EFFICIENCY OF DIGITAL TOOLS IN EXPANSION OF POLITICAL PARTICIPATION (ICELAND AND ESTONIA EXPERIENCE)
https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2020-2-1005
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to identify factors that affect the degree of effectiveness of digital online platforms in expansion of political involvement. Methodology and Approach. The author analyzes the practical experience of using digital tools in Iceland and Estonia at the local, party and national levels, sociological data on the level of citizens participation and the main results of these platforms work. The research methods are based on a comparative case study using the formal-logical method, structure-function and SWOT-analysis. The results. The key efficiency and implementation problems of digital tools are identified. The paper concludes that the use of new technologies does not directly correlate with better quality of the political process, however it improves legitimacy of decision-making and broadens the electoral base of political parties. Theoretical Implications. The empirical material related to the research is summarized, the need for a differentiated approach to improving political participation with digital tools at different levels is formulated, as well as socio-cultural changes that should make this process more effective.
References
1. Волков Л., Крашенинников Ф. Облачная демократия. М.: Кабинетный ученый, 2013. 240 с.
2. Володенков С. В. Digital-технологии в системе традиционных институтов власти: политический потенциал и современные вызовы // Вестник Московского государственного областного университета (электронный журнал). 2018. № 2. URL: www.evestnik-mgou.ru (дата обращения: 24.11.2019). DOI: 10,18384 / 2224-0209-2018-2-893
3. Перфильева О. В. Проблема цифрового разрыва и международные инициативы по ее преодолению // Вестник международных организаций. 2007. № 2 (10). С. 34-49.
4. Тоффлер Э. Третья волна. М.: АСТ, 2010. 800 с.
5. Эйдман И. В. Прорыв в будущее: Социология Интернет-революции. М.: ОГИ, 2007. 384 с.
6. Behrens J., Kistner A. The Principles of LiquidFeedback. Berlin, 2014. 240 p.
7. Baiocchi G., Ganuza E. Popular Democracy The Paradox of Participation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2016. 224 p.
8. Hindman M. S. The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2009. 208 p.
9. Increasing citizens participation: Lessons from Reykjavik and elsewhere [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qe_20SaYRsf-fcn1JWIKS65LuAOL8Ds2YsPrrg8AyEE/edit#slide=id.g4e919cc5b_027 (дата обращения: 28.09.2019).
10. Jonsson M. Democratic Innovations in Deliberative Systems - The Case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly Process // Journal of Public Deliberation. 2015. Vol. 11. Iss. 1. Article 7.
11. Loader B. D., Mercea D. Networking democracy? Social media innovations and participatory politics // Information, Communication & Society. 2011. № 14 (6). P. 757-769.
12. Lukensmeyer C. J. Civic Tech and Public Policy Decision Making // Journal of Political Science and Politics. 2017. № 50 (3). P. 764-771.
13. Norris P. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 303 p.
14. O’Neil С. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York, 2016. 272 p.
15. Revell T. Pirate Party: We want our reputation to be more like Robin Hood // New Scientist: [сайт]. [07.11.2016]. URL: https://www.newscientist.com/ article/2111618-pirate-party-we-want-our-reputation-to-be- more-like-robin-hood (дата обращения: 28.09.2019).
16. Simon J., Bass T., Boelman V. Digital Democracy: The tools transforming political engagement. London, 2017. 99 p.
17. Verba S., Nie N. H. Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row, 1972. 428 p.
Review
Views:
350
Email this article 