e-democracies: will Digg-like social networks pave the way for participatory decision-making?

The hype about social networking sites doesn't seem to come to an end.  If it's not Facebook, it's MySpace, and now it's Twitter.  Even though some people are still reluctant to believe in the functionality of some of these web 2.0 applications, it's a matter of years before they become a tool that we have to use on a daily basis, as it happened with email and the internet not so many years ago. 

In this entry, I will follow-up on one of Tanya's three points mentioned in her last entry -namely, participation-, and will make the case for Digg, one of some applications for social bookmarking that allow its users to share, comment and vote on their preferred bookmarks.  From my perspective, these participatory features can give us a glimpse of how decision making processes in the public sector might look like in the not-very-remote future.

For starters and to avoid misunderstandings, I would like to clarify that I don't believe that Facebook, Twitter or Digg -or any other social network service- represent the specific and best solution to increase citizens' participation in the public sphere.  All of them are very popular applications that serve other purposes.  My point is that some governance-related principles are embedded in the concept of social networking, being voice, access to information, transparency and social participation the more evident.

How does the idea behind Digg can be expanded beyond the world of social bookmarks?  We have had blog entries about this before, but let's get more into the details.  There are a few examples in the private sector by Dell and Starbucks, which have pioneered in listening to what people have to say about potential innovations and improvements on their products and services (see IdeaStorm and MyStarbucksIdea).  Basically what people do at these websites is to post ideas/proposals that can be voted (up or down) and commented by others.  Then, companies take in the ideas that have gained more support and that are likely to improve customers' experience.

In the public arena, Estonia and more recently the US have explored these alternative approaches, too.  In Estonia, TOM (Täna Otsustan Mina, or "Today I Decide") is a portal created in 2001 to open an online space for citizen engagement in the policy-making process.  Citizens participate by commenting, editing and voting on draft laws submitted by the government or on their own ideas for new laws.  The initiatives supported by the majority are sent to the respective government agency for consideration. 

More recently, the new US administration created "Open for Questions," a section in the White House's website where people can ask questions to the President and then vote up or down.  The US President has committed to answer from time to time the questions that receive the most support.

Time will probably have the last word about the real potential that this type of initiatives will have.  In the meantime, evidence from TOM's experience suggests that, even though it's a good way to communicate with people, many of the proposals are non-constructive and often the level of discussion is very low.  Moreover the number of participants and outcomes from the public debate is still quite modest.

In my opinion, rather than being nationwide, these initiatives will have a better fit at the local level, where it is more feasible to have a closer dialogue between citizens and governments on issues that have a more direct impact on people's life.  For instance, social accountability tools such as Participatory Budgets (PB) could benefit from the Digg-like approach, as a way to get inputs from a broader group of citizens that cannot attend to the meetings where most of the debate and deliberative process takes place. 

Finally, as I always mention, these innovations and tools will be useful only where there is a government committed to listening people's voice, and where citizens are active enough to participate substantively to hold their governments accountable.