The People’s Assembly: Testing the Collaborative (e)-Democracy

Ülle Toode 1 *
More Detail
1 University of Jyväskylä, FINLAND
* Corresponding Author
Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, Volume 10, Issue 2, Article No: e202005.
OPEN ACCESS   1186 Views   842 Downloads   Published online: 17 Mar 2020
Download Full Text (PDF)


This paper aims to critically analyse the Estonian People’s Assembly (EPA), a crowdsourcing initiative carried out from 2013 to 2014. During the project, citizens could participate in decision-making and make proposals for laws and policies on a dedicated web-platform. Additionally, some people were invited for a traditional off-line debate. In that way, the project combined virtual communication tools with traditional discussion to apply the principles of collaborative e-democracy, in which governmental stakeholders and non-governmental stakeholders (such as local communities) join in a deliberative debate. The purpose of this paper is to observe, both, gains and problems of this crowdsourcing initiative. The analysis considered the design of the online space, if people had equal access to it, and the kind of issues proposed. It also applied critical discourse analysis (following Fairclough, 1995) and the index Quality of Understanding (Klinger & Russmann, 2015). As a conclusion, the paper suggests that virtual platforms can increase the quality of deliberative decision-making. However, they can also be seen as regulated “top-down” initiatives (Pellizzoni, 2012). In a wider perspective, the paper aims to contribute to knowledge on, both, positive and negative stances of deliberative crowdsource initiatives in a post-web society.


Toode, Ü. (2020). The People’s Assembly: Testing the Collaborative (e)-Democracy. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 10(2), e202005.


  • Alas, A. (2013). Mis on saanud Rahvakogu ettepanekutest? Eesti Ekspress, 3/06/2013. Retrieved on 1 December on from
  • Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (2001). The new media and our political communication discontents: Democratizing cyberspace. Information, Communication and Society, 4(1), 1-13.
  • Boulianne, S. (2009). Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication, 26(2), 193-211.
  • Brabham, C. D. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving. An introduction and cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technology, 14(1), 75-90.
  • Burkart, R., & Russmann, U. (2016). Quality of Understanding in Campaign Communication. International Journal of Communication, 10, 4141-4165.
  • Bynum, T. W., & Rogerson, S. (2004). Global information ethics: Editors’ introduction. In: T. Bynum, S. Rogerson (Eds), Computer Ethics and Professional Responsibility (pp. 316-318), Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Cogburn, D. L., & Espinoza-Vasquez, F. K. (2011). From network nominee to networked nation: Examining the impact of Web 2.0 and social media on political participation and civic engagement in the 2008 Obama campaign. Journal of Political Marketing, 10(1-2), 189-213.
  • Coleman, S., & Blumler, J. G. (2009). The internet and democratic citizenship. Theory, practice and policy. Cambridge University Press.
  • Collaborative Democracy (2007). Retrieved on 24 June 2013 from
  • Corrado, A., & Firestone, C. M. (Eds) (1996) Elections in cyberspace: Towards a new era in American politics. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
  • Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political communication, 22, 147-162.
  • Dahlgren, P. (2018) Public sphere participation online: The ambiguities of affect. Les Enjeux de l'information et de la communication, 1(19/1), 5-20.
  • Dahlgren, P. (2013). Participation and alternative democracy: Social media and their contingencies. In: P. Serra, E. J. M. Camilo, & G. Goncalves (Eds), Participação Politica e Web 2.0, LabCom Books.
  • Davis, R. (1999). The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Eesti Statistikaamet (2019). Rahvaarv rahvuse järgi. Retrieved on 6 September 2019 from
  • Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. London: Hodder Arnold.
  • Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse. Routledge.
  • Fishkin, J. S. (2011). When the People Speak. Oxfrod University Press.
  • Freschi, A. C., & Mete V. (2009). The political meanings of institutional deliberative experiments. Findings on the Italian case. Sociologica, 2-3. Bologna, Mulino.
  • Gurevitch, M., Coleman, S., & Blumler J. G. (2009). Political communication — Old and new media relationships. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 625(1), 164-181.
  • Habermas, J. (1989). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411-426.
  • Hõbemägi, P. (2013). Priit Hõbemägi: Vandenõu Jääkeldris? Eesti Ekspress, 15/03/2013. Retrieved from
  • Jackson, N. A., & Lilleker, D. (2009). Building an architecture of participation? Political parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 6(3/4), 232-250.
  • Jackson, N. A., & Lilleker, D. (2010). Tentative steps towards interaction: The use of the Internet in the British European Parliament Election 2009. Internet Research, 20(5), 527-544.
  • Jonsson, M. E. (2015) Democratic innovations in deliberative systems – The case of the Estonian Citizens’ Assembly process. Journal of Public Deliberation, 11(1). Retrieved on 11 March 2018 from
  • Klinger, U., & Russmann, U. (2015) The sociodemographics of political public deliberation: Measuring deliberative quality in different user groups. Communication 40(4), 471-484.
  • Lilleker, D., & Jackson, N. A. (2009). The UK European Parliament online campaign: The tail that never wagged? Paper presented at International CENMEP conference, 18-19, December 2009, Groningen, the Netherlands.
  • Lilleker, D., Koc-Michalska, K., Schweitzer, E., Jacunski, M., Jackson, N., & Vedel, T. (2011). Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication, 26(3), 195-213.
  • Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. Proceeding of the 37th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
  • Margetts, H., John P., Hale, S., & Yasseri, T. (2016). Political turbulence: How social media shape collective action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as Usual: the cyberspace revolution, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  • Meriläinen, N., & Vos, M. (2011). Human rights organizations and online agenda setting. Corporate Communication, an International Journal, 18(1), 119-134.
  • Meriläinen, N., & Vos, M. (2011). Human rights organizations and online agenda setting. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 293-310.
  • Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary. Retrieved on November 18 2019 from
  • Norris, P. (2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge.
  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0. Retrieved on 9 August 2013 from
  • Pellizzoni, L. (2012). Ways of searching for the common good. Speech at the Seminar: De l’alert au conflit – Logique argumentatives et trajectoires des mobilisations (EHESS, 3.02.12) Retrieved on 16 July 2013 from
  • Pellizzoni, L. (2015). Bridging promises and (dis)illusions: deliberative democracy in an evolutionary perspective. In: K. Van Assche, R. Beunen, & M. Duinenveld (Eds), Applying Evolutionary Governance Theory (pp. 215-232). Berlin: Springer.
  • Pellizzoni, L., & Ylönen, M. (2012). Hegemonic contingencies: Neoliberalized technoscience and neorationality. In: L. Pellizzoni, & M. Ylönen (Eds), Neoliberalism and Technoscience. Critical Assessment (pp. 47-74). Ashgate. Retrieved on 26 August 2013 from
  • Praxis Centre for Policy Research (2014). People’s Assembly in Estonia – crowdsourcing solutions for problems in political legitimacy. Retrieved on 11 January 2015 from
  • Resnick, D. (1998). Politics on the internet: The normalisation of cyberspace. In: C. Toulouse, & T. W. Luke (Eds.), The Politics of Cyberspace (pp. 48-68). New York: Routledge.
  • Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, New York: Harper.
  • Ruggiero, A., & Vos, M. (2014), Social media monitoring for crisis communication: process, methods and trends in the scientific literature. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 4(1), 103-130.
  • SAAR POLL (2008). E-services for Public Sector. Raprot on citizen research. Retrieved on 4 December 2009 from
  • Salu, M. (2013). Rahvakogu osalejate leidmisel oli kolm raskust. Postimees, 30/03/2013. Retrieved on 9 December 2019 from
  • Statistics Estonia (2011). Retrieved on 11 May 2012 from
  • Strandberg, K., & Grönlund, K. (2012). Online deliberation and its outcome - evidence from the virtual polity experiment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9(2), 167-184.
  • Sunstein, C. (2001). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Sunstein, C. (2009) 2.0. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Toode, Ü. (2016). Fostering dialogue or monologue? – Estonian party websites during the 2009 European Parliament elections. Journal of Political Marketing, 15(2-3), 120-148.
  • Trechsel, A. H., Vassil, K., Schwerdt, G., Breuer, F., Alvarez, M., & Hall, T. (2010). Internet Voting in Estonia. A Comparative Analysis of Four Elections since 2005. Report for the Council of Europe. European University Institute. Retrieved on 9 October 2011 from
  •, (2019) Statistics about Internet voting in Estonia. Retrieved from
  • Van Dijk, J. (2000). Models of democracy and concepts of communication. In K. L Hacker, & J. van Dijk (Eds), Digital democracy: Issues of theory and practice (pp. 30-53), London: Sage.
  • Visser, S., & Stolle, D. (2014). The Internet and new modes of political participation: Online versus offline participation. Information, Communication & Society, 17(8), 937–955.
  • Witte, B., Reutenberg, K., & Auer, C. (2009). No profound change: Web 2.0 and the German election campaign. Retrieved on 26 October 2009 from
  • Witte, J. C., & Mannon, S. E. (2010). The Internet and Social Inequalities. London: Routledge.
  • Vos, M., Schoemaker, H., & Luoma-aho, V. (2014). Setting the agenda for research on issue arenas. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 19(2), 200-215.
  • Wright, S. (2011). Politics as usual? Revolution, normalization and a new agenda for online deliberation. New Media & Society,14(2), 244-261.
  • Wright, S., & Street, J. (2007) Democracy, deliberation and design: the case of online discussion forums. New Media & Society, 9(5), 849-869.
  • Zhang, B., & Vos, M. (2015). How and why some issues spread fast in social media. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 5(1), 90-113.