Electronic citizen participation in Russia: from “e-democracy” to the “nerves of government”

Since 2020, the system of e-participation in Russia has been increasingly centralizing, and its role in addressing the tasks of multilevel governance is becoming more profound. Citizens’ feedback in the form of individual complaints and appeals can be used to monitor the situation in the regions and municipalities and to control local bureaucrats. Such “administrative” logic diverges from earlier interpretations of electronic democracy as a tool for developing public deliberation and civic participation capabilities. The article examines the key stages in the formation of this e-participation model in Russia. The analysis is based on official documents and interviews with public officials, interpreted through the lens of the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) and the Historical New Institutionalism. The main argument of the article is that the major design features of e-participation, as an information, analytical and administrative tool were established at the initial stage of its development. The path established during the period of the policy window from 2009 to 2012 largely determined subsequent organizational and technological solutions, including the predominance of individualized participation forms (complaints, voting) and the idea of a centralized e-participation portal. When the policy window closed, due to the changes in the political environment, the framing of e-participation in the context of e-democracy, which had prevailed earlier, steadily faded away, while the framing focused on problem solving and governance efficiency became predominant. This allowed the institution not only to survive but also to increase its relevance to the authorities.

1. Bekkers V., Homburg V. The myths of e-government: looking beyond the assumptions of a new and better government. The information society. 2007, Vol. 23, N 5, P. 373–382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240701572913

2. Belov V. Electronic democracy in contemporary Russia. Values and meanings. 2012, Vol. 20, N 4, P. 129–138. (In Russ.)

3. Bershadskaya L., Chugunov A., Trutnev D. E-government in Russia: is or seems? In: Ferriero D. (ed.). ICEGOV '12: Proceedings of the 6th International conference on theory and practice of electronic governance. New York: ACM, 2012, P. 79–82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2463728.2463747

4. Bright J., Margetts H. Big data and public policy: can it succeed where e-participation has failed? Policy & Internet. 2016, Vol. 8, N 3, P. 218–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.130

5. Chen J. Useful complaints: how petitions assist decentralized authoritarianism in China. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2016, 204 p.

6. Chugunov A.V., Kabanov Y., Misnikov Y. Citizens versus the government or citizens with the government: a tale of еwo e-participation portals in one city – a case study of St. Petersburg, Russia. In: Baguma R., De R., Janowski T. (eds). Proceedings of the 10th International сonference on theory and practice of electronic governance (ICEGOV '17). New York: ACM, 2017. P. 70–77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3047273.3047276

7. Chugunov A.V., Kabanov Y., Zenchenkova K. Russian e-petitions portal: exploring regional variance in use. In: Tambouris E., Panagiotopoulos P., Sæbø Ø., Wimmer M.A.,

8. Pardo T.A., Charalabidis Y., Sá Soares D., Janowski T. (eds). Electronic Participation, ePart 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 9821. Cham: Springer, 2016, P. 109–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45074-2_9

9. Chugunov A., Panfilov G., Kabanov Y. Centralization of the electronic participation system in Russia: a view from the regions. Bulletin of Perm University. Political science. 2024, Vol. 18, N 2, P. 25–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2218-1067-2024-2-25-35 (In Russ.)

10. Coleman S. Can the Internet strengthen democracy? Cambridge, Malden: Polity press, 2017, 144 p.

11. Deutsch K. W. The nerves of government: Models of political communication and control. New York: Free press, 1966, 316 p.

12. Dobrynin N. Constitutional principle of the integrity of public power and further evolution of the municipal governance in Russia: on the way from subsidiarity towards “democratic centralism”? State and Law. 2022, N 5, P. 33–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S102694520019745-0 (In Russ.)

13. Elstub S., Escobar O. Defining and typologising democratic innovations. In: Elstub S., Escobar O. (eds). Handbook of democratic innovation and governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2019, P. 11–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786433862.00009

14. Filatova O., Chugunov A., Bolgov R. Transformation of the electronic participation system in Russia in the early 2020s: centralization trends. In: Bolgov R., Atnashev М., Gladkiy Y., Leete A., Tsyb A., Pogodin S., Znamenski A. (eds). Proceedings of topical issues in International political geography, TIPG 2021, Springer Geography. Cham: Springer, 2023, P. 309–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20620-7_27

15. Grigoriev I., Dekalchuk A., Gubaydullina S. Multilevel governance and resource exchange: votes, budgets, information. Polis. Political studies. 2021, N 1, P. 169–181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.01.12 (In Russ.)

16. Gritsenko D., Indukaev A. Digitalising city governance in Russia: The case of the ‘active citizen’ platform. Europe–Asia studies. 2021, Vol. 73, N 6, P. 1102–1124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2021.1946013

17. Kapoguzov Е., Revyakin С. Electronic public participation in Russia: technology or institute, solo or duo? ECO Journal. 2019, Vol. 49, N 12, P. 27–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30680/ECO0131-7652-2019-12-27-46 (In Russ.)

18. Karagulyan E., Batyreva M. Social and political participation using digital services: An empty ritual or a genuine participation? Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology. 2024, Vol. 17, N 1, P. 65–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu12.2024.105 (In Russ.)

19. Klimovich S. Variation of principal-agent relations in Russian federal autocracy. Regional & Federal studies. 2023, Vol. 34, N 5, P. 687–711. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2023.2195640

20. Kolozaridi P., Shubenkova A. Internet as a matter of social policy in Russian official discourse: A “Good” or a “Threat”? The Journal of social policy studies. 2016, Vol. 14, N 1, P. 39–54. (In Russ.)

21. Koops B.J. The concept of function creep. Law, innovation and technology. 2021, Vol. 13, N 1, P. 29–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898299

22. Kosorukov A.A. Political incident-management. In: Soloviev A. (ed.). Political Science. New lexicon. Moscow: Aspect Press, 2023, P. 41–50. (In Russ.)

23. Libman A., Obydenkova A. The role of historical legacies in the process of decentralisation in Russia: compliant activism in the context of the crises of the 2020s. Territory, politics, governance. 2023, Vol. 13, P. 1–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2023.2279045

24. Libman A., Kozlov V. The legacy of compliant activism in autocracies: post-Communist experience. Contemporary politics. 2017, Vol. 23, N 2, P. 195‒213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13569775.2016.1206275

25. Lorentzen P. China's strategic censorship. American journal of political science. 2014, Vol. 58, N 2, P. 402 – 414. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12065

26. Mahoney J., Thelen K. A theory of gradual institutional change. In: Mahoney J., Thelen K. Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power. New York: Cambridge university press, 2010, P. 1–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511806414

27. Owen C. Participatory authoritarianism: from bureaucratic transformation to civic participation in Russia and China. Review of international studies. 2020, Vol. 46, N 4, P. 415–434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0260210520000248

28. Panfilov G.O., Chugunov A.V. Centralization of the system of e-participation in the Russian Federation: Expert interviews data. Administrative consulting. 2024, N 5, P. 253–264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2024-5-253-264 (In Russ.)

29. Panfilov G., Volkova O., Chugunov A. Monitoring of E-Participation Resources in the Russian Federation: Results 2020–2023. In: Tolstikova I.I., Fedosov A. Yu., Chugunov A.V. (eds). The State and Citizens in the Electronic Environment. Vol. 7 (Proceedings of the XXVI International Joint Scientific Conference «Internet and Modern Society», IMS-2023, St. Petersburg, June 26–28, 2023). St. Petersburg: ITMO University, 2024. P. 34–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17586/2541-979X-2024-7-34-46 (In Russ.)

30. Renz B., Sullivan J. Making a connection in the provinces? Russia's tweeting governors. East European politics. 2013, Vol. 29, N 2, P. 135–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21599165.2013.779258

31. Schlaufer C. Why do nondemocratic regimes promote e-participation? The case of Moscow's active citizen online voting platform. Governance. 2021, Vol. 34, N 3, P. 821–836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12531

32. Starodubtsev A. Coordination, subordination and control in Russian territorial governance. Russian politics. 2018, Vol. 3, N 2, P. 260–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/2451-8921-00302006

33. Torfing J. Rethinking path dependence in public policy research. Critical policy studies. 2009, Vol. 3, N 1, P. 70–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19460170903158149

34. Voloshinskaya A.A. Russian public initiative: paradoxes of e-democracy. Vlast’ (The Authority). 2016, Vol. 24, N 1, P. 47–51. (In Russ.). Woo S.Y., Kübler D. Taking stock of democratic innovations and their emergence in (unlikely) authoritarian contexts. Politische vierteljahresschrift. 2020, Vol. 61, N 2, P. 335–355. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11615-020-00236-4

35. Zahariadis N. Ambiguity and choice in European public policy. Journal of European public policy. 2008, Vol. 15, N 4, P. 514–530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760801996717

36. Zahariadis N. The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In: Sabatier P.A., Weible C.M. (eds). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2014, P. 25–58.