There are many digital tools today. However, city halls often acquire digital tools that they often do not have sufficient capacity to manage and use or utilize their outputs. They often raise public expectations by asking citizens for their opinions in some way. However, they do not develop a dialogue with citizens any further. It is not clear how their opinions were dealt with, how the implementation of the consulted projects is progressing, and no real dialogue is taking place.
In the context of medium-sized and smaller Czech cities and municipalities, a comprehensive and complex tool is not the key to the solution. Our experience shows that a subtle solution combining traditional and digital participation is the way to go. The digital tools themselves must be targeted as precisely as possible to current problems and topics of public life. In addition, they should focus not only on collecting ideas and consulting with citizens, but also on how these ideas were dealt with and on informing about the implementation process. Only in this way will citizens’ expectations be met and there is a chance that they will continue to be involved in the life of the municipality.
In the case of the zero option, it can be expected that the number of municipalities and cities that enter into dialogue with citizens will decrease. The number of places where citizens and city halls will move away from each other will increase and trust in society will continue to decline. It will be more common for municipalities and cities to raise citizens’ expectations with campaigns at the beginning of a planned project, but then disappoint citizens by not taking their comments into account or not letting people know how the project is progressing. It can also be expected that more city halls, without our support, will use participation tools for one-sided communication, or for their own PR and one-sided influence on citizens.
