This paper’s focus is on the innovations in the urban public political agenda that are due to the interplay between participatory digital platforms, the socio-economic paths of specific urban environments, and long-term policy orientations on the national and urban levels. The context of the 2020 presidential elections in Belarus and the resulting boom of participation in the local and national political agendas is taken here as a particular configuration of the mentioned interplay and its outcomes. The first part of the paper focuses on the role of digital platforms in the studied boom of participation in 2020, the second documents the urban policy developments in Belarus during the period of 2015–2020, and the third reflects on the compatibility of the Belarusian case with wider discussions on the political impact that the spread of digital platforms has on urbanism. It is argued that the repressive state, the gradual marketization of urban development and the accompanying strengthening of urban dwellers’ economic autonomy, and the proliferation of commercial digital platforms and civic tech are the factors that have defined the studied politicization and the boom of participation in Belarus. The examined case shows the contours of emerging politics in non-democracies under conditions of ubiquitous digitalization and the pressure on the state’s redistributive capacities.
REFERENCES(24)
1.
Afzalan, N., Muller, B. (2018). Online Participatory Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Enriching Participatory Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 84(2), 162–177.
Barns, S. (2019). Negotiating the Platform pivot: From Participatory Digital Ecosystems to Infrastructures of Everyday Life. Geography Compass, 13(2), 1–13.
Boland, Ph., Durrant, A., McHenry, J., McKay, S., Wilson, A. (2021). A ‘Planning Revolution’ or an ‘Attack on Planning’ in England: Digitization, Digitalization, and Democratization. International Planning Studies, 1–18.
Boyer, D. (2019). Infrastructure, Potential Energy, Revolution. In: N. Anand, H. Appel, A. Gupta (eds.), The Promise of Infrastructure (pp. 223–243). Duke University Press.
Huitema, D., Jordan, A., Munaretto, S., Hilden, M. (2018). Policy Experimentation: Core Concepts, Political Dynamics, Governance and Impacts. Policy Sciences, 51(2), 143–159.
Kananovich, V. (2022). #presidentspartingwords at a Critical Juncture: Reclaiming the Autonomous Subject in Social Media Discourse on Coronavirus in Belarus. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 46(3), 244–267.
Norkunaite, G., Kunkel, A. (2019). A Key to the Community’s Knowledge: Participatory Mapping Methodology in the Eastern European Context. Pieriekriostki [Перекрёстки], 32–55.
Raven, R., Sengers, F., Spaeth, Ph. Xie, L., Cheshmehzangi, A., de Jong, M. (2019). Urban Experimentation and Institutional Arrangements. European Planning Studies, 27(2), 258–281.
Repette, P., Sabatini-Marques, J., Yigitcanlar, T., Sell, D., Costa, E. (2021). The Evolution of City-as-a-Platform: Smart Urban Development Governance with Collective KnowledgeBased Platform Urbanism. Land, 10(33), 1–25.
Susskind, L., Cunningham, D., Cruxen, I.A. (2018). Teaching Participatory Action Research: The Search for Pedagogical Insights. In: J. Calder, J. Foletta (eds.), (Participatory) Action Research (pp. 125–150). Nova Science Publishers.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.