Plenary 2: The impact of online publishing on e-democracy

1. Plenary 2: The impact of online publishing on e-democracy

2. “The revolution will not be televised” - and it won’t be online either: e-democracy, e-governmentality and an idea of democratic sufficiency John Morison Queen’s University Belfast

4. The facebook / twitter revolution?

5. real democracy in action?

6. Kony 2012 – Invisible Children http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4MnpzG5Sqc • 96,786,498 views • 1,394,612 • “slacktivism”?

7. Citizen democracy / wisdom of the crowd? • 100,000 signatures = 0.02% of population

8. Internationalising, progressive and democratic? or sectional, irrelevant, biased ?

9. No. 10 dashboard ipad app A data visualisation dashboard. App (webpage) showing real time government data – public services, economic trends GDP, bank lending, feed from FTSE index etc Data from media sources integrated data from facebook and twitter showing public opinion trends

10. Vision for e-government?

11. Why does e-democracy appeal? to people? to governments? to others? Power of Big Data • Web 2.0 • Qualitatively new levels of data • crowd sourcing • wiki government • P2P “cognitive surplus” • processing of data Access • participation on participants’ terms • young (and older ) people • “cheap” • transparency • Open source etc Money and Marketing - Data as a commodity

12. What are governments actually doing with e-democracy?

13. Recommendation CM/Rec ( 2009) 1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on electronic democracy (e-democracy)(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 February 2009 at the 1049th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) • Aware of the public-service value of the Internet, namely, people’s reliance on the Internet as an essential tool for their everyday activities, and the resulting legitimate expectation that Internet services will be accessible and affordable, secure, reliable and ongoing; • consider and implement e-democracy as the support and enhancement of democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes by means of ICT, and linked to the engagement and re-engagement of citizens in democracy; • promotes, ensures and enhances transparency, accountability, responsiveness, engagement, deliberation, inclusiveness, accessibility, participation, subsidiarity and social cohesion;

14. Some promise put into action

15. e-democracy in the UKWhat is being done here? Democratic innovations Central Government – citizen / consumer Local Government – citizen / community Grassroots – citizen / activist Four themes...

16. Themes in government 1 (e-voting and) e-petitions

17. Value of e-voting, e-petitions?

18. Themes in government 2 “Community“ plans and visions Sustainable Communities Act 2007 (+ Regs.2012) Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 e-participatory budgeting

19. Construction of “communities” as units of governance Link to modernisation agenda generally for service delivery The Big Society agenda

20. Themes in Government 3 Sharpening up marketised service delivery mechanisms - models from commerce, customer satisfaction surveys etc - self-assessment and choice agenda – development of citizen / consumer

21. Themes in Government 4 Direct engagement on policy-making – consultation on legislation - equality duties, impact assessments Development of new, engaged democratic citizen

22. Government Consultations A new way of doing government – citizen interaction?

23. .pdfs and downloads – and a form!

24. Can we do any better?

25. Web technology available but not democratic technology

26. Towards an idea of Democratic sufficiency?

27. Technologies of Democracy: Modelling democratic decision-making

28. Need to parse the democratic elements involved in consultation and participation

29. Wider ideas of democracy and decision-making Distinctions between: • Traditional, incumbent democracy • Radical, transformative democracy “democracy is a struggle over power, and as such, it provides an entirely different experience for those who hold power and those who do not”

30. Traditional, incumbent democracy Aggregative Procedural Top-down Formal and electoral Justificatory and legitimising “thin” Frameworks

31. Integrative, Direct, Bottom-up, Informal and substantive Challenging and empowering “thick” process Radical, transformative democracy

32. What is consultation for?How does it fit with these ideas of democracy? Expertise, balance, alternatives, unintended consequences, quality check on administration, efficiency etc. etc . Or active citizenship where civil masters can control the policies and activities of civil servants (functionaries) and uncivil servants (politicians).

33. Are there any existing principles? UK Government internal guidelines (July 2012) 3pp. • expertise, alternatives and identifying unintended consequences • Timing – 12 weeks • Who and how – what stakeholders, which medium • Transparency and feedback • Practical and legal considerations “Unimpressive”

34. OECD Good Practice Guide Makes basic distinction between: • Notification - One way - Passive role of consultee - Prior to consultation • Consultation - Two way - One stage or continuing dialogue - Information gathering • Participation - Active involvement - facilitate, improve, - compliance and support, “ownership”

35. Consultation – as articulated by the courts • “Sedley Principles” in R v. Brent London Borough Council, ex parte Gunning (1985) 84 LGR 168 (- as approved by the C of A in R v. North and East Devon Health Authority, ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213) ) (i) consultation must take place when the proposal is still at a formative stage; (ii) sufficient reasons must be put forward for the proposal to allow for intelligent consideration and response; (iii) adequate time must be given for consideration and response; and (iv) the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account.

36. 1. Notice and Comment US Admin procedure Act 1946, on the record and justicable Early warning devices e.g. www.sd.qld.gov.au/qldregulations 2. Public Hearings and e-hearings - On the record and judicially reviewable 3. Advisory bodies NL formal separation of advice and - - consultation and formal input via - Industrial Organisation Act 1950 4. Transparency requirements http://www.itdashboard.gov Release of government data https://www.gov.uk/data-strategy-board 5. Minimum consensus requirements - IM Young example Legal toolkit of good practice

38. Summary

39. 1. Potential of e-democracy is easily overstated interaction + user input + information + participation ≠ democracy

40. 2. Not a neutral technologyThe “consulted” citizen / consumer / community “participatory de-politicisation”

41. 3. Technology of democracy needs to catch up with ICT Too important to leave to governments