E-democracy tools for STOA: verschil tussen versies

Versie van 13 dec 2016 om 10:59

E-democracy tools

Dear interviewee,

Thank you for taking part in this survey. We will use the results in our study Technology options and systems to strengthen participatory and direct democracy for the STOA panel of the European Parliament. The panel is interested in best practices of local and national e-democracy tools and if and how they can be used at the EU level.

Please mark the answer you find most appropriate. It might be possible that you do not know the answer to one or more of the questions; please skip these. The answers to the open questions will be run through with you by the interviewer.

Thank you very much in advance,

The project team

Who is the target group of the tool? (for example, regarding participatory budgeting in Milan: "everyone above 14 years old who lives and works in Milan") all citizens in the Netherlands

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent are the people who actually participated in the tool representative for the target group? Not representative at all 9 Fully representative for the target group

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent are minority groups represented in the group of participants? Not at all 8 All minority groups

What is the approximate share of professionals in the group of participants? (professionals can be civil servants or professionals working for political pressure or lobby groups) No professionals (0%) 8 All professionals (100%)

What technologies and/or software are and were used? For example, for the German Pirate Party: "PiratePad, a collaborative text editor, Liquid Feedback platform, ..." software designed by us, too complicated to summarise in this box and the time available for this survey

In what ways were the participants able to contribute? For example, for the Dutch e-petition website: "to start, file or sign a petition, offer (financial or other) support to get political attention for the e-petition". To start, file or sign a petition, offer (financial or other) support to get political attention for the e-petition and invite others to also sign. Also, petitioners can send mailblasts to signatories.

In what ways were the possibilities to participate communicated? Zero communication, no advertising. The users of the platform promote the platform.

On a scale from 1 to 10, how satisfied are you overall with the ways in which participants were able to contribute? Extremely dissatisfied 8 Extremely satisfied

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent has the possibility to participate been effectively communicated to the target group? No-one knows the tool(s) 8 Everyone knows the tool(s)

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent do you perceive the tool to be user friendly? Extremely complicated 8 Extremely user friendly (inclusive of individuals with hearing or visual impairments)

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent do you perceive the tool to be safe (against misuse of data and hacking)? Extremely insecure 10 Extremely secure

How are privacy and data protection issues addressed in the design of the tool (if applicable)? Nobody has access to the e-mail addresses of the users except us. Personal data is only shared in compliance with data protection laws.

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent is the content in general comprehensible for every member in the target group? Only comprehensible for the highly-educated and the experts 7 Easy to comprehend for everyone

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent has the input of the participants had an actual effect on the policy/political agenda? No effect 8 The input is completely incorporated in the agenda

Which legal frameworks are applied or proved relevant in the participation process (if any)? For example, the (constitutional) right to petition, data protection regulation, rights and obligations of MPs, etc. The right to petition, freedom of speech, data protection mostly.

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent did the legal frameworks contribute positively or negatively to the participation process and its outcomes? Very negatively 6 Very positively

Would you propose any adjustments to the legal framework(s)? No.

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent does the tool provide information on the decision-making process (including how the citizen participation is part of this decision-making process)? No information 8 Extensive information

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent does the tool provide information on the issue(s) at stake? No information 7 Extensive information

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent does the tool facilitate the exchange of arguments between participants? No exchange of arguments possible 1 Exchange of arguments considerably stimulated by design

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent does the tool facilitate the exchange of arguments between participants and decision makers? No exchange of arguments possible 10 Exchange of arguments considerably stimulated by design

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent is the input of and/or conversation between participants moderated? No moderation 9 Heavy moderation

Is the input of participants aggregated? Yes

If so, how is it aggregated(multiple choices are possible) Weighed by organizers/decision makers Interpreted by the organizers/decision makers Voted upon by other participants X Other: counted by software, number of signatures.

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent did the input of participants contribute to the decision-making process? No contribution at all 6 The contribution was fully incorporated

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent did the results of the citizen participation have an impact on the final decision(s)? No impact at all 6 The final decision is the same as the results

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent does the tool contribute to a public debate on the issue(s) at stake? No contribution at all 8 The tool was essential for the public debate

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent is the target group informed about who is responsible for what action in the decision making process? No information 8 Fully informed

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent are the participants informed about the final decision(s)? No information 8 Fully informed

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent are the participants informed about what has been done with their contributions? No information 8 Fully informed

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent does the tool contribute to the trust the target group has in government and/or politics? No contribution at all 7 The tool has considerably contributed to more trust

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent do you consider the tool to be cost-effective? Extremely cost ineffective 10 Extremely cost-effective

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent is there room for officials to make their own judgment (i.e. to deviate from the input from the participants)? No room 10 Considerable room

On a scale from 1 to 10, to what extent is the tool suitable to be used at the EU level (if not already so)? Not suitable at all 10 Very suitable

Why do you think the tool is suitable to be used at the EU level (if not already so)? the right to petition is known to most citizens, after voting is the most popular form of political participation. Unfortunately, the EU currently does not receive agenda setting petitions, only petitions about how EU regulations are implemented and executed. This is limiting and not transparent, it requires a full understanding of the EU policy structure.

In your opinion, what are the main strengths of digital participation process using this tool? Dialogue. Aggregated input from masses of citizens can be answered with an e-mail to all those citizens.

In your opinion, what are the main weaknesses of digital participation process using this tool? The connection with the non-digital world, the centres of power is weak. The ideology of new media (individual agency and emancipation) on the other hand obscures this.

In your opinion, what are possibilities for improvement of the digital tool (if any)? Structured, but voluntary, dialogue with citizens online. Without a political culture supporting it the damage of 'fake' dialogue can be harmful for citizens trust.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION!