This study explores how digital technologies mediate the relationship between civil society and state institutions through a comparative analysis of two contrasting platforms: Decidim, a participatory digital infrastructure initiated by the Barcelona City Council, and China’s Social Credit System (SCS), an algorithmic governance model aimed at behavioral monitoring and compliance. Both models demonstrate how digital infrastructures can be embedded in radically different institutional environments, enhancing civic agency or enabling state control. The central research question asks: How do digital governance platforms shape civic participation and the autonomy of civil society under democratic and authoritarian regimes? This analysis specifically examines the broader implications for civic autonomy and citizen engagement, rather than focusing solely on the impacts on specific civil society organizations (CSOs) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The analysis applies a qualitative comparative methodology using theoreticalcontent analysis and documentary research. It draws on institutional documents, academic sources, and platform design materials to investigate how each system configures citizen-state interaction, transparency, and accountability. A four-dimensional analytical framework–civic engagement, algorithmic transparency, data sovereignty, and sociopolitical outcomes is used to compare the two models. Decidim illustrates how digital tools can support participatory democracy when embedded within accountable institutions and open governance cultures. It provides citizens with channels for deliberation, decision-making, and co-governance, fostering inclusive civic environments. In contrast, the Social Credit System exemplifies the risks of algorithmic governance when operated within centralized and opaque regimes. It reduces citizen agency to behavioral conformity and embeds state authority into everyday interactions through surveillance and data centralization. The findings indicate that digital tools are not determinative; their effects on civil society depend on broader institutional and normative contexts. When deployed transparently and collaboratively, platforms can enhance civic participation, build public trust, and revitalize democratic institutions. However, without safeguards for civil liberties and inclusive governance, the same tools may reinforce hierarchy, marginalization, and digital authoritarianism.
Ahmet Küçük (Fri,) studied this question.