeRBalcellsJ.Padró-SolanetA. (2019). A model for the analysis of online citizen deliberation: Barcelona case study. International Journal of Communication, 13, 1–25.
9.
BorgeR.ColomboC.WelpY. (2009). Online and offline participation at the local level. A Quantitative Analysis of the Catalan Municipalities. Information, Communication & Society, 12(6), 899–928. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180802483054
CastellàC.JorbaL. (2005) Evaluación de las experiencias participativas en la gestión local de Cataluña: Potencialidades y amenazas. Gestión y Análisis de Políticas Públicas (pp. 79–98). https://doi.org/10.24965/gapp.vi32.385
12.
CastellsM. (1996–8). The information age: Economy, society and culture. 3 volumes. Blackwell.
13.
CastellsM. (1997) The power of identity (Vol 2) of The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture. Blackwell.
14.
CastellsM (Ed), (2004).The network society. A cross-cultural perspective. Edward Elgar.
15.
CastellsM. (2009). Communication power. Oxford University Press.
16.
CastellsM. (2013). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. John Wiley & Sons.
17.
CastellsM. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
ChadwickA.MayC. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: “E-Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European union. Governance, 16(2), 271–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00216
20.
FontJ.GalaisC. (2009). Experiències de democràcia participativa local a Catalunya: Un mapa analític. Generalitat de Catalunya, Departament d’Interior, Relacions Institucionals i Participació. Direcció General de Participació Ciutadana.
FungA. (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
23.
GanuzaE.NezH.MoralesE. (2014). The struggle for a voice: Tensions between associations and citizens in participatory budgeting. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(6), 2274–2291. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12059
24.
GomàR.FontJ. (2001). La democracia local: Un mapa de experiencias participativas. In FontJ. (Ed), Ciudadanos y Decisiones Públicas. Ariel (pp. 61–76).
25.
HoffJ.HorrocksI.TopsP. (2000). Democratic governance and new technology: Technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe. Routledge.
26.
MargettsH. (2006). Cyber parties. In KatzR. S.CrottyW. (Eds), Handbook of Party Politics. Sage (pp. 528-535).
27.
MergelI.EdelmannN.HaugN. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
28.
MorozovE. (2013). To save everything, click here: The folly of technological solutionism. Public Affairs.
29.
NorrisD. F.ReddickC. G. (2013). E-democracy at the American grassroots: Not now not likely?. Information Polity, 18(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-130312
30.
O’ReillyT. (2011). Government as a platform. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 6(1), 13–40. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00056
31.
OszlakO. (2013). Gobierno abierto: Hacia un nuevo paradigma de gestión pública. Colección de documentos de trabajo sobre e-Gobierno, 5, 1–35.
32.
RottinghausB.EscherT. (2020). Mechanisms for inclusion and exclusion through digital political participation: evidence from a comparative study of online consultations in three German cities. Z Politikwiss, 30(2), 261–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-020-00222-7
33.
SchulerD. (2018). Counterpoint: E-democracy won’t save democracy. democracy will save democracy. Commun. ACM, 61(8), 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3231050
34.
SecinaroS.BresciaV.IannaciD.JonathanG. M. (2021). Does citizen involvement feed on digital platforms?International Journal of Public Administration, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1887216
SmithA.Prieto MartínP. (2021). Going beyond the smart city? Implementing technopolitical platforms for urban democracy in Madrid and Barcelona. Journal of Urban Technology, 28(1–2), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2020.1786337
37.
Van DijkJ. (2000). Models of democracy and concepts of communication. In HackerK. L.Van DijkJ. (Eds), Digital democracy: issues of theory and practice. Sage (pp. 30–53).
38.
Viale PereiraG.CunhaM. A.LampoltshammerT. J.ParycekP.TestaM. G. (2017). Increasing collaboration and participation in smart city governance: a cross-case analysis of smart city initiatives. Information Technology for Development, 23(3), 526–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1353946
39.
WebsterF. (2006). Theories of the information society (3rd ed.). Routledge.
