Assessing e-Participation: from readiness to implementation Nele Leosk

Assessing e-Participation: from readiness to implementation Nele Leosk Brussels, October 15 2013 e-Participation: ICT empowering citizens

1 3 2 4 Assessing readiness and initiatives “Myths” of e-participation Failures of assessments Areas of e-democracy Instead of a framework...

1 Areas of e-democracy

E-Participation - Government to Citizen (G2C) - Citizen to Government (C2G) Grassroot activism/social networking - Citizen to citizen (C2C) Political campaigning and communication i-Voting But also joint-ventures, involving all the actors

2 Myths of e-participation?

1. Inceasing direct involvement and participation 2. Improving the quality of opinion formation 3. Increasing the quality of political decisions 4. Diminishing the role of mass media 5. Increasing individual freedom Etc etc etc

3 Has it happened?

Michael Margolis (2005) “Nothing has changed” Most of the discourse supports that conclusion Why? Could we really say that there has been no impact?

4 Failure reasons of assessments

1. Short term assessments on a very long process. E.g., TOM, particip.gov.md 2. Case-study, not process-based, and out of context. Focus solely on “e” 3. Subject i.e., the impact that we want to assess is vague or missing. PS! Impact might be difficult to predict 4. Impact is not quantifiable/qualifiable 5. Wrong assumptions

4 Readiness i.e., the general context

1. Legal frameworks 2. Organisational/Administrative framework 3. Technological features 4. Capacity, skills

5 Concrete initiatives

1. Level and diffusion: information, consultation, decision making/empowerement 2. Participants (participation as political right) 3. Policy making cycle: from problem identification to assessment 4. Tools, channels i.e., outreach 5. Process 6. Outcomes

Thank you for your attention! nele.leosk@eui.eu

Assessing e-Participation: from readiness to implementation Nele Leosk