To which extent do e-participation policies deepen democracy?

That is to say : does it work? isnt it counterproductive?

Introduction :
crisis of representation
e-participation means the use of ICT for enabling and strengthening citizen
participation in democratic decision making processes ( Nshimbi, The impact of
inclusive e-government applications, in E-Governance, A Global Journey,
IOS PRESS, 2012, p. 13)
In this sense, e-participation embodies aspects of e-governement, egovernance and open government, as long as it involves more information
given to the citizen or new means of participation. When studying it, one
must also take into account its effects on more usual forms of political
participation (protests, political party membership, turnout, etc.)
IT APPEARS TO DO SO. A CLASSIC ARGUMENT
-implies more information available
-takes more into account the input of citizens
iceland, certain forms of governance => direct democracy (but rare)
BUT MOSTLY NOT
-there are different levels of participation (just consulted, at which stage of the
process, options already proposed, etc.)
1) Claims to bring closer the interests of the representatives and the represented,
which means that this gap still exists in some form
Does not change the representative form of democracy which implies a gap between
the representatives and the represented
-doenst change much to the fact that people elect representatives to decide for them
-doesnt change much to the phenomenon of election, which is intrinsically
aristocratic
2) And the gap is widening because it creates a hidden poll-tax
-digital divide : not every one has access to internet, not every one knows how to use

ICT=> the marginalized may even get more marginalized + may marginalize some
others (McCaffrey, Conor (2003). The Digital Divide in the EU: National Policies and
Access to ICTs in the Member States. Dublin, Oscail -National Distance Education
Centre, DCU. ) It is true that these barriers are diminishing, but they still exist
-who participates? overrepresentation of well-informed people => not as much
advertised as real life voting so not as much incentive to participate + wellinformed people are mostly the elite
-the experts opinion is sometimes valued => towards technocracy (the one who
know better, statistically the elite)
-sometimes allows for more information, but not necessarily good (only the well-read
can understand it)
3) doesnt induce more formal participation (Lee Komito, e-Participation and
Governance : widening the net, e-Journal of e-Government, Volume 3 Issue 1, July
2005, p. 40)
4) But as all of this cannot be grasped at first sight, it gives the impression of a
deeper democracy, which renders other forms of democratic control less likely
-however, all this gives the impression of a deeper democracy, gives the impression
that everybody participates=> more legitimacy => to some extent other forms of
pressure are less likely (protests for instance) : why protest against ourselves? =>
which weakens democracy