Data, AI, and Algorithmic literacies for effective participation in datafied democracies

PARTICIPATION: SUBSTANTIVE, OR JUST SYMBOLIC? In contemporary democracies, participation is increasingly mediated by digital technologies and data-driven mechanisms such as open consultations, participatory online platforms, and algorithmically governed public services. Whereas earlier democratic theories have conceptualised participation as rooted in informed citizenship, dependent on access to information, deliberation, and electoral competence (Brennan, 2011), current governance operates within data-intensive environments where public debate and policy justification are structured through metrics, indicators, and analytics (Ranganathan et al., 2015). This shift reflects a broader datafication of democracy, in which civic engagement depends not only on access to information but on the capacity to interpret, interrogate, and act upon data. This datafication of democracy is reconfiguring participation in two key ways: first, participation increasingly occurs through processes of data production, as citizens generate data through everyday digital interactions, often passively and without explicit civic intent (Baack, 2015; Dencik and Kaun, 2020); and, civic processes are progressively mediated by algorithmic systems, shifting decision-making authority towards institutions that control data infrastructures and thereby intensifying concerns surrounding opacity, bias, and diminished democratic accountability (Hintz, 2024; Land and Wong, 2025). Participation is increasingly framed as a complex and multifaceted concept encompassing transparency, policy effectiveness, accountability, and democratic rights, particularly in relation to the inclusion and empowerment of marginalised groups. Yet this expansion also exposes significant structural tensions within datafied societies, where meaningful engagement is frequently contingent upon citizens’ levels of data and information literacy. In the absence of such literacies, participation risks becoming largely symbolic, as formal mechanisms for engagement may exist without enabling substantive influence over decisionmaking processes. This dynamic privileges technically proficient actors over those with critical insight but limited technical skills, as well as those lacking both capacities, thereby reproducing epistemic asymmetries in which open data and digital infrastructures remain practically inaccessible despite their formal availability (Johnson, 2014; Keller et al., 2017). These transformations introduce significant risks, as persistent inequalities in data literacy and technical expertise produce uneven participation and undermine inclusivity (Keller et al., 2017). Overreliance on data-driven decision-making is fostering technocratic governance, privileging expert knowledge and narrowing public deliberation (Gray, 2016), while expanding data infrastructures raise concerns about surveillance and behavioural control (Dencik and Kaun, 2020), and algorithmic systems further reproduce and amplify social inequalities (Hintz, 2024). Consequently, participation becomes symbolic, reinforcing existing hierarchies of knowledge and influence. At the core of these tensions lies a broader contradiction between democratic ideals and the assumptions embedded within datafied systems of participation. While governments increasingly advocate transparency, inclusivity, and accountability, such initiatives often presuppose high levels of digital, technical, and civic skills among citizens, framing participation less as a capability requiring sustained institutional support than as an individual right to be exercised autonomously, thus participatory initiatives risk functioning primarily as 1 mechanisms of procedural legitimacy that signal openness without meaningfully redistributing power or amplifying diverse voices. Access to the paper on https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/cfi-subm/2026/democracy-forum-6th/subm-6th-session-forum-aca-4-atenas-havermann-caldwell.pdf