Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools and data-driven technologies have improved efficiency in various sectors, including tax collection, e-government, agriculture, security, healthcare, and transport. In August, the International Policy Advice and Coordination Community of Practice conducted a webinar on how digital innovations have improved policymaking for peer learning and the mutual benefit of members.
Dr Gray Manicom of the Policy Innovation Lab discussed digital innovations for evidence-informed policymaking in South Africa. He highlighted the Lab’s AI tools for policymakers: the policy and media brief generator, policy summarisation and comparison tools, Treaty chat, and the Identifying Policy Barriers to Investment Tool (IBiT). He demonstrated that the Lab’s Catalogue of AI tools, based on the European Union Public Sector Tech Watch database, shows AI tools being implemented for agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, implementation, and monitoring, thereby strengthening policymaking at all stages of the policy cycle. He emphasised that for digital tools to be effective, they require high-quality data, well-defined use cases, close engagement with policymakers to understand the problem, and responsible digital systems design. Dr Manicom cautioned that digital tools used for public policymaking must be managed ethically and legally.
Dr Eluid Moyi, from Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research and Analysis (KIPPRA), shared experiences from Kenya on strengthening public participation in policymaking through digital technologies. He emphasized the need for national legislation to enable citizens to participate on online platforms.  Kenya’s national Constitution and the County Governments Act explicitly provide for Information and Communications Technology-enabled participation alongside in-person mechanisms. Dr Moyi showed that digital participation can support different stages of the policy cycle. He illustrated how WhatsApp was increasingly being used in several counties to communicate budget information, mobilise citizens and engage with local governance issues, showing that low-cost technologies can be effective when they are connected to actual decision-making processes.
He highlighted several limitations of online public participation, which include digital exclusion, digital literacy gaps, language barriers, poor communication, trust concerns and the lack of transparency in how citizens’ input is used by the government. Dr Moyi cautioned that digital participation should complement, rather than replace, face-to-face engagement and the government must be accountable for how citizens’ input was used. He concluded that digital tools could widen participation and make public engagement more continuous and transparent, but the tools must be embedded within legal, institutional and accountability arrangements while continuing to complement face-to-face participation.
Dr Odilile Ayodele from the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) shared lessons from the e-participation policy modelling platform in South Africa, drawing on action-research pilots conducted in eight municipalities.   In phases one and two of the pilots, they used different modes to collect information from citizens: a WhatsApp bot in English and isiZulu, a dashboard of community priorities and a dashboard built as infographics with a web form attached, QR codes, a short link, and USSD. Different municipalities preferred different modes of engagement.
The pilot showed that effective digital participation depends on institutional design, inclusion and accountability, not the complexity of the technology.  The most useful digital tools are those that fit local realities, complement face-to-face engagement, preserve human accountability and create a visible trail showing citizens how their contributions were considered and used. Dr Ayodele emphasised the importance of language, simplicity and affordability. Digital tools should accommodate local languages, be easy to use and be adapted to local circumstances.
Dr Ayodele showed how digital tools can improve participation in local government decision-making; however, technology alone does not resolve deeper institutional and governance constraints.  Fo effective digital participation, she recommended that first, the government should establish clear traceability mechanisms showing how public input is collected, analysed and reflected in planning decisions. Second, digital tools should be selected according to communication practices and access conditions rather than technical complexity. Third, AI procurement and platform architecture should remain open and transparent, with citizens able to understand how systems that categorise their input operate.
“The webinar highlighted how context-appropriate digital tools can strengthen evidence-informed policymaking, public participation and accountability when supported by strong institutions, inclusive design and responsible governance,” said Dr Itai Makone, who leads the International Policy Advice and Coordination Community of Practice.