Anastasia Golubeva and Diana Ishmatova
This finding supports the earlier suggestion that extending opportunities for participation through ICT has a potential to attract new voices.
Figure 1: Preference for e‐participation tools
However the interest in e‐participation is not unconditional. Russian respondents stipulated that e‐ participation tools must be transparent( more than 80 % of respondents in both surveys highlighted transparency as the most important factor) to ensure that the final political decisions are made with effective consideration of citizens’ input( the second most important factor). The respondents also mentioned that in order to make use of e‐participation tools, the solutions need to be convenient, easy to use and allow saving time( about 55 % in both surveys). While the latter represents common requirements to the quality of electronic services, the first two conditions coincide with the arguments given by the respondents to explain current low engagements through conventional public participation mechanisms, demonstrating the importance of analyzing e‐participation in the context of other forms of participation
The main factor preventing the respondents from being active in civic life is an inability to have an impact on government policy( 84 % and 63 % in 2010 and 2012 survey respectfully). The vast majority of respondents believe they have no opportunity to influence government decisions( approximately 80 % in both studies). 67 %( in 2010) and 63 %( in 2012) of respondents consider actions and decisions of the authorities as nontransparent. Among other significant obstacles of public participation the respondents indicated political ignorance( 68 % and 53 %), lack of information about government activities( 59 % and 35 %) and distrust of government( 56 % and 43 %).
Given that e‐participation initiatives, especially those promoted by public institutions, follow patterns of traditional means of participation( Freschi et al 2009), we explore the potential of e‐participation for increasing public involvement through the ability of top‐down and bottom‐up e‐participation mechanisms to counter obstacles preventing the respondents from engaging in conventional participation mechanisms.
As was stated earlier, the main factor impeding public participation of the respondents was an inability to impact government policy. In Russia, formal tools for enabling citizens to engage with their government have been substantially constrained during the last decade. It concerns both election proceedings and public participation in manifestations. After the 2005 law amendments, election of representatives to the State Duma of Russian Federation( the lower house of Parliament) is based only on voting for parties and‘ against all’ option is excluded.
The direct elections of regional governors were substituted by appointments by the regional parliaments on the president’ s recommendation. In 2012 the new law on elections for governors went into force and restored the direct election of regional governors. Candidates can be both nominated by a political party or self‐
208