Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Usages of an E-participation platform by legislators: lessons from the French parliament

  • Original Article
  • Published:
French Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

The article intends to advance the study of e-participation in renewed directions by focusing on a category of actors that has long been overlooked: elected politicians. It zeroes in on legislators who while key actors of representative democracy chose to be involved in an e-participation initiative. This article generates theoretical propositions on how they make use of e-participation platforms in their work as parliamentarians. Based on a qualitative analysis of interviews about the main e-participation platform in France, Parlement & Citoyens, the article shows that parliamentarians’ usages of such participatory tools tend either toward a policy-oriented logic or a vote-seeking purpose. These usages can also be categorized as tending toward either a representative or a participatory democracy logic. The article concludes that if platforms are originally designed as online participatory alternatives to conventional legislative processes, they are chiefly used as adjuvants to traditional political representation practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In July 2014, bolstered by the experience of P&C, the founders of the platform founded a civic-tech startup called Cap Collectif. This company develops participatory technologies and services (originally designed based on P&C) and sell them to customers seeking e-participation solutions to support their decisions: either municipalities, governments, assemblies, councils, associations, or private companies. Among its customer portfolio, there are French or French-speaking public institutions, such as the Public Hearing Office on the Environment of the Province of Québec (Canada) or the Parliament of Wallonia (Belgium). Several companies, professional associations, political parties, universities or unions also bought the access to Cap Collectif’s platforms.

  2. Desk research was helpful to contextualize information collected through interviews and prepare the discussions with our different interlocutors. We collected legal texts, public documents on MPs’ and Senators’ websites, data from the platform as well as press articles about Parlement & Citoyens. We also conducted a total of ten interviews with a range of different actors, including citizens who participated in consultations and the founder and president of P&C (see the list of interviews in Appendix 1). All these interviews aimed at acquiring an in-depth understanding of the platform. However, for the purpose of this article, the systematic analysis is restricted to interviews with lawmakers and their staff (parliamentary assistants) who participated to at least one online consultation on P&C.

  3. All interviewees filled and signed a consent form in which they accept their name and quotes to be published in reports and academic publications. That is why we can include direct quotes from interview transcripts. However, we decided to anonymize all quotes for privacy purpose.

References

  • Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2017. Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28 (1): 16–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, Benjamin R. 1984. Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Bingham, Lisa, Tina Nabatchi, and Rosemary O’Leary. 2005. The New Governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of Government. Public Administration Review 65 (5): 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blatrix, Cécile. 2010. Concertation et débat public. In Politiques publiques, eds. O. Borraz and Virginie Guiraudon, 213–242. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

  • Blomgren, Magnus, and Olivier Rozenberg, eds. 2015. Parliamentary roles in modern legislatures. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, Richard E. 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, Pierre C., Thomas Delemotte, Germain Gauthier, Vincent Rollet, and Benoît Schmutz. 2020. Les déterminants de la mobilisation des Gilets jaunes. Revue Économique 71 (1): 109–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouard, Sylvain, Olivier Costa, and Éric. Kerrouche. 2013a. The “New” French Parliament? Changes and Continuities. In Developments in French Politics 5, ed. Alistair Cole, Sophie Meunier, and Vincent Tiberj, 35–52. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Brouard, Sylvain, Olivier Costa, Eric Kerrouche, and Tinette Schnatterer. 2013b. Why do French MPs focus more on constituency work than on parliamentary work? The Journal of Legislative Studies 19 (2): 141–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cayrol, Roland, Jean-Luc. Parodi, and Colette Ysmal. 1971. L’image de la fonction parlementaire chez les députés français. Revue Française De Science Politique 21 (6): 1173–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, Olivier, Pierre Lefébure, Olivier Rozenberg, Tinette Schnatterer, and Eric Kerrouche. 2012. Far away, so close: Parliament and citizens in France. The Journal of Legislative Studies 18 (3–4): 294–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cupps, D. Stephen. 1977. Emerging problems of citizen participation. Public Administration Review 37 (5): 478–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, Russell J. 2014. Citizens Politics. Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  • De Blasio, Emiliana, and Donatella Selva. 2016. Why Choose Open Government? Motivations for the Adoption of Open Government Policies in Four European Countries. Policy & Internet 8 (3): 225–247.

  • Donegani, Jean-Marie., Sophie Duchesne, and Florence Haegel. 2002. Sur l’interprétation des entretiens de recherche. In Aux frontières des attitudes, ed. Jean-Marie. Donegani, Sophie Duchesne, and Florence Haegel, 272–295. Paris: L’Harmattan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duverger, Maurice. 1980. A new political system model: Semi-presidential government. European Journal of Political Research 8 (2): 165–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elgie, Robert, and Emiliano Grossman. 2016. Executive Politics in France. From Leader to Laggard? In Oxford Handbook of French Politics, eds. Robert Elgie, Emiliano Grossman and Amy G. Mazur. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Farina, Cynthia R., Dmitry Epstein, Josiah B. Heidt, and Mary J. Newhart. 2013. Regulation room: Getting “More, Better” civic participation in complex government policymaking. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 7 (4): 501–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuji Johnson, Genevieve. 2015. Democratic Illusion: Deliberative Democracy in Canadian Public Policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

  • Griffith, Jeffrey, and Cristina Leston-Bandeira. 2012. How are parliaments using new media to engage with citizens? The Journal of Legislative Studies 18 (3–4): 496–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunberg, Gérard. 2019. Les « gilets jaunes » et la crise de la démocratie représentative. Le Débat 204 (2): 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hay, Colin. 2007. Why we hate politics, 5th ed. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendricks, Carolyn M., and Jennifer Lees-Marschment. 2019. Political leaders and public engagement: The hidden world of informal elite–citizen Interaction. Political Studies 67 (3): 597–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, Carolyn M., and Jennifer Lees-Marshment. 2019. Political leaders and public engagement: The hidden world of informal elite–citizen interaction. Political Studies 67 (3): 597–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herz, Michael. 2016. E-rulemaking’s democratic transformation: Anticipated, actual and potentiel. Revue Internationale Des Gouvernements Ouverts 3: 195–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, John D. 1996. The vote of confidence in parliamentary democracies. American Political Science Review 90 (2): 269–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob, Steve, and Jean-Louis Genard. 2004. Expertise et action publique. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet, Vincent, Nathalie Schiffino, Min Reuchamps, and Delphine Latinis. 2015. Union sacrée ou union forcée ? Les parlementaires belges face à l’impératif délibératif. Participations 13 (3): 171–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet, Vincent, and Ramon van der Does. 2020. The consequences of deliberative Minipublics: Systematic overview, conceptual gaps, and new directions. Representation 57 (1): 131–141.

  • Jacquot, Sophie, and Cornelia Woll. 2003. Usage of European integration-Europeanisation from a sociological perspective. European Integration Online Papers (EIoP) 7 (12).

  • Kerrouche, Éric. 2009. Usages et usagers de la permanence du député. Revue Française De Science Politique 59 (3): 429–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leston-Bandeira, Cristina. 2012. The pursuit of legitimacy as a key driver for public engagement: The European parliament case. Parliamentary Affairs 67 (2): 415–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lijphart, Arend. 1971. Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review 65 (3): 682–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahrer, Harald, and Robert Krimmer. 2005. Towards the enhancement of E-democracy: Identifying the notion of the ‘Middleman Paradox.’ Information Systems Journal 15 (1): 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazeaud, Alice, and Magali Nonjon. 2017. Les enseignements d’une comparaison manquée. Les professionnels de la participation en France et au Québec. Politix 120 (4): 61–86.

  • Mazeaud, Alice, Magali Nonjon, and Raphaëlle Parizet. 2016. Les circulations transnationales de l’ingénierie participative. Participations 14 (1): 5–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazeaud, Alice, Marie-Hélène Sa Vilas. Boas, and Guy-El-Karim. Berthomé. 2012. Penser les effets de la participation sur l’action publique à partir de ses impensés. Participations 2 (1): 5–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michels, Ank. 2011. Innovations in Democratic Governance: How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences 77 (2): 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss, Giles, and Stephen Coleman. 2014. Deliberative manoeuvres in the digital darkness: E-Democracy Policy in the UK. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 16 (3): 410–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Wolfgang C., Kaare Strøm, Robert H. Bates, and Peter Lange, eds. 1999. Policy, office, or votes: How political parties in Western Europe Make Hard Decisions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niessen, Christoph, Nathalie Schiffino, Vincent Jacquet, and Ludovic Deschamps. 2019. Critical candidates: Elite attitudes towards the functioning of representative democracy. In Candidates, parties and voters in the belgian partitocracy, ed. Audrey Vandeleene, Lieven De Winter, and Pierre Baudewyns, 341–363. Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Pippa. 1999. Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paillé, Pierre, and Alex Mucchielli. 2016. L'analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales. 4th ed., Collection U. Paris: Armand Colin.

  • Pateman, Carole. 2012. Participatory democracy revisited. Perspectives on Politics 10 (1): 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pautz, Hartwig. 2010. The internet, political participation and election turnout: A case study of Germany's www.abgeordnetenwatch.de. German Politics and Society 28 (3): 156–175.

  • Perez, Oren, Judit Bar-Ilan, Tali Gazit, Noa Aharony, Yair Amichai-Hamburger, and Jenny Bronstein. 2018. The Prospects of E-democracy: An experimental study of collaborative E-rulemaking. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 15 (3): 278–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randma-Liiv, Tiina, and Veiko Lember, eds. Forthcoming. Engaging citizens in policy-making: e-Participation practices in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Rehfeld, Andrew. 2005. The concept of constituency: Political representation, democratic legitimacy, and institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schiffino, Nathalie, Vincent Jacquet, Maximilien Cogels, and Min Reuchamps. 2019. Les gouvernants face aux transformations de la démocratie. Le point de vue des ministres et des présidents de parti. Gouvernement et action publique 2 (2): 57–80.

  • Searing, D.D. 1994. Westminster’s world: Understanding political roles. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sønderskov, Mette. 2019. Do local politicians really want collaborative governance? International Journal of Public Sector Management 32 (3): 320–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stromer-Galley, Jennifer, Nick Webb, and Peter Muhlberger. 2012. Deliberative E-rulemaking project: challenges to enacting real world deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 9 (1): 82–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, Anja, and Angela Tacea. 2015. The French parliament and the European Union: ‘Shadow Control’ through the Government Majority. In The Palgrave Handbook of National Parliaments and the European Union, ed. Claudia Hefftler, Christine Neuhold, Olivier Rozenberg, and Julie Smith, 170–190. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Amy G. Mazur, the French Politics’ editor, and two anonymous referees for their comments on the earlier version of this article. We also thank Tiina Randma-Liiv and all the TROPICO partners, as well as the participants to the 2019 ECPR General Conference and SQSP Congress (particularly Nathalie Schiffino and Jérôme Couture), for their helpful feedbacks on this article. Finally, we express our gratitude toward all the interviewees for their willingness to participate in this research. This research was supported by the European Union Horizon 2020 Framework Programme under Grant No. 726840 awarded to the TROPICO consortium coordinated by the University of Bergen (Transforming into Open, Innovative and Collaborative Governments).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ISPOLE – Institute of Political Science Louvain-Europe, University of Louvain, 1 Place Montesquieu, Box L2.08.07, 1348, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

    Samuel Defacqz & Claire Dupuy

Authors
  1. Samuel Defacqz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claire Dupuy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samuel Defacqz.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix 1: List of interviews

  • Itw1, Parliamentary assistant of a Senator, Paris, January 2019.

  • Itw2, Founder and president of Parlement & Citoyens, CEO of Cap Collectif, Paris, January 2019

  • Itw3, Former parliamentary assistant of a Senator, Paris, January 2019

  • Itw4, Citizen using P&C, member of the association ‘Le GALAIS’ (local currency organization), Skype interview, January 2019

  • Itw5, Parliamentary assistant of a MP, Paris, January 2019

  • Itw6, Former MP (1997–2017), Puteaux, January 2019

  • Itw7, Citizen using P&C and other participatory platforms (amongst the most active users of different online participatory initiatives), Pontarlier, January 2019

  • Itw8, Senator, Paris, January 2019

  • Itw9, Parliamentary assistant of a MP, Paris, January 2019

  • Itw10, Former MP (2001–2002; 2007–2017), Nantes, February 2019

Appendix 2: Thematic tree: the usages of an e-participation platform by French legislators

See Table

Thematic axes

Themes

Legislators

Securing support to the policy

Ensure non-rejection of the policy by policy stakeholders

S2

Identify the sticking points surrounding a policy

S3, MP2

Show political support of citizens toward the policy

S3, MP1

Test proposals with citizens

MP1

Check the validity of experts' opinions with the public

MP3

Participate in a collaborative consultation (consultation about collaborative economy)

MP3

Get an overview of public opinion

MP3

Strengthening one’s political reputation

Strengthen the position of the legislator in the parliament (e.g. vis-à-vis his parliamentary group)

S1, S2, S3, MP3

Increase the reputation of the legislator

S3

Publicize the parliamentary work (parliamentary information mission)

MP2, MP3

Strengthen the position of the legislator toward the government

MP3

Collecting experiences and expertise

Collect the positions of citizen associations

S1

Collect the opinion of citizens

S1

Benefit from the expertise and experiences of citizens / stakeholders

S2, MP2

Consult the citizens to feed the parliamentary work

S3

Consult ‘non-organized’ citizens

MP1

Open the parliamentary consultation process to non-organized actors

MP2

Collect proposals for the policy field at stake

MP2

Benefit from the expertise and experiences of experts

MP2

Allow the legislator to reconnect to the actors on the ground

MP2

Promoting participative democracy

Promote and use a participative democracy tool

S2, S3, MP1

Promote and sensitize legislators about participatory democracy

MP1

Offer a participation opportunity to citizens

S1

Making the parliament more transparent to citizens

Make the parliamentary consultation process more transparent

S3, MP3

Collaborative policy-design

Involve citizens in decision-making / parliamentary work

S1

Involve policy stakeholders in decision-making

S2

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Defacqz, S., Dupuy, C. Usages of an E-participation platform by legislators: lessons from the French parliament. Fr Polit 19, 372–393 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-021-00155-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41253-021-00155-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation