David Newman (@davidrnewman on Twitter) will structure the results and posts them online. I am not completly sure where.

Will you share notes from the workshop on performance criteria/metrics as well? Much appreciated.

Anyways I aimed at starting a discussion by pointing out the major trends I noticed at the event and that seems to have been successful.

I think what is needed is to correctly relate the “e-” side to the “Participation” side of the mix.

And this means:

1. Recognize the diminishing meaning of the e- part of the term. In the next years the “e-” will surely just disappear. In the same way that we no longer speak about e-Banking, because we assume that any “Banking” worth its name MUST integrate an “e-” infrastructure that empowers it… citizen Participation without an “e-” backing will simply be a contradiction in terms.
It’s the same case with “electric lighting” too. “Electric lighting” was probably an expression profusely used at the beginning of the XX Century: but now, most of the time, we no longer explicitly name it “electric” -we just assume lighting “is” electric, since gaslighting belongs to our history.

This is the reason why our association, since years, uses the alternative “(e)Participation” term, that emphasizes the fading significance of the “e”.

2. But at the same time that the “(e)” significance fades away… it gains more and MORE importance.
It is clear that the “e” doesn’t change the fundamental meaning of “participation”, that it doesn’t change its essence.
[Sadly enough, most “experts” on e-Participation still do not realize this. They have traditionally considered (and “sold”) e-Participation as something essentially different from Participation. And they have done this because, in most cases, they had NO idea what the traditional “Participation” is about, and what are the problems and dynamics associated with it. And they weren’t willing to read the thousands of socio-political papers devoted to it ].

Anyway, let’s go back: we were saying that the diminishing “(e)” does not change the nature of Participation.
But as time goes by, it will completely change the way Participation works. And it will also change our notions on what is possible to attain through Participation (and thus: through Democracy).
Again, the (e)Banking example is very illustrative. Using computers, networks and the Internet for banking and finance revolutionized what could be done. Not sure if those changes were for good… but the fact is that (e)banking, without changing the very nature of banking, radically changed the way banking works.

Later today, we’ll publish in the PEP-Net blog a second “Image for reflection” (in addition to the one we published yesterday) that expresses in a vivid an humorous way what we have just explained.

One point: I wonder if instead of talking about dropping the ‘e-’ (which I did too, I know), we should be talking about the ‘e-’ as being one of several channels available to citizens - supplementing paper or community-based routes. That way, we can focus on where/why e-participation *is* (or could be) beneficial - while at the same time allowing us to share general lessons with political scientist and media specialists?