The State of E-local Participation in Kampala Capital City Authority in Uganda: A Reality or Deception?

  • Norbert KerstingEmail author
  • Andrew Matsiko
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11021)


Because of growing demands and pressures from citizens, political representatives and institutions of governments are increasingly opting for new forms of participation. In other words, a mix of methods is utilised to complement representative participation and city administration. In Uganda, a number of local political representatives: Councilors, Lower level Mayors and Lord Mayor use online participatory instruments; social media platforms: Facebook, WhatsApp, and Twitter to connect with citizens in Kampala capital city authority. However, critical analysis of online participatory instruments for information giving and citizen engagement seems to be lacking. In this regard, a number of possible research questions to critically interrogate are posed. Is the new invited space a reaction to the invited bottom up participation? What forms of digital participatory spaces does Kampala Capital City Authority use to disclose information on its operations? What is the mix of offline- and online channels (blended participation) do local political representatives use to connect with electorates? Is this more for planning or for monitoring purposes. To answer these questions, both quantitative data (survey) and qualitative interview is used.


Local E-participation Online and offline instruments Local representation and electorate engagement 


  1. 1.
    Lijphart, A.: Democracy in the 21th century. Can we be optimistic? In: Kersting, N., Cronqvist, L. (eds.) Democratisation and Political Culture in Comparative Perspective. VS-Springer, Wiesbaden (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norris, P.: Democratic Dreferendeficit. Cambridge University Press, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kersting, N., Janice, C., Andrew, N., Dele, O., Hellmut, W.: Local Governance Reform in a Global Perspective. VS, Wiesbaden (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Touraine, A.: The Post Industrial Society. Random House, New York (1971)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mudde, C., Rovira, K.C.: Exclusionary vs. inclusionary populism: comparing contemporary Europe and Latin America. Gov. Opposition 48(2), 147–174 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hague, B.N., Loader, B.D. (eds.): Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. Routledge, London (1999)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kersting, N.: Online Participation: from “invited” to “invented” spaces. Int. J. Electron. Gov. 6(4), 270–280 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barber, B.: Strong Democracy. Berkeley Press, Berkeley (1984)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Budge, I.: The New Challenge of Direct Democracy. Polity Press, Oxford (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Barnes, S., Kaase, M.: Political Action. Sage, Beverly Hills (1979)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Berg-Schlosser, D., Kersting, N.: Poverty and Democracy: Self-Help and Political Participation in Third World Cities. Zedbooks Ltd, London (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Qvotrup, M.: Referendums around the World. Palgrave, London (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fung, A., Wright, E.O. (eds.): Deepening Democracy. Verso, London (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Political ScienceMuenster UniversityMuensterGermany
  2. 2.Graduate School of Politics (GRASP)Muenster UniversityMuensterGermany

Personalised recommendations