1 / 16

STOA Workshop

STOA Workshop Can political communication via the Internet and e-participation contribute to the emergence of a European public sphere European Parliament, Brussels, 26 May 2011 Moving towards a European public sphere Jeremy Millard Danish Technological Institute.

lizina
Download Presentation

STOA Workshop

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. STOA Workshop • Can political communication via the Internet and e-participation contribute to the emergence of a European public sphere • European Parliament, Brussels, 26 May 2011 • Moving towards a • European public sphere • Jeremy Millard • Danish Technological Institute

  2. A European public sphere supported by e-participation ? • Health warning • A European public sphere is NOT likely to be as important as national or local public spheres in foreseeable future, if ever • ….as in politics generally, be realistic but also ambitious • But some progress has been made and more can be done • PURPOSE….why is a European public sphere important, does it matter ?

  3. Two main contradictory (?) trends Decline in (formal) political engagement – turnout, membership of political parties, loss of trust, apathy… Increase in single issue (mainly) grassroots engagement in ‘politics’ – more outlets, more skills, more opportunities, more channels, especially ICT and social media (Web 2.0), web generation emerging So politics is changing….Question (but not for here!): should our democratic structures and processes change to reflect this; are they changing anyway ? Imagine 1968 with Facebook and Twitter Arab ‘Spring’ Spain European ‘Spring’…? Not just Web 2.0 also Web 3.0 (semantic participation, mass collaboration, policy modelling, etc.)

  4. Level of eParticipation initiatives in Europe 2009 Cases = 258 N = 258

  5. Types of eParticipation initiatives in Europe 2009 Cases = 258 N = 428

  6. Fundingsource of eParticipation initiatives in Europe 2009 Cases = 258 N = 118

  7. The challenge • At the project level, we know how to run eParticipation (technically, organisationally, etc.) • But: how do wemarry the (out-of-control) groupsformingfreely and easily with the (necessary) institutions ? • How to link bottom-up with top-down ? • How to alignrandom, anarchic, inward-looking, local, nimby-driven, single issue, polarised engagement with the clear frameworks, standards and rulesneeded for accountable and representativedemocracy at European level ?

  8. Maximising the potential for a European public sphere • European eParticipation Workshop 16 May 2008 • “The desire for, and practice of, engagement and participation is certainly not dead, but it’s nature has changed in terms of issues, channels, mechanisms, expectations…” • Single issue politics • Multiple channel • Motivation and incentives • Trust and accountability

  9. Success criteria • “Let’s do eParticipation” is not a policy – be clear why it’s done • Must be engaging and open • Use words people understand (e.g. not “eParticipation”, perhaps “Talk to us”) • Let people express their frustration and anger • Provide feedback – no ‘blackholes’ • Make clear from start how inputs will be used • Engage citizens as early as possible • When appropriate use neutral mediation • Evaluate and measure

  10. Recommendations • Establish a cross institutional coordinated “Service for Public Engagement” • Citizens are not interested in institutions and mechanisms but are in some policy issues • Provide one-stop-shop, single-access-point approach • Common standards, codes of conduct, charters, guidelines, decision-aids • Develop good practice guidelines • Must have real power to help coordinate strategies, share good practice, build expertise, etc. (NOT a PR department) • Operate effective external awareness raising and communications • Build on existing initiatives like Commission’s minimum standards for consultation • Part of a broad ‘Open Europe’ policy • Establish a European Centre of Excellence for eEngagement and eParticipation – also as a hub of existing expertise – export potential

  11. Recommendations • Help establish or support an independent, neutral trusted third party service for eParticipation • …..not controlled by the European institutions – counterpart to “service for public engagement” • Act as ”champion”, ”watchdog” for European citizens participating at European level • Act as ”ombudsman” vis à vis European institutions • Agree and publish a citizen charter of rights and responsibilities, and open to comment and amendment by citizens • Identify and implement a framework of motivation and incentives • Monitor and report to citizens on risks of eParticipation • Provide passive and pro-active moderation services, and help frame debates in a neutral manner • Monitor and uphold citizens’ data protection rights • Guard against the mis-use of data by EU institutions

  12. Recommendations • Cooperate with other public, private and civil actors to support the European public space • Cannot create a European public space in isolation from other actors and activities • Civil sector, media, private sector, other institutions and public sector • Go to where citizens already are, including social networking sites • Ensure linkage to local, regional and national levels

  13. Recommendations • Open data and resources • Transparency and availability of EPSI (European PSI) should be default position • Provide EPSI in easy-to-use, machine readable formats, structured and linked • Fully respect existing rights and identities • Establish a web-platform for collaboration • Run ‘innovation camps’ and competitions to develop European level apps, widgets, services, games, etc., open to all • ‘Euro-politics-game’ platform for use in schools and universities as part of curriculum or special projects – e.g. what happens when Schengen members close their borders, EU budget, Libya, Euro, etc.

  14. Recommendations • Listen to and exploit the buzz • Need to listen to everyday needs of citizens, where they live • Look for common and European relevant issues and AGGREGATE UP • Look to see how these aggregations can be DISAGGREGATED down to specific interests, localities, sectors • Use automatic internet crawlers, etc. • Limit this to the existing public space – respect privacy • Build on existing initiatives like newspaper monitoring by EP, and EC’s proposed system to monitor internet debate

  15. Recommendations • Build citizen participation from the bottom • Most citizens interested in single local and immediate issues • Some also interested in wider European issues like climate, migration, etc. • Show how local debates link to European relevance and debate, providing hooks to link them together and build • Show how many ‘local’ issues are the same across Europe, and help to link them together • Encourage natural process of widening the debate from single issues to multiple issues where trade-offs are needed

  16. Recommendations • Empower EU civil servants • Follow the lead of some Member States (e.g. UK and Denmark) and allow EU civil servants to participate professionally in social media together with citizens • Develop a code of conduct to govern their behaviour, e.g. always acting courteously and impartially, providing information and advice in a non-binding manner • Encourage their use of tools, data and platforms, also in their private lives • The civil servant needs to change – s/he is often both the biggest potential asset but also typically the biggest barrier

More Related