What if we design democracy?
A conversation with Gianluca Sgueo, the author of “The Design of Digital Democracy”
Technology, for a start, has dramatically changed the ‘infrastructure’ of democratic systems—that is, both the number and quality of connections between citizens and public administrations, the physiognomy of the public space, and access to information. With technological progress, social interaction costs have lowered radically, and citizens have gained improved access to public structures through digital communication channels. This also explains why innovative, tech-based approaches to inclusive and participated policy-making have become the subject of a growing debate between academics and politicians. - Gianluca Sgueo in “Designing Digital Democracy”
Digital democracy is a fuzzy concept. It is not just about throwing tech into democracy and expecting magic - more participation, better policies, and so on. Yet, technology holds the promise of shaping the ideal version of digital democracy.
First off, technology has already done what the snippet above claims: it has reshaped our social 'infrastructure' in big ways. Why? Because it has largely changed the way we interact with each other as well as what we do in our alone time. And, as we’ll see today, this is not without consequences for democracy.
I have covered digital democracy before in this newsletter, mainly discussing popular cases. vTaiwan is the latest. But we're not here to pin down a definition, advocate for its cause, or knock it down. We are here to delve into why digital democracy is gaining traction.
Today, my role shifts to that of a keen reader, crafting questions. The spotlight falls on Gianluca Sgueo, professor of “Digital Democracy in Public Spaces” at Sciences Po - School of Public Affairs.
Gianluca is fresh off the presses with “The Design of Digital Democracy” (edited by Springer), a deep dive into the concept. He digs into digital democracy by zeroing in on its core elements: us, the people, and our tech. His main point? We need to understand how tech has revolutionized our lives before we can even think about building a digital democracy.
We should, thus, start with what we can realistically expect from a digital democracy, and then focus on designing it. But enough for me, Gianluca will guide us through his take on digital democracy.
[The book is not inexpensive, and this is due to an editorial choice, not the author's. However, if you're a student, you should be able to access it freely with your university's email account.]
The Interview
The transcript of this interview has been edited to improve clarity and conciseness.
First thing first. You use the term "Design" with Digital Democracy. Why exactly this word choice?
I initially called it "The Aesthetics of Digital Democracy", but eventually I thought it might confuse readers. So, I switched to "design." You know, the term’s been used in policy circles since the 60s, thanks to Herbert Simon. It really captures the whole process of putting together policies.
Besides 'design', your book's title also mentions 'Digital Democracy'. Could you sum up this concept in a few words?
When I say "digital", I'm casting a wide net. Basically, "digital democracy" is all about bringing in online platforms, software tools, and even artificial intelligence to draw people into the political and policy processes. It’s mainly about ramping up citizen participation.
Your book has a captivating approach. It kicks off with defining what makes technology attractive, widespread, and ubiquitous, even before diving into the politics. Could you walk me through these key features?
The essence of my book is this: we’re drawn to modern technology because it’s designed to simplify and speed up our lives. I think two things are crucial here: speed and simplicity. With technology, speed is key. Digital services aim to minimize the time between doing something and getting the result. This 'digital accelerationism' has a big impact. As for simplicity, there’s a direct link between technology and making things easier. Technology is designed to overcome human limitations, but it can also make users lazy or unskilled. Here’s where the issue arises: getting used to quick, easy solutions doesn’t really work when you're dealing with a government.
While reading your book, one concept really stood out to me: time. Why is time so important in understanding our relationship with technology and, in turn, with democracy?
I've always had this fascination with time, and honestly, I'm thinking about writing a book on how we interact with time in the digital age, especially its impact on policymaking. As I mentioned, tech products offer us quick rewards, and we've gotten used to that instant gratification. But when it comes to digital public services, can we expect the same? My take is no. Sure, digitalization will speed up government services, but they can't and shouldn't match the pace of commercial products for a bunch of reasons.
And now for the surprising part. We usually expect technology to improve our interactions within democracy. Yet, this is often not the case. In the latest release of this newsletter, I talked about vTaiwan, a popular experiment of digital democracy, whose outcome has been far from ideal. Why does the design of digital public services fall short of providing the same satisfaction we get from consumer tech?
I've appreciated your newsletter on vTaiwan, yet I must point out that it was a project funded by the government but with a private component. That's not necessarily good or bad, but it does change things. Now, about what's holding back public services, I see two main reasons. First, there's this idea that digital government should mimic private digital services. This sets unrealistic expectations and fails to capture the complexity and limitations of government work. We've got to be clear: a fully digital government won't resemble a social network. Second, we're not yet at the stage of a fully digital government; we're in a transition where the downsides are more pronounced than the benefits.
So, you introduce the concept of the 'digital undemocratic paradox'. Can you explain what that's about?
We are living in a Paradox. Digital tools were supposed to make government simpler and more accessible, but they're not generally boosting citizen participation or building trust. So, in terms of getting more people involved, it's not improving much. Often, we're seeing these oversimplified efforts that don't involve everyone or even a representative sample. vTaiwan is a perfect example of this.
The final part of the book puts forward some out-of-the-box proposals, starting with storytelling. You call for public decision-makers to come up with a storytelling that shifts the focus from immediacy to complexity. You even propose a Chief Storytelling Officer. This may sound odd: in the age of speed and simplicity, you’re advocating for more complexity. Why is that?
As a speechwriter, I steer clear of the word 'complexity' in speeches – it can bring up some bad memories or wrong assumptions. But really, we shouldn't oversimplify digital participation. It's about crafting stories that show how intricate things can get in government, especially as we move towards more digital involvement.
A second recommendation is to make out between a product, that is generally private, and a public service. You advise framing digital interactions as part of a continuous relationship, one that's reactivated whenever stakeholders need it. Could you dive a bit deeper into this idea?
You know, a government isn't like a shop. Providing a digital public service isn't as instant as buying something online. A service is something you use as often as you need it. To make this work, the digital interactions between citizens and the government should be seen as part of an ongoing relationship – something that's there whenever people need it. Sure, it's going to be simpler than the old-school services, but it's still about building a relationship, which is naturally more enduring than just a quick transaction or the fleeting experiences we often have on the web. This approach would help us get a more rounded view of digital spaces as platforms for civic engagement.
Lastly, you talk about gamification for democracy. What exactly does that mean, and how can we actually do it?
That's an interesting leftover from my past research. Even though participation can be time-consuming and complex, it doesn't have to be dull. We should try to make it more engaging, kind of like a game. This means setting up rules, challenges, and rewards – just like in a game. Of course, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution to boost participation, but it could definitely help make it more appealing.
What are your thoughts on digital democracy, and do you have any feedback on the proposals? Looking forward to hearing from you!
In the Media
Job alert: The “Free Software Foundation Europe” is looking for a policy intern. Feel free to reach out to my amazing friend Tommy for further details!
Bad news alert: We might be on the losing side in the facial recognition battle in the AI Act + No internet in Gaza for a whole week.
And the AI Act has been leaked!
OpenAI has a plan to tackle AI misuse in political campaigns. Meanwhile, GOV.UK is introducing a chatbot to unravel the PA jungle. Also, some of the sharpest minds around have just published an insightful paper on AI.
Algorithms are homogenizing cafè places around the world. And group chats are ruling our social interactions. For real, no kidding.
Humble brag alert: I’ve co-authored an article for Harvard Business Review Italy. Just tossing around a few thoughts on AI in the EU, check it out!
The Bookshelf
A perfect fit for today. In “Recoding America”, Jennifer Pahlka shakes things up and asks whether the US should reboot their government scene. Bottom line: government digitalisation goes beyond more money or more tech.
Nerding
Love working remotely but struggle with communication? Say hello to Loom! It's a game-changer for asynchronous chats: quickly record your screen with a webcam overlay and share it with your teammates. No more endless live meetings. Easy, right?