By Hayriye Ataş
Hayriye Ataş is the founder and president of CIVILAB (Civil Participation Studies Association), a Türkiye-based civil society organization working on civic participation, active citizenship, and democratic engagement. She currently leads the Digital Spark project, “Designing Inclusive Digital Participation: A Toolkit for Women and Youth.”
“People are tired of being consulted but not heard.”: This comment came during a workshop with local civil society organizations in Ordu, a city on Türkiye’s Black Sea coast. CIVILAB had gathered representatives of associations, initiatives, and community groups to discuss civic participation at the local level. While the conversation touched on many issues, from limited resources to organizational sustainability, that sentence stayed with me long after the meeting ended.
A few days later, in Gaziantep, another participant offered a different perspective on a similar challenge:
“We have social media accounts, but we do not have participation tools.”
Although these conversations took place hundreds of kilometers apart, both comments pointed to the same reality. Across Türkiye, visibility is often easier than participation, and participation is often easier than influence.
These conversations also helped shape the direction of CIVILAB’s Digital Spark project, “Designing Inclusive Digital Participation: A Toolkit for Women and Youth.” Implemented in Türkiye, the project aims to help women, young people, and grassroots organizations move beyond awareness-raising and build more effective forms of civic participation through practical digital tools and resources.
When visibility is not enough
Over the past few months, I have met civic actors in different regions of Türkiye. Most recently, I facilitated discussions in Ordu, Gaziantep, and Mersin, three cities with distinct local dynamics but surprisingly similar concerns about how citizens engage with public life.
In each city, participants spoke about the importance of participation. They wanted citizens to contribute ideas, identify local priorities, and take part in shaping decisions that affect their communities. Yet many also described how difficult it can be to sustain engagement beyond a specific project, campaign, or event.
In Ordu, participants reflected on how quickly public attention can disappear once an initiative ends. In Gaziantep, discussions repeatedly returned to the need for stronger collaboration between civil society organizations, municipalities, universities, and the private sector. In Mersin, participants emphasized the importance of ensuring that women, young people, and different community groups have accessible opportunities to contribute to local discussions and decision-making processes.
Despite these differences, a common concern emerged. The issue was not a lack of interest in engaging. The issue was the absence of practical mechanisms that help people participate in meaningful and consistent ways.
Today, digital platforms play an increasingly important role in civic life. Civil society organizations use social media to communicate with communities, mobilize supporters, raise awareness, and respond quickly to emerging issues. Digitalization accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic has only strengthened this trend.
But communication and participation are not the same thing. A social media post may reach thousands of people, but it does not necessarily create dialogue. An online campaign may attract attention, but it does not automatically help communities identify priorities, collect feedback, monitor public decisions, or collaborate on solutions. Throughout our discussions, organizations were not asking for more visibility. They were asking for better ways to turn visibility into action.
Designing participation, not just communication
This challenge is particularly relevant for women and young people, who are often among the most active participants in local civic movements. Across different communities, they lead volunteer efforts, advocate for social change, organize local campaigns, and create innovative responses to local problems. At the same time, they frequently encounter barriers related to representation, resources, networks, and access to decision-making spaces.
Digital technologies can help reduce some of these barriers. But technology alone is rarely enough. Effective participation requires practical methods, accessible resources, and opportunities for people to engage beyond simply expressing opinions online.
This understanding became the foundation of CIVILAB’s Digital Spark project. The idea emerged from a simple question: What if local organizations had access not only to communication channels but also to practical resources that could help them organize participation more effectively?
Rather than creating another platform competing for attention, our project combines three elements: the development of an open-access Digital Participation Toolkit, pilot training activities for women and young civic actors, and the creation of practical resources that can be adapted by grassroots organizations across Türkiye. Together, these components will make participation processes more accessible, structured, and sustainable.
Accessibility is central to this approach. Many existing civic technology resources are designed for large organizations or technical experts. Smaller grassroots groups often lack the time, budget, or capacity to adapt them to local realities. Our aim is to create tools that are practical and accessible for organizations working with limited resources.
Listening before designing
One of the most valuable parts of the project has been our process of listening before designing.
Rather than starting with assumptions, we began by engaging local civic actors and discussing the challenges they face in their daily work. The conversations in Ordu, Gaziantep, and Mersin helped us identify common needs and priorities that are now informing the development of the toolkit. The project also includes a pilot training program involving women and young civic actors from different parts of Türkiye. Participants are not simply learning how to use the toolkit; they are actively helping shape it through testing, feedback, and practical application.
This collaborative approach reflects a broader lesson from the conversations we held throughout the project.
Participation cannot be designed from above. Communities themselves must be involved in shaping the tools, methods, and processes intended to support them.
Looking ahead
The project is still ongoing, but we expect the toolkit to support civic actors long after the grant period ends. By making practical resources freely accessible, we hope to strengthen the capacity of women, young people, and grassroots organizations to organize participation processes, engage communities, and contribute more effectively to local decision-making.
At a broader level, these local conversations connect to a global discussion about the future of democracy and civic engagement. Around the world, citizens increasingly interact with public institutions online, organize collective action through digital platforms, and access information through social networks. At the same time, concerns about misinformation, polarization, and declining trust continue to grow.
In this context, strengthening digital participation requires more than technological innovation. It requires approaches that prioritize inclusion, transparency, accessibility, and community ownership.
For civil society organizations, digital participation should not simply mean being present online. It should mean creating opportunities for people to contribute to public life, influence decisions, and collaborate on solutions that affect their communities.
The future of civic participation will undoubtedly be shaped by digital technologies. The question is whether those technologies will help people participate more effectively or simply give them more places to speak without being heard.
