Can Digital Democracy combat Political Apathy?

Many citizens feel alienated from politics. Why is this? 

The criticism is not new: decisions often seem opaque, processes lengthy, and politicians appear disconnected from people's everyday lives. During election campaigns or in surveys, we hear time and again: “We don't feel represented”. Young people in particular, but also groups with low levels of education, express the feeling that their voice counts for little – and that politics is primarily for elites or financially powerful interest groups. 

What role could digital technologies play in this context? 

Digital tools can help make democracy more accessible. They offer opportunities to make political decision-making processes more transparent and enable new forms of participation. Citizens could thus not only be informed, but also actively involved in decisions – for example through online voting, participatory budget planning or idea platforms. 

Are there already concrete projects that are implementing this? 

Yes, there are an increasing number of such initiatives worldwide, even if they do not always receive much attention. Europe is leading the way here. Pilot projects have already been carried out in Iceland, Finland, Spain and the Netherlands. In Taiwan, former Digital Minister Audrey Tang has also introduced such platforms and has been able to increase the population's satisfaction with politics. In Spain, I have examined a number of projects that took place between 2013 and 2019 in more detail. 

What did these applications in Spain look like in concrete terms? 

Several digital democracy projects were implemented in Spain, particularly in cities such as Madrid and Barcelona. The starting point was widespread social dissatisfaction with established politics. When new, locally based parties celebrated successes in local elections, they launched projects to increase citizen participation – with technical support from activists and programmers. 

The Decide Madrid platform was central to this, offering citizens various forms of participation: 

• Transparency: Users could follow legislative procedures and gain insight into political processes. 
• Proposal system: Anyone could submit their own ideas for urban projects – such as greening public spaces or expanding local transport. 
• Discussion & evaluation: Proposals could be discussed and evaluated together, similar to a structured comment function. 
• Voting: Projects with sufficient support were put to a vote. 
• Open source: The underlying software, Consul, was openly accessible and was reused in other cities and countries. 

How do such platforms differ from existing social networks? 

The big difference lies in the design. While social networks often focus on reach, emotion and virality, digital democracy platforms aim for dialogue, deliberation and substance. Features such as “likes”, trending topics or algorithmic reinforcement were avoided. Instead, the focus is on promoting real conversations – not click counts. 

What challenges did these projects face? 

A key area of tension is between data protection and user-friendliness. Many projects deliberately wanted to collect as little data as possible – this strengthens trust, but at the same time makes it more difficult to analyse which population groups are participating and who may be excluded. 

Is it still possible to say anything about how much such projects are actually used by the population? 

Usage could often be better – this is also shown by experiences in Spain. In the Madrid project, for example, it was mainly well-educated people with an academic background who were active on the platforms. 

How could more people be reached? 

A key finding from the projects is that technology alone is not enough. For digital participation formats to be truly effective, they need to be accompanied by educational work, transparent communication and real contact persons. Only when people experience that their contributions actually make a difference will their willingness to participate grow. 

Another decisive factor is how people are addressed: many early projects mainly reached people who were already committed or tech-savvy. However, recent studies show that marginalised groups can also be involved – if they are specifically targeted. Cooperation with schools, associations or social work can help here. So it is not only what the platform offers that is decisive, but how it is introduced and embedded in society. 

Could such tools one day make parliaments and politicians redundant? 

I don't think there's a blanket answer to that question – but I would be cautious about the idea that we can do without politicians altogether. Of course, digital technologies could theoretically enable us to make decisions in real time, based on online votes or algorithms that evaluate moods. But that alone is not democracy. 

Democracy thrives on dialogue – on people exchanging ideas, weighing up interests and finding compromises. This is precisely why we need people who are willing to take responsibility, who are familiar with institutional processes and who can implement political proposals. During the pandemic, for example, there were experiments with digital citizens' councils, where people were brought together at random across party lines to discuss complex issues. This works surprisingly well – but even here, a system is ultimately needed to translate the results into legislation. 

Can digital technologies strengthen trust in democracy? 

Yes – if they are used correctly. Digital democracy platforms show that citizens are willing to get involved when they are taken seriously. They can help solve specific local problems, promote political education and strengthen dialogue. The key thing is that technology must serve people – not the other way around. Only then can digital democracy become a real opportunity for the future. 

Roberta Fischli, PhD, is an external research associate at the School of Economics and Political Science at the University of St.Gallen. Starting in August, she will be conducting research on Artificial Intelligence and freedom at Stanford University. 

Image: Adobe Stock / thodonal