The ability of city dwellers to participate in decisions about mobility is a crucial expression of urban democracy. Optimists hope that e-participation—engagement of citizens through information and communication technologies—can deepen democracy and empower the public by giving it a greater decision-making role. In Bogotá, Colombia, during the second administration of the center-right mayor Enrique Peñalosa (2016–2019), however, government agencies implemented limited and constrained forms of e-participation that failed to deliver on this promise. Beyond the perennial digital divide, e-participation was designed and operationalized in ways that restricted the scope for actual democratic improvements. These included limiting participation to superficial decisions, failing to link participation to specific actions, and creating rigorous participation protocols that excluded a majority of the population and avoided dissent.
La capacidad de los habitantes citadinos para participar en las decisiones que afectan la movilidad es una expresión crucial de la democracia urbana. Los optimistas esperan que la participación electrónica (el compromiso de los ciudadanos a través de las tecnologías informáticas y de comunicación) pueda profundizar dicha democracia y empoderar al público al otorgarle un mayor papel en la toma de decisiones. Sin embargo, en Bogotá, Colombia, durante la segunda administración del alcalde de centroderecha Enrique Peñalosa (2016-2019), las agencias gubernamentales implementaron formas limitadas y restringidas de participación electrónica que no cumplieron esta promesa. Más allá de la perenne brecha digital, la participación electrónica se diseñó y puso en práctica de forma que pudiera restringirse el alcance de las mejoras democráticas reales. Estas tácticas incluyeron limitar la participación a decisiones superficiales, no establecer vínculos entre la participación y acciones específicas, así como rigurosos protocolos de participación que excluyeran a la mayor parte de la población y evitaran la disensión.
EvaAnduizaJensenMichael JamesJorbaLaia (eds.) 2012Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide: A Comparative Study. New York: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AngottiTomIrazábalClara2017“Planning Latin American cities: dependencies and ‘best practices.’”Latin American Perspectives44 (2): 4–17.
3.
ÅströmJoachimKarlssonMartinLindeJonasPirannejadAli2012“Understanding the rise of e-participation in non-democracies: domestic and international factors.”Government Information Quarterly29 (2): 142–150.
4.
AvilaEric2014The Folklore of the Freeway Race and Revolt in the Modernist City. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
5.
BaiocchiGianpaoloGanuzaErnesto2016Popular Democracy: The Paradox of Participation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
BaiocchiGianpaoloGiesHeather2019“Radical cities in Latin America: past and present.”NACLA Report on the Americas51: 313–315.
7.
BernardesCristiane BrumBandeiraCristina Leston2016“Information vs. engagement in parliamentary websites—a case study of Brazil and the UK.”Revista de Sociologia e Política24 (September): 91–107.
8.
BerneyRachel2013“Public space versus tableau: the right-to-the-city paradox in neoliberal Bogotá, Colombia,” pp. 164–182 in MitrašinovicMiodragMehutaVikas (eds.), Public Space Reader. London: Routledge.
BlancoJorgeLucasKarenSchafranAlexVerlinghieriErsiliaApaolazaRicardo2018“Contested mobilities in the Latin American context.”Journal of Transport Geography67: 1–9.
BoudjelidaAbdelhamidMellouliSehlLeeJungwoo2016“Electronic citizens participation: systematic review,” pp. 31–39 in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. Montevideo: ACM.
13.
Bouzas-LorenzoRamónMahou-LagoXosé María2015“An evaluation of citizen service web portals in Latin America.”Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración28 (1): 99–114.
14.
BregmanSusanWatkinsKari Edison (eds.) 2014Best Practices for Transportation Agency Use of Social Media. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
15.
BreuerAnitaWelpYanina2014Digital Technologies for Democratic Governance in Latin America: Opportunities and Risks. London and New York: Routledge.
16.
BryanCathyTambiniDamianTsagarousianouRoza (eds.) 2002Cyberdemocracy: Technology, Cities and Civic Networks. London: Routledge.
17.
BullardRobert DoyleJohnsonGlenn Steve1997Just Transportation: Dismantling Race and Class Barriers to Mobility. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
18.
CastellsManuel2007“Communication, power and counter-power in the network society.”International Journal of Communication1 (1): 238–266.
19.
ChumaceiroIrmaGallucciMaría José2008“La noción de democracia en los discursos de toma de posesión de Hugo Chávez y Álvaro Uribe.”Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana6 (2 [12]): 21–31.
20.
CoelhoTaiane RittaPozzebonMarleiCunhaMaria Alexandra2021“Citizens influencing public policy-making: resourcing as source of relational power in e-participation platforms.”Information Systems Journal32: 344–376.
21.
Córdoba-PachónJosé-RodrigoOrrKevin2009“Three patterns to understand e-government: the case of Colombia.”International Journal of Public Sector Management22: 532–554.
22.
CresswellTim2011“Mobilities II: still.”Progress in Human Geography36: 645–653.
23.
DávilaJulio D.2005“La transformación de Bogotá,” pp. 418–439 in UlloaFernando Cepeda (ed.), Fortalezas de Colombia. Bogotá: Editorial Planeta.
24.
Duque FrancoIsabel2010“Technicians, citizens and private agendas in the review of the land use planning of Bogota.”Scripta Nova: Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales14 (1).
25.
EatonKent2020“Bogotá’s left turn: counter-neoliberalization in Colombia.”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research44 (1): 1–17.
26.
FariaCristianoRehbeinMalena2016“Open parliament policy applied to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies.”Journal of Legislative Studies22: 559–578.
27.
FungArchon2011“Reinventing democracy in Latin America.”Perspectives on Politics9: 857–871.
28.
FungArchonGilmanHollie RussonShkabaturJennifer2013“Six models for the internet + politics.”International Studies Review15 (1): 30–47.
GalvisJuan Pablo2017“Planning for urban life: equality, order, and exclusion in Bogotá’s lively public spaces.”Journal of Latin American Geography16 (3): 83–105.
31.
GarciaRobertoCaldasJohan M.DavilaDiego E.ThoeneUlf2020“Políticas públicas de inclusión digital en Colombia: una evaluación del plan Vive Digital I (2010–2014).”Revista ESPACIOS41 (07): 1–13.
32.
GilbertAlan2019“Corruption in urban Latin America: the case of Bogotá.”International Journal of Regional and Local History14 (2): 126–141.
GonzálezYanilda María2019“Participation as a safety valve: police reform through participatory security in Latin America.”Latin American Politics and Society61 (2): 68–92.
35.
GratzRoberta Brandes2010The Battle for Gotham: New York in the Shadow of Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs. New York: Bold Type Books.
36.
Guarneros-MezaValeriaGeddesMike2010“Local governance and participation under neoliberalism: comparative perspectives.”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research34 (1): 115–129.
37.
HollandAlisha C.2015“The distributive politics of enforcement.”American Journal of Political Science59: 357–371.
38.
HuntStacey L2009“Citizenship’s place: the state’s creation of public space and street vendors’ culture of informality in Bogotá, Colombia.”Environment and Planning D: Society and Space27: 331–351.
39.
2017“Conflict and convergence between experts and citizens: Bogotá’s TransMilenio.”Latin American Perspectives44 (2): 91–110.
40.
JohnsonEricaKolkoBeth2010“E-government and transparency in authoritarian regimes: comparison of national-and city-level e-government web sites in central Asia.”Digital Icons: Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media3 (3): 15–48.
41.
KashGwenHidalgoDario2014“The promise and challenges of integrating public transportation in Bogotá, Colombia.”Public Transport6 (1): 107–135.
42.
KingGaryPan, and MargaretJenniferRobertsE.2017“How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for strategic distraction, not engaged argument.”American Political Science Review111: 484–501.
43.
Le BlancDavid2020“E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends.” DESA Working Paper 163. New York: UN DESA.
44.
Líppez-De CastroSebastiánAlonsoRoberto García2016“Ciudadanos y gobierno electrónico: la orientación al ciudadano de los sitios web municipales en Colombia para la promoción de la participación.”Universitas Humanística, no. 82 (December), 279–304.
45.
MagroMichael J.2012“A review of social media use in e-government.”Administrative Sciences2: 148–161.
46.
MaierEdith2012“Smart mobility: encouraging sustainable mobility behaviour by designing and implementing policies with citizen involvement.”Journal of EDemocracy and Open Government4 (1): 115–141.
47.
MartínezMario Freddy2019Estudio ¿Qué ha pasado con la participación ciudadana en Bogotá?Bogotá: Fundación Foro Nacional por Colombia Capítulo Región Central.
48.
MilakovichMichael E.2014“Digital governance and collaborative strategies for improving service quality.”Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing, Rome, Italy, October 21–24.
49.
MirowskiPhilip2015“Postface: defining neoliberalism,” pp. 417–456 in MirowskiPhilipPlehweDieter (eds.), The Road from Mont Pelerin. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
50.
MonteroSergio2017“Persuasive practitioners and the art of simplification: mobilizing the 'Bogotá Model' through storytelling.”Novos Estudos CEBRAP36 (1): 59–75.
51.
MyersDavid J.DietzHenry A. (eds.) 2002Capital City Politics in Latin America: Democratization and Empowerment. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
52.
NylenWilliam R2011“Participatory institutions in Latin America: the next generation of scholarship.”Comparative Politics43: 479–497.
53.
Paget-SeekinsLaurel2015“Bus rapid transit as a neoliberal contradiction.”Journal of Transport Geography48 (October): 115–120.
54.
Paget-SeekinsLaurelTironiManuel2016“The publicness of public transport: the changing nature of public transport in Latin American cities.”Transport Policy49 (July): 176–183.
55.
Parra BeltránSofia2015“Government driven e-participation: the case of ‘Urna de Cristal’ in the Colombian context.”Master’s thesis, Uppsala University.
56.
PeñalosaEnrique2011“A city talks: learning from Bogotá’s revitalisation.”Architectural Design81 (3): 90–95.
PorrúaMiguel A. 2013“E-government in Latin America: a review of the success in Colombia, Uruguay, and Panama,” pp. 127–136 in Bilbao-OsorioBeñatDuttaSoumitraLanvinBruno (eds.), The Global Information Technology Report 2013. Geneva. World Economic Forum.
61.
Rhodes-PurdyMatthew2017“Participatory governance in Latin America: promises and limitations.”Latin American Politics and Society59 (3): 122–131.
62.
RoyoSoniaPinaVicenteGarcia-RayadoJaime2020“Decide Madrid: a critical analysis of an award-winning e-participation initiative.”Sustainability12: 1674.
63.
SagarisLake2014“Citizen participation for sustainable transport: the case of ‘Living City’ in Santiago, Chile (1997–2012).”Journal of Transport Geography41 (December): 74–83.
64.
SantiniRose MarieCarvalhoHannah2019“The rise of participatory despotism: a systematic review of online platforms for political engagement.”Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society17: 422–437.
ShellerMimi2018Mobility Justice: The Politics of Movement in an Age of Extremes. London and Brooklyn, NY: Verso.
68.
Silva-ArroyaveSergio Orlando2021“The progress of regulation and implementation of e-democracy in Colombia.”Memorias Forenses, no. 5, 1–26.
69.
SteinbachMalteSiewekeJostSüßStefan2019“The diffusion of e-participation in public administrations: a systematic literature review.”Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce29 (2): 61–95.
70.
StoycheffElizabeth2016“Under surveillance: examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet monitoring.”Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly93 (2): 296–311.
71.
StrauchLisaTakanoGuillermoHordijkMichaela2015“Mixed-use spaces and mixed social responses: popular resistance to a megaproject in central Lima, Peru.”Habitat International45 (January): 177–184.
