Digital Democracy, Intra-Party Participation, and Assemblages of Power

The use of digital platforms in intra-party democracy is shaped by an assemblage of technological design, political culture, and power structures that interact to produce inclusion or exclusion along intersectional lines. These platforms influence the quality of deliberation, participation, and diagonal accountability, but their effects vary based on how they are embedded in political party dynamics and broader socio-political contexts.

This hypothesis is informed by the research and experience of Michal Malý (Charles University) in analyzing intra-party digital participation (Helios, Agora, Decidim) and by Olivier Schulbaum and Platoniq’s work delivering Decidim for different national and regional political parties. Political parties increasingly integrate digital democracy platforms for internal decision-making, deliberation, and voting. However, the effectiveness and inclusiveness of these platforms depend not just on their technical design but on the assemblage of factors shaping their use—such as party hierarchies, digital infrastructures, accessibility, and socio-political norms. Applying an assemblage lens, this hypothesis explores how intra-party digital participation is co-constituted by these elements, leading to varying levels of intersectional inclusion or exclusion. From an intersectionality perspective, political party participation is not neutral; digital democracy tools can amplify or mitigate pre-existing inequalities related to gender, class, race, and digital literacy. If these platforms are not designed with inclusion in mind, they risk reinforcing existing disparities within political organizations.

• Czech Pirate Party’s Helios platform – How does its design and governance shape participation across different demographic groups?
• Five Star Movement and Podemos – What socio-political factors influence voter turnout in digital intra-party decision-making?
• Decidim in Barcelona – How does it function as a participatory assemblage embedded in local political culture?
• Agora in Italy’s Democratic Party – What role does it play in fostering deliberation and transparency in party politics?
• Decidim’s adaptation for national and regional parties – Drawing from Platoniq’s experience in delivering and implementing Decidim across different political organizations.

How do digital platforms function as participatory assemblages that shape intra-party democracy and accountability?

Digital participation in political parties is shaped by multiple interacting elements, including platform design, political culture, and socio-economic factors (assemblage approach). Digital tools are not neutral; they can either reproduce existing inequalities or function as corrective mechanisms (intersectional approach).

How can political parties ensure digital democracy platforms do not reinforce existing exclusions but instead foster deeper inclusivity and accountability? What role do assemblages of power play in shaping who participates in digital deliberation and decision-making? Contributions from researchers and practitioners in digital democracy, intersectionality, and political innovation are welcome. We’re also keen to collaborate on the following questions:

• How does the exportation of digital participation models across different political contexts (e.g., Decidim, Helios, Agora) reshape democratic engagement?
• What intersectional barriers (e.g., gendered digital divides, socio-economic disparities) influence participation in digital intra-party decision-making?
• How do party hierarchies, informal power structures, and platform governance interact to shape participation and diagonal accountability?
• To what extent do digital affordances (e.g., transparency, anonymity, deliberative spaces) shape different modes of participation and deliberation?

To analyze how digital participation in political parties operates as an assemblage and how intersectional barriers affect intra-party democracy, we propose a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative, participatory, and computational methods. This will allow for a multi-dimensional analysis of how digital platforms are designed, governed, and experienced by diverse political actors. First, computational and network analysis of digital platform data will reveal participation trends, engagement dynamics, and governance structures. This will be complemented by semi-structured interviews and focus groups with party members, leaders, and marginalized voices to understand perceptions of transparency, inclusion, and power distribution. A series of co-creation workshops will engage stakeholders in refining hypotheses, prioritizing challenges, and mapping key tensions in digital intra-party democracy. To experimentally test platform design effects, a gamified simulation will model different decision-making structures, assessing how variations in voting mechanisms, deliberative processes, and transparency settings shape participation. The comparative case study approach will examine intra-party digital democracy across different political contexts, including the Czech Pirate Party’s Helios platform, Five Star Movement and Podemos’ voting systems, Decidim’s integration in political parties, and Agora’s use in Italy’s Democratic Party. Finally, policy labs will transform findings into practical recommendations, engaging political parties and digital democracy experts in scenario planning and governance design exercises. This methodology will provide insights into how digital platforms function as participatory assemblages, revealing the intersectional barriers that shape intra-party participation and accountability while generating actionable strategies for more inclusive digital democracy models.

The study will identify the key assemblage of factors—technological, political, and social—that shape intra-party digital participation, highlighting how platform design interacts with party structures and political culture. It will generate insights into the intersectional barriers that affect engagement, revealing disparities related to gender, socioeconomic status, digital literacy, and access to decision-making processes. The research will offer a comparative analysis of different platform governance structures, showing how variations in transparency, deliberation mechanisms, and voting affordances impact participation, inclusiveness, and power dynamics within parties. The gamified simulation will demonstrate how different design choices influence engagement and decision-making, offering practical insights into more equitable digital governance models.