1 / 22

European e-Participation: Rationales and Policy Milestones

Explore the political motivations behind e-participation and its impact on policy making in the European Union. Learn about the evolving role of technology and multilingualism in facilitating citizen engagement.

georgeporter
Download Presentation

European e-Participation: Rationales and Policy Milestones

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. www.european-eparticipation.eu

  2. Background • Participation has become a highly political issue: • Why do governments want people to participate in policy making? • Is there pressure from below? • What do participants get out of it? • Governmentality: active citizenship normalised (system-oriented participation) • Culture governance: active citizenship depoliticised (actor-oriented participation) www.european-eparticipation.eu

  3. Participation rationales • mobilising knowledge resources for problem-solving www.european-eparticipation.eu

  4. Participation rationales • mobilising knowledge resources for problem-solving • relegitimising the polity through political debate www.european-eparticipation.eu

  5. Participation rationales • mobilising knowledge resources for problem-solving • relegitimising the polity through political debate • decoupling from ‘big’ politics – making space for autonomous collective action and alternative discourses www.european-eparticipation.eu

  6. Participation in the EU • Traditionally about problem-solving – outsourcing of knowledge-gathering capacities to civil society actors • Confined to ‘strong publics’ like expert groups and organised interests • Still expanding – from 600 EC expert groups in 1990 to 1200 in 2007 www.european-eparticipation.eu

  7. Participation in the EU • Recently driven by concerns over democratic legitimacy • European institutions address ‘issue publics’ and general public • Increasing use of ICT to facilitate participation of both types www.european-eparticipation.eu

  8. Policy milestones • 2001 White Paper on Governance: ‘networked, but not networked enough’ – Europa website made more interactive www.european-eparticipation.eu

  9. Policy milestones • 2001 White Paper on Governance: ‘networked, but not networked enough’ – Europa website made more interactive • 2002-03 Futurum discussion forum on European constitution invites posts in any EU language www.european-eparticipation.eu

  10. Policy milestones • 2001 White Paper on Governance: ‘networked, but not networked enough’ – Europa website made more interactive • 2002-03 Futurum discussion forum on European constitution invites posts in any EU language • 2005 Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate: ‘European public spaces’ and an online ‘European public sphere’ www.european-eparticipation.eu

  11. Policy milestones • 2001 White Paper on Governance: ‘networked, but not networked enough’ – Europa website made more interactive • 2002-03 Futurum discussion forum on European constitution invites posts in any EU language • 2005 Plan D for Democracy, Dialogue and Debate: ‘European public spaces’ and an online ‘European public sphere’ • 2008 Debate Europe: a Commission that ‘listens’ and ‘stages interventions’ in civic spaces, including the social web www.european-eparticipation.eu

  12. Case study • IPM tool – may be more open to unorganised interests and issue publics, especially when combined with online discussion www.european-eparticipation.eu

  13. Case study • IPM tool – may be more open to unorganised interests and issue publics, especially when combined with online discussion • Education & Culture DG – weak EC competences limit applicability of Community method, so participation may be more politicised www.european-eparticipation.eu

  14. Case study • IPM tool – may be more open to unorganised interests and issue publics, especially when combined with online discussion • Education & Culture DG – weak EC competences limit applicability of Community method, so participation may be more politicised • Multilingualism – prerequisite for participatory EU governance and active citizenship, enabler of European public sphere www.european-eparticipation.eu

  15. The multilingualism consultation • High level group 2006-07 • Group of intellectuals 2007-08 • Business forum 2007 • Online public consultation 2007 • Stakeholder hearing in Brussels 2008 • Have Your Say discussion forum 2007- • EC Communication on Multilingualism issued on 18th September 2008 www.european-eparticipation.eu

  16. The online consultation • High level of response, but skewed towards certain occupations, countries, languages • Very low visibility in the websphere • Questions and responses indicate mixture of participation rationales (problem-solving and relegitimising) • "Respondents commenting on their choices mainly reflected on possible ways for encouraging language learning" • "Most people think that the linguistic diversity of the EU is an asset to be safeguarded" www.european-eparticipation.eu

  17. The online discussion forum • Lively sustained multilingual debate • Low visibility in the websphere • Each thread started by Commissioner, who claims ‘suggestions and critical assessment’ informed policy formation • “The Multilingualism Forum should be a discussion forum for you - and not just an exchange between you and me." www.european-eparticipation.eu

  18. PHASE 1 (6-19 Feb 2008, 80 contributions) • Vertical discourse responding to Commissioner • Mobilisation of Esperanto community/lobby • Rational counter-argumentation • Factual corrections and technical arguments • Political claims and position statements • Problem definition and problem-solving www.european-eparticipation.eu

  19. PHASE 2 (20 Feb - mid-Sep 2008, 57 contributions) • Horizontal discourse in the shadow of a policy process • Increasing cynicism about EC openness and sincerity • Developing rationale of autonomy (decoupling) • Camaraderie and solidarity • Spontaneous translation of contributions • Forum claimed to embody linguistic democracy • “maybe it's better that your office is against Esperanto” www.european-eparticipation.eu

  20. PHASE 3 (mid-Sep 2008 - Aug 2009, 63 contributions) • Vertical discourse of narratives and petitions • Exhaustion of community • Demobilisation of Esperanto lobby • Brief mobilisation of regional language lobby • Lack of any reference to the policy process by either participants or moderator www.european-eparticipation.eu

  21. Communication on multilingualism • Claimed as ‘qualitative shift’ in policy • Actions purely facilitative or incentivising, reflecting limits on EC competences • Fails to incorporate policy contestation … • … but puts it in the public domain • Participation may have started to redefine a political problem (removing a taboo on the politics of language) www.european-eparticipation.eu

  22. Conclusions • Online multilingualism consultation created space for different participation rationales • Issue publics expressed cultural citizenship by decoupling discussion spaces from policymaking • Lack of attention by authorities to recoupling ... • ... but listening and supporting may be more appropriate than incorporating • Aim not to ‘sluice’ demands into policymaking ... • ... but to translate cultural into political citizenship www.european-eparticipation.eu

More Related