Avaaz thus follows the recente move from change.org, the “social action platform that empowers anyone”, which just two weeks ago ‘absorved’ the Spanish platform “Actuable” and is now planning to translate its ‘petition making system’ to many other languages to really extend its reach worldwide.

Each of these platforms claims to have promoted petitions that forced very important political ‘actors’ to react: from Hillary Clinton to Presidente Morales, from Bank of America and Apple to Hilton Hotels.

This is an interesting ‘tectonic’ move in the realm of (e)Participation, which we should follow closely. It is, additionally, much related to the discussion about “Sticks and Carrots” we hold in Pep-Net’s blog a year ago.

We were then reflecting about questions like: is it better to praise “good deeds” of Corporation and Politicians, or is it better to warn and punish them when they “misbehave”? Why not both things at the same time?

Anita Roddick, the founder of the Body Shop, reported that once an executive of Shell told her:  “We don’t fear regulation, we only fear consumer revolt”

Well: it is clear now that consumer and citizens are getting better at revolting and exerting pressure. Change is happening out of anybody’s reach, and (e)Participation is slowly “getting teeth”, which soon will be able to hurt enough as to influence behaviour: if you do not want your brand reputation to get ruined… you better behave!!! And this applies to corporation as much as political actors.

The promise of a ‘Future Goverment’ that becomes FAST (flatter, agile, streamlined and tech-enabled) -which was delivered in the last World Economic Forum- starts to be truth. But, for sure, it is not government who is promoting it. It is NGOs and CSOs. It is citizens.

It is important to note that the technology behind these petition plattforms is very, very simple. The concepts and processes of use are also not sci-fiction. But for sure, this kind of powerful, sustainable and social minded (e)Participation was rarely promoted by our Governments’ Innovation Support Actions. Instead of an impact oriented eParticipation research, put at the service of Civil Society, a Government- and Academia-centred approach was preferred. And thus eParticipation has just advance by little steps.

It is a pitty, because these platforms are now out there, growing. They were created with less (or ‘no’) involvement of eParticipation researchers. And that means that we do not have easy access to the very valuable information about eParticipation that these systems are generating (about pattern and reasons of use, users’ demographics, typologies of action, success rates, etc).

We should reflect about this. We have not so many more opportunities to miss. The field is developing faster and faster. Do we want to be part of it?

In this PeP-NET post we would like to share a tool we have developed, “The matrix of civic implication”, whose main aim is to support the development of conceptual clarity when analyzing participatory venues and participatory initiatives. If used wisely, we think the matrix is a powerful “tool”, that goes beyond alternative models (like OECD, IAP2 or Fung’s), and should allow researchers, practitioners and the ‘man in the street’ to better understand the core dimensions of participatory activities.

 The Matrix of Civic Implication

Since Sherry Arnstein presented her “Ladder of Citizen Participation” in 1969, tens of models have been proposed with the aim to describe “participation”.

The problem with these models is that they tend to be either too basic -and thus they add less value- or they are too complex and specialized, and in this case they are too cumbersome to be applied.

For this reason… a lot of confusion exist in this field.

Our matrix tries to find a pragmatic balance between usefulness and complexity, and provide a tool that is at the same time powerful, practical and easy to use. It allows practitioners and theorists to compare in a matter of minutes different Participatory experiences. The model was developed to be applied to “municipal participation” initiatives, but it can be applied to other kind of participatory experiences.

The Matrix identifies four fundamental dimensions of participatory initiatives, which be informally “visualized”, and thus make this model especially suitable for comparing initiatives:

1. INTENSITY OF COLLABORATION:

This level is based on the original ladder, and describes the level of collaboration exercised. It goes from Manipulation, Information and Consultation levels up to the levels of Collaboration, Delegated Power and Delegated control. We have slightly renamed some of Arnstein’s rungs and added some fundamental extra rungs, like the ones corresponding to “Conflict” and the “transparency” rung, which is considered as a pre-requisite for any real “Collaborative Participation”. More details on the meaning of the different levels are provided below.

2. ACTORS involved in the participatory exercise:

This dimension allows differentiating the actors, grouping them under the categories of “affected”, “participants”, “promoters” and “decision makers”. It also classifies them as political actors, corporate actors, civil society actors, or others. More categories and actors can be considered. The ones shown in the picture are just an example. The actors’ names displayed in the attached matrix have just and illustrative character: more categories and actors could be considered, in case they were needed to analyze the participatory exercises. Thanks to the inclusion of this dimension, the model can be applied to analyze both “administrative, top-down participation” (sponsored and organized by governments) and “autonomous participation”, which could be really bottom-up (initiated by citizens) or initiated by some other Civil or Corporate actors. More details below.

3. INSTITUTIONALIZATION LEVEL:

This essential dimension has often been neglected in most participation models. The institutionalization levels range from the lowest “Sporadic” and “Episodic”, through “Periodic” and “Continuous” levels of institutionalization, to the highest “Functional Institutionalization” and “Organic Institutionalization”.

Functional Institutionalization refers to cases where laws have been approved that enact legal procedures and channels, which allow citizens to initiate some kind of participatory interaction. For example: citizens’ initiatives, right of petition, mandatory hearings in urban planning, participation in city council, etc.

Organic Institutionalization, finally, refers to the cases where participatory organs have been constituted with a permanent or semi-permanent character, with representation of different actors involved. These organs generally have a decision-making or a controlling mandate, and allow interested citizens and/or citizen groups to become involved in the policy areas covered by the participatory institution.

4. DELIBERATIVENESS:

This dimension allows to, informally, specify the kind and intensity of deliberation that the participatory experience motivates. Deliberation is a particular form of reasoning and dialogue, in which the costs and consequences of various policy options are carefully weighed, taking into account the views of all concerned.

The Matrix of Civic Implication is a tool that helps project managers, practitioners and researchers to describe what they are doing or what they are planning to do, taking into account the most fundamental participatory dimensions, and making it possible to compare between different options or approaches.

This conceptual model is intended to remain open and flexible: additions or changes are welcomed in the case the analyzed participatory experiences require them.

For example, it could be interesting to consider the moment within the “policy making cycle” (from Agenda Setting to Evaluation) where the participation happens. Another possible addition could consider the technological tools or the participatory methodologies used. But these extra dimensions are normally not essential to understand the core of the participatory experience, and are thus not part of the base model.

In many cases a participatory initiative is composed of different participatory activities, each of them with different aims and different stakeholders involved in them. The matrix could also be used to depict individually each of these activities, to get a deeper understanding of the whole experience.

The aim of the model is NOT prescriptive, but descriptive. It does NOT claim that higher intensity of collaboration, or a dense deliberativeness, or an extreme institutionalization level is always better. This actually depends of the environment and the objectives that are pursued with the initiative. The model thus explicitly recognizes that different situations require different approaches. It is the quality of participation that matters more, not the amount, nor necessarily the level at which it, suppossedly, happens.

The model is explained in these videos, which are part of the teaching materials we prepared for a course on “Citizen Participation and Digital Technologies”, that we imparted in collaboration with the Inter-American Organization for Higher Education. The course materials are in Spanish, but these videos include English subtitles:

YOUTUBE: 10.a. The Advent of Civic Implication. Part 1

YOUTUBE: 10.b. The Advent of Civic Implication. Part 2

More detailed descriptions of the “Intensity of collaboration” levels

Let’s have a more detailed look at the meaning of the “Intensity of collaboration” levels, starting with the lowest.

The rung “Manipulation”, that is part of the “Non-Participation” category is characterized by the attempts to manipulate: to keep people quiet, satisfied, with the impression that they are being heard… but actually there is no real intention to listen to them.

With different levels of sofistication, participatory venues are designed by decision-makers so they can exert control of it, and use it just to ratify decission that have already been taken, or to comply with legal requirements, etc.

All this was linked by Arnstein with the idea of “therapy”. And sadly enough… much of the political participation that is carried out nowadays is of this type.

Under the “Non-participation” level we have included the “Conflict” category.

This happens when citizens realise that the existing participatory venues are not satisfactory, and decide to show their dissatisfaction.

The firs rung, “Legitimate coercion”, is when the means used are “pacific”, civic protest, civil disobedience. We are speaking here of things like the Spanish “Indignados”, the #occupywallstreet movement, or the #realdemocracynow.

People’s capacity to connect one with another is increasing, and the current global crisis is evidencing that our current representative democracies are very “low-quality”. It is clear that this ‘Legitimate coercion’ will continue growing. Without losing its “pacific” character, this kind of action could win more and more disrupting capacity: coordinated demonstrations and strikes, boycotts, delays in paying taxes, etc. This coordinated actions can increasingly get directed at punishing political actors by means of voting, and thus “biting where it hurts” to them.

The rung of “Illegal Duress” refers to even stronger conflicts, and includes harder responses: sabotage, property destruction and robbery, terrorism… all this kind of actions can be understood, in many cases, as a way of expression when the “existing” mechanisms are considered as “non-working”.

With regards to the upper rungs: “Information, Consultation, Advisement”, they reflect the traditional levels in which a decision-maker can engage with people to improve the decisions.

The most basic rung -“Information”- means the case where some (or even much) information about what is being done, or planned to be done, is provided. That’s already a difference, with respect to “Manipulation”.

“Consultation” means that some channels (like polling, or focus groups, or… whatever you can imagine) are created that allow some kind of feedback from the citizens to be heard by the decision maker.

“Advisement” rung goes a little bit further, and allows that the citizens, their associations… are providing elaborate advice to the decision maker, as part of a conversation.

The most important aspect with regards to this category, called “Consultative Participation”, is that the decision maker is finally taking the decision that he prefers. She is just asking for opinions, argumentations, views… but retains the capacity to judge them and act in any way that suits her understanding and convenience. How much consideration receive the views expressed through the engagement mechanisms… depends entirely on the will of the decision maker. This is why Arnstein termed it “Tokenism”.

Let’s now go to the top.

Above the “Consultative Participation” category that we have just reviewd, the category for “Collaborative Participation” comes. This is the category where the “Intensity of Collaboration” is stronger. This is a type of participation where “real collaboration” is expected, in its various levels.

At the very top is the “Delegated Control” rung. It means that the control of some decision-making area is delegated to the participatory institution or organism. Usually the decision maker could reclaim the control in case of emergency… but by default he would be willing to accept the results of the participatory collaboration (normally, the decision maker will also be member of the participatory mechanism, and thus able to defend his interests).

The next rung, “Delegated Power” is a more conservative approach, that just delegates some partial, limited “power”, to the participatory institution. This way, more safeguards could be in place (veto, etc.).

The next level is “Collaboration”. In it, even if no power is explicitly delegated, the decision making capacity is implicitly or explicitly shared through the principles of “honest collaboration”, understanding that participants are partnering together to find good solutions. Thus what is recognized and agreed by means of this cooperation should necessarily influence, in a sensible way, the final decision, as well as the actions of all participants.

Thus, we come to the “Transparency” rung, which is the most radical change with respect to Arnstein model.
First of all: it is important to recognise that the nature of this rung is a little different than the others. It is more a “pre-requisite” for the collaborative participation than a way of collaboration on its own.

Why a pre-requisite? Well, because if you want to really collaborate, in a trustful way… all participants should have access to all relevant information available.

Transparency means open data and open government: a compromise to proactively share all relevant data, so all partners can inspect and work on it, both pro-actively (to ellaborate proposals, for example), or after some issue has happened (to discover ineficiencies or corruption, for example).

Transparency has a tremendous effect on the incentives of any administrative body. If you know that all your actions are visible, that they can be inspected… the ‘margin for corruption’ is strongly reduced.

Hidden agendas are also more difficult to keep: decision making can thus become more fact-based and deliberative, and all participants will be more motivated to find real “best solutions” and win-win arrangements.

For this reason, the “transparency” rung, and its “Pre-participation” category, are placed above the “Consultative Participation”. Consultative participation can actually happen under a dictatorial structure. Transparency is necessarily linked to collaborative and democratic settings.

One final remark: All this levels are, in first place, considered with relation to public authorities and government. But in general they can be applied to any institution with capacity to make decisions, and share this capacity with other stakeholders. In particular: corporations will increasingly be subject to demands to increase their “transparency”, as a requisite to collaborative participation of the people (which, should not be forgotten: are also customers, and able to harm companies in weeks, just by slightly coordinating their buying behavior).

Increasingly, if there is not enough transparency, or if the ethical behaviours of the companies are not satisfactory, people will go for “CONFLICT”, meaning boycotts or even stronger measures (imagine a coordinated action to retire funds from “un-ethical” banks: no public money will be able to save a bank whera a big share of their customers coordinately decide to claim their money back).

So… everybody should pay more attention to the developments in this field.

There is a strong demand for powerful collaboration tools. Internet is about to impact democracy, when the use of these tools gets critical mass. We should all try to make sure this happens in a constructive way.

How to handle top-down and bottom-up participation in the matrix

The Matrix intend to cover not only “top-down” public participation, but also the “bottom-up”. And even a new form of civic engagement we invented (partly, as a joke), called “from-the-middle-and-around”. Both the “top-down” and the “bottom-up” perspectives are too simple conceptualizations… that are not able to comprehend the nuances of such a complex phenomenom as civic engagement.

In fact, we consider more interesting the bottom-up or mixed engagement models, as the pure “top-down”/ administrative participation has proven to be quite limited in its transformative effect during the whole 20th century. All this is related to the “administrative” and “autonomous” forms of participation that we previously referred to (see image).

Actually, it is because of this willingness to embrace autonomous “engagement” that we chose not to name the model the “Matrix of Citizen Participation” (following Arnstein) but the “Matrix of Civic Implication”.

Citizen Participation somehow suggest that “citizens” (no immigrants? no kids?) slightly “participate”, collaborate… with an initiative whose ownership lies somewhere else. “Civic implication”, on the other hand, aims to suggest an “engagement”, a “personal implication” with something that is recognized as “own” by person, by the neighbor.

How would the “top-down / bottom-up” character of the participation be reflected in the model?

Well, especially through the recognition and configuration of the “Actors” involved, at the top of the matrix, which by default is used to displays different possible administrative, corporate and civil society actors, as a way to facilitate the comparison of initiatives (see, for example, this comparation of “Mayor talks with neighbors” and the “Participatory Budgeting of Fortaleza (BR)”.

Let’s imagine a case of bottom-up participation. For example, the case where the “participants”, “promoters” and “affected” are just the citizens of a neighborhood, which autonomously organize themselves (maybe with the support of a NGO) to propose the mayor (decision-maker) some kind of action… we would have this kind of autonomous participation in action.

If there is no request to be presented to the Mayor, but just a process of community self-organization… this would be reflected by not including any “decision-maker” or considering the “decision-maker” to be the own community.
And for sure, depending of the kind activities carried out (running a poll in the neighborhood, or deliberatively elaborate the proposal, or even voting at the end on the open points…) you would have different levels of involvement, or “intensities of collaboration”.
It is, anyway, just a tool -like, for example, scissors- whose real value is shown when it is put to work. In the same way that you would use slightly different scissors to clean a fish, to cut your fiancee’s hair, or to allow your daughter to handicraft… the matrix might need to be modified, extended, complemented with other analysis or… whatever, to suit the need of the user. It all depends on what is desired to illuminate with its help. The Matrix “humble aim” is to provide a clear base-line for analysis and communication. On top of that, all additions are welcomed, if they make sense.

Another example: in case there was interest in analyzing, or making more visible, the “power” relations in a concrete participatory initiative, you could decide to display only the actors that are participating, and perform some kind of “stakeholders analysis” to asses each actors’  power, urgency and legitimacy toward the issue, and thus determine the kind of role they can play (Dominant, Dormant, Dependent,  Demanding, Definitive, etc.). [see https://www.jstor.org/pss/259247 ]. Thus, you could use different intensities of colors to reflect the power, etc.

That’s all, sorry for such a long entry. We thought it was worth sharing. We are waiting for your comments!

Because this paper needs to be read and, more important, discussed while its analyses are still current.

Thus, we have decided to make it provisionally available through PeP-NET. To start such a conversation, what better place than PeP-NET, the Pan European eParticipation network?
We have spent many hundreds of hours researching and writing the paper, as we struggled to make sense of the developments and “under-developments” of eParticipation in the last ten years.
Our appraisal is based on an extensive and interdisciplinary analysis of distinct relevant sources, which included the most recent reports, articles and literature reviews dealing with eParticipation research, practice and theory, as well as projects’ deliverables and evaluations, related databases, and our direct examination of eParticipation systems.
We had to resort to a very varied bunch of disciplines (from history and medicine to Mayan performing arts; seriously!! ) to be able to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the field’s challenges… and to make a compelling exposition of them.

The paper ended up being “quite controversial”, as our assessment of eParticipation came to suggest that some of the problems that have hampered its progress have a systemic, overarching character: that kind of ‘elephant in the living room’-issues whose very existence tends to be denied because of their complexity or the embarrassment they cause and, as a result, cannot normally be acknowledged or discussed, let alone get properly sorted out.

Examples of the “embarrassing questions” the paper poses are:

• How can it be that after 10 years… all relevant ‘agendas’ of eParticipation research are still reported as underdeveloped?
• And how can it be that even the most basic questions –for example: the relation of Participation and eParticipation, or the understanding of the dual nature of eParticipaton as something that can be driven by authorities or by citizens themselves– remain unsolved?
• More than 187 millions of Euros were invested in the last ten years to promote experimentation in the field, so… where are the results? Where are the breakthroughs and the research milestones? Can we feel satisfied with just some “vague confirmations” of ideas that 10 years ago could already have been easily guessed?

Through the paper, we have done our best to constructively diagnose eParticipation and to propose some treatments for the field’s maladies. But our perspective and understanding are necessarily limited: the real “treatment” for those problems would require a reflection process that involves the whole eParticipation community.

We see this paper as an urgent “call for self-reflection” and consider it a “MUST READ” for anyone involved in European eParticipation: from the officials working at EC’s Directorate for Information society and Media, to the researchers, practitioners, NGOs, public workers, citizen associations… and even any interested European citizen.

Therefore, we would like to encourage all our PeP-NET friends and in general all people with interest in eParticipation… to have a look at the paper during this nice summer weekend.
Anyone who feels “touched” by any of the paper’s claims and argumentations… should speak up and comment to this post. It doesn’t matter if it is to support, extend or complement our asseverations, or to oppose, challenge or further qualify them… please, share your views.
PeP-NET was meant to be a HUB for the conversations around eParticipation. So… let’s discuss. It is important that the issues we showed –be them real or imagined– are talked about, and possibly acted upon.

The environment where we operate is moving. Moving faster and faster. And in the context of the ‘Europe 2020 Strategy’ and its flagship initiative “Innovation Union”, which aims to renew EU’s “Research and Innovation Funding Programmes”, the most important question we need to answer is: “What do we do now??”
For sure, we could keep pretending that there is NO elephant in the living room. Stay in our “academic” Ivory Tower, and just continue doing as we did so far… while we wait for the “barbarians of eParticipation” to arrive, change the democratic landscape by really integrating ICT in governance… and make fools of all us. PeP-NET subscribers included.

But in our association we want to believe that we, the European eParticipation Community, could do much better than that.

So… no more to say!! Thank you very much for your attention. We hope some of you enjoy reading of our paper and some exchange of ideas can happen afterwards.

—–   ADDITION: A  CONCEPTUAL  MAP  SUMMARISING  PAPER’S  KEY  FINDINGS   —–

Several people asked for a “summary” version of the paper. Here you have a JPG image (2,5 Mbytes) displaying a Conceptual Map that summarises the paper’s key findings.
I recommend you to save the file first, and then open it with an image editor (like Office Picture Manager) to watch it. It’ll be more easy for you to zoom in and out in the different parts of the image.

News from the Asociación and our main project (english version at the bottom ).

—

Como resultado del nuevo escenario creado en España por movimiento cívico “15M”, que ha inundado las plazas de las principales ciudades españolas (y algunas del extranjero) con sus demandas de una “Democracia Real YA”, en la Asociación Ciudades Kyosei hemos decidido “ponernos las pilas”, para producir cuanto antes una versión alpha del sistema “Kyopol” (aka. “Ciudad Simbiótica”), que podamos poner al servicio de todos los procesos de activación cívica y movilización social que deberían ahora darse, barrio a barrio, en todas las ciudades de España.

Ello nos ha demandado un un cambio de actitud: se hace necesario establecer un equipo más amplio, repartir responsabilidades… y así crear algo útil cuanto antes.

Pues bien, tras un par de reuniones muy productivas ayer martes y el pasado domingo… ¡¡el proceso de creación del Sistema Kyopol se considera “oficialmente iniciado”!!

El Sistema Kyopol (aka. “Ciudad Simbiótica”) fomentará la Implicación Cívica y la “Activación Ciudadana” en los ámbitos municipal y regional. Permitirá a los ciudadanos informarse, formarse y colaborar unos con otros en la mejora de su entorno vital, trabajando en aquellas temáticas que cada uno considere importantes.

No sólo eso: buscaremos que usando el Sistema Kyopol… ¡¡podamos pasarlo “de miedo”!! Que sea una experiencia tremendamente placentera, incluso divertida, eso de unirte a otras personas para implicarte en el “cuidado de lo publico”.

Para la Asociación Ciudades Kyosei… ¡¡haber logrado alcanzar este hito es algo sensacional!! Queremos agradeceros a todos los simpatizantes de la asociación el apoyo que nos habéis brindado hasta ahora y advertiros… ¡¡que ahora es cuando empieza el trabajo de verdad!!

Nuestro trabajo se desarrollará a partir de ahora mediante la estrecha colaboración de dos equipos:

• Primeramente, el “Grupo impulsor” -compuesto por informáticos, investigadores y personas vinculadas con la participación- construirá prototipos del sistema y establecerá las metodologías, los recursos participativos y los arreglos institucionales que formarán parte del sistema.
• En segundo lugar, el  “Colectivo de pioneros”, integrado por representantes de todos los colectivos que usarán el sistema (desde ciudadanos y asociaciones de vecinos a políticos y técnicos municipales, pasando por medios de comunicación, ONGs, sindicatos y partidos políticos y, por supuesto, ahora también movimientos sociales del estilo 15M, DRY y demás bichos que éstos engendrarán en los próximos meses), que nos ayudarán probando los sucesivos prototipos del sistema, y proporcionandonos feedback en relación a las funcionalidades y procedimientos que propongamos.

En base a ello, podremos disponer de una versión Beta del sistema, lo suficientemente madura para iniciar proyectos piloto. Primeramente en el entorno de Madrid -que es de donde provienen la mayoría de nuestros Pioneros”-, y posteriormente en todas las regiones de España, y finalmente en el ámbito Latino-Americano y Europeo.

Si tenéis interés en formar parte del “Colectivo de Pioneros”, por favor contáctanos cuanto antes.

Planeamos realizar un acto de presentación del proyecto a todos sus potenciales interesados, en las instalaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá. ¡¡Os invitamos a tod@s a que nos acompañéis en el evento!!

Os mantendremos informados (podéis seguirnos en la web de la asociación, facebook o twitter).

—–

Urged, and inspired, by the emergence of the #SpanishRevolution, which  has crowded the main squares of many spanish cities (and several foreign ones too!) to demand a “Real Democracy NOW!”… we have tried to accelerate our association’s projects.

And… after a couple of very productive meetings on Tuesday and on last Sunday … the construction of the “Kyopol System” has been “officially started”!

Kyopol (aka. “Symbiotic City”) will promote “citizen activation” and civic involvement in the municipal and regional levels. It will allow citizens to inform themselves about civic issues, “educate” themselves on how to “participate”, and collaborate with each other to improve their shared living environment, by collaboratively working on those issues that each one considers important.

Actually, our aim is that by  using Kyopol we citizens will  be able to experience a great deal of fun (and proudness!). Isn’t that the way that “meeting fellow citizens to jointly care and work for the common good” should taste?!

For the Asociación Ciudades Kyosei… having reached this milestone is something sensational! We want to thank all supporters of the association for the help we have received so far, but also warn them… that the real work is about to start!!

Our work will be developed through the collaboration of two teams:

• First, the “Core Team”, which is mainly composed of developers and citizen participation’s researchers, practitioners and stake-holders, who will work together to construct prototypes and establish the participatory methodologie,s the formative resources and the institutional arrangements that will surround Kyopol.

• Second, a “Pioneers Team”, that integrates representatives of all groups that will use the system (citizens, neighbourhood associations, governments oficials, politicians, NGOs, media, social movements, etc…). They will act as “Alpha testers”, and will help us testing our prototypes and providing feedback in relation to the functionalities and the participatory methodologies and resources we propose.

Based on this work, we will construct a Beta version of the system, mature enough to initiate pilot projects. These will first first in the surroundings of Madrid, where most of our Pioneers are located, and will afterwards get extended to several regions in Spain, and finally to the wide Latin American (and European) environments.

The next milestone we are planning is a meeting at the University of Alcalá, where the project will be presented to all potential stakeholders. Collaborative work will start immediately afterwards.

We’ll keep you informed (and you can follow us on our website, facebook or twitter).

OpenAid is a small association based in Germany and our background is evaluation of development projects. Traditionally, funding organisations, like the German ministry for economic development and cooperation (BMZ) commissions experts to visit projects, e.g. in Africa and assess these projects based on predefined criteria. While this type of project evaluation a very dominant feature of the development business, it has only limited value. In an evaluation, for example of a water project in Southern Cameroon, only the questions that are most interesting to the donors in Germany and to the project managers get asked. Concerns that people living in the project areas may have will not be addressed, if the project management is not aware of them or does not want to address them.

In addition, most citizens in a project area are not able to talk to the evaluators, due to the tight time schedule of evaluations, distances in the project area and language barriers. Providing feedback about a project on a regular basis is close to impossible.

We at OpenAid are convinced, that this lack of feedback in aid projects is a big problem, and we think that advances in technology and social media can help to fix the feedback loop. This is where we why we are interested in experiences about e-participation in Europe. What are the lessons learnt in Western Countries about the conditions for successful e-participation? And which of these lessons are applicable to development cooperation?

We call our e-participation project public online monitoring of development aid. In our thinking there are several elements to public online monitoring:

1) General information about aid projects: The more information and the more open the information, the better. This strand of our work links us to the open data movement. International development cooperation has been very slow to provide information in accessible format to a wider public. But currently the aid transparency debate and open data initiatives in development cooperation are gaining momentum. OpenAid has been promoting aid transparency, and particularly the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) since 2009. We are currently organising a major open aid data event in Berlin for September 2011.

2) Mobile Technology and Connectivity: Costs for providing and distributing information to a large audience have plummeted due to the advances of technology in recent years. Of course, in many rural areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America, good internet connections are not self-evident. But mobile services can substitute regular internet connections to a certain degree. This is why we are very interested in the creative use of SMS and other mobile applications. For the time being it is also possible to experiment with public online monitoring in urban areas e.g. in Africa that have good internet access. We are convinced that access to the internet in rural areas will continue spread in the coming years.

3) Online communities: Where should people go to provide feedback about a water project, about a health clinic or about a school feeding programme? Where is the virtual comments box for aid projects? One option would be for large aid projects to set up their own online community. But it will probably be difficult to generate enough among citizens living in the project area and other concerned people to bring such a community to life. This is why we propose to use existing social networks, where people already connect, to monitor projects that interest them. Traditionally these social networks were community meetings e.g. in churches and mosques. Today, social media networks can complement offline communities. So, we have in mind to “project groups” on social media networks like Facebook. On the one hand Facebook has a fast growing number of users in e.g. development countries. On the other hand, however, the criticism about Facebook is increasing and other social media networks may be more appropriate.

In our advocacy work on aid transparency we have seen, that migrants from Africa, Asia and Latin America tend to have a strong distrust of the aid system and strong feelings about misuse of funds in development cooperation. Therefore we are currently exploring possibilities to cooperate with migrant communities in Germany to build online communities around individual projects or around development cooperation going to geographically limited areas.

Other possible drivers of online communities are donors themselves. The example of AKVO in the Netherlands demonstrates, that even governmental aid agencies are recognising the value of collecting public feedback on projects via the internet. We are hoping that other donors will follow the same path.

4) Choice of projects: Finally, we are convinced that not all aid projects are amenable to public online monitoring. Projects targeted at young, urban, educated people are probably more suitable then projects targeted at elderly, rural, illiterate citizens. Projects delivering direct services like health programmes or water projects will probably attract more interest then projects focused on administrative reforms in ministries or projects targeted small minorities in the population.

Until now, OpenAid has been active on the precondition of public online monitoring: access to open data on aid activities. We are just taking the first steps to make public online monitoring a reality. We hope that successes and failures of e-participation in Europe will help us make good choices in this process and hope to be able to share our experiences with member of PEPNET in the future. If you have any comments on our concept so far or if your organisation is interested in collaborating on this project, please contact me under claudia.schwegmann@openaid.de!

So what were the main trends in 2010? What areas of eParticipation made particular progress, and what events defined the eParticipation calendar? And while you are thinking about trends, what do you think will be up and coming in 2011? Nobody can predict the future, but it will be interesting to find out how 2010 was for friends of PEP-NET, and what they expect in 2011.

When I’m back in the New Year, I’ll put together a summary of results. I think it will make for interesting reading – but only if you take part, that is!

In the meantime, from Edinburgh to Athens, Madrid to Minsk: wherever you are, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Manuel Kripp, MD of E-Voting.cc

Manuel Kripp, Managing Director of PEP-NET member E-Voting.cc, recently visited the US during the mid-term elections, so I was very curious to find out what he had got up to. We spoke about electronic voting machines, the role of social media in the US elections, and the need for change management when introducing E-Voting technology.

To find out what E-Voting.cc does, see their website or my previous interview with Manuel’s predecessor Robert Krimmer.

John Heaven: Hi Manuel. I hear you’ve been travelling recently. What were you up to?

Manuel Kripp: I was invited to participate in the 2010 U.S. election program organised by the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES), and by the the Electoral Assistance Commission (EAC) to observe the election on Tuesday 2^nd November.

The conference was well attended by experts from around the world, including Thomas Wilkie (Chief Executive, IFAS), Doug Chapin (Pew Centre on the States), and Bob Carey (Federal Voting Assistance Program). The Jo C. Baxter prize was presented to Dr Kwadwo Afari-Gyan, Chairman of Ghana’s Electoral Commission, for invaluable contributions to democracy in Ghana.

The focus of my visit was on seeing how elections are conducted in other countries from around the world, and comparing the US electoral system with how things are done in Europe.

Photo courtesy Ripple Effect Productions/IFES

US electoral system

JH: So what is different about the US electoral system?

MK: Firstly, there isn’t a “US electoral system” as such: even within States there are large variations because the Counties have wide-ranging autonomy to set electoral rules and opening times, and – interestingly from an E-Voting perspective – procure the voting machines. On the latter point, the EAC certifies voting machines based on centrally determined guidelines; but even these are voluntary. So one of the Counties I was in, Arlington, used EAC non-certified voting machines.

JH: Can US citizens vote on the internet?

MK: Not over the internet – in fact the reason that voting machines in Arlington don’t meet the standards required for verification by the EAC is that they are synchronised using a wireless LAN connection before the election starts. But voters use electronic voting machines even when they choose to cast a paper vote. Before it is dropped into the ballot box, the ballot paper is scanned and stored electronically. The advantage of this is that you get much quicker and more reliable results. Because paper ballot papers exist, you can verify the result if something goes wrong. They also have the option to use a touchscreen machine, which I tested out and found to be very convenient.

Specifically on the subject of Internet voting, there have been around seven tests and pilots of Internet voting during this midterm election.

JH: Are there other advantages of using electronic voting machines?

Philippine Case Study

MK: For accessibility reasons, they can have advantages – such as magnifying the ballot paper, or reading it out. But one really impressive example that I found out about was in the Philippines. There they adopted the optical scanner practically overnight. They told me that in the previous election, a small number of election officials were shot dead in attempts to manipulate the result. This time, no-one was shot because – although election officials were still threatened – the automatic counting means there is no prospect of affecting the outcome.

This case study was interesting for other reasons too. I always say that change management is an increasingly important part of introducing E-Voting, and they really took that to heart.

Change Management and E-Voting

JH: Change management? If change management is the answer, does that mean that the only barrier to introducing E-Voting is public fear and resistance to change?

MK: Not quite. E-Voting technology always has room for improvement in terms of security, but we are at a point where we’ve got something we can work with. So yes, an important barrier to E-Voting is public anxiety and resistance to change.

There are two aspects to this change management: firstly, election organisers need to change the way they organise and communicate the election; secondly, trust-building measures are necessary.

On the first point, election organisers need to communicate openly and honestly about what the technology can do, and what its limitations are. Instead of waiting to get caught and then owning up, they should be clear from the outset about the vulnerabilities.

On the second point, by trust-building measures I mean engaging widely with the media, electorate, hackers, and political parties. Transparent source code (which is not the same as open source) means that the “many eyes” principle can help to iron out faults and protect against security breaches. Engaging with the media is a very important aspect too.

JH: What would you suggest?

MK: Coming back to the Philippines example: there they adopted a very business-like approach, setting themselves targets for return on investment and were very clear about what they wanted from their media campaign. They used channels that are already popular with the youth: a girl-band that won the Philippine equivalent of Popstars [a bit like the UK’s Pol Idol] sang a song that described how to vote, accompanied by a dance that acted out the voting process. A Strictly Come Dancing episode saw celebrities and the public attempting to mimic the dance, judged by a juror from the Electoral Commission. Finally, there was an episode of a popular soap themed around voting, with a cameo appearance from an electoral commissioner. Inspired stuff, and a brilliant example of how it should be done!

US Election Campaigns

JH: When you were in the US, were you able to get a feeling for the differences between European election campaigns and those in US?

MK: Yes, I noticed that the campaigns are far more personal and aggressive. For example, in one election advert I saw, a single candidate was accused of being responsible for the loss of 40,000 jobs in the area. There seems to be much more of a focus on candidates rather than parties, so the party takes more of a back seat. The parties also seem much less uniform, so they are different across states. The Tea Party tried to introduce a corporate image, but the older parties vary a lot more.

Role of Social Media in US Election Campaigns

JH: And what about the role of social media. Was it as important as in the 2008 presidential election?

MK: No, there wasn’t the same kind of mobilisation – at least in a party-political sense. However, the large rally organised by the Tea Party, and the satirical demonstration that Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart organised, were unprecedented and people I spoke to said that they hadn’t seen anything on this scale apart from rallies in memory of Martin Luther King. So there was a feeling that something unusual was happening, and that could have been due to use of social media like Facebook and Twitter which are very widespread over there.

In general, I noticed a big difference in civil society. Everyone seems to be involved in some voluntary activity or the other. This isn’t necessarily party political, but often spills over into local politics – for example, a campaign to keep a school that is under threat of being closed.

In terms of electoral process, there is a big emphasis on bipartisanship. So electoral commissions have to include representatives from the Democratic and Republican parties, and even where someone asks for assistance in casting their vote, they have to be helped by a Republican and a Democrat.

JH: Thanks for your time, that was really interesting!

At the IFES Election Program, Photo courtesy Ripple Effect Productions/IFES