The Relationship between Participatory Democracy and Digital Transformation in Tanzania

Bariki Gwalugano Mwasaga1

Abstract

Democracy is something that is discussed differently from various public discourses. It should
definitely be known that there is a reason for these different school of thoughts whether one
looks from the left, centre or right of the political continuum. Additionally, through participatory
democracy, ordinary citizens are engaged and empowered to have a voice on policy and/or
decision – making process, which in turn nurtures democracy both at national and local levels.
However, studies carried out in Tanzania on democratic process have not paid attention on the
relationship between participatory democracy and digital transformation. Therefore, this paper
focuses on addressing this relationship by looking first at how public/citizen participation and
civic engagement has been increased through participatory democracy and secondly, how digital
transformation succeeded in initiating public opinion on pertinent issues including politics and
policies? The focal point of this paper is on the potentialities of the digital transformation in
creating space for the very disadvantaged population to participate significantly in the political
and public sphere.

Key words: participatory/deliberative democracy, democratic process, citizens, participation, digital

transformation.

1
PhD candidate in Politics, Public Policy and Globalisation at University of Perugia – Department of Political
Science, Via Elce di sotto, 06123 Perugia, Italy 7 Telephone: (+39) 3282863937/ Email: [email protected] /
[email protected]
1.0 Introduction
The global society is experiencing some specific developments concerning democracy. To make
things tough, even defining what is democracy is becoming a multifaceted challenge because
there are number of choices being developed and linked in normative theory and political
practice. (Dahl, 2013) reminded that traditional approaches to democratic theory tends to come
together on minimal accounts of democracy. This minimalistic school of thought considers
political rights including rights of free speech, association, and suffrage are endowed to citizens,
whereby through voting for their representatives in elections is one means of exercising their
political rights. On the other hand, due to an unexplored normative potential, the liberal
democracies give alternative elucidations on traditional accounts of democracy.

Other school of thoughts, focus on ‘democratising’ as expounded by (Santos & Nunes, 2004) or
‘deepening democracy’ as according to (Fung & Wright, 2003). This has resulted into creating a
space for citizens to be at the driving seat of decision making process. The approach birthed
notions like public participation, deliberation and citizen empowerment, which require strong
political backing (Rosenberg 2007; Dryzek, 2009)). In a nutshell, participatory democracy put
much more emphasis on the principle that democratic legitimacy is based on the active and
enduring participation of ordinary citizens. (Doorenspleet, 2019) put it clear that in scenario like
this, democracy definitely assumes an important meaning in the global citizenry’s perspective.

In recent years, Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) have played a significant
role in the field of e-governance and e-democracy at different levels be it local, national or
international level. They have enabled ever more innovative arrangements of intra and
interconnection and communication of citizens across global space. Citizens can now call for
petitions in case of violation of human rights or any matter of interest that requires legislative
process. Moreover, through social networking elected representatives as well as political parties
can engage directly with the members of their constituents as part of their democratic processes.
On the other hand, citizens’ voices through ICT platforms can raise their voices in a situation
which requires government interventions be it at local government or central/national
government level.

1
There is no doubt that the Internet plays a significant part in the political and public sphere
(Ceccarini, 2019). As (Manin, 2017) put it, digital transformation operates in the course of
disintegration of the audience and public opinion space. On the contrary, there have not been a
common conclusion yet on different theoretical perspectives because of the complications in
evaluating and empirically substantiating the possible proto-political effects on digital revolution
(Dahlgren, 2009). (Christensen, 2011) emphasized that empirically, there are no any negative
relationships between the use of the Internet by citizens and their civic involvement. This leaves
an open room for discussion on potential impact of digital transformation on the political sphere

It is from this background that this paper tries to address the relationship between participatory
democracy and digital transformation especially in the developing democracies of the world.
Specifically, this paper aim to respond on the following questions:
(i) Has participatory democracy pave the way for increased public participation and civic
engagement?
(ii) Has digital transformation succeeded in initiating public opinion on pertinent issues
including politics and policies?

2.0 Theoretical Background/ Conceptualisation

The theoretical framework for this paper is centred on participatory democracy focusing on
citizen participation, civic engagement and public opinion.

The current discussions on democracy reveal that many people consider it to be inviolable, and
there is no any other option to replace democracy when it comes to political governance. This
argument reflects what (Sen, 1999, p.15-16) says, “the practice of democracy that has won out in
the modern West is largely a result of a consensus that has emerged since the Enlightenment and
the Industrial Revolution” and it need to be exported to the rest of the world. (Sen, 1999) tries to
assert that democracy is a universal value whereby (Sen, 1990, p.16) points out that “includes its
intrinsic importance in human life, its instrumental role in generating political incentives, and its
constructive function in the formation of values (and in understanding the force and feasibility of
claims of needs, rights, and duties). These merits are not regional in character”.

2
Apart from being a universal value, democracy for quite some time has been considered to
reflect majority rule even when the public is represented by few in decision making and/or have
been engaged and participated in the process of ensuring majority rule. This can be seen in the
writings of (Dahl, 1989) whereby he laid down four ways establishing majority rule include:
make best use of the number of people “who can exercise self-determination in collective
decisions” (Dahl, 1989, p.138); highest possibility of reaching correct decision through majority
rule; reaching maximum utility based on highest level of satisfaction on decisions made; and,
unavailability of substitute for cost-effective rule.

Insight on Participatory Democracy

Almost for the five decades, developed democracies in North America, Western Europe, and
beyond that are considered liberal societies have faced what is known as ‘undemocratic
challenges’ including lack of accountability of rulers to ruled; party-system crises; and quasi
authority government institutions, and ‘challengers’ including invisible discriminatory
hegemony. This has result into formation of what is knowns as ‘new social movements’ exerting
pressure on innovative and more inclusive democratic practices (della Porta & Diani, 2006).

Participatory democracy emerged in 1960s whereby scholars and practitioners brought into
attention the requirement of citizens to participate in decision making collectively on issues
pertained to them (Bherer, Dufour, & Montambeault, 2016). Since all social issues in one way or
the other involve politics whether at local, national, regional or international levels, then
participation is inevitable (Bass, Dalal-Clayton, & Pretty, 1995; Gbikpi, 2005). (Lynd, 1965)
singled out two specific goals for instituting participatory democracy, these are: each person has
to be entirely part in decisions that have effects (positive or negative) in his or her life; and the
society on the other hand should promote and ensure total independence of the individuals as
well as creating supporting environment for their participation in achieving common goal. This
pave a way towards social inclusion, which ensures democratic independence between the
society and political administration.

In establishing his argument on participatory democratic practices, (Rogers, 2008, p.20-21)

pointed out that “…democratic participation in local community development promises to
increase civic responsibility and local sustainability, in accordance with local visions of a good
community, while also increasing societal experimentalism and creativity, without the need for

3
centralized control or bureaucratic administration. Maximal democratic participation promises to
provide society with an evolutionary dynamic, alongside allowing the conservation of local
traditions wherever these are valued by local people, which allows local people to determine the
conditions of their own existence in accordance with their shared cultural meanings, values,
standards, and ideals, when they deem these to be satisfactory. This assumes that local people
have sufficient knowledge, experience, skills, imagination, and motivation to decide for
themselves how best to live their own lives”.

Since inceptions to-date, (Bherer & Breux, 2012) elucidate that participatory democratic
practices have resulted into introduction of heterogeneous participatory practices through various
institutions and groups, including left- and right wings’ government globally. It has also been
noticed that participatory practices took pace in different settings including private sector. Non
State Actors like NGOs and Community organisations have been using participatory approaches
in running their programmes and projects they implement so that their beneficiaries take
initiative and action in planning for the development of their communities (Tsiga, Hofisi &
Mago, 2016). New Public Governance enforced bureaucratic organisations to adopt participatory
practices in order among other things, to enhance citizen participation so as to improve policy
formulation and public service delivery (Nabatchi, 2010; Torfing & Triantafillou, 2013).

One of the early scholarship on this subject matter is the work of Carole Pateman (1970) who
introduced a concept of participatory democracy intending to restructure democracy by putting in
place structural institutions modifications for participation. (Pateman, 1970) conceptualised
Greek theories of direct democracy as well as studied thoroughly the “social contract” of Jean
Jacques Rousseau together with “on liberty” of John Stuart Mill. For her (Pateman, 1970),
citizens should be given equal opportunity to participate in decision making process as opposed
to what was offered by representative and direct democracy. Her arguments on equal participate
based on the fact that representation in public sphere will not create equitable level for citizens to
engage properly in decisions affecting their sustainability. She (Pateman, 1970) believed that the
more citizens participate in their affairs, the more “stable system of democracy” can be achieved
and maintained and at the end reach the ideal representative democracy.

As (Fisher, 2003) pointed out, generally speaking, participatory democracy is centred on scope
of citizen participation. (Michels, 2011) added that according to participatory democrats,

4
delegation of decision-making power alienates citizens from politics thus, in order for a
democracy to be vital, then there should be citizen participation. (Michels, 2011, p.278) outlined
three key functions of participatory democratic practices: “the first is the educational function:
citizens increase their civic skills and become more competent when they participate in public
decision-making. In the second place, participatory democracy has an integrative function.
Participation contributes to the development of civic virtues, citizens’ feeling of being public
citizens and part of their community. As a consequence, they may also feel more responsible
personally for public decisions. And thirdly, participatory democracy contributes to a greater
legitimacy of decisions”.

The issue of civic engagement is somewhat significant too. Citizen engagement in social
networks and voluntary organization is considered to be important in enhancing satisfaction and
to be specific, in democratic practices (Putnam, 2000). This allows individual citizens to express
their interests and demands on local or/and national/state government; being able to air out their
voices to responsible institutions that in turns increase the level of inclusion. In discussing about
citizen engagement, (Michels, 2011) put it clear that engagement make citizens more competent.
It is through these social networks where citizens learn civic skills and hence, networks turn to
be schools for democracy as they help members to understand what is going on and become
active participant in public life, trustworthy and reciprocators.

A lot has been narrated by various scholars but in a nutshell, the discussion about participatory
democracy is centred on these following foundations: firstly, participatory democracy involves
active political participation at all levels within the society; secondly, there are must be a direct
citizen engagement in dialogue and decision making; thirdly, participatory democracy requires
widened space to ensure full citizen participation in governance of their affairs; fourthly,
continual capacity building is vital for community empowerment towards active participation;
and fifthly, participatory democracy depends on enhancement of the role of civil societies in area
of their jurisdictions.

Insight on Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative democracy on the contrary, is derived from the conceptions that aimed at stressing
broad quality of the democratic space in order to untangle from cultural hegemony, power
relationships, and unconformity in thoughts, feelings, and actions to objective values. The

5
Anglo-American and European philosophical traditions grounded on the works of Rawls and
Habermas is the key foundation for deliberative democracy (Rawls 1993, 1984; Habermas, 1992,
1984). (Habermas, 1984) sees democracy as a sphere of public discussion that is controlled by
“the unforced force of the better argument” and resulting to the common good. Whereas (Elster,
1998, p.3) points out that “democracy revolves around the transformation rather than simply the
aggregation of preferences”. On common declaration about deliberative democracy is that,
“political choice, to be legitimate, must be the outcome of deliberation about ends among free,
equal, and rational agents” (Elster 1998, p.5). That is to say, it “rests on argumentation, not only
in the sense that it proceeds by argument, but also in the sense that it must be justified by
argument” (Elster 1998, p.9).

Different scholars have studied deliberative democracy and defined it based on the assertions
established by Rawls and Habermas. For instance, deliberative theory has been divided into
“deliberative and communicative” (Young, 2000), “liberal, constitutional and discursive”
(Dryzek, 2000), “deliberative and agonist” (Mouffe, 2000), “deliberative democracy and
democratic deliberation” (Mansbridge, 2007), “type one and type two” (Bachtiger et al. 2010),
“liberal deliberative and participatory deliberative” (della Porta, 2013) as well as “classical and
radical” (Cini & Felicetti, 2018).

(Coleman, Przybylska, & Sintomer, 2015) elucidated that in various political systems around the
world, deliberative innovations have been implemented in a wide range and massive quantity.
This has resulted from an increased demand for more deliberative practises requiring
engagement of ordinary citizens especially underrepresented ones (Curato, Dryzek, Ercan,
Hendriks, & Niemeyer, 2017). Policy making processes and political affirmations call together
various fora so as to draw views from the public on pertinent issues that either affects and/or will
affect them directly or indirectly in the course of their implementation (Nabatchi, et al., 2012).
(Barrett, Wyman, & Schatten, 2012) confirmed that findings from studies conducted on citizens’
deliberations revealed that these deliberations do influence policies however, their effects differ
and can be indirect. As said earlier, with regards to political affirmations, deliberative meetings
are carried out likewise in parliamentary settings and electoral environments like formulation of
elections manifestos (Hendriks, 2016). Simply, deliberative democracy is more of a talk-centred

6
kind of democracy (Curato et al., 2017). However, (Mendelberg, 2002) cautioned that talk alone
can be irrational, generating enthusiastically varied results from an ideal deliberative perception.

(Curato et al., 2017), pointed out that findings in deliberative researches recommend that
deliberation can modulate or weaken instead of strengthen those who occupy dominant positions.
Citizens’ conversations can destroy or impair the quality of influence of elite framing (Druckman
& Nelson, 2003). Adding to this, (Niemeyer, 2011) revealed that deliberative mini-publics such
as citizens’ juries can fathom ‘symbolic politics’ or elite manipulation of public discourse over
selective assembly of fact and shaping of nuance to support their particular political view. One
example can be cited from the National Public Policy Conferences in Brazil, which is considered
to be one of the successful public deliberation exercises at a national level whereby it has
empowered ordinary citizens to influence public policy once been given an opportunity to
participate in significant deliberation (Pogrebinschi & Samuels, 2014). In short, these examples
evidenced that deliberative democracy provides room for ordinary political stakeholders to make,
oppose, and closely consider on ideas, alternatives, and discussions.

(Curato et al., 2017), assert that in deliberative democracy, decision making is done by either
voting, negotiation, or workable agreements that require agreement on a way forward and not
much of the reasons to execute it. (Dryzek & Niemeyer, 2012) suggest that deliberation should
recognise pluralism and exert meta-consensus vigorously, which encompasses mutual
recognition of the acceptability of various values, inclinations, verdicts and discussions carried
out by other stakeholders.

One of the important point of departure is that participation and deliberations go together.
(Paterman, 2012) in drawing a distinction between the two, argued that deliberative democracy
failed to acknowledge participatory democracy well enough instead it paid much attention on
‘new deliberative bodies’. A ‘participatory society’ according to (Pateman (2012, p.10) is “where
various aspects of our social and political lives are democratised are not distinct from
deliberative democrats’ vision of a society where all citizens affected by a decision have
capacities and opportunities to deliberate in the public sphere”. Therefore, deliberations are
carried out so as to augment the responsiveness of democratic systems, provide an unplanned
forum for policy development (Liston, Harris, & O’Toole, 2013).

7
Insight on Digital Transformation
Digital transformation of 21st century pave the way for enhancement democratic practices as it
gave a room for ordinary citizens to speak and initiate political debates. Citizens have been given
access to express and share their perceptions freely between and among each other because of
the strengthened values and basics of the democracy. It is no wonder scholars since expansion of
Internet in the 1990s, have been arguing on how it can aid transformation of human society.
(Shayo (2019, p.857) adds up that “mobile phones and internet access have become relatively
widespread, and constitutes a new important resource for citizen participation in local democracy
and its decentralized crowdsourcing methods”. This is aided by an increasing proportion of
Internet users who are always-on via portable devices that let them to use a mobile connection to
the Internet (Ceccarini, 2019). (Welp & Breuer, 2014) exposed that there have been intensely
disputed questions about the impact of ICTs on political processes and outcomes, as well as
social classes, that is, position of persons within a social group, category, geographic region,
or social unit.

Internet as a main platform for this digital transformation it is the most useful and powerful
instrument or vehicle of communication that increases transparency in the conduct of all
branches of the government (the executive, the legislature and the judiciary); expand the room
for access to information, and facilitate active citizen participation in building democratic
societies (Olengurumwa, 2016). (Avila, et al., 2011), expounded that citizens’ contributions on
policymaking process can easily be facilitated through new and improved channels of
participation as well as citizen monitoring of government due to an increased transparency and
accountability as a result of technological innovations.

In studying about the impact of digital transformation on political participation (Boulinanne,

2009), endorses positive and modest findings on citizen engagement. However, findings reveal
that there are well established elements, which are like standards that moderate political
participation within a public space for instance political interest and social capital. (Bimber,
Stohl & Flanagin, 2008) expounded further that digital transformation will be a cause towards
deepening democratic division particularly between those who do have skills and resources to
enable their engagement on political process and those without them.

8
Furthermore, (Chadwick, 2012) clarified that diversity of digital architectures and their various
uses, does not necessarily depends by the socio-demographic features of users of internet but
also, depend on the particular category of political participation. On the other hand, the impact pf
digital transformation on democratic processes with reference to (Anduiza, Jensen & Jorba,
2012), can be reflected in the following perspectives; political participation, consumption of
political information and political attitudes. According to (Anduiza, Jensen, & Jorba, 2012),
political participation entails citizens’ actions towards intended political outcomes; consumption
of political information referring to trust in the trustworthiness of mainstream media especially
government owned media houses as well as other media houses that are heavily censored by the
State; and with political attitudes referring to operational independence from being exposed to
different channels.

The digital democratic innovations as means of electronic participation have brought forward a
game-changer for democratic practices, governance issues as well as representation around the
globe unlike the traditional means of political participation including elections, petition-signing
and protests. (Pogrebinschi, 2017) believes that democratic innovations enhanced by the digital
transformation in the long-run will change the nature of democracy and its institutions apart from
what has been observed so far that is, increased quality of citizens engaged in democratic
practices through the use of internet. For (Pogrebinschi, 2017), digital transformation will impact
democratic practices across the globe in the following aspects:

“First, digital innovations may change how democracy works by making it

more inclusive and more deliberative. Real democratic inclusion takes place when the
latter is understood not in terms of the number of citizens and volume of participation,
but in terms of the groups targeted and the policy issues addressed by the new means of
e-participation.

Second, digital democratic innovations may change how governments rule by making
them more accountable and effective. The most innovative and democratic institutional
designs are today found among those who rely on ICT tools to allow citizens
to collaborate with their government by interacting with the public administration. Forms
of interactive administration have evolved as both internet sites and mobile applications

9
 (apps), where citizens can identify problems in their cities and propose solutions to fix
them.

Third, digital innovations may change how representation is performed by turning it

more responsive. Digital innovations have been making representation less virtual by
virtual means.”

(Pogrebinschi, 2017), summarises that the digital transformation apart from enhancing citizen
participation, it enhances also political inclusion, improve accountability, eases administration of
rule of law, and amplifying responsiveness, which in turn they strengthen democratic practices. It
is quite open that through digital transformation social equality has been improved whereby the
voices and underrepresented demands from traditionally disadvantaged populations have now
been taken on board. Studies show that there is a growing number of active smartphones users in
some of the least developed countries whereby these gadgets turned to be efficient tools on
enhancing social inclusion in these countries (Sugie, 2016). The findings about the major shift on
digital divide is completely the opposite of what has been discussed by (Smith, 2009, p.151) by
pointing out that “one of the main challenges facing Internet‑based engagement is the well
documented ‘digital divide’ that exists in terms of access to and proficiency in ICT”.

3.0 Participatory Democracy and Digital Transformation experienced in Tanzania

3.1 How participatory democracy paved the way for increased public participation and
civic engagement
From the theoretical framework presented in the previous section, it is very clear that citizen
participation in democratic practices is significant and hence calls for innovative ways to
strengthening representative democracy (Grönlund, Bächtiger, & Setälä, 2014; Smith, 2009).
Democratic innovations to be participative and inclusive must ensure the voices of voiceless
within a given society are well linked up to an existing governance structure be it local or
national level (Michels & Binnema, 2018). This means, participatory democracy should be
considered as a creative, social process of gathering together nonconforming voices, different
skills, thoughts, and experiences, as well as a multiplicity of goals, morals, and tenets, so as to
reach best consensus.

10
Furthermore, participatory democracy is a social evolution process that ensures shared
commitment in achieving good life and societal well-being encompasses shared understanding of
all people who are concerned with the outcome of any proposed action within their local
environment. Regardless of our own assumptions, consensus about proposed problems and
solutions worthy of consideration can be reached through citizen inclusion and participation.
Nevertheless, there is no completely agreed principles and methodologies for overcoming
challenges but through participation there is a room for criticism and persuasion on course of
action to be taken whereby whatever the outcome, participants are more than willing to accept it.
Thus, it can be said that participatory democracy is unrestricted that is, a process of discovery of
the best course of action, but not relativistic. In principal there is no best course of action hence,
the decision making process should be an ongoing fine-tuning, re-examination and criticism,
thereby adapting and amending the course of action to cater for unforeseen consequences, events
and circumstances. In a nutshell, participatory democracy can be regarded as an eloquent,
progressive, didactic, and experimental process.

One of the very popular form of democratic innovations is open forum whereby citizens
participate in face-to-face interactions and come into agreement on number of pertinent issues
(Smith, 2009, p.30–31), for instance in participatory planning and budgeting popularly known in
Tanzania as Opportunities and Obstacles to Development (Mwasaga, 2019). This is a formal way
of involving citizens in deciding about their fate but there are other informal ways whereby
citizens participate freely by organizing themselves and airing their concerns in number of
pertinent issues they are facing in the community.

Findings from the Assessment of Decentralisation by Devolution (D by D) in Tanzania

conducted by (Lyon, Zilihona & Masanyiwa, 2018), revealed that the reform agenda set by the
Government of Tanzania is broadly considered to have been successful in increasing awareness
and practice of D by D at all levels, due to the established structures and impact of local
government reforms. There is an increased people’s participation in politics and local
governance, which is manifested through increased participation in local elections especially at
the very grassroots level, in planning and budgeting mechanisms through the Opportunities and
Obstacles to Development (O&OD) planning methodology. The Assessment report reveals that
up to 90% of the villages and wards in the sample LGAs were submitting participatory

11
development plans. Citizens were also contributing labour and materials in construction of
infrastructure.

Likewise, findings from the Assessment show increased transparency and citizen’s demand for
accountability (Lyon, Zilihona & Masanyiwa, 2018). The normal practice is to send the village
meetings’ meetings to the ward level where the issues are discussed and kept on minutes, and
then after sent up to the Council for further decisions. In addition to this, citizens’ demands for
financial transparency and accountability is also increasing through their elected representatives
and participation of women, youth and other disadvantaged groups in local governance is
increasing as noted by LGAs’ staff (Lyon, Zilihona & Masanyiwa, 2018).

However, apart from the good response on citizen participations, findings from the same
assessment carried out by (Lyon, Zilihona & Masanyiwa, 2018), revealed that the general public
lost interest on participating in community meetings due to the fact that they have continue to
experience little action and/or changes on their identified priorities. This was also observed by
the research findings from the Ibrahim Index for African Governance (IIAG, 2015), which
revealed that since 2011, Tanzania has shown poorer performance in three out of the four
governance categories (governance, rule of law, human rights and economic opportunity).

3.2 How digital transformation succeeded in initiating public opinion

In the modern times, it has been argued by different scholars that participatory democracy should
focus much more on extensive decentralisation, citizen initiatives and decisive referendums.
Although, there has been a slight change on citizen participation on local governance issues in
Tanzania as observed by (Lyon, Zilihona & Masanyiwa, 2018) in their assessment, a new door
brought by digital transformation provides access to citizens to participate on other issues
affecting their welfare. Digital platforms are seen as “new hope” for participatory democracy as
they do allow citizens to directly engaged in the decision making process as well as giving
reviving local democracy (Gerodimos, 2001).

According to quarterly communication statistics published in the second quarter of ending June
2019 by the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA) 2, internet penetration in
Tanzania extended to 43 percent, with 51.22 per cent of the mobile phone subscribers being

2
https://www.tcra.go.tz/images/TelCom_Statistics_June_2019.xlsx.pdf

12
using internet that is, out 43.49 million mobile subscribers at least 22.28 million were internet
users. These data when computed to the estimated population in Tanzania which stands at 58
million, show that about 38.5 percent of the population has access to internet. TCRA (2018)
revealed that the trends of internet penetration and mobile penetration for the period of five years
starting from 2013 - 2018 show that there are positive growths from (21%) to (43%) and (61%)
to (81%) respectively. This means, at one-third of the population can now utilise the avenue
provided by digital transformation to engage themselves into fruitful political process,
deliberation, and impact on public policy as important aspects of democracy in action.

This avenue brought by digital transformation does not restricted by national or global sphere,
that is to say, nothing can supersede debate and deliberations made at local level but instead
national and global public spheres supplement more voices and experiences to the local public
sphere (see also: Castells, 2005; Marginson, 2008).

Literature reviewed in the previous section (Smith, 2009) depicted that digital divide existed to
some extent in the past decade but digital revolution is now gathering pace as average citizens
take an active role in public discourse including engaging politically on a very different level.
Maria Sarungi, who is a founder of Change Tanzania Platform concurred with this truth that
#ChangeTanzania platform started as a social media hashtag but abruptly turned into an online
social movement with an app and website registering lots of petitions and initiatives ranging
from demands for security cameras at bus stops to a community beach clean (Ridgwell, 2017).
She points out that with social media platforms, citizens’ voices can be amplified because of the
effects brought up by the digital revolution. (Shayo, 2019) added that digital platforms including
Uchaguzi platform and social media page such as Facebook Taarifa Za Uchaguzi Tanzania and
Twitter account @ChaguziTanzania, promoted novel forms of citizen collective action in
monitoring integrity of local elections and general elections in 2014 and 2015 respectively. All
these platforms served as an example of digitally empowered citizens to take part in local
democracy online in Tanzania.

During the last general elections in Tanzania of 2015, social media platforms especially Twitter,
WhatsApp and Facebook were highly used for the first time for campaigning purposes. Social
media gave voters, especially youths, a platform to vocalise their strong aspiration for change.

13
By the time of elections, 60% of all voters were youths under age of 35 years (NEC, 2016). Most
of them were challenging the status-quo of the past regime (4th phase government since
independence of 1961). They called for changes with hashtags like #Wearerestless and
#YouthPower.

One of the negative effects of social media is destructive debates as well as spread of fake news.
During the campaigns, there were reports of opposition smear campaigns conducted on
WhatsApp and it was being used by ‘unofficial’ campaigners to reach voters who by that time
were estimated to be around 8 million people. Memes were circulated to create widespread
mimicry of party leaders. One meme states that presidential candidate from the ruling party
CCM was corrupt, while on the other side, there was a meme questioned opposition party
candidate’s health. Also, Tanzania’s mainstream media adopted a viral content from WhatsApp
campaigns whereby there was a video shared across showing a candidate representing coalition
of opposition parties (popularly known as UKAWA) attracting voters on the grounds of religion.
This was picked up by Newspapers and gave ruling party candidate a chance to condemn was
regarded as divisive politics. This shows how digital platforms were key influencer to the
mainstream political coverage in Tanzania during the last general elections of 2015. Discussions
on digital platforms proved that the electorate was engaged and sought to make a difference.
(Shayo, 2016) pointed out clearly that the use of digital platforms offers plenty proof and
prospects for aspirants, citizen and political parties to strategically recruit and mobilise potential
voters. In addition, I concur with (Shayo, 2017) that digital transformation has a great role in
transforming interactions between local politicians and the general public in democratic
engagements due to the fact that ordinary citizens are empowered to have a voice by new
electronic means from where they are.

As it has been revealed by the assessment done by (Lyon, Zilihona & Masanyiwa, 2018), citizens
at the lower level of political administration have lost passion in engaging into policy and/or
decision -making processes within their localities but digital technology provide means for the
local government authorities to enhance participation and create more inclusive and cohesive
local communities as well as to take on board all initiatives brought up by citizens in upholding
democratic society (Shayo, 2019). In order for an online participation to bring impact, (Arias,

14
Garcia, & Corpeno, 2015, p.185) emphasized that "people to be aware of what is happening and
to be able to participate in the country's political processes".

4.0 Conclusion
This paper addressed the relationship between participatory democracy and digital
transformation especially in the developing democracies of the world, Tanzania being one of
them. Specifically, it responded on two key questions: firstly, has participatory democracy pave
the way for increased public participation and civic engagement? And secondly, has digital
transformation succeeded in initiating public opinion on pertinent issues including politics and
policies?

Theoretically, participatory democracy still holds grounds in developing democracies around the
globe as it gives rooms for disadvantaged citizens to engage into politics especially in those
scenarios where representative democracy cannot avail. The most important thing to consider is
the degree of political inclusiveness of provided by the practices of participatory democracy. The
questions remained to be: to what extent are the viewpoints of the most disadvantaged citizens
incorporated in such democratic practices? And to what magnitude are their expressions publicly
reached at?

On the other hand, theoretical background on participatory democracy offered an important

lesson about empowering ordinary citizens in the policy and/or decision –making process. The
most significant questions are: how often are their proposals taken into consideration by decision
-makers? To what extent these proposals will bring about sustainable impact in their localities?
The answer to these questions depend on the magnitude of citizen empowerment, the degree of
political inclusiveness and quality of public discourse as observed by (della Porta, 2007).

Another aspect that need to be considered is a role digital transformation has on democratic
process. This creates more opportunities for citizen participation in local democracy using
available, accessible and affordable digital platforms to be crucial. However, (Lahmann, Otto,
Djordjevic, & Maire, 2017, p.7) reminds that, “alongside the countless advantages it offers, the
internet creates almost as many challenges for society-in different ways and to different extents,
depending on the country concerned”. For the digital transformation to bring positive impact to
the democratic process in Tanzania, there is a need to continue to improve legal and regulatory

15
framework as well as encouraging all responsible institutions to play their role without biasness.
Laws that do not unnecessarily restrict the use of these digital platforms can help design a more
democratic digital environment.

16
 References

Anduiza, E., Jensen, M., & Jorba, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Uses of Digital Media for Contentious
Politics in Latin America. In Digital Media and Political Engagement Worldwide. A
Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arias, C. R., Garcia, J., & Corpeño, A. (2015). Population as Auditor of an Election Process in
Honduras: The Case of the VotoSocial Crowdsourcing Platform. Policy and Internet,
7(2), 185-202.
Avila, R., Feigenblatt, H., Heacock, R., & Heller, N. (2011). Global Mapping of Technology for
Transparency and Accountability. Mimeo. London: Transoarency and Accountability
Initiative.
Barrett, G., Wyman, M., & Schatten, V. (2012). Assessing Policy Impacts of Deliberative Civic
Engagement. In N. Tina, J. G. Gastil, M. G. Weiksner, & M. Leighninger (Eds.),
Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic
Engagement (pp. 181-203). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bass, S., Dalal-Clayton, B., & Pretty, J. (1995, May). Participation in Strategies for Sustainable
Development. Environmental Planning Issues(7).
Bherer, L., & Breux, S. (2012). The diversity of public participation tools: Complementing or
competing with one another? Canadian Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 379-403.
Bherer, L., Dufour, P., & Montambeault, F. (2016). The participatory democracy turn: an
introduction. Journal of Civil Society, 12(3), 225-230.
Bimber, B., Stohl , C., & Flanagin, A. (2008). Technological Change and the Shifting Nature of
Political Organization. In A. Chadwick, & P. N. Howard (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of
Internet Politics. New York: Routledge.
Boulinanne, S. (2009). Does Internet use affect engagement? A meta–analysis of research.
Political Communication, 26, 193-211.
Castells, M. (2005). Global Governance and Global Politics. PS: Political Science & Politics,
38(1), 9-16.
Ceccarini, L. (2019). Could the Internet be a safety-net for democracy in crisis? Italian Political
Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica.
Chadwick, A. (2012). Recent Shifts in the Relationship Between the Internet and Democratic
Engagement in Britain and the United States: Granularity, Informational Exuberance, and
Political Learning. In E. Anduiza, M. Jensen, & L. Jorba (Eds.), Digital Media and
Political Engagement Worldwide. A Comparative Study. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political activities on the Internet: Slacktivism or political
participation by other means? First Monday, 16(2). doi:10.5210/fm.v16i2.3336

17
Cini, L., & Felicetti, A. (2018). Participatory deliberative democracy: toward a new standard for
assessing democracy? some insights into the Italian case. Contemporary Italian Politics,
10(2). Retrieved December 01, 2019, from https://doi.org/10.1080/23248823.2018.14
Coleman, S. A., Przybylska, A., & Sintomer, Y. (Eds.). (2015). Deliberation and Democracy:
Innovative Processes and Institutions. New York: Peter Lang.
Curato, N., Dryzek, J. S., Ercan, S. A., Hendriks, C. M., & Niemeyer, S. (2017). Twelve key
findings in deliberative democracy research. Daedalus, 146(3), 28-38.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (2013). A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and Political Engagement. Citizens, Communication and
Democracy. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press.
della Porta, D. (2007). The Global Justice Movement in Cross-National and Transnational
Perspective. Paradigm.
della Porta, D. (2013). Social Movements and Democracy: New Challenges, New Challengers,
New Theories? In J. VAN SKELENBURG, C. ROGGEBAND , & B. KLANDERMANS
(Eds.), The future of social movement research: dynamics, mechanisms and processes
(Vol. 39, pp. 347-368). Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
della Porta, D., & Diani, M. (2006). Social Movements: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Doorenspleet, R. (2019). Rethinking the Value of Democracy. A Comparative Perspective.
Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’
Conversations Limit Elite Influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729-
745.
Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Liberals, Critics, Contestations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J. (2009). Democratization as Deliberative Capacity Building. Comparative Political
Studies, 42(11), 1379–1402.
Dryzek, J. S., & Niemeyer, S. J. (2012). Reconciling Pluralism and Consensus as Political Ideals.
American Journal of Political Science, 50, 634-649.
Elster, J. (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening Democracy. Institutional Innovations in
Empowered Participatory Governance. London: Verso.

18
Gbikpi, B. (2005). Dalla teoria della democrazia partecipativa a quella deliberativa: quali
possibili continuità? Stato e mercato(1), 97-130.
Gerodimos, R. (2001). Democracy and the Internet: Access, Engagement and Deliberation.
Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3(6), 26-31.
Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A., & Setälä, M. (2014). Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens
in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1992). Fatti e norme. Contributi a una teoria discorsiva del diritto e della
democrazia, tr. it. di Ceppa L. 1996. Milano: Guerini e Associati.
Hendriks, C. M. (2016). Coupling Citizens and Elites in Deliberative Systems: The Role of
Institutional Design. European Journal of Political Research, 55(1), 43-60.
IIAG (Ibrahim Index of African Governance). (2015). Country insights: Tanzania. Retrieved
October 10, 2019, from
http://static.moibrahimfoundation.org/u/2015/10/02201457/49_Tanzania.pdf
Lahmann, H., Otto, P., Djordjevic, V., & Maire, J. (2017). Who Governs the Internet? Players
and Fields of Action. (I. Kroemer, K. Behroz, Eds., & B. Gutmann , Trans.) Bonn:
Abteilung Politische Akademie. Retrieved January 12, 2020, from
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/akademie/13910.pdf
Liston, V., Harris, C., & O’Toole, M. (2013). Bridging Normative Democratic Theory and
Internet Technologies: A Proposal for Scaling Citizen Policy Deliberations. Policy &
Internet, 5(4).
Lynd, S. (1965). The New Radicals and “Participatory Democracy. Dissent 12(3).
Lyon, A., Zilihona, A., & Masanyiwa, Z. (2018). Report on Assessment of Implementation of
Decentralisation by Devolution in Tanzania. United Republic of Tanzania, President’s
Office - Regional Administration and Local Government, Dodoma.
Manin, B. (2017). Political deliberation & the adversarial principle. Dædalus, the Journal of the
American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 146, 39–50. Retrieved January 12, 2020, from
https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00445
Mansbridge, J. (2007). Deliberative Democracy or Democratic Deliberation. In Can the People
Govern? Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Marginson, S. (2008). The knowledge economy and the global public sphere. The Beijing Forum
2008, “The Universal Value and the Development Trend of Civilization”, 7-9 November
2008.
Mendelberg, T. (2002). The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence. In M. X. Delli Carpini, ,
L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Political Decision Making, Deliberation and
Participation: Research in Micropolitics (Vol. 6, pp. 151-193). Greenwhich: JAI Press.
19
Michels, A. (2011). Innovations in democratic governance: how does citizen participation
contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2),
275–293.
Michels, A., & Binnema, H. (2018). Michels, A. and Binnema, H. Deepening and Connecting
Democratic Processes. The Opportunities and Pitfalls of Mini-Publics in Renewing
Democracy. Journal of Social Sciences, 7(11). Retrieved January 10, 2020, from
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7110236
Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London and New York: Verso.
Mwasaga, B. G. (2019). Inter-Governmental Relations between Central Government and Local
Government Authorities in Fostering Sustainable Urban Development in Tanzania. The
ECPR/EURA Summer School 2019 in Local Governance 6th to 12th July 2019.
Winterthur.
Nabatchi, T. (2010). Addressing the citizenship and democratic deficits: The potential of
deliberative democracy for public administration. The American Review of Public
Administration, 40(4), 376–399.
Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., Weiksner, G. M., & Leighninger, M. (Eds.). (2012). Democracy in
Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
National Electoral Commission (NEC). (2016). The Report of the National Electoral
Commission of 2015 General Election on Presidential, Parliamentary and Councillors
Elections in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: NEC.
Niemeyer, S. (2011). The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-
Publics. Politics & Society, 39(1), 103-140.
Olengurumwa, O. (2016). Consider Internet Freedom as A Human Right in Tanzania. Paper
presented in 59th Sessions of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights
23rd October 2016. Banjul. Retrieved November 01, 2019, from
https://www.academia.edu/29497617/Consider_Internet_Freedom_in_Tanzania_as_Hum
an_Rights
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory Democracy Revisited. Perspectives On Politics, 10(1), 7-19.
Pogrebinschi, T. (2017). Does digital democracy improve democracy? Retrieved December 01,
2019, from opendemocracy.net:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/does-digital-democracy-improve-
democracy/
Pogrebinschi, T., & Samuels, D. (2014). The Impact of Participatory Democracy: Evidence from
Brazil’s National Public Policy Conferences. Comparative Politics, 46, 313-332.

20
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Rawls, J. (1984). Una teoria della giustizia. Milano: (a c. di) S. Maffettone, Feltrinelli.
Rawls, J. (1993). Liberalismo politico . Milano: Edizioni di Comunità.
Ridgwell, H. (2017). Digital Democracy' Turns Average Citizens into Influencers in Africa.
Retrieved December 02, 2019, from https://www.voanews.com/silicon-valley-
technology/digital-democracy-turns-average-citizens-influencers-africa
Rogers, K. (2008). Participatory Democracy, Science and Technology: An Exploration in the
Philosophy of Science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rosenberg, S. W. (2007). Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. Can the People Govern?
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Santos, B., & Nunes, J. A. (2004). Introduction: Democracy, Participation, and Grassroots
Movements in Contemporary Portugal. South European Society and Politics, 9(2), 1-15.
Sen, A. (1999). Democracy as a Universal Value. Journal of Democracy, 10(3), 3-17.
Shayo, D. P. (2016). Facebooking the Tanzanian Elections: Citizen and Party Campaigners in the
Social Media Ecosystem. Journal of Education, Humanities & Sciences (JEHS), 5(1), 67-
88.
Shayo, D. P. (2017). Crowdsourcing and Digitalization of Electoral Integrity: A Comparative
Analysis of Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Muenster
- Germany, Muenster.
Shayo, D. P. (2019). Citizen Participation in Local Democracy Online: A Snapshot of Trends
and Challenges in Adoption of Crowdsourcing Methods in Tanzania. Journal of Social
and Political Sciences,, 2(4). Retrieved January 15, 2020, from
https://ssrn.com/abstract=34
Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations. Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sugie, N. F. (2016). Utilizing smartphones to study disadvantaged and hard-to-reach groups.
Sociological Methods and Research, 47(3), 458-491.
Torfing, J., & Triantafillou, P. (2013). What's in a Name? Grasping New Public Governance as a
Political-Administrative System. ECPR General Conference 4-7. September. Bordeaux.
Tsiga, B., Hofisi, C., & Mago, S. (2016). Community Participation in NGO “Development
Projects” in Zimbabwe: Myth or Reality? Journal of Human Ecology, 55(3), 237-248.
Welp, Y., & Breuer, A. (2014). ICTs and democratic governance: The Latin American
experience. Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG) (pp. 51–57). Quito:
IEEE Computer Society.

21
Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

22