Analysing the landscape and multilinguality aspects of deliberation platforms in Greece

Abstract

This study analyses the current state of deliberation platforms in Greece. The analysis was based on two sets of criteria focusing on technical features and participatory design. The findings reveal limited data availability, regardless of laws promoting government data being open and reusable. Multilingual support is also an issue, with Greek being the main language, while English is present but not at a satisfactory level. Engagement is also an issue with uneven numbers of participation between platforms. While these platforms have allowed processes to take place online, thus allowing easier participation, true deliberation has not yet been achieved, as most currently work as a one-way communication tool for collecting comments and feedback. The Conference on the Future of Europe stands as an example of how these platforms can improve in the future.

1 Introduction

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have significantly reshaped political participation by enhancing transparency and improving the communication between citizens and governments (Asimakopoulos et al., 2025). This, however, has brought new challenges into the spotlight. Digital democracy in Europe had to face the linguistic and cultural diversity of its citizens (Lohar et al., 2023), but the Conference on the Future of Europe proved that this is achievable through the use of ICT and inclusive design (European Commission). In Greece, e-participation initiatives are being developed to allow citizens to engage more in deliberation issues (Costopoulou et al., 2021). The aim of this study is to assess the current state of these platforms, how they compare to the proven designs of the Conference of the Future of Europe (CoFoE), and how they can improve.

The rest of this study is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a theoretical background regarding e-participation, the digital divide, and the Conference on the Future of Europe. Section 3 provided the methodology we used throughout our research. Section 4 presents our findings regarding the deliberation platforms in Greece. Section 5 makes a comparison between the Greek platforms and the CoFoE platform, while also providing recommendations for improvement. Finally, Section 6 concludes the study.

2 Theoretical background

2.1 Digital divide and inclusive participation

The digital divide is defined as the gap between people who have access to forms of information and communication technology (ICT) and those who do not (van Dijk, 2017). This term does not refer only to physical access, such as internet connectivity or device ownership, but also encompasses inequalities in skills, usage, and broader socio-economic and cultural factors. Despite ongoing efforts toward digital inclusion, the literature recognizes six main barriers to overcoming the digital divide: infrastructure, economic, educational, social and cultural, policy and regulatory, and psychological and perceptual (Karelis et al., 2025). These barriers demonstrate that the divide is not merely a technological issue but a complex social phenomenon. Research confirms that as the internet matures, it tends to reproduce and even exacerbate offline inequalities, particularly those tied to cultural, economic, and social capital (Tokovska et al., 2023).

In the context of democratic participation, the digital divide poses a significant threat to inclusivity and equity. E-participation mechanisms, which promise more accessible and scalable citizen involvement, can inadvertently reinforce exclusion if access and literacy gaps are not sufficiently addressed. Abiddin et al. (2022) argue that digital transformation efforts in governance must go beyond infrastructure to encompass digital literacy, civic education, and community-based strategies for engagement. This approach ensures that digitally mediated participation does not replicate the biases and exclusions of traditional systems but instead actively works to counteract them. In Greece, the impact of the digital divide on inclusive participation is notable. A national survey on digital public services revealed that key demographic factors, particularly education level, age, and citizenship status, significantly influence the likelihood of engaging with e-government services (Gounopoulos et al., 2020). Elderly citizens, those with lower levels of formal education, and non-national residents were consistently found to be underrepresented in the usage of digital platforms. These patterns are aligned with broader European trends but are particularly acute in Greece, where digital infrastructure is uneven and public digital literacy campaigns are sporadic and underfunded (Kahne et al., 2016).

The concept of inclusive participation, therefore, must take into account the layered and intersecting factors that contribute to digital exclusion. As Breuer and Penkler (2024) highlight in their work on inclusive deliberation, meaningful participation requires not only access to digital tools but also the cultivation of spaces where diverse voices feel welcomed and valued. They stress the importance of dialogic processes that recognize power imbalances and actively seek to mitigate them through facilitation, education, and inclusive design. In the Greek context, this means addressing both infrastructural limitations and the socio-cultural norms that shape public engagement. Without this dual approach, the risk is high that digital participation will remain skewed toward younger, more educated, and native-born populations, leaving behind already marginalized groups (Karatrantou and Panagiotakopoulos, 2023).

One further consideration is the geographic dimension of digital exclusion. Domaradzka (2024) has shown that urban–rural divides continue to shape patterns of digital engagement across Europe. Her research points to the importance of decentralized, community-based initiatives that embed digital participation within local networks and institutions. Applying this lens to Greece reveals a stark urban bias in the development and promotion of deliberation platforms. Many of the existing tools and initiatives are concentrated in major cities, with far fewer efforts targeting rural or remote regions (Gounopoulos et al., 2020). This spatial imbalance exacerbates existing disparities in political voice and civic representation and calls for a more equitable distribution of digital governance resources.

Bridging the digital divide for the purpose of inclusive participation requires a holistic strategy that combines policy intervention, platform design, and civic education. It also demands a critical rethinking of what “access” truly means. As Kahne et al. (2016) note, the future of democratic engagement depends on the degree to which digital participation becomes not only technically available but also socially and culturally meaningful. This requires active collaboration between governments, civil society, and local communities to build infrastructures of trust, accessibility, and responsiveness. In this regard, the Greek experience offers both a cautionary tale and a field of opportunity (Kralj, 2024).

2.2 E-participation and deliberative democracy

E-participation, the use of digital tools to enhance citizen engagement in governance, has emerged as a critical avenue for advancing deliberative democracy. Rooted in the ideal of inclusive, rational discourse, deliberative democracy emphasizes citizen involvement not merely in decision-making, but in shaping the public agenda through reasoned debate and collective reflection (Dryzek, 2002). In this context, e-participation platforms serve as both technological infrastructures and civic spaces that can either enhance or hinder democratic legitimacy, depending on their design, accessibility, and inclusiveness.

Digital platforms for deliberation offer opportunities to amplify diverse voices and foster asynchronous, distributed dialogue, particularly in pluralistic societies (Domaradzka, 2024). However, as Deseriis (2021) cautions, technological affordances do not automatically ensure democratic outcomes. Power asymmetries, platform moderation practices, and digital literacy disparities can constrain participation and reinforce pre-existing inequalities. Therefore, the design of e-participation initiatives must reflect deliberative principles such as inclusion, equality, transparency, and responsiveness (Smith, 2009).

In Greece, e-participation remains fragmented and often ad hoc. While platforms like “opengov.gr” and municipal consultation tools have been introduced, studies indicate low levels of sustained civic engagement and limited impact on policymaking (Karatrantou and Panagiotakopoulos, 2023). These shortcomings stem partly from the lack of institutional embedding of deliberative mechanisms and partly from insufficient trust in public institutions. As Thorpe (2019) highlights, deliberative systems require not just technological infrastructure but also a supportive political culture and institutional scaffolding that values co-production and iterative feedback.

Empirical analyses suggest that when e-participation is integrated into broader deliberative systems, linking online discussions to face-to-face forums and formal policymaking processes, it tends to generate more substantive input and legitimacy (Deligiaouri and Suiter, 2020). This hybrid model allows for the scaling of engagement while retaining the depth of deliberation. However, it also demands robust facilitation, inclusive design, and the deliberate cultivation of trust between citizens and authorities (Domaradzka, 2024).

Moreover, e-participation must address the issue of representational equity. As Gangadharan (2021) argues, true deliberative participation cannot be achieved if marginalized communities are digitally excluded or feel culturally excluded from institutional processes. This insight is even more important for Greece, where socio-economic divides and geographic disparities, especially between urban and rural populations, shape patterns of political opinions (Gounopoulos et al., 2020). Designing platforms with multilingual interfaces, accessible features, and culturally responsive moderation strategies has become essential for broadening participation (Ghandour-Demiri, 2017).

E-participation holds promise as a means for deliberative democracy, but its democratic potential is contingent upon intentional design, inclusive practices, and strong institutional integration. The Greek experience illustrates both the opportunities and limitations of digital deliberation in contexts marked by political distrust and uneven digital capacity. Advancing deliberative democracy in the digital era will require not only technological innovation but also sustained commitment to democratic values and equitable civic engagement (Singh et al., 2025).

2.3 The conference on the future of Europe

The Conference on the Future of Europe (May 2021–Spring 2022) was a landmark EU experiment in transnational deliberation. More than 5 million people visited the Conference’s online platform, and more than 700,000 participated in digital or hybrid events, making it “a public forum for an open, inclusive, and transparent debate” across Europe (European Commission, 2025). The multilingual platform of the CoFoE supported all 24 official EU languages, so EU citizens could easily contribute in their mother tongue. This was even one of the key takeaways, with multilingualism being deemed essential when engaging with citizens from all over Europe (and beyond) (Rosa and Guimaraes Pereira, 2025). Openness and accessibility were another important focus of the platform. Anyone could browse ideas, comments and events without the need for registration, and allowed the use of EU single-sign-on or social media to lower the barriers even more (Council of the European Union, 2025). Focusing on a multilingual platform, panels comprised of randomly selected citizens, and live events, it set a benchmark for inclusive deliberation (Cordier, 2025; Galende-Sánchez, 2025).

3 Methodology

The study is based on a qualitative comparative approach to examine 15 deliberation platforms in Greece. Platform identification and analysis was carried out via official government websites and online searches on May 2025. Initially, 22 platforms were identified. After that, the inclusion criteria for this research were applied, which were the following:

Currently active and maintained: The platform must be hosting ongoing (or recently concluded) consultations or discussions. For the purposes of this study, platforms were included if they had hosted at least one consultation or discussion since May 2024.

Publicly accessible: General information and consultation content must be available without the need for special credentials or monetary transactions.

Public consultation: The platform must feature functionalities that allow the public to submit opinions, comments, or participate in discussions regarding policies or community issues.

After reviewing the inclusion criteria, the study narrowed down the selected platforms to 15. Out of the 7 that were excluded from the study, 1 was not publicly accessible, 3 were not active, 1 was a platform that had been integrated recently to one of the others that were included in the study, and 2 were deemed out of scope as they were not hosting any consultations. The analysed platforms are available in Table 1. For each platform, a manual review of all available information took place. This review included examining the platform’s website, publicly available documentation, user interface design, and functional features. The analysis of the remaining platforms was based on two sets of evaluation criteria.

• 1 Technical features: Criteria focusing on technical capabilities of the platforms.

•  1.1 Supported translations: Is the platform available in languages other than Greek?

•  1.2 API availability: Does the platform offer an API for easy access to its data?

•  1.3 Mobile accessibility: Is the platform accessible through mobile devices?

•  1.4 Documentation: Is there easily accessible documentation on how to use the platform?

• 2 Participatory design: Criteria focusing on how citizens engage with the platform.

•  2.1 Target groups: Who are the intended participants of the platform?

•  2.2 Mode of participation: How can citizens engage on the platform?

•  2.3 Number of topics: How many distinct issues or consultation topics are hosted on the platform (either active or concluded)?

•  2.4 Number of comments: What is the total number of user contributions across all topics?

•  2.5 Discussion topics: The thematic areas or subject matter of the consultations (e.g., urban planning, environment, public health).

4 Greek deliberation platforms

4.1 Technical features

The 15 platforms exhibit limited multilingual support. While the main language is Greek, only a few platforms include any English content. Even though on many of the platforms the option to switch to English was available, using it would either lead to the English version of the about page of the platform or would not work at all. In a few other cases, while the general information was available in English, the deliberation section or the documents related to specific deliberations were not available. This suggests that catering to non-Greek-speaking users is still at a low level of implementation and mostly symbolic rather than functionally inclusive However, platforms offering partial or full English support tended also to provide clearer documentation and structured participation interfaces. While no causal relationship can be established due to the qualitative nature of this study, multilingual support appears associated with higher overall platform maturity.

API support is also rare. Of the 15 platforms highlighted in this study, only one provides a REST API to access its data. It is important to note that some of the platforms appeared to use APIs, but they were not available to the public.

Regarding mobile accessibility, almost all platforms are implemented with responsive design. No platform requires any special software beyond an internet browser. One municipality platform provides a mobile app, but it’s important to note that it is a third-party app. This indicates that advanced mobile features are either not required or not yet taken into consideration. Additionally, all analysed platforms provided publicly accessible legal documentation, including user policies and GDPR/privacy statements. This study did not evaluate the substantive compliance of these documents with legal requirements, but only recorded their public availability. The analysed technical features are available in Table 2.

4.2 Participatory design

The target audience for each platform was partly determined by the scale and subject of the hosting authority’s domain. Most platforms invite citizens, businesses, local organizations, and NGOs to participate. National platforms target all citizens, with a few of them focusing on specific professionals such as lawyers and engineers, while municipal platforms target local residents and communities. Furthermore, a few platforms have secondary target groups with a narrower focus, such as minorities and socially vulnerable groups.

The topics under discussion depend, again, on the level of the authority’s domain. National platforms focus on policy and regulatory issues, with one platform focusing specifically on draft bills. The subject of the policy and regulations varies based on each authority’s focus, such as market regulations, digital transformation projects, energy networks, and public procurement.

Regional platforms cover development projects, strategic plans, environmental policies, and cultural or social programs. Municipal platforms cover more local issues such as urban mobility, infrastructure problems, and neighbourhood improvements.

The modes of participation are text-based. Almost every platform allows its users to submit some form of comments or suggestions. This is achievable on the majority of the platforms through a simple comment feature. A subset of them provides structured forms or surveys to gather feedback. However, this poses the issue of the feedback not being publicly available. In some of those cases, summaries or results of the feedback are announced later, but not the comments themselves. Features like voting or forums were rare, with no platform having an interactive debate interface.

Regarding scale and use, participation metrics show large disparities. Even among the national-level platforms, only two show high activity, with only three counting topics in the thousands. The rest show much lower levels of engagement. Regional and municipal platforms feature under a few dozen topics and even fewer comments. Engagement seems higher at the national level, likely due to the scale and severity of the discussed topics and possibly due to the level of publicity the platforms may receive. This variability appears to be linked to the institutional embedding and scope of each platform rather than representing unexpected fluctuations. Platforms integrated into formal legislative or national policy processes tend to attract greater visibility and more sustained engagement, whereas regional and municipal platforms typically address narrower or project-specific issues, which may naturally correspond to lower numbers of topics and contributions. The analysed participatory design criteria are available in Table 3.

5 Discussion

5.1 Greek platforms vs. the conference on the future of Europe

There are a few major differences between the Greek platforms and the CoFoE platform. The first important difference is the availability of the data and the transparency of the results. The CoFoE may not have utilized an API but made its open datasets public through EU portals. Currently, only one of the studied Greek platforms offers API availability, and related datasets of the other platforms were not available. In Greece, there are laws and policies set regarding public bodies making data open and reusable. The Greek government has created the data.gov.gr portal to align with these policies, and valuable datasets have been made available. However, reports indicate overall results have been poor due to limited response from public organizations and a lack of a clear strategy (iMEdD, 2023). The same can be noted regarding API availability, with research showing Open Government Data (OGD) sources in Greece do not publish the datasets in machine-processable file formats, and do not provide APIs (Alexopoulos et al., 2018).

Moreover, the CoFoE platform natively supports all 24 official EU languages. On the other hand, the Greek platforms are almost entirely monolingual, with very little English support. There is no EU or Greek legislation regarding the availability of government platforms in other languages. However, the CoFoE has proven multilingualism to be essential for engaging citizens in Europe. This was even one of the key takeaways, with multilingualism being deemed essential when engaging with citizens from all over Europe (and beyond) (Rosa and Guimaraes Pereira, 2025).

Furthermore, the Greek platforms currently focus on one-way communication through comment sections and surveys, while CoFoE allowed open dialogue through not just the platform but through online and hybrid events. When it comes to transparency, all contributions on the CoFoE platforms were available from the start. The Greek platforms are not far behind, but there were some cases where the comments were never publicly available or were published after review. The lack of transparency may also be considered one of the reasons for low engagement numbers in the majority of the studied platforms. The OECD reports (OECD, 2024) that only 32% of Greek citizens trust their central government, and distrust increases even further among those who feel the political system “does not let people like them have a say”, which is also supported by the identified strong urban bias in participation (Karatrantou and Panagiotakopoulos, 2023).

Nonetheless, positive steps are being taken and can be observed through OpenGov.gr, Greece’s national Open Government consultation portal. It is by far the largest deliberation forum in Greece, and is formally integrated into the policy-making process, with the majority of draft laws being discussed there.

Finally, regarding thematic diversity, CoFoE focused on the nine broad EU policy domains, allowing all major issues to be discussed (Galende-Sánchez, 2025). Greek platforms are usually topic-specific, and those topics are determined by the authority managing the platform.

5.2 Recommendations

The major improvement Greek deliberation platforms need to consider is the availability of data. A clear strategy must be developed by governmental organizations regarding how their data may become open and accessible. Using the governmental data portal is the first step, but integrating APIs is clearly the goal, since they will also partially tackle data silos (OECD, 2022a). Including data showing how the consultations influenced the outcomes of the decisions will also improve transparency (OECD, 2022b).

Regarding multilingualism, at a minimum, a full English version of the platforms, including each consultation’s content, is necessary for international observers to contribute (Cordier, 2025). Simplified language and cultural adaptation should also be taken into consideration (European Commission, 2019). Another crucial step is making the consultation data and results open. Allowing API access or providing open datasets in a data portal will improve transparency, as well as showing how the consultations influenced the outcomes of the decisions (OECD, 2022b). The CoFoE’s model of publishing citizen panel recommendations offers a replicable example that should be taken into account (Alonso and Dejaeghere, 2022).

Future regulatory frameworks could differentiate between platforms based on their thematic domain and institutional maturity. National-level platforms with high participation volumes may require structured transparency instruments, including publication of consultation outcomes and feedback loops. Emerging or municipal platforms may benefit from standardized minimum transparency requirements to ensure consistency and trust.

6 Conclusion

This study provides a comparative analysis of 15 Greek deliberation platforms. The analysis was based on two sets of evaluation criteria: technical features and participatory design. Our findings indicate that the platforms analysed in this study enable some form of deliberation, improving accessibility by moving processes online. However, there are notable limitations.

The first main issue identified is the lack of access to data. Only one platform features API capabilities, and the rest do not provide any efficient way to access the consultation data, even though there is legislation in place for government organizations to make their data reusable. Secondly, the platforms do not foster true dialogue and act as a one-way communication, by gathering comments and feedback. Furthermore, there is an issue of multilingualism of the platforms, with many of them lacking a full English version. Finally, participation levels vary a lot, with four platforms numbering topics and comments in the thousands, while others featuring less than a couple of dozen them. The OpenGov.gr platform is a very promising initiative, proving that the Greek government can make efficient use of deliberation platforms, but there is a lot of room for improvement. The Conference on the Future of Europe sets an example on how to significantly enhance such platforms with broad language availability and openness. Such principles will be crucial for digital deliberation to truly be a means of strengthening democracy. While this study focused on platform-level technical and participatory features, future research could extend the analysis by examining longitudinal participation trends and the potential influence of broader sociopolitical factors, such as institutional trust, political polarization, or major political and economic events, on patterns of engagement.

References

• 1

  AbiddinN. Z.IbrahimI.AzizS. A. (2022). Advocating digital literacy: community-based strategies and approaches. Acad. J. Interdiscip. Stud.11, 198–211. doi: 10.36941/ajis-2022-0018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AlexopoulosC.LoukisE.MouzakitisS.PetychakisM.CharalabidisY. (2018). Analysing the characteristics of open government data sources in Greece. J. Knowl. Econ.9, 586–608. doi: 10.1007/s13132-015-0298-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AlonsoI.DejaeghereY. (2022). Organising a democratic Lottery. Brussels, Belgium: Federation for Innovation in Democracy – Europe.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AsimakopoulosG.AntonopoulouH.GiotopoulosK.HalkiopoulosC. (2025). Impact of information and communication technologies on democratic processes and citizen participation. Societies15:40. doi: 10.3390/soc15020040

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  BreuerS.PenklerM. (2024). Between open deliberation and the capturing of public opinion: producing opinions in public engagement. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values49, 1281–1308. doi: 10.1177/01622439241251525

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  CordierL. (2025). Using the conference on the future of Europe to consider a multilingual continental deliberative model. Societies15:24. doi: 10.3390/soc15020024

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  CostopoulouC.NtalianiM.NtalianisF. (2021). Evolution of e-participation in Greek local government. Inf. Polity26, 311–325. doi: 10.3233/IP-190174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  Council of the European Union. (2025). Conference on the Future of Europe. Council of the European Union. Available online at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/conference-on-the-future-of-europe/ (accessed June 23, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  DeligiaouriA.SuiterJ. (2020). Evaluation of public consultations and citizens’ participation in 2015 better regulation agenda of the EU and the need for a deliberative e-rulemaking initiative in the EU. Eur. Polit. Soc.22, 69–87. doi: 10.1080/23745118.2020.1718285

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  DeseriisM. (2021). Rethinking the digital democratic affordance and its impact on political representation: toward a new framework. New Media Soc.23, 2452–2473. doi: 10.1177/1461444820929678

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  DomaradzkaA. (2024). “Struggling with pillarised clientelism: civil society and institutional politics in Poland,” in The Interplay of civic Engagement and Institutionalised Politics, eds. EversA.EssenJ. (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan).

  • Google Scholar

• 12

  DryzekJ. S. (2002). Deliberative Democracy and beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  European Commission. (2019). Digital inclusion and web accessibility — brochure. Shaping Europe’s digital future. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/digital-inclusion-and-web-accessibility-brochure (accessed June 22, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  European Commission. (2025). Conference on the Future of Europe. Available online at: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/new-push-european-democracy/conference-future-europe_en (accessed June 15, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Galende-SánchezE. (2025). The EU’S depoliticized approach to deliberative democracy and its implications for climate policy: the case of the conference on the future of Europe. J. Contemp. Eur. Stud.33, 873–889. doi: 10.1080/14782804.2025.2457662

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  GangadharanS. P. (2021). Digital Exclusion: A Politics of Refusal. In: Bernholz, L, Landemore, H, Reich R, (Eds.), Digital technology and democratic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226748603.003.0005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  Ghandour-DemiriN. (2017). Language Comprehension Barriers: Understanding the Challenges of Communicating with Vulnerable Populations. Translators without Borders. Available online at: https://translatorswithoutborders.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Language-Comprehension-barriers.pdf (accessed June 19, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  GounopoulosE.KontogiannisS.KazanidisI.ValsamidisS. (2020). The impact of the digital divide on the adoption of e-government in Greece. KnE Soc. Sci.4, 401–411. doi: 10.18502/kss.v4i1.6002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  iMEdD. (2023). The slow death of open data in Greece. Available online at: https://lab.imedd.org/en/the-slow-death-of-open-data-in-greece (accessed June 21, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 20

  KahneJ.HodginE.Eidman-AadahlE. (2016). Redesigning civic education for the digital age: participatory politics and the pursuit of democratic engagement. Theory Res. Soc. Educ.44, 1–35. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2015.1132646

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  KaratrantouA.PanagiotakopoulosC. (2023). “Digital divide issues in Greece: a systematic review,” in From digital divide to digital inclusion, eds. TomczykŁ.Guillén-GámezF. D.Ruiz-PalmeroJ.HabibiA. (Cham: Springer), 263–290.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  KarelisC.LachanaZ.GorelovaI.AlexopoulosC.LavdariaN.BelliniF. (2025). “Digital inclusion and social cohesion in smart cities: overcoming barriers in the digital age,” in Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2025). Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  KraljL. (2024). Greece: a snapshot of digital skills. European Commission, digital skills and jobs platform. Available online at: https://digital-skills-jobs.europa.eu/en/latest/briefs/greece-snapshot-digital-skills (accessed June 2, 2025).

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  LoharP.XieG.GallagherD.WayA. (2023). Building neural machine translation systems for multilingual participatory spaces. Analytics2, 393–409. doi: 10.3390/analytics2020022

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  OECD (2022a). Digital Transformation Projects in Greece’s Public Sector: Governance, Procurement and Implementation (OECD Public Governance Reviews). Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  OECD (2022b). OECD Guidelines for Citizen Participation Processes. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 27

  OECD (2024). OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in public Institutions – 2024 Results: Building Trust in a complex Policy Environment. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  RosaP.Guimaraes PereiraÂ. (2025). Harnessing Innovation on Online Deliberation, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. doi: 10.2760/1524483.JRC139951

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  SinghB.JainA.WongmahesakK.ChandraS. (2025). “Reimagining democracy in the digital era: transformative role of artificial intelligence in modern governance,” in Democracy and Democratization in the age of AI, eds. WongmahesakK.WekkeI.SeftyonoC.NurdinN. (London: IGI Global Scientific Publishing), 1–18.

  • Google Scholar

• 30

  SmithG. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  ThorpeK. (2019). Ethics, indigenous cultural safety and the archives. Archifacts2, 33–47. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/10453/138992

  • Google Scholar

• 32

  TokovskaM.FerreiraV. N.VallušovaA.SeberíniA. (2023). E-government—the inclusive way for the future of digital citizenship. Societies13:141. doi: 10.3390/soc13060141

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  van DijkJ. A. G. M. (2017). “Digital divide: impact of access,” in The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, ed. RösslerP., vol. 1 (New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell), 1–11.

  • Google Scholar