Young People, New Technologies and Political Engagement University of Surrey, UK, 24-25 July 2007

25 July 2007 Simon Delakorda & Matej Delakorda1

Young People, New Technologies and Young People, New Technologies and Political EngagementPolitical Engagement

University of Surrey, UK, 24-25 July 2007

Young People and eParticipation in Slovenia:the case of Citizen's Forum

Simon Delakorda & Matej Delakorda

(Center of eDemocracy / Institute of Ecology)


ContentContent

eDemocracy situation in Slovenia Young people and eParticipation The case of Citizen's Forum Lessons Future developments


1. eDemocracy situation in Slovenia 1. eDemocracy situation in Slovenia - reports- reports

UN eParticipation index (2005): 46th among 191 nations and 15th among EU-27.

The Economist report (eDemocracy criteria 2004): 7th in CEE Europe

Municipalities on-line participation (2005): Ljubljana 74th among 78 cities

No case studies from SI in OECD reports eDemocracy neglected by earliest

eGovernment plans


Latest developmentsLatest developments

positive impact of the EU membership eGovernment strategy goal (2006) – SI

among 10 most developed eDemocracy countries

Information society strategy (2007) – eDemocracy included

governmental eParticipation web site applications

eVoting part of political agenda


Implementation challenges remain Implementation challenges remain huge...huge...

eDemocracy limited to an e-mail, e-poll and public information e-access

failure of governmental on-line forums in public deliberation

e-formats based e-consultation process is not interactive

lack of political imagination to design web 2.0 eDemocracy

strong representative democracy is in favour


2. Young people and eParticipation - 2. Young people and eParticipation - factsfacts

Eurobarometer (2007): 27.1% between 15-30 of age have been already politically involved by presenting their view in an on-line discussion/forum (EU 27 – 23.6%; UK - 21.2%)

Internet research in Slovenia - RIS (2005):- visited political institution web site: 20% (16-19 age) and 28% (20-25 age)

- searched for official document (law or political programme): 26% (16-19 age) and 52% (20-25 age)

- participated in on-line poll on political issues: 30% (16-19 age) and 30% (20-25 age)

- sent an e-mail to the politician or institution: 5% (16-19 age) and 0% (20-25 age)

- signed an e-petition / letter of support: 6% (16-19 age) and 19% (20-25 age)

- participated in on-line debate on political issues: 8% (16-19 age) and 7% (20-25 age)


2. Young people and eParticipation - 2. Young people and eParticipation - prospectsprospects

Political action taken to ensure that one's voice is heard by policy-makers (Eurobarometer 2007): - Slovenia: participate in debates (44%), join a political party (18%), sign petition (15%)

- UK: participate in debates (25%), sign petition (18 %), join trade union (15%)

- EU-27: participate in debates (29%), join a political party (16%), take part in demostration (13%)

Interest in politics and current affairs (Eurobarometer 2007):

- Slovenia: country (79%), city/region (68%), EU (68%)

- UK: country (86%), city/region (71%), EU (60%)

- EU: country (82%), city/region (73), EU (66%)

Voted in an election or referendum in last 3 years (if eligible):

- Slovenia (71%), UK (50%), EU (62%)


3. The case of Citizen's Forum3. The case of Citizen's Forum

Political context:- French and Dutch “no” on EU constition treaty national referendums- European parliament resolution on the Period of reflection - establishing Citizen's fora – public debates on the Future of the EU both on-line and off-line

Project team:- Centre of eDemocracy / Institute of Ecology (implementation), Faculty of Social Sciences / University of Ljubljana and Information Office of the European Parliament for Slovenia (financier)


Communication concept:- participatory and deliberative democracy (J. Fishkin)- democratic expression of oppinions- e-debates and e-counsultations on European issues and policies- involvement in decision-making proces throught slovene members of the European parliament- moderation- protocols- registration - reporting to mass media


1. Slovenian member of the European Parliament2. Ministry of the Slovenian government (if participating)3. Information office for the European Parliament for Slovenia 4. Centre for e-democracy at the Institute of Ecology


The case of issue-based e-debate on the future European social model with Slovene students- Aim: to gather ideas, opinions and suggestions on the future European social model from the university students- Initiator: Slovenian Member of the European Parliament, Mr. Mihael Brejc- Place & time: Ljubljana during 17th and 19th of October 2006 at the Students Arena exhibition


Implementation:- MEP prepared eight questions on social model supported by relevant documents (economic and social reforms in Slovenia, scholarship, kindergartens fees, retirement reform etc.)

- participation upon forum registration by entering the name and surname and valid e-mail address

- the web debate was opened 24 hours a day and moderated

- public and media promotion initiated and promotion materials with questions and web link were distributed through university

- public lecture on e-democracy and European parliament took place during the exhibition

- three interim reports and a final report were prepared and sent to the MEP and Parliamentary committee for the EU affairs at the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia


Key figures- 500 on-line visitors (3000+)- 100 messages (111 participants)- 4 reports from moderating team


Evaluation (e-consultation evaluation framework defined by A. Macintosh and A. Whyte, 2006):the communication view: - high level of intensitivity, - messages in line with the topic and starting questions, - expressing personal opinions, preferences and suggestions - no argumentation or additional information provided- opposite opinions – no attempts to reach consensus

the political view: - the Future European Social model debate on the agenda of the EP (identification of the policy suggestions) - MEP Mihael Brejc was a parliamentary reporter - MEP announced that final report of debate will be included in his report to the EP - MEP was not able to attend three day on-line debate, although he provided a public response on the final report


4. Lessons learned4. Lessons learned

Many students did not want to participate on-line:

“my opinion will not be included”“I am not interested”

“issue is to complicated”“I have no time”

“I do not want to get exposed”“I do not like on-line forums”


What could be improved:- low level of an on-line deliberation- better public promotion- more direct involvement of the MEP- more time- a better understanding of which students messages were included in MEP report and why (content analysis forthcoming)


Lessons learned:- top-down approach has democratic limitations (elitism)- trust building- facing complex situations when implementing eDemocracy in multilevel governance- politicians can to exploit democratic process- proper evaluation framework needed (including content analysis, policy analysis and in-depth interviews)


5. Future developments5. Future developments

strengthening the interest of Slovene MEP in Citizens forum when shaping European policies

strengthening media and public promotion of successful eDemocracy cases and its effect on political democracy

combining on-line and off-line debates

Web 2.0 applications

convergence with different eDemocracy tools

supplementing existent evaluation methodology

reflecting and understanding how in particular cases Citizen's forums shifted the balance of power within democracy process


THANK YOU!

[email protected] [email protected]

[email protected]@guest.arnes.si

Young People, New Technologies and Political Engagement University of Surrey, UK, 24-25 July 2007

Documents

Transcript of Young People, New Technologies and Political Engagement University of Surrey, UK, 24-25 July 2007