2.1 An analytical concept for democratic resilience

Resilience is a crucial aspect of a democracies. As countries considered to be democratic face significant resilience challenges, particularly from internal pressures like populism, political polarisation, and attacks on democratic norms, they face challenges that test the durability and adaptability of democratic institutions and norms. Those problems highlight the necessity of considering whether deliberation practices and citizen engagement can be resilient in times of crisis. Research on the topic has shown that civil society’s role, judicial independence, and active citizen engagement are crucial for maintaining democratic resilience, even in the face of rising authoritarian tendencies and external pressures (Boese at al. 2021; Burnell & Caveat 1999); and that experimentation and innovation can occur even under difficult conditions, such as in the middle of a pandemic (Elstub et al. 2021). However, a recent systematic review, found that, while the concept of democratic resilience is gaining traction, it remains under-researched and studies on the topic often loosely define the term and are heavily focused on stability rather than systemic change (Holloway & Manwaring 2023). The authors also found that there is less emphasis on innovative forms of resilience, such as innovations in participatory democracy. This is a gap I intend to narrow in the present study, with the view to contribute to studies on democratic innovations in digital spaces in time of crisis (see Elstub et al. 2021; de Freitas 2020; Faganello & Luciano 2023; Karlsson, Åström & Adenskog 2020).

In more recent studies, democratic resilience refers to the ability of a democratic system to withstand and respond to both external threats and internal challenges without compromising its core principles, structures, and norms (Bezerra et al. 2024, Holloway and Manwaring 2023). It involves the capacity of democratic institutions, actors, and processes to adapt dynamically to evolving circumstances while maintaining the integrity and functionality of the democratic regime (Merkel 2023). This concept emphasises the interaction between democratic structures, functions, and actors to ensure that they respond effectively and democratically to changing contexts, including crises, without leading to regime change or the erosion of hard-won democratic advances.

I define democratic resilience, in the context of democratic innovation studies, as the ability of democratic systems to withstand and adapt to various crises, challenges, and external shocks while maintaining their core principles and creating new democratic innovation practices that secure the role of citizens in governance processes of participation, deliberation and policy influence. In the area of democratic innovation, this concept is not just pertaining to preventing democracies from turning into undemocratic regimes, but also about sustaining and avoiding the regression of democratic practices, propping digital platforms, civic technology, and innovative democratic practices to ensure that participatory practices, including deliberation, participatory democracy, participatory budgeting, mini-publics, and similar remain active even if a fast-paced leap into new technologies is needed. In other words, it is the ability of democratic institutions and processes to not only survive, but to thrive during crises by incorporating technological innovations to safeguard active citizen participation. This is an attempt to keep improving the quality of democratic institutions — which is an everlasting work-in-progress. It involves ensuring representative governance, active citizen participation, respect for fundamental rights, and effective checks on government power. In reality, democratic resilience is critical for achieving long-term sustainable well-being, especially in the face of increasingly frequent and overlapping crises (‘multicrises’ or ‘permacrisis’ to some), such as economic downturns, pandemics, wars, declining voter turnout, the spread of misinformation and disinformation, and increasing political polarisation and environmental challenges. During crises, traditional communication channels might be disrupted — during the COVID-19 pandemic for example, it was the face-to-face interactions that in many cases were disrupted and suspended. Digital tools then provided alternative to maintain a flow of information and supports the continuity of democratic principles even in challenging circumstances (Elstub et al. 2021; Lima 2021). Furthermore, resilience of democratic institutions depends on two key factors: their design and their embeddedness in policy communities. These factors determine their ability to withstand deinstitutionalisation. Resilience is shaped by the efforts of civil society and policy communities to preserve and adapt these spaces in challenging periods (Bezerra et al. 2024).

These multicrisis trends have weakened the governments’ ability to anticipate and respond effectively to external challenges. In Latin America, trust in political institutions had already been declining even before the pandemic (Freidenberg & Gilas 2022; UNDP 2024). This erosion of trust created a space for the rise of populist leaders who capitalised on divisive rhetoric, a trend that intensified during the pandemic (Lima & da Cruz 2022). Countries like Paraguay, Honduras, and Brazil, where leaders opposed social distancing measures out of concern for economic impacts and anti-science views, severely delayed implementing these measures (Zahariadis et al. 2022). Additionally, prior to the pandemic, the ascent of the extreme right in some countries led to the systematic dismantling of participatory institutions, driven by a stagnant economic situation and the reorganisation of conservative sectors in the region (see Avritzer & Zanandrez 2024; Lima 2020). Despite these calculated but often clumsy attempts to deinstitutionalise citizen participation and discredit democratic goals (Bezerra et al. 2024; Lima 2020), the pandemic did not deepen the democratic crisis (Avritzer & Rennó 2021). This was largely due to the resilience and embeddedness of civil society efforts, in addition to new types of regional leadership (Lima & da Cruz 2022) which worked to preserve these participatory bodies as vital arenas for policy influence.

The shift towards participatory trends in Latin America following a period dominated by conservative and right-wing governments is crucial for studies of democratic innovations focusing on resilience. This is because it highlights the region’s need to adapt and strengthen democratic processes in response to political and social challenges. E-participation, facilitated by ICTs, plays a significant role in enhancing democratic resilience by allowing citizens to engage in decision-making processes, even when traditional methods are disrupted (Elstub et al. 2021, Lima 2020). This is particularly relevant in contexts where state efforts to undermine democratic norms are present, or where the population lacks a historical foundation of stable democratic governance. By enabling collaboration, data sharing, and resource coordination, e-participation strengthens community resilience and helps uphold democratic principles against both immediate and long-term threats.

This paper argues that digital participation mechanisms strengthen the adaptability and stability of democratic systems, contributing to democratic innovation sustainability. This theoretical framework underscores that the resilience of democratic systems is significantly reinforced by digital platforms, which facilitate sustained citizen participation and the continual adaptation of democratic practices. E-participation contributes to democratic resilience by enabling continuous citizen engagement, particularly during crises that risk hindering traditional participation methods. Moreover, it acts as a counterbalance to populist and authoritarian tendencies by empowering citizens to hold leaders accountable and promoting democratic values. Integrating e-participation into democratic processes helps preserve democratic norms and practices, even amidst external disruptions and internal challenges. Considering that e-participation has emerged as a critical tool for promoting resilience and enabling civic engagement despite physical distancing requirements, little is currently known about the actors, types of e-participation, and sustainability in the pandemic context. This is addressed in the subsequent sections.

4.1 E-participation trends

E-participation employs ICTs to facilitate citizen involvement in democratic processes. Individuals can express opinions and preferences to digital platforms using internet connected devices, such as smartphones, computers, and tablets. E-participation is listed as a means in approximately 75.97% (or 98) cases in the dataset (Figure 3). This high percentage underscores the significant role of e-participation methods in the initiatives covered by the data, highlighting their role in facilitating public engagement, participation, and interaction in various contexts. Interestingly, some initiatives use both e-participation and citizen representation at the same time to combine multiple means of participation, aiming to enhance inclusivity and engagement. In this case, e-participation provides a platform (e.g., an online forum or voting system) where citizens can directly engage, while involving certain participants representing the interests of a specific group within that platform. For example, COVIDLab Cordoba was created used both digital tools for participation and citizen representation mechanisms.

There were 28 hackathons conducted in the first year of the pandemic, addressing challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Hackathons are short, collaborative events where participants join forces to generate solutions targeting specific societal issues. These initiatives became a notable tool that gained traction during the COVID-19 pandemic, providing a way to tap into the creative potential of individuals who voluntarily gathered for a short duration to address specific challenges (Bertello, Bogers & De Bernardi 2022), further indicating the collaborative fusion of technology and civic engagement. Ecuador hosting the most initiatives, followed by Argentina, Mexico, and Peru (7, 4, 3, and 3 initiatives, respectively). In terms of accessibility, 23 hackathons were open to the public, while five had restricted participant selection. These trends underscore the widespread adoption of e-participation as a method of engagement and highlight Ecuador’s leading role in organizing hackathons during the period of the study.

The ‘Hackathon 2020: Women and Girls Post Covid-19’, for example, was designed to mitigate the effects of Covid-19 on Mexican women and girls. Participants registered online and formed teams to create services and products aimed at addressing the challenges arising from the pandemic, such as the uptick in domestic violence cases. This reflects a dynamic intersection of technology and participatory democracy, emphasising the potential of digital tools in enhancing access to information, citizen involvement in decision-making and collaborative problem-solving. It is important to note that due to health restrictions, face-to-face to events were discouraged, and so e-participation as an alternative to in-person events made sure people still had a way to participate and work together. Recent research has shown that e-participatory spaces were largely more inclusive, drawing in a greater number of citizen participants where access was facilitated through digital media (Fagannelo & Luciano 2023; Hofstra & Meijer 2022).

Figure 2 presents the number of initiatives by country, with each bar representing the frequency of initiatives in a particular country. The overall trend indicates that South American countries, particularly Argentina and Brazil, have the highest number of initiatives, while Central American countries, such as Nicaragua and El Salvador, have the fewest.

Figure 2: Number of Initiatives by Country.

4.2 Participants

There is a diversity of participants engaged in the initiatives, ranging from open public involvement to more restricted, selective groups. Out of the 125 cases, 63 cases involved citizens directly, 20 initiatives included both citizens and civil society groups, and 19 initiatives involved a combination of citizens, civil society, and private stakeholders (see Figure 3). A strong trend towards involving citizens is observed, indicating an inclination towards collaborative governance models that combine various sectors of society. In the context of democratic innovations, this is significant because it involves complex, intricate policies that necessitate specialised local knowledge and policies of an intersectoral nature, which call for cooperative efforts among various stakeholders (Pogrebinschi 2023).

Figure 3: Democratic Innovation Means.

The distribution of participant types varies significantly across different countries, indicating that regional or national contexts might influence how public participation is structured in these initiatives (see Figure 4). For instance, some countries show a higher inclination towards involving citizens directly, while others have a more balanced approach that includes citizens, civil society, and private stakeholders. The prevalent trend indicates that e-participation is the most common means across multiple countries, suggesting a widespread adoption of electronic platforms for participatory governance. Argentina and Brazil are not just at the forefront in number of initiatives with 16 and 15 initiatives respectively but are also the countries that employ e-participation the most in the region. This acknowledges the countries historical experiences with participatory innovations, including some reduction on clientelist relationships and expanded political inclusion (Fung 2011). Surprisingly, Ecuador, which does not have the same participatory traditions as Brazil or Argentina surpassed several other countries in putting forward electronic or digital means to facilitate participatory governance and civic engagement during the pandemic (Figure 5).

Figure 4: Distribution of Participant Types.

Figure 5: Number of E-Participation Initiatives per Country.

4.3 Democratic innovations overtime

Community resilience has the potential to contribute to effectively coping with shocks (Magis 2010). The COVID-19 pandemic tested the strength of political institutions and government capacity, leading to communities to survive the crisis, thrive after it and get out of it better equipped for the next challenge (Russell 2022). Some initiatives had a strong focus on resiliency-building, often involving aspects such as improving community preparedness, promoting adaptability, faster responses and promoting sustainability in the middle of the crisis.

The analysis of the initiatives’ time frames reveals important trends in their duration and ending periods. The distribution of initiatives by their start year highlights when these initiatives were launched, starting from 2020 reflecting responses to the first year of the pandemic. In terms of duration, the majority of initiatives lasted between zero to two years, with a few extending beyond this timeframe. Paraguay had the longest average initiative duration, with initiatives lasting an average of two years, three of which lasting more than four years, suggesting a more sustained approach compared to other countries. A closer look at the longest-lasting initiatives from the dataset reveals a few key examples suggesting that those lasted longer were created as part of an existing platform (e.g. Atados Brasil, a volunteering platform that created several initiatives to help to those who could not leave their homes or needed emotional support); or kept some of the activities even after the end of the pandemic and turned into post pandemic recover. The second is exemplified by ‘I Want to Help’, in Mexico, an initiative implemented by the Mexican Centre for Philanthropy that still have links for donations and collection that are open and active to users. ‘Brasil.io Covid-19 Municipal Data’ was created as part of an existing platform (Brasil.io), which was originally used to maintain data for various purposes but adapted to provide critical COVID-19-related municipal data. Similarly, initiatives like Civic Space Guardian in Argentina and the Needs and Offerings Bazaar in the Dominican Republic also showcase how platforms continued activities beyond their initial phases, addressing ongoing societal after the pandemic. These examples indicate how sustained efforts often stemmed from pre-existing platforms or continued support even after the peak of the pandemic. But overall, 63.5% of the initiatives ended in its first year. Mostly likely, they were one-off or short-terms initiatives with specific mandates, such as some of the hackathons or other initiatives that had very specific pandemic-related tasks, for instance, live data collection and analysis of health data, especially in countries that tended to restrict and tamper access to pandemic information (i.e. Bolsonaro’s government in Brazil).

4.4 Inclusiveness

Open participation in this study refers to cases where the general public can participate without restrictions or selection methods, thereby suggesting broad and inclusive access. Conversely, restricted participation involves some form of selection or condition for participation, which could imply a more selective or exclusive process. Using those as proxy for investigating inclusion, of the initiatives analysed, 77 employed open participation, suggesting broader access and inclusivity for a wide range of participants. In contrast, 43 initiatives implemented restricted participation, indicating more selective inclusion that may have potentially excluded certain groups (see Figure 6). These figures suggest that while the majority of initiatives aimed for broader inclusivity through open participation, a significant portion still employed restricted participation, potentially limiting access and engagement for specific populations. Civil society and citizens were the most restricted participants.

Figure 6: Open and Restricted Participation Initiatives by Country.

An investigation on whether openness or restriction was associated with ‘no binding’ or ‘no decision’ decisiveness outcomes was performed. After calculating frequencies and running a Chi-square test calculate on SPSS (to determine association between two categorical variables) no associations were found. This means there is no significant association between decisiveness and selection based on the given data. In fact, while the frequency table shows that there are some differences in the distribution of decisiveness across different participants selection methods, these differences are not statistically significant (see Table 1). This means that other factors, such as the specific context of the democratic innovation initiatives, may have a more significant impact on decision-making.

The political and institutional context most likely shaped the inclusiveness of participatory initiatives during the pandemic. Authoritarian-inclined regimes often opt for restricted participation as a means to maintain control over public engagement and decision-making processes (Guimarães & Carvalho 2024; O’Connor, Janenova & Knox 2019; Owen 2020). Current democracies still carry remnants of past authoritarian regimes, and these vestiges persist despite the transition to democratic systems. This might be especially strong in the Latin American region with its authoritarian past and the ebb and flow of democratic administrations. In contrast, democratic systems with more decentralised governance structures are more likely to prioritise open participation, encouraging broader inclusion and citizen involvement. The level of political stability also influences the scope of participation; unstable environments may restrict engagement to limit dissent, while stable political contexts often facilitate wider public involvement (Avritzer & Zanandrez 2024). Moreover, trust in government institutions plays a pivotal role in shaping participation modes. Countries with low levels of public trust may limit participation to control the narrative and maintain legitimacy, whereas governments with high levels of trust are more likely to embrace open participation as a means to legitimise their actions through civic input (Norris 2022). This interplay between political systems, stability, and government trust, when added to the digital divide, affects the inclusiveness of participatory democratic innovations. It is challenging to investigate the role of e-participation in promoting inclusive civic engagement in such a varied context of cases. Additionally, the dataset did not include specific information on participant demographics, digital access, and engagement across different socio-economic groups. However, it is possible to look on the specific factors that contributed to the prevalence of e-participation in specific countries using a comparative approach.

Argentina – Low trust and strong civil society

Innovative institutional designs in Argentina trace back to the 1990s and 2000s, reflecting the country’s political culture, which has long prioritized civic engagement. Argentina has been at the forefront of democratic innovations, particularly through the implementation of various self-managed and non-institutionalized assemblies, as well as participatory spaces, despite its largely unstable political and economic context (Pogrebinschi 2021b; Rodgers 2012).

During the pandemic, Argentina saw an increased reliance on digital tools for civic engagement. The government and civil society organisations created platforms such as Civic Space Guardian to facilitate citizen involvement in monitoring the pandemic response. According to the Latinobarómetro (2021), Argentina ranked amongst the lowest in Latin America for trust in public institutions. However, civil society organisations played a crucial role in mitigating this trust deficit by stepping in to sustain and facilitate public engagement in initiatives focusing on research-oriented solutions and hackathons. Examples include platforms such as Jujuy’s Labor and Social Observatory that focused on the social and labour impacts of the pandemic, and Argentina Hacks COVID-19 that involved citizens and technologists in creating digital tools for pandemic management. These initiatives underscore the key role citizens and civil society played in maintaining and creating new spaces of citizen participation during the pandemic.

Argentina’s relatively high levels of digital connectivity also played a role, with 88.4% of the population having access to the internet in 2022, against the 72.8% regional average (CEPAL, 2024).

Brazil – historical leadership in participatory governance

Brazil has long been a frontrunner in democratic innovation, particularly through participatory budgeting, which has created an institutional framework conducive to broader civic participation (Fung 2011). This history fostered a culture of engagement and provided the necessary experience to quickly adapt to digital forms of participation during the pandemic. Despite political instability and challenges posed by President Bolsonaro’s administration, which included serious attempts to dismount institutional space of participatory democracy and a problematic handling of the pandemic (Avritzer & Zanandrez 2024; Lima 2020; Lima & da Cruz 2022), civil society actors played a critical role in mobilising citizens through crowdsourced health data initiatives and hackathons for developing COVID-19 solutions. Some examples are digital platforms like Brasil.io, which offered real-time pandemic municipal data, and HackCOVID, in which participants developed telemedicine platforms and Covid-19 tracking apps.

Brazil has higher trust in political institutions compared to Argentina, although the levels of trust are generally low in both countries (Latinobarómetro 2021). Similar to Argentina, this trust deficit in both countries plays an important role in shaping their respective e-participation landscapes, with strong civil society organisations involved in democratic innovations. Additionally, Brazil’s has a good level of digital connectivity, with 80.5% of the population using the internet in 2023 (CEPAL 2024), further facilitated the transition to e-participation.

Ecuador – Strong e-participation growth

Ecuador’s role in e-participation during the pandemic stands out as an unexpected development, especially given its historically lower levels of participatory innovation compared to countries like Brazil, Argentina, and Colombia. However, two factors help explain the rapid adoption of e-participation in Ecuador. First, the reorganisation of the country’s early pandemic response. After suffering a very high number of deaths and chaos in the initial pandemic months (Capella 2022), strict lockdowns and the initiation of mass vaccination efforts were made (Torchia 2020). Second, Ecuador’s strong, locally organised social movements, such as Cotacachi, which emerged from the powerful Ecuadorian Indigenous Movement, have long been experienced in local participatory democracy (Addor 2018). Additionally, President Lenín Moreno’s efforts to reverse the populist transformations of his predecessor, Rafael Correa, also played a role. Moreno employed participatory mechanisms like referendums, though these did not fully embrace the egalitarian and solidaristic goals of genuine participatory democracy (Posner 2022). This may be attributed to the urgency of the pandemic, which forced the government and civil society to innovate rapidly.

Overall, Ecuador’s trust in institutions remains significantly weaker than in Argentina and Brazil, counterbalanced by active social movement. This is a reflection on the number of innovations that focused on Citizen Oversight Commissions, which aimed at ensuring transparency and accountability in government actions during the pandemic, with multiple initiatives focusing on monitoring government responses and ensuring proper management of resources and health policies. 89% of the population was using the internet in 2020 (CEPAL 2024), which is above the regional average.

The comparative analysis of democratic innovation and e-participation in Brazil, Argentina, and Ecuador highlights three main findings related to those countries’ specific contexts. First, the countries’ strong civil society organisations played a crucial role in filling the trust gap in public institutions by pushing civic oversight and tech solutions through digital platforms during the pandemic. Second, Brazil’s historical leadership in participatory governance provided a robust institutional foundation that helped quickly transition to e-participation initiatives, despite political instability. Third, Ecuador’s unexpected growth in e-participation, driven by grassroots movements and the pandemic’s urgency, underscores the potential for rapid democratic innovation even in countries with historically lower levels of participatory engagement. Brazil, Argentina, and Ecuador ranked among the highest in the 2023 Participatory Democracy Index, which evaluates citizen engagement in governance through local democratic institutions, civil society organizations, direct democracy mechanisms, and electoral democracy (V-Dem, 2024) (Figure 7). This data aligns with the broader analysis presented here, reinforcing the argument that these countries exhibit strong capacity and structure for democratic innovations. Furthermore, all three nations benefited from relatively high levels of internet connectivity, which facilitated the rapid transition to digital participation platforms in a period of restricted physical interaction.

Figure 7: Participatory Democracy Index in Selected Latin American Countries in 2023. (V-Dem, 2024).