Blog post

The Case Against Online Participation and Government As A Platform

By Andrea Di Maio | July 14, 2011 | 5 Comments

web 2.0 in governmentopen government data

I have been visiting several different countries over the last three months, and almost anywhere I have had some interesting discussions about the genuine efforts that governments are making to increase transparency and citizen participation.

Motivations are different and they range from compliance with open government policies to unexpected election outcomes or furthering one-off experiences with social media. However the nature of the problem they are trying to solve is the same: how can we listen to citizens, give them a voice, anticipate their reactions and engage them in policy-making and problem solving?

These questions assume that citizens are willing to participate and that on-line engagement is the way to achieve this more effectively.

But is it true?

For sure there are people who are more concerned and passionate about participating. Some of them are active in politics, others just follow with interest political debates and others are willing and available to volunteer time and effort to help.

But there are also people who believe that the reason why we have a government is for somebody else to take care of all that. So, even if they take their voter’s rights and obligations quite seriously, they also assume that by voting they have outsourced policy-making and service delivery to those who have been democratically elected and the public services that fall under those representatives’ responsibility.

It is not because people use social media and connect to friends on line to discuss about many topics that they become eager to participate. This is why, for how many efforts governments are making on open government or government 2.0, they are struggling to achieve mass-participation.

Now, if this is true, there is a second, more insidious problem.  If online participation engages only a fraction of the population, but – at the same time – it starts influencing the way policies are developed and service designed and delivered, isn’t this creating a new divide between those who do participate and those who do not? The latter would still express their opinion through periodic elections and through their delegates and representatives, depending on the specific political system. But the former would start influencing processes and positions along the way.

Who would then ensure the balance between those who influence the system by active online participation and those who simply rely on democratic representation? This is potentially creating an imbalance between a new breed of “haves” and “have-nots”, compared to which any digital divide consideration simply pale.

We can see sparkles of this in the way open government and government 2.0 are developing. It is just a bunch of expert, passionate and converted people who animate and drive the debate, both inside and outside government. Still the word has not been spread and understood by the masses, be millions civil servants or billions citizens. On the contrary, some of the government 2.0 debate has become a bit stale, has lost momentum and – even in places where its value has been proven – it risks losing steam.

The prospects are grim indeed. On the one hand, it is difficult to reach the tipping point that make open government an overwhelming success, almost a “must-have”. On the other hand, even if it did, we are not sure about how to manage the implication of a “participation divide”.

Then the question is: should we just give up and consider open government and government 2.0 an interesting, nice-to-have, but hard-to-sustain development, and perhaps let it die?

Not at all, but we need to change its perspective, make it less about policy-making and more about involving people in helping where government cannot.

Where democratic systems are mature and functioning, online participation should be brought back within boundaries where accountability can be managed. It should become one channel, but not at all the preferred one, for democratic engagement.

On the other hand, where problems cannot be solved with traditional processes, due to lack of resources, severity of a crisis, need to react very fast, then government 2.0 can provide a set of additional tools to address those problems in new ways.  But this does not mean that these ways need to be recognized and endorsed beyond solving those emergencies.

It will take time, a lot of time to distill which elements of what we call government 2.0 today will become part of new, established democratic processes tomorrow.

For today, let’s care a bit more about how citizens can be a resource and platform for governments that are struggling with their own sustainability, and a bit less about how government should be a platform for the few who have the motivation and resources to use it for their own benefits.

The Gartner Blog Network provides an opportunity for Gartner analysts to test ideas and move research forward. Because the content posted by Gartner analysts on this site does not undergo our standard editorial review, all comments or opinions expressed hereunder are those of the individual contributors and do not represent the views of Gartner, Inc. or its management.

Comments are closed


  • As expected, this pre-holiday post has caused some of the open government experts to raise their eyebrows, pointing to some of the many examples where open data is being used.
    I just want to make sure my point is understood. I am not saying that open data will not be used, on the contrary. I am saying that the consumption of open data must be mediated by necessity by organizations – such as application developers, NGOs, associations, and so forth – in order for data to be consumed by people: however all these organizations must have a purpose to do so, such as proving a point, making money, pushing for policy changes. While open data is for everybody to see, it is not for everybody to be consumed and analyzed. This is one example of participation divide.
    But there are others as well, when it comes to idea collection mechanisms or online comments sought on draft policies: only few will participate. How are their voices going the be weighed against those of democratically elected representatives?
    Let me be clear. I have nothing against open data or open government. I just doubt they can become a new form of government. They have to be used as tools within constitutional boundaries.

  • 1) Government 2.0 isn’t a magic solution to all the problems. Example: If the government needs expert advice, and there is a dozen of such experts in the country, isn’t it more efficient to contact them directly & pay them money, instead of engaging millions of volunteers (and then spending a fortune on processing their feedback), or procuring the expensive services of private companies (which at the end of the day will hire the same experts – if the gov’t is lucky) ?

    2) You can’t seriously expect 100% of citizens to do unpaid work for the government. Be happy with 5%, – or provide worthy incentives.

  • If a more or less transparent process “starts influencing the way policies are developed and service designed and delivered” that seems an improvement from the current reality, in which an awful lot of policy is created by never-transparent, usually-commercial private interest interests.

    Inclusion in important, yes! Online is not enough, yes! But online fora are better than the dismal reality we currently face. Much, much better.

  • Doug Hadden says:


    I’m having a difficult time resolving your insight relative to pre-Gov 2.0 times. In that not-so-distant past, many did not participate in politics in democracies because of a perceived lack of influence. Elites seemed to have a disproportionate voice. Now, through Gov 2, the proportion of citizens interacting with government increases. It’s not universal, but increases & facilitates participation. Possibly an order of magnitude more.

  • Alorza says:

    I agree some of your arguments, but I don’t feel comfortable with the gerenal conclusions.

    Achieving mass-participation wouldn’t have to be a goal, except in the case of the election of representatives. And this is not a problem of digital (or democratical) divide. Simply, It is useful to find the commitment of whoever want to participate in policy design and accountability. You don´t need everybody in every public issue, but you must assure that if someone wants to, not be left behind.

    I support this point: “citizens can be a resource and platform for governments”. I think we have to encourage collaboration in the implementation of policies. And “collaboration” is not exactly the same as “participation”. It means that people get power for making some things, specially in local levels.