Philip Pettit, non-domination and e-contestability for a contesting digital democracy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29105/rcp.v8i1.87Keywords:
digital democracy would contest, monitoring-contestant citizenship, liberated as in domination, e-disputability, artificial intelligence, republican democracyAbstract
The objective is to analyze Philip Pettit’s republican democratic proposal and its relevance for the public sector in democratic countries, using as core axes e-disputability and its components—deliberation and contestability—, freedom as non-domination, shared evaluations, and the preservation of the common good in digital environments shaped by artificial intelligence (AI), specifically e‑government. The analysis draws on Pettit’s democratic framework and its categories, Fernández‑Tapia’s notion of e‑disputability, and the literature on digital government. The findings show that, within Pettit’s democratic framework, guaranteeing freedom not only as non‑interference but as non‑domination, ensuring deliberation or public dispute based on public reasons and citizens’ shared evaluations, and orienting action toward the common good require combining representation with citizen control of governments, as well as transparency and observability. These elements strengthen respect for the law and e‑disputability, which is indispensable in digital environments. The conclusion is that only an e‑democracy and e‑government that enhance these conditions –provided that legal and institutional safeguards exist against arbitrary interferences affecting privacy and freedom– can produce e-disputability. At the same time, conditions are outlined for a digital, monitorial‑contestatory citizenship capable of making non‑domination and the common good effective within a contestatory democracy.
Downloads
References
Aler, A., Theodorou, A., Dignum, V. & Michael, L. (2020). Contestable Black Boxes. En V. Gutiérrez-Basulto, T. Klierg, A. Soylu, M. Giese, & D. Roman (Eds.), Rules, and Reasoning. Rule ML-RR 2020. Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 159–167). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57977-7_12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57977-7_12
Almada, M. (2019). Human Intervention in Automated Decision-making: Toward the Construction of Contestable. En Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 2–11). https://dx.doi. org/10.2139/ssrn.3264189 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3322640.3326699
Amershi, S., Cakmak, M., Knox, W. B., & Kulesza, T. (2014). Power to the people: the role of humans in interactive machine learning. Al Magazine, 35(4), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513
Association for Computing Machinery [ACM] (2017, 12 de enero). Statement on Algorithmic Transparency and Accountability. ACM US Public Policy Council. https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/public-poli-cy/2017_usacm_statement_algorithms.pdf
Aytac, U. (2024). Digital domination: Social Media and Contestatory Democracy. Political Studies, 72(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217221096564 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217221096564
Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2020). Administration by algorithm: A risk management framework. Information Policy, 25(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200249 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200249
Bellamy, C. (2000). Modelling electronic democracy: Towards democratic discourses for an information age. En J. Hoff, I. Horrocks, & P. Tops (Eds.), Democratic governance and new technology (pp. 34–55). Routledge. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/35407/1/27.pdf.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203449738_chapter_2
Binns, R. (2018). Algorithmic accountability and Public Reason. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 543–556. https:// doi.org/ 10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5
Cruz, A. (2019). Republicanismo y democracia liberal. OMEGALFA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvtxw1wh.13
Deuze, M. (2008). The changing context of news work: liquid journalism and monitorial citizenships. International Journal of Communication, 2, 848–865. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/290/197
Diab, F. (2020). Tensiones entre libertad y democracia en el pensamiento de Philip Pettit. Andamios, Revista de Investigación Social, 17(42), 285–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.29092/uacm.v17i42.744 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29092/uacm.v17i42.744
European Commission. (2018, 22 de agosto). Guidelines on Automated individual decision-making and Profiling for the purposes of Regulation 2016/679 (wp251rev.01). Related Article29. https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/ article29/item-detail.cfm?item_id=612053
Fernández-Tapia, J. (2021). La ciudadanía transnacional digital: un concepto y práctica en construcción. Lumina, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.30554/lumina.v22.n2.3588.2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.30554/lumina.v22.n2.3588.2021
Fernández-Tapia, J. (2024). La democracia de Pettit: No dominación, participación y e-Disputabilidad [Documento de trabajo]. Universidad de la Sierra Sur.
García, I. J., & Mauro, E. R. (2008). Transparency in citizen-centric services. A Traceability-based Approach on the Semantic Web. En J. Cordeiro & J. Filipe (Eds.), Proccedings of the Tenth International Conference on Eterprise Information Systems (Vol. 5), (pp. 184–189). https://doi.org/10.5220/0001720601840189 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5220/0001720601840189
Giest, S., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2020). Introduction to special issue algorithmic transparency in government: Towards a multi-level perspective. Information Polity, 25(4), 409–417. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-20001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-200010
Graeff, E. (2019). Monitorial citizenship. En R. Hobbs & P. Mihailidis, P. (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy Education (pp. 1–12). Wiley-Blackwell. https://sci-hub.mx/10.1002/9781118978238.ieml0169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118978238.ieml0169
Grimmelikhuijsen, S., & Meijer, A. (2022). Legitimacy of algorithmic decision-making: Six threats and the need for a calibrated institutional response. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 5(3), 232–242. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvac008
Harto de Vera, F. (2006). Tipologías y modelos de democracia electrónica. IDP. Revista de Internet, Derecho y Política, (2), 32–44. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=78800208 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7238/idp.v0i2.385
Hirsch, T., Merced, K., Narayanan, S., Imel, Z. E., & Atkins, D. C. (2017). Designing contestability: interaction design, machine learning, and mental health. En DIS ‘17: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 95–99). https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064703 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064703
Hoye, J. M., & Monaghan, J. (2018). Surveillance, freedom and the republic. European Journal of Political Theory, 17(3), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1177/147488511560878 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885115608783
Ibrahimy, M. M., Norta, A., Normak, P., & Nowandish, H. (2025). Transforming e-participatory bungeting with blochain: boosting transparency and citizen engagement. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 72, 1376–1403. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2025.3556191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2025.3556191
Isin, E., & Rupert, E. (2025). Being Digital Citizens. [2a. Edición]. Rowman y Littlefield International.
Jiménez-Sánchez, M. (2024). La ciudadanía contestaria. Normalización de la protesta popular en tiempos de crisis y transformación política. En M. Romero-Delgado, E. Castillo Patton, & G. Betancor Nuez (Eds.), Movimientos sociales en transformación. Protesta y movilización social en España (2000-2022) (pp. 69–91). Marcial Pons. https://hdl.handle.net/10433/20466
Jlil, M., Jouti, K., Boumhidi, J., & Loqman, C. (2025). Improving traceability in e-governance file-sharing systems: the Moroccan justice systems as a uses case. International Journal on Information Security, 24(9). https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10207-024-00919-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-024-00919-8
Kaminski, M. E. (2019). Binary governance: lessons from the gdpr’s approach to algorithmic accountability. Southern California Law Review, (92), 1529–1616. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/faculty-articles/1265 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3351404
Lazcoz, G., & de Hert, P. (2023). Humans in the GDPR and AIA governance of automated and algorithmic systems: Essential pre-requisites against abdicating responsibilities. Computer Law & Security Review, 50, 105833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105833 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105833
Leerssen, P. (2023). Seeing what others are seeing: Studies in the regulation of transparency for social media recommender systems [Tesis doctoral, University of Amsterdam]. UvA-DARE. https://core.ac.uk/download/560939818.pdf
Lyons, H., Velloso, E. & Miller, T. (2021). Conceptualising contestability: perspectives on contesting algorithmic decisions. En J. Nichols (Ed.), Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 5), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449180 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3449180
Malgieri, G. & Comandé, G. (2017). Why right to legibility of automated decision-making exists in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7 (4), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ ipx019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx019
Malgieri, G. (2019). Automated decision-making in the EU member states: the right to explanation and other “suitable safeguards” in the national legislations. Computer Law & Security Review, 35(5), 105327. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.05.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2019.05.002
Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, A. (2020). Responsive and accountable algorithmization: how to generate citizen trust in governmental usage of algorithms. En M. Schuilenburg, M. & M. Peeters (Eds.) The Algorithmic society: technology, power and knowledge (pp. 53–66). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429261404-5
Ministerio de Juventud e infancia de España. (2025, 3 de noviembre). Hacia una estrategia de entornos digitales seguros para la infancia y la juventud. https://juventudeinfancia.gob.es/sites/default/files/consultapub/Audiencia Pública EDS.pdf
Mink, K. R. (2020). The disciplinary power of algorithms: Domination, agency, and resistance [Tesis de Maestría, Utrecht University]. Utrecht University Repository. https://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/36528
Morales, V. S. (2024, 3 de noviembre). Las aplicaciones de la inteligencia artificial en la digitalización de la gestión pública. Documento de trabajo. Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión. CEDIP. https://portal-hcd.diputados.gob.mx/PortalWeb/Micrositios/5088e699-0b6a-4064-9929-ea4ce87b56ae.pdf
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal. R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: the internet, society, and participation. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7428.001.0001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7428.001.0001
Natal, A., Benitez, M., & Ortiz, G. (Coords.). (2014). Ciudadanía digital. UAM/Juan Pablos Editor.
O’Shea, T. (2015). Disability and domination: lessons from republican political philosophy. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 35(1), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12149 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12149
Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo (OCDE). (2025, 18 de septiembre). Governing with Artificial Intelligence. The state of play and way forward in core government functions. OCDE. https://www.oecd.org/ en/publications/governing-with-artificial-intelligence_795de142-en.html
Papaevangelou, C., & Votta, F. (2025). Trading nuance for scale? Platform observability and content governance under the DSA. Internet Policy Review, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.14763/2025.3.2037 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2025.3.2037
Pérez, C. C. (2019). Ciudadanía contestaria en Cuba: un examen desde la comunicación pública. En M. Sánchez (Coord.), Diversidad y desarrollo social (pp. 14–20). Pearson.
Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: a theory of freedom and government. Oxford University Press.
Pettit, P. (1999). Republicanismo: Una teoría sobre la libertad y el gobierno. Paidós.
Pettit, P. (2004a). La libertad republicana y su trascendencia constitucional. En M. J. Bertomeu, A. Domènech, & A. de Francisco (Comps.), Republicanismo y democracia (pp. 41–68). Miño y Dávila.
Pettit, P. (2004b). Depoliticizing Democracy. Ratio Juris, 17(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952- 1917.2004.00254.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0952-1917.2004.00254.x
Pettit, P. (2005). Democracia y evaluaciones compartidas. Isonomía, (23), 5–65. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo. php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-02182005000200003.
Pettit, P. (2006). Una teoría de la libertad. De la psicología a la acción política. Editorial Losada.
Pettit, P. (2014). Just freedom: a moral compass for a complex world. Norton & Company.
Pettit, P. (2022). Despoliticizing democracy. Politikos: Journal of Social and Political Philosophy, 1(1), 28–40. https:// politikos.org/ojs/index.php/content/article/view/8
Prakosos, R. D. Y., & Suherlan. (2025). The role of civic engagement and e-government in enhancing accountability and transparency in metropolitan city management. Journal of Contemporary Administration and Management, 3(2) 668–676. https://doi.org/10.61100/adman.v3i2.284 DOI: https://doi.org/10.61100/adman.v3i2.284
Princeton University. (s.f). Philip Pettit. https://ppettit.scholar.princeton.edu/.
Rieder, B., & Hofmann, J. (2020). Towards platform observability. Internet Policy Review, 9(4). https://doi. org/10.14763/2020.4.1535 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14763/2020.4.1535
Ruibal, A. M. (2009). El neo-republicanismo y sus implicancias para las instituciones legales y políticas. Isonomía. Revista de Teoría y Filosofía del Derecho, (30), 81–100. https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i30.247 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5347/isonomia.v0i30.247
Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen. A history of American civil life. Harvard University Press.
Siim, B., & Squires, J. (2007). Contesting citizenship: comparative analyses. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10(4), 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230701660147 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230701660147
Subirats, J. (2002). Los dilemas de una relación inevitable. Innovación democrática y tecnologías de la información y la comunicación. En H. Cairo (Comp.), Democracia digital. Límites y oportunidades (pp. 89–114). Editorial Trota.
Tang, T., & Mehrmann, A. (2025, 18 de agosto). ML sbservaility: bring transparency to payments and beyond [blog post]. Netflix Technology Blog. https://netflixtechblog.com/ml-observability-bring-transparency-to-payments-and-beyond-33073e260a38
Ustun, B., Spangler, A., & Liu, Y. (2019). Actionable recourse in linear classification. En FAT* ‘19: Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 10–19). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287566 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287566
Vaccaro K., Karahalios K., Mulligan D. K., Kluttz D., & Hirsch, T. (2019). Contestability in Algorithmic Systems. En CSCW ‘19 Companion: Companion Publication of the 2019 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (pp. 523–527). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi. org/10.1145/3311957.3359435 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3311957.3359435
Van den Hoven, J. (2005). E-democracy, E-Contestation and the Monitorial Citizen. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-4581-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-005-4581-4
Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2000). Models of democracy and concepts of communication. En K. L. Hacker & J. Van Dijk (Eds.), Digital Democracy (pp. 31–53). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218891.n3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218891.n3
Van Noordt, C., & Misuraca, G. (2022). Artificial intelligence for the public sector: results of landscaping the use of AI in government across the European Union. Publications Office of the European Union. https://data.europa. eu/doi/10.2760/91814 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101714
Vatter, M. (2010). Republicanismo y teoría del gobierno. Philip Pettit entrevistado por Miguel Vatter. Revista Pléyade, (4), 275–282. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/3154702.pdf
Venkatasubramanian, S. & Alfano, M. (2020). The philosophical basis of algorithmic recourse. En FAT* ‘20: Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 284–293). Association for Computing Machiner. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372876 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372876
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a Right to Explanation of Automated Decision-Making does Not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99. https:// doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
Zhong, J. (2024, 30 de junio). Explainability, interpretability and observability in machine learning. Towards Data Science. https://towardsdatascience.com/explainability-interpretability-and-observability-in-machine-learning-515a2ac8234a
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Joselito Fernández Tapia, Edú Ortega-Ibarra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Los derechos del trabajo pertenecen al autor o autores. Sin embargo, al enviarlo para su publicación en la Revista de Comunicación Política de la Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, el autor o autores otorgan el derecho a dicha institución para su publicación en medio electrónico.
La licencia que se utiliza es la de atribución de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que se mencione la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación que es en la Revista de Comunicación Política.
Asimismo, el o los autores tendrán en cuenta que no estará permitido enviar la publicación a ninguna otra revista, sin importar el formato. Los autores estarán en posibilidad de realizar otros acuerdos contractuales independientes y adicionales para la distribución no exclusiva de la versión del artículo (p. ej., repositorio institucional o publicación en un libro) siempre que indiquen claramente que el trabajo se publicó por primera vez en la Revista de Comunicación Política de la Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.
