Digital tools and civic participation: contrasting models of civil empowerment in decidim and China’s s SCS
Abstract
This study explores how digital technologies mediate the relationship between civil society and state institutions through a comparative analysis of two contrasting platforms: Decidim, a participatory digital infrastructure initiated by the Barcelona City Council, and China’s Social Credit System (SCS), an algorithmic governance model aimed at behavioral monitoring and compliance. Both models demonstrate how digital infrastructures can be embedded in radically different institutional environments, enhancing civic agency or enabling state control. The central research question asks: How do digital governance platforms shape civic participation and the autonomy of civil society under democratic and authoritarian regimes? This analysis specifically examines the broader implications for civic autonomy and citizen engagement, rather than focusing solely on the impacts on specific civil society organizations (CSOs) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The analysis applies a qualitative comparative methodology using theoreticalcontent analysis and documentary research. It draws on institutional documents, academic sources, and platform design materials to investigate how each system configures citizen-state interaction, transparency, and accountability. A four-dimensional analytical framework–civic engagement, algorithmic transparency, data sovereignty, and sociopolitical outcomes is used to compare the two models. Decidim illustrates how digital tools can support participatory democracy when embedded within accountable institutions and open governance cultures. It provides citizens with channels for deliberation, decision-making, and co-governance, fostering inclusive civic environments. In contrast, the Social Credit System exemplifies the risks of algorithmic governance when operated within centralized and opaque regimes. It reduces citizen agency to behavioral conformity and embeds state authority into everyday interactions through surveillance and data centralization. The findings indicate that digital tools are not determinative; their effects on civil society depend on broader institutional and normative contexts. When deployed transparently and collaboratively, platforms can enhance civic participation, build public trust, and revitalize democratic institutions. However, without safeguards for civil liberties and inclusive governance, the same tools may reinforce hierarchy, marginalization, and digital authoritarianism.
References
Aneesh, A. (2009). Algorithmic governance: Globalization as a computational problem. Social Science Computer Review, 27(4), pp. 491–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439309332651
Aragón, P., Kaltenbrunner, A., Calleja-López, A., Pereira, A., Monterde, A., Barandiaran, X. E., & Gómez, V. (2017). Deliberative platform design: The case study of the online discussions in Decidim Barcelona. In L. M. Aiello & D. McFarland (Eds.), Social Informatics: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference, SocInfo 2017, Springer. pp. 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67256-4_22
Aristovnik, A., Murko, E., & Ravšelj, D. (2022). From Neo-Weberian to Hybrid Governance Models in Public Administration: Differences between State and Local Self-Government. Administrative Sciences, 12(1), pp. 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12010026
Barandiaran, X. E., Calleja-López, A., Monterde, A., & Romero, C. (2024). Decidim, a technopolitical network for participatory democracy: philosophy, practice and autonomy of a collective platform in the age of digital intelligence. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50784-7_5
Bee, C. (2014). Transnationalisation, public communication and active citizenship. The emergence of a fragmented and fluid European public sphere. Sociology Compass, 8(8), pp. 1018-1032. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12192
Blanco, I., Salazar, Y., & Bianchi, I. (2019). Urban governance and political change under a radical left government: The case of Barcelona. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2018.1559648
Caravantes, P., & Lombardo, E. (2024). Feminist democratic innovations in policy and politics. Policy & Politics, 52(2), pp. 177-199. https://doi.org/10.1332/03055736Y2023D000000009
Chen, Y., & Cheung, A. S. (2022). From datafication to data state: Making sense of China’s social credit system and its implications. Law & Social Inquiry, 47(4), pp. 1137-1171. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2021.56
Creemers, R. (2018). China’s Social Credit System: An evolving practice of control. Journal of Contemporary China, 27(112), pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2018.1511391
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. St. Martin's Press.
Friess, D., & Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. Policy & Internet, 7(3), pp. 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95
Gabor, E. (2024). How Civil Societies Are Undermined: An Analysis of Factors That Endanger Civic Freedoms. Civil Szemle, 21(2), pp. 47–63. https://doi.org/10.62560/csz.2024.02.04
Grossi, D., Hahn, U., Mäs, M., Nitsche, A., Behrens, J., Boehmer, N., ... & Van De Putte, F. (2024). Enabling the Digital Democratic Revival: A Research Program for Digital Democracy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16863. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.16863
Helbing, D., Frey, B. S., Gigerenzer, G., Hafen, E., Hagner, M., Hofstetter, Y., Van Den Hoven, J., Zicari, R. V., & Zwitter, A. (2019). Will democracy survive big data and artificial intelligence? In D. Helbing (Ed.), Towards Digital Enlightenment: Essays on the Dark and Light Sides of the Digital Revolution. pp. 73-98. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90869-4_7
Hilbert, M. (2016). The bad news is that the digital access divide is here to stay: Domestic broadband and mobile Internet are two separate paths toward digital inclusion. Telecommunications Policy, 40(6), pp. 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2016.01.006
Hsiao, Y. T., Lin, S. Y., Tang, A., Narayanan, D., & Sarahe, C. (2018). vTaiwan: An empirical study of the open consultation process in Taiwan. Taiwan: Center for Open Science. file:///C:/Users/AHMET/Downloads/vtaiwan-empirical-study%20(1).pdf
Hou, R., & Fu, D. (2024). Sorting citizens: Governing via China's social credit system. Governance, 37(1), pp. 59-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12751
Kostka, G. (2019). China’s Social Credit Systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval. New Media & Society, 21(7), pp. 1565–1593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819826402
Kostka, G., & Antoine, L. (2020). Fostering model citizenship: Behavioral responses to China’s emerging social credit systems. Policy & Internet, 12(3), pp. 256-289. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.213
Liang, F., Das, V., Kostyuk, N., & Hussain, M. M. (2018). Constructing a Data-Driven Society: China's Social Credit System as a State Surveillance Infrastructure. Policy & Internet, 10(4), pp. 415–453. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.183
Liu, J. (2020). Shifting dynamics of contention in the digital age: Mobile communication and politics in China. Oxford University Press.
Loader, B. D., & Mercea, D. (2011). Networking democracy? Social media innovations and participatory politics. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), pp. 757–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.592648
Martí, J. L., & Simone Noveck, B. (2022). Introduction to the Special Issue on Crowdlaw and Emergency Collective Intelligence. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 3(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3550083
Osborne, S.P. (Ed.). (2010). The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203861684
Papacharissi, Z. (2014). Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology and Politics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199999736.001.0001
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public management reform: A comparative analysis-into the age of austerity. Oxford University Press.
Qiang, X. (2019). The Road to Digital Unfreedom: President Xi's Surveillance State. Journal of Democracy 30(1), pp. 53-67. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jod.2019.0004.
Rak, J. (2016). Participatory Democracy in Southern Europe: Causes, Characteristics and Consequences. Mediterranean Politics, 22(2), pp. 309–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2016.1189484
Schrock, A. R. (2016). Civic hacking as data activism and advocacy: A history from publicity to open government data. New media & society, 18(4), pp. 581-599.
Sorice, M., & De Blasio, E. (2019). Platform Politics in Europe | E-Democracy and Digital Activism: From Divergent Paths Toward a New Frame. International Journal of Communication, 13, 19. Retrieved from https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/10807
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barbera, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Political Polarization, Disinformation, and Democracy. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139
Tuza, B., & Kovács, Z. (2024). A részvételi demokrácia kihívásai a városfejlesztésben: Budapesti tapasztalatok. Civil Szemle, 21(4), pp. 133–150. https://doi.org/10.62560/csz.2024.04.7
Van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & De Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190889760.001.0001
Zuboff, S. (2023). The age of surveillance capitalism. In Social theory re-wired (pp. 203-213). Routledge.
URL-1 https://archive.org/details/a4df70a4136e3623302d15e66c6cd2ba-imagejpeg
