Editorial: Post-pandemic democratic innovation: transparency, citizen behavior and decision-making

Editorial on the Research Topic
Post-pandemic democratic innovation: transparency, citizen behavior and decision-making

Introduction

Democratic innovation refers to processes that make institutions more open, participatory, deliberative, and inclusive, thereby strengthening citizen agency and democratic legitimacy (Elstub and Escobar, 2019). Through mechanisms such as citizens' assemblies, participatory budgeting, and digital platforms, these innovations aim to redistribute political power and deepen public influence on policy decisions.

The COVID-19 pandemic served as a critical juncture for contemporary democracies, accelerating digital transformation while exposing persistent inequalities. Rapid digitalization opened new possibilities for remote participation yet revealed digital divides in access, skills, and literacy (Norris, 2001). Simultaneously, demand for governmental transparency intensified as citizens sought accountability for decisions affecting fundamental rights (Transparency International, 2020). This Research Topic examines how pandemic-era innovations might consolidate as democratic advancements or risk normalizing emergency measures that erode democratic safeguards.

Contributions to the Research Topic

Sadat's study demonstrates that digital infrastructure alone cannot increase civic engagement in Indonesian local governance. Using structural equation modeling with data from 412 officials, the research shows digital literacy functions as critical mediator between technological readiness and meaningful participation (Z = 3.74–4.23, p < 0.001). Without adequate digital competencies, online participation becomes a “democratic luxury” accessible only to educated elites, underscoring that transparency requires paired digital inclusion policies.

Soto-Sainz examines citizens' juries as tools for youth engagement in rural Madrid, implementing Participatory Action Research with 68 young participants from 14 depopulated municipalities. Small-group deliberative formats fostered intensive engagement and produced concrete policy proposals while strengthening civic learning and institutional trust. The study reveals differentiated impacts: youth gained political agency and organizational skills, while policymakers confronted gaps between policies and citizen perceptions, offering replicable models for marginalized rural contexts.

Sánchez Medero develops an Index of Internal Digital Democracy assessing 22 Southern European parliamentary parties across electoral, liberal, deliberative, and participatory dimensions. The analysis reveals parties readily publish basic regulations but withhold sensitive financial disclosures, using digital platforms primarily as plebiscitary instruments ratifying elite decisions. Even parties founded after 2010 show limited openness, supporting the “normalization” thesis that digitalization creates mere appearances of participation without redistributing internal power.

Luise and Cocozza analyze artificial intelligence's role in Italian public administration within European regulatory frameworks. While AI can optimize processes and reduce arbitrary discretion, significant risks emerge: algorithmic opacity, threats to fundamental rights, and challenges to legal accountability. The authors propose responsible governance frameworks requiring mandatory human oversight, technical transparency, and strict procedural guarantees, arguing technological progress must not compromise legality or democratic legitimacy.

Mompó and Barberà examine pandemic-forced digitalization of Spanish party congresses during 2020–2021. Only new parties adopted fully digital formats, with traditional parties retaining in-person events. Digital congresses showed varied success: Podemos achieved minimal deliberation with 11% turnout, while Ciudadanos innovated with Zoom deliberation rooms despite technical challenges. Post-pandemic, most parties reverted to physical formats, indicating digitalization was circumstantial rather than structural transformation.

Maestre and Medero evaluate autonomous emergency vehicles in health crisis management from patient-centered perspectives. Opportunities include reduced response times and lower infection risks, yet critical challenges emerge: regulatory frameworks for liability, clinical data protection under GDPR, algorithmic bias mitigation, and public resistance shaped by demographic and cultural factors. Success depends on balancing technical efficiency with human-computer interaction and democratic oversight.

Luise offers contemporary reinterpretation of Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi's (1894–1972) vision of European supranationalism. Kalergi's Pan-European Union and 1923 Paneuropa manifesto anticipated Franco-German integration and shared sovereignty structures. His legacy illuminates current tensions between national sovereignty and supranational governance, the EU's democratic deficit, and weak European public sphere—highlighting parallels between interwar debates and contemporary integration challenges.

Critical reflections

These contributions collectively reveal that democratic innovations face structural paradoxes. First, meaningful participation requires civically competent, motivated citizens, yet persistent “participation gaps” reflect deep inequalities in political resources, perceived efficacy, and institutional trust (Dalton, 2017; Fung, 2015). Innovations risk becoming selective spaces dominated by educated middle classes, reproducing rather than democratizing political inequalities.

Second, effective deliberation depends on demanding preconditions—access to information, mutual respect, symmetric recognition, time for reflection—that rarely hold in practice (Habermas, 1996; Steiner et al., 2004). Inequalities in argumentative skills, cognitive resources, and cultural capital persist alongside group dynamics and confirmation biases.

Third, digital technologies can expand access and reduce participation costs yet simultaneously amplify exclusion (Norris, 2001; van Dijk, 2020). The “democratic digital divide” encompasses socioeconomic, territorial, generational, and educational inequalities, creating qualitative exclusion through information overload and algorithmic manipulation. Digital innovations must maintain alternative participation channels and meet universal accessibility standards.

Conclusion

For post-pandemic democratic innovations to fulfill transformative promises, they must incorporate proactive inclusion strategies for marginalized groups, meet demanding deliberative standards mitigating communicative inequalities, develop civic pedagogy cultivating citizen competencies, combine digital innovation with effective inclusion policies, and articulate with institutional reforms redistributing power beyond consultative procedures. Only under these conditions can democratic innovations build more participatory, deliberative, and legitimate democracies in the post-pandemic context.

Author contributions

GS: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GP: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Dalton, R. (2017). The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Elstub, S., and Escobar, O. (2019). Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Google Scholar

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance. Public Administr. Rev. 75, 513–522. doi: 10.1111/puar.12361

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Habermas, J. (1996). Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Google Scholar

Norris, P. (2001). Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., and Steenbergen, M. (2004). Deliberative Politics in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Transparency International (2020). COVID-19 and Transparency. Berlin: TI.

Google Scholar

van Dijk, J. (2020). The Digital Divide. Cambridge: Polity.

Google Scholar