ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net Rosa Borge. From protest to political parties: online deliberation in the new parties arising in Spain http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18642 Notes from the research seminar From protest to political parties: online deliberation in the new parties arising in Spain by Rosa Borge, organized by the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute of the Open University of Catalonia, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on July 20th, 2015. From protest to political parties: online deliberation in the new parties arising in SpainRosa Borge, Eduardo Santamarina What are the deliberative practices of the two mos important parties (Podemos and Barcelona en Comú) that emerged from the 15M Indignados movement in Spain? What trade-offs entail the process of transformation from social movements into political parties? To what extent participation and deliberation could be realized at the same time? Podemos and Barcelona en comú were founded in 2014. Three months after its foundation, Podemos won 5 seats at the European Parliament, and less than a year after its foundation Barcelona en Comú won the mayoralty of Barcelona. Internal organization:

ANyone can easily register online and participate in important decisions. Open particpiatory spaces at the base of the party: assemblies, high degree of independence, etc. Dominant position of the General Assembly or Plenary. Specific consultation or referendum for important decisions: electoral programme, agreements with other parties, etc. Participatory preparation of the electoral programme and organizational documents. Channelling for individual proposals (Plaza Podemos). Revocation of elected positions.

Developed a theoretical framework for measuring online deliberation, after Kies (2010) and Friess & Eilders (2014):

Institutional or structural dimension: technical and structural design of the online platform in order to build a deliberative space: inclusion, asynchronous communication, content visibility, moderation, identification rules, division of labour, relevant information, horizontal interaction, etc. Communicative dimension: deliberative attitude of participants and how the communication process looks like, mainly with relation to the reaction of participants to each other’s ideas: discourse equality, reciprocity, justification, reflexivity, empathy, sincerity, plurality (inclusion). The outcome dimension: results or impact of the deliberation that could be individual or collective (external impact): tolerance, knowledge, efficacy, compromise, preference shift, consensus, legitimacy, impact on political decisions or public debates.

The research analysed the two most voted debates held in the online platform known as Plaza Podemos and the online process of developing the municipal electoral programme of Barcelona en Comú. The three levels (institutional, communicative, outcome) were examined through the deliberative criteria: analysis of the design of the platform and content analysis of the threads of the debates. Plaza Podemos run on an installation of Reddit; while Barcelona en Comú used DemocracyOS for the deliberation, plus Agora Voting to prioritise and vote the final proposals. Main conclusions:

Both online processes were designed to be both participatory and deliberative spaces. This “procedural duality” seems to lean towards the voting side, becoming a kind of competitive space. Tensions between openness and closeness (a typical tension of a party). Extensive experimentation of new democratic processes: learning by doing. Inducement of a “participatory literacy” among citizens. These processes and the internal structure will be subjected to future changes.

The processes maybe were not optimal, but very much aiming at improving democratic processes. Discussion Q: are there facilitators in the platforms? What is their role? Rosa Borge: yes, there are facilitators, which usually do not appear on the front row, and whose role is mainly technical. Q: how can you assure that you are fulfilling anyone’s expectations? Rosa Borge: we do not know by sure, but the overall sense of the community is of high satisfaction with both the platforms and the results. Ivan Serrano: after this research, how do we characterize Podemos or Barcelona en Comú? Are they deliberative parties? Aren’t they? Were do they stand between the extreme of being a traditional party and a fully deliberative one? How can they compare one with each other? Rosa Borge: it is difficult to say after our research, as only a few debates were analysed. But, there is enough evidence to say that these parties look different from other more traditional ones. And yes, there is a tension between pure Habermasian deliberation (which aims at consensus) and the need to participate within the constraints of electoral times. Indeed, the idea of consensus is highly criticised by some authors, and that is why it was not included as an indicator for deliberation: there seems not to be that important that there is an agreement at the end of the process (and just vote instead). Q: how long does it take to become a regular party? Rosa Borge: Everyone is quite surprised with the political success of both Podemos and Barcelona en Comú. What is true is that an initial lack of structures or political organization allows movements to move faster than traditional parties. After that, there is a tension between being operational and being more participative, and the tension is solved with a pendulum movement approaching each side until a balance is reached. Marc Esteve: what about the tension between consensus and voting? Rosa Borge: lately, the priority is to have a decision or a position after the process of participation and/or deliberation. Thus why in most platforms everything can be voted on the go. Yes, it adds a sort of competition unnatural in a deliberative process, but it also allows to have “something” at the end of the process, and to make the process a finite one, one that won’t last forever. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Rosa Borge. From protest to political parties: online deliberation in the new parties arising in Spain

Mon, 20 Jul 2015 03:44:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150720-rosa-borge-from-protest-to-political-parties-online-deliberation-in-the-new-parties-arising-in-spain/
IDP2015 (IX). Multidisciplinary debate on the challenges of smart cities http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18641 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. Multidisciplinary debate on the challenges of smart citiesChairs: Marta Continente Pilar Conesa. Founder and director of Anteverti. Increasing concentration of people living in urban areas. Areas which are becoming totally saturated and ask for new ways or urban planning. This includes not only transportation, but also public services like education, healthcare, etc. The 19th century was a century of empires, the 20th century was a century of nation states, the 21st century will be a century of cities, Wellington E. Webb. If we want to develop new cities, new smart cities, we need to know and share the approach behind. This is not trivial and it will determine the model of smart city that will be put into practice. There is no smart city without a smart government. Oriol Torruella. Director of the Legal Consultancy Department, CESICAT, Information Security Center of Catalonia Smart city: improve the efficiency and efficacy of the management of the city, by means of an intensive usage of ICTs. There are, though, some risks: the vulnerabilities of both software and hardware; the management of the citizen identity; treatment of personal data; affectation to the availability and security of critical infrastructures, etc. It is crucial that citizens become smart citizens too if they are to be part of a smart city. They have to be aware of all risks of cibersecurity, what are the laws that apply to certain practices and activities, etc. Ricard Faura. Head of Knowledge Society, Generalitat de Catalunya The citizen in the smart city, sensor or actor? (Pisani, Datopolis o Particopolis?) We have to foster some elements through ICTs: participation, organization and collaboration. For the smart city to be useful for the citizens, one needs to empower the citizens themselves, so that they can be active and critical. But ICTs have to be empowering, not barriers. Main duties of the government: diffusion, information, awareness raising, training. The city has to be a real lab where everything is possible and everything can be analysed and improved, and especially fitting the particular needs of the different communities that one finds within the city or across cities. Discussion José Luis Rubiés: Is there a risk of an illustrated despotism from the one that manages all these data? Who is the curator of the big data coming from smart cities? Ricard Faura: yes, this is a huge risk. Oriol Torruella: we are just at the dawn of smart cities and, as usually Humanity has done in the past, we work on a trial and error basis: we implement things, realize the risks, try to correct them, and on and on. Little by little we will learn to design better, to avoid risks before we implement, etc. Q: can we extrapolate initiatives from one place to the other so that we do not have to reinvent the wheel? Marta Continente: yes and no. Yes, one can adapt what worked elsewhere. But the important thing is that ICTs, or whatever initiative on smart cities, are just a toolbox. And, as such, its application or usage will strongly depend on the realities found in each specific city. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (IX). Multidisciplinary debate on the challenges of smart cities

Fri, 03 Jul 2015 05:04:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150703-idp2015-ix-multidisciplinary-debate-on-the-challenges-of-smart-cities/
IDP2015 (VIII). Juan José Medina Ariza: Crime Mapping and the Smart City http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18640 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. Smart city, smart policingProf. Dr. Dr. Juan José Medina Ariza. Professor of Criminology (University of Manchester) Security has traditionally been based on a top-down visions, a centralized control room. Many municipalities have sort of “dashboards” that map the city crime, security issues, socio-economic indicators, etc. These dashboards aim at locating clusters where more crime takes place, identifying the determinants or correlating factors of that crime, etc. After this clustering and correlations, one can create tools that can try to predict crime, based on trends and simulations. And once crime is “predicted”, then comes “predicted policing”, that aims at stopping crime just before it takes place, going to the place where crime is most likely to happen.

Problems when opening data: What happens when we open the data? How legitimate is its collection? How fair is its analysis? The risks of Campbell’s law: the more one uses an indicator for decision-making purposes, the less it is useful for decision-making purposes, as it use imprints a bias into the indicator itself. We know too that in some cases, there are biases in citizens reporting crime: many of them will not be eager to report crime, because this will diminish the value of their real state, because of own security reasons, etc. What’s next? From predicting hotspots to individual predictions. A growing awareness about the problems with algorithms. Going back to measuring what matters. Privatised criminal justice is not science fiction any longer. On the other hand, we will maybe see a rise in transparency in what relates to police practices, like stop and search. There is a problem with profiling with big data, as in the one hand it is built upon evidence, but on the other hand it can strengthen biases, stigmas and prejudices. Discussion E.J. Koops: does crime mapping represent reality or constitutes reality? Juan José Medina: this is definitely a problem with mapping that needs being addressed specifically in each and every case. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (VIII). Juan José Medina Ariza: Crime Mapping and the Smart City

Fri, 03 Jul 2015 03:49:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150703-idp2015-viii-juan-jose-medina-ariza-crime-mapping-and-the-smart-city/
IDP2015 (VII). E.J. Koops: Physical and Online Privacy: fundamental challenges for level frameworks to remain relevant http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18639 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. Physical and Online Privacy: fundamental challenges for level frameworks to remain relevant.Prof. Dr. E.J. Koops. Professor of Regulation & Technology (Tilburg Institute for Law, Technology, and Society) Is it legal, or should it be allowed to:

Scan homes with termal equipped drones in search of hemp domestic plantations? Take a snapshot of a stranger, google them, recognize their faces, peek at their social networking profiles and start a conversation with them on their preferences? Track people inside shops with wifi-tracking, analyze their movements in the shop and thus place advertising on the counter?

Conceptual history of locating privacy:

The body (habeas corpus): physical privacy. The home: physical privacy + private space. The letter: physical privacy + closed ‘space’ between homes. The telephone: ‘closed’ ‘space’ between homes. Mobile phone: ‘closed’ ‘space’. The computer: protecting data, not spaces. The cloud: loss of location.

The home evaporates. There is a lot of information that now one can access without entering a home. And, usually, looking inside without entry is allowed. Same happens now with technology and digital data. The public space is increasingly becoming privacy-sensible: increased traceability, increased identifiability (face recognition, augmented reality)… And with the trend to improve body functions through implants and prosthesis, the body itself sort of becomes a “public space” as its data (including brain stimuli) can be exported out of the body. It is increasingly difficult to draw the technical distinction between traffic data and content of communications, particularly on an Internet context. The distinction, indeed, is becoming less relevant, as traffic data are also increasingly privacy-sensitive (location, profiling). Problems/fallacies:

Data protection law cannot give individuals control over their data. Too much confidence in the controller/regulator: the law is becoming too complex. Regulating everything in one statutory law: impossibility for comprehensiveness.

What is privacy?

The right to be let alone. Controlling information about oneself. Freedom from judgement of others. Freedom from unreasonable constraints. Depends on the context.

More information

E.J. Koops (2014). The trouble with European data protection law.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (VII). E.J. Koops: Physical and Online Privacy: fundamental challenges for level frameworks to remain relevant

Fri, 03 Jul 2015 02:32:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150703-idp2015-vii-e-j-koops-physical-and-online-privacy-fundamental-challenges-for-level-frameworks-to-remain-relevant/
IDP2015 (VI). Smart cities II http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18638 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. Smart cities IIChairs: Ismael Peña-López DCCPP = PRIVACY BY DESIGN Direct Current Communications & Privacy Protocol (DCCPP) proposed for a privacy protective DC Smart GridE.M. Wesselingh, P. van Willigenburg, H. Stokman A new system to manage appliances where privacy is built in by design. This is a two layer DC smart-grid. The first layer is the home environment with many appliances that use DC electrical energy such as laptops and tablets, smartphones, TVs, LED lights. The second part of the proposed design covers the street-side of the electrical distribution grid. Separating these grids, a higher degree of safety and privacy is enabled. De-mediation processes and their impact on legal ordering –Lessons l. earned from Uber conflictMariona Rosell-Llorens Some norms regarding ICTs have proven to be ineffective (e.g. intellectual property rights), though some efficacy depends on acceptance. What makes a city smart is to profit from its community’s input. Seems like the grounds of law are disconnected fro current practices. The theory of the legal system is not receptive enough. Better laws need better legal theory. De-mediation processes and Uber: de-mediation is related with autonomy. ICTs and appservices provide individuals a capacity ofr acting without interference of traditional intermediaries. Autonomy understood in the sense of empowerment, user participation, community building. But then participants experience law. What happens when participants by-pass the formally enacted law? How participants experience legality thanks to ICTs? We maybe need a better informed legal theory, based on social grounds. It is not a matter of legitimacy, but a better informed norm. We need more reasonable and sensible laws, “new” conceptual tools. Barrio Digital [digital neighbourhood]: the way towards the digital cityManuel Dávila Sguerra The idea of the project was the creation of a smart city within the Minuto de Dios neighbourhood in Engativá (Bogotá). 1,200 students geolocated data from the neighbourhood. This enabled a next step consisting in adding the “social layer” to the map. 1,075 shoppers where characterized. The shoppers were trained by the students so that they learnt how to use certain devices and access to information. Augmented reality was used to put services on the map, including cultural venues, so that the citizen could know what was around him, just by using their smartphone on the street. Courses on digital literacy, especially for disabled people. Bottom-up vision: the smartest cities are the ones that embrace openness, randomness and serendipity. Discussion Ismael Peña-López: how do we tell the difference between adapting the law to fair practices and legalizing unfair behaviours? Mariona Rosell-Llorens: while we should keep safe some important principles, it is also true that society is increasingly complex and, thus, the traditional way of approving a law — mostly with a dominant top-down approach — is outdated and should be complemented with a higher observation (even concurrence) of what happens on the street, a more bottom-up approach. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (VI). Smart cities II

Fri, 03 Jul 2015 01:04:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150703-idp2015-vi-smart-cities-ii/
IDP2015 (V). E-government and transparency http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18637 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. E-government and transparencyChairs: Agustí Cerrillo And open and transparent government paradigm in middle Spanish municipalities: the case of Quart de PobletJoaquín Martín Cubas, Laura Juan y Juan Medina Cobo

The open government initiative was about creating a dialogue, between the citizen, the Administration and the political representatives. The issue of the digital divide has been addressed with a digital literacy programme. A programme that, beyond just literacy, it was aimed at social inclusion. Open government is transparency, but not just transparency: it is a new organizational model. Participation in the new open government initiative was inspired by Irekia, the open government platform of the Basque government. Transparency for the sake of transparency? Or to achieve an open government? An opportunity for innovation in the governance of the universityGemma Geis Carreras, Annaïs Varo Barranco, Daniel Cantalosella Font The application of the new Catalan Law on Transparency made the University of Girona decide that they would implement an open government initiative in the university. The project includes not only knowledge diffusion and accountability, but also opening up platforms and channels for participation. The new portal also features the electronic seat of the University of Girona, which includes electronic voting features. Transparen cities, intelligent procurement. Analysis of the impact of ICTs in procurement transparency in municipalitiesJordi Romeu Granados, Gregorio Juárez Rodríguez, Carmen Pineda Nebot Theoretical framework: public procurement, transparency in public procurement, smart cities. Analysis of different municipalities and their use of public procurement. 22 indicators that build the ITCA index, including the profile of the public contractor, the ITA 2014 from Transparency International and what applies by the Spanish Transparency Law 19/2013. Findings say that more transparency in procurement highly correlates with transparency in general, an aim for innovation and work towards a smart city paradigm, etc. Discussion Q: what is the cost of such initiatives? Juan Medina: It depends. On the one hand, some infrastructures are expensive. But, on the other hand, changing the way the Administration works and, most especially, changing the attitudes of the public representatives is almost costless. And the impact may be much higher than putting up costly projects without change of attitudes. Jordi Romeu: there is a problem in measuring open government and it is that measuring usually ends at the output level, and almost never reaches the outcome level. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (V). E-government and transparency

Thu, 02 Jul 2015 08:52:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150702-idp2015-v-e-government-and-transparency/
IDP2015 (IV). Internet, Politics and Society http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18636 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. Internet, Politics and SocietyChairs: Rosa Borge New democratic movements, political culture and models of democracyJosé Luis Martí, Laura Roth We are beginning to contest the assumption that not voting is not participating in politics. And it is increasingly clear that it is not so: participation in extra-representative politics is becoming more important and will most likely be. Under this new train of though, what should be the profile of the “good citizen” in terms of political participation and engagement? There is a first factor that needs being reframed. Most literature on social capital, participation in organizations, etc. seems not to be fitting what current ways of participation are to be found in new social and political movements. It looks like citizens begin to have new approaches, new attitudes, new cultures of participation that are just not compatible with old school participation models. Four models:

The traditional model: citizens are like readers that read the “book of ideas” of their representatives. But little more. The accountability model: addedd to “reading the book”, they can comment on it, they can compare what they see with their own position, etc. The participative model: citizens are also authors of the “book” while representatives are like “editors” who put the ideas or proposals into practice. New values like toerance, equity. Also new skills. Networked democracy: citizens are authors, editors and readers of the “books” created by the collective. This model is a total rupture with the preceding models.

Open politics and participation. The case of PodemosVicenta Tasa Fuster, Anselm Bodoque Arribas There is a confrontation between what some call old politics and new politics, the latter being characterized by an intensive use of technology and highly valuing participation. Participation: in a democratic sense, participation only has sense if it is permanent, open, free and deliberative (Joan Subirats). Podemos has fostered participation, but it has decreased over time, and never reached 50% of the members of the party. They use a combination of platforms and tools (Appgree, Loomio, Reddit, Impulsa, the Talent Bank, Doodle, TitanPad, Google Groups and Google Drive, etc.). When it comes to internal organization, it is difficult to tell new from old politics. But in matters of participation, there may be a difference. After several participation processes, the average in Spain is that only 27% of the members of the party participated in voting for their representatives to be secretary general in their respective regions. For the primary elections (March 2015) participation was even lower (circa 23%). Why this low participation when the party self-defines itself as participatory? ESpecially relevant, as the newcomers should be, in theory, highly motivated. And the barriers to vote were very low, as they only required and ID and a connection to the Internet. Different reasons:

Different degree of organization and definition of the own interests: there are many ways in which people participate.

People that always participate. People that only participate in some specific issues of their interest. Partisans that are not very organized. Partisans that never participate.

Gender divide. Women usually have less time to participate, due to domestic burdens, sheer discrimination, etc. Digital divide. Relevant if the main (if not the only) means to participate is digital and requiring high digital skills. In addition, we know that there is a gender divide within the digital divide. Different reasons of the partisans. Most leaders in Podemos are men, and many topics raised in the participation platforms are genuinely masculine.

Digital divide and genderMaría José Senent Vidal We see that the digital divide has an important gender component, especially when it comes to usage and advanced uses (second and third digital divides).

Ability to access. Ability and control of use. Advanced uses, participation in processes of decision and creation.


Right to digital inclusion. Overcoming of stereotypes. Technological empowerment.

Discussion Albert Batlle: is Podemos faking participation but its design is aimed at making participation difficult? Bodoque: It is not clear. There seems to be an opposition of factors and values. On the one hand, Podemos was born thanks to participation, on the other hand, the more the party grows, the more difficult to manage participation. It is also true that the decrease in participation may also be due to the fading of the newness factor and tiredness of several participation processes. David Martínez: how sustainable are these new forms of political participation? Can we put into practice such a model of democracy? José Luís Martí: the 15M was not about decision-making, was about deliberation. This is a difference with Podemos, which is a party and wants to make decisions, but it also gives some ideas on the nature of Podemos and what they think about participation: it’s about deliberation, and about doing it outside of the institutions, on one’s everyday life. On the other hand, it is not only internal participation that matters, but also general participation of the citizen. José Luís Martí: it has been said that participation in Podemos was low. But, how do we tell low from high? How do we compare? Vicenta Tasa: there are two clear concentric circles in Podemos, one that leads and participates the whole time, another one in the periphery and with much less engagement. Anselm Bodoque: it’s true, that in general terms people in Podemos participate, deliberate and vote much more than in other political parties. But still, one would expect like more excitation in the ranks of Podemos. Anselm Bodoque: it is important to highlight the motivation factor and the false sense of equality in participation. It is just not true that everyone participates in equal conditions in participatory processes: some people organize and some don’t. And the ones that organize are more effective and efficient that the lone wolves. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (IV). Internet, Politics and Society

Thu, 02 Jul 2015 07:06:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150702-idp2015-iv-internet-politics-and-society/
IDP2015 (III). Smart Cities (I) http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18635 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. Communications session: Smart Cities (I)Chairs: Álvaro Nicolás Open smart cities: ¿whose are the data?Julián Valero Torrijos, Juan Ramón Robles Albero Whose are the data gathered by some smart cities initiatives? This question is especially relevant when many public services are managed by private firms. It’s interesting because these are data that are needed to provide the service, and thus private firms do need them. But, on the other hand, these data is generated by the user and thus likely to be ownership of the citizen. How do we solve this? Our conclusion is that most data should be regulated as usual, protecting the citizen, etc. But. In some cases, especially when it deals about the know how of the private firm and how to improve the provision of the service, in some of these cases maybe data should remain property of the private firm, as it is part of their know how and own protocols and processes. Smart mobility, data protection and social surveillanceAlessandro Mantelero We are moving towards a pervasive data ecosystem. Big data and the Internet of Things are having an impact on individual and collective data protection, a need for balancing conflicts of interests, and have to move from a theoretical approach to an empirical approach, as the smart mobility case. We need to address open data and risk assessment, such as the factors that increase the risk of re-identification, and the different levels of access to mobility data. Examples: the London bike-sharing case or the user-centric approach adopted in the Piedmont case. In the cases above, many data and at many levels is gathered, including personal information and travel information. Data protection is applied by design, both at the collection, storage and access and analysis of the datasets. Conclusions: proportionality, risk-assessment, empower the citizen. Urban governance and smart cities. The case of BarcelonaMariona Tomàs Fornés Since the end 0f 1980s we are facing a new concept of governance. Global governance is a process of coordination of actors, social groups, institutions to reach certain goals that have been debated and defined collectively. It implies a change in decision-making and policy-making. It includes different geographical scales, new public and private actors, etc. The hypothesis of this work is that the development of the smart city implies a shift towards the pro-growth model. Goals for the case of the smarty city in Barcelona: based on efficiency, sustainability and a mix of several projects of many kinds put together under the umbrella of ‘smart cities’. Many of these projects already existed and the city council just rephrases them under this common umbrella. The city council will transform the city into a urban lab so that the city (and the citizen) can be used as a lab by technological firms so that they can test initiatives, devices, etc. How has the urban governance of Barcelona changed after their involvement in smart city projects? The participation of the private sector in financing urban projects has definitely increased, as has been the scheduling of big international events and culture as a development strategy. Citizen participation still is important, but somehow it seems that the usual spaces of participation have not been integrated with other initiatives and spaces more related to the smart city strategy. On the other hand, there is less strategic planning and less new institutions to lead new projects: private firms do not seem to be interested in strategic planning and new institutions have been replaced by ad hoc created public-private partnerships. Barcelona is a typical case of conceiving the smart city within the principles of the entrepreneurial city: competitiveness, growth policies, use of public-private partnerships. Pierre (1999) proposes different models of urban governance:

Managerial Participative. Pro-growth. Redistributive.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (III). Smart Cities (I)

Thu, 02 Jul 2015 04:30:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150702-idp2015-iii-smart-cities-i/
IDP2015 (II). Wim Vanobberghen: The Politics of Governance, Citizen Participation and the City: is the smart revolution on its way? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18634 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. The Politics of Governance, Citizen Participation and the City: is the smart revolution on its way?Wim Vanobberghen. Researcher, iMinds-SMIT (Vrije Universiteit Brussel). The smart city should be a citizen platform to bring all the actors involved in the city together. Top-down vision is important because of policy, regulation, governance and businesses can provide a level playing field an set the rules of the game; and they seek efficiency gains in light of sustainability issues. However, this vision entails issues and questions: on control; on technological centeredness; on the status of citizens, which are seen as consumers and passive innovators, in citizens’ consultation in design only in the last phase; or turning the smart city as an “achievement” in itself. Bottom-up vision: the smartest cities are the ones that embrace openness, randomness and serendipity — everything that makes a great city (Greg Lindsay, 2011); embrace complexity; attention to local innovation. However, this vision entail issues on scalability, long-term vision and barriers and incentives to entry. Smart cities as a platform: collaborative, contextual, collective (Breuer, Walravens & Ballon, 2014, Beyond defining the smart city: meeting top-down and bottom-up appraoches in the middle). The living lab definition: a real-life test and experimentation environment; where users and produces co-create, test and validate innovations; in a trusted, open ecosystem that enables service and business innovation. Characteristics of living labs: exploration/idea, experimentation/prototype, evaluation/minimum viable product. From ICT to urban living labs: adaptation of living lab to smart city service delivery; focus more on public value than economic value as in traditional ICT-living labs; the user here confronted directly as citizens with his environment (“sense of place”); the city as an enabler: vision, allocate resources, strategic leaderhip, promote networking (Juujärvi & Pesso, 2013). Governance and citizen participation:

‘Participatory turn’ in media technologies: online, collaborative platforms on the Internet (e.g. social networking sites); blurring of ‘production and consumption’ practices. Since recent years, open government practices in (smart) cities: creating thematic portals with open government data; facilitating citizens in the production of (local) information and services; supported by institutional-provided toolkits.

Research on how two local city administrations (Ghent, Athens) can facilitate and optimize citizen involvement in the co-production of city services (tourism, transportation). To what extent is this citizen involvement a revolution? ICTs in the city present great opportunities:

Active citizenship. Creative communities. The city as a process of collective production and co-design.

Discussion Ismael Peña-López: you presented a view where smart cities and new social movements are complementary one to another, instead of the usual confrontational approach where new social movements frontally oppose to the concept of smart city. Why do you think it is so? Wim Vanobberghen: there surely is an ideological opposition from social movements to what they see it is a mostly technological and business fostered initiative, instead of seeing it as a piece related to community building and technology appropriation. Of course, the bias towards financial sustainability that city councils have is also opposed to a more communitarian point of view led by social movements. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (II). Wim Vanobberghen: The Politics of Governance, Citizen Participation and the City: is the smart revolution on its way?

Thu, 02 Jul 2015 03:08:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150702-idp2015-ii-wim-vanobberghen-the-politics-of-governance-citizen-participation-and-the-city-is-the-smart-revolution-on-its-way/
IDP2015 (I). Daniele Quercia: Connected New Urbanism http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18633 Notes from the 11th Internet, Law and Politics Congress: Regulating Smart Cities, organized by the Open University of Catalonia, School of Law and Political Science, and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 2-3 July 2015. More notes on this event: idp2015. Connected New Urbanism. The future of the city is about peopleDaniele Quercia, Computer Scientist and Urban Computing Researcher The debate around smart cities is usually led by technology — and the industry — and not by the citizen. Smart cities can (or should…) be understood as the study of the dynamics of online networked individuals and use it for the improvement of cities in the future. Kevin Lynch stated that one’s degree of well-being is highly conditioned by the layout of the city in which one lives, the layout of streets, etc. And it is quite much about visibility: the ease with which each part of a city can be recognized and organized in a coherent pattern. Stanley Milgram studied what parts of the city were visible and what where not. And he found out, again, that visibility had to do with one’s degree of well-being. This visibility, or better put, the recognizability was measured through an experiment: Urban Opticon. And we can aggregate peoples visions, how people recognize what places, and put them in the map. That map — actually a cartogram — shows how some places in one city are highly relevant for people’s lives, while other are just “invisible” to most people’s eyes. What data says is that the more a recognizable a place is, the more correlated its well-being level. There is a high and positive correlation between recognizability and well-being. This is important for policy-making as it may be a good idea to put up initiatives that increase recognizability in order to contribute to the improvement of well-being. Smells, odours, colours, etc. also help humans in mapping their environment. After analyzing how people tagged colours, or smells on social networking sites, a dictionary of urban smells was created. It was found that there is a high correlation between how some terms were tagged and the reality of the landscape at that given place (pollution, nature, etc.) and, thus, one can draft a map of the city and its assets after what people say in social media. With social media we can contribute to map the city and, most especially, how people see and live the city. Discussion Xavier Campos: can’t these methodologies be used for urban planning? Daniele Quercia: usually not, most architects or urban planners do not use these methodologies. Only after the realization that these methodologies can help in designing projects that will make happier citizens, then maybe architects are more positive about using them. Clara Marsan: how do you assess the relevance, the significance and representativeness of the data you get from social media? Daniele Quercia: during experiments, some personal data were also asked for, so that biases according to profiles can be corrected. We found out that our data is representative by age, gender and race, but not by professional experience. On the other hand, you can also have filtering techniques to improve the words (the language dictionary) used, to correct biases, etc. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as IDP2015 (I). Daniele Quercia: Connected New Urbanism

Thu, 02 Jul 2015 01:30:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150702-idp2015-i-daniele-quercia-connected-new-urbanism/
El fin de la casta http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18632 La corte celestial de Indra, cortesía del Asian Curator at The San Diego Museum of Art Y con las últimas elecciones municipales del pasado 24 de mayo en España, se acabó la casta. En 2007, Gian Antonio Stella e Sergio Rizzo publicaban La casta. Così i politici italiani sono diventati intoccabili (La casta. Así los políticos italianos se han convertido en intocables), un libro en el que denunciaban la impunidad con que los representantes públicos en Italia conseguían hacer y deshacer a su antojo. Cuatro años más tarde, en 2011, Daniel Montero publicaba en España La Casta. El increíble chollo de ser político en España y al año siguiente se le añadían los periodistas Sandra Mir y Gabriel Cruz con La casta autonómica. Mientras el primero calculaba — y criticaba — el a su juicio hinchadísimo coste de la política y las administraciones españolas (y la picaresca y caradura asociada), los segundos aprovechaban los cambios de gobiernos locales y autonómicos del año anterior para destapar — o poner de relieve — los desmanes presupuestarios perpetrados a lo ancho y largo de nuestro país por cargos electos y afines (también con flecos de corrupción por todas partes). De ahí, o desde otro lugar (quién sabe: la paternidad de las ideas es altamente promiscua), se popularizó el calificativo de “la casta” para atacar, sin grandes ánimos de separar y diferenciar, a todo lo que se moviese y oliese a amiguismo, clientelismo, nepotismo, corrupción, prevaricación, robo, fraude, arrimarse al poder, holgar en el poder, holgazanear en el poder y ser un malnacido en general. Hay que reconocer que el término es más que ilustrativo. Y su uso — tanto en intensidad como en extensión por parte de algunos partidos políticos — ha contribuido, en positivo, a situar en el debate público desde prácticas legales pero poco éticas hasta lo más criminal, desvergonzado y mezquino que se ha realizado desde lo público. Ahora bien, la casta — o la mafia u otros gentilicios para los habitantes de las instituciones públicas o para-públicas (cajas, empresas públicas, etc.) — no deja de ser una generalización. Y, como tal, es injusta. Y, más que injusta, acaba siendo ineficiente: nubla la vista y no nos permite hacer diagnósticos ajustados, ajustados a la realidad, a las necesidades, a los recursos. Cuando todo es casta, nada puede (ni debe) salvarse del fuego purificador. Y de ahí a pegarle fuego a todo, va un paso. Y de ahí a acabar uno mismo inmolado por el propio fuego media otro último paso. Puede ser que veamos un uso decreciente de “la casta”. Y creo que lo veremos, en particular, por dos razones:

Porque ya ha hecho su uso. Se puso en marcha para (1) denunciar determinadas prácticas y (2) para diferenciar a determinadas personas, grupos, movimientos o partidos de dichas prácticas. Bien, ambas cosas ya han sucedido, han tenido su desarrollo y sus resultados. Por una parte, la agenda pública lo tiene incorporado y el poder judicial y los medios parece que ponen cartas en el asunto. Por otra parte, dichas personas y partidos han concurrido ya a unas (o varias) elecciones, que ya han terminado y se puede dar por finalizada la campaña. Porque la generalización implícita (o explícita) en el concepto de casta empieza a entrar en contradicciones. Contradicciones por construcción, porque muchos de quienes utilizaban el calificativo pueden ahora confundirse, al poblar las instituciones, con esa misma casta. Si son todos, son todos. Y contradicciones por obra, dado que hay decisiones que, a lo mejor, no eran casta. O actuaciones que no eran tan propias de la casta. Y decisiones y actuaciones que va a haber que tomar, porque son necesarias, legales, justas y legítimas. Porque, a lo mejor, no todo era casta.

Es por ello por lo que pienso que al concepto de “la casta” le queda poco recorrido. Uno no puede andarse generalizando sin acabar siendo un cínico o un ignorante, sin empezar a crear excepciones, sin tender a autojustificarse allí donde antes no encontraba justificación alguna. Cuánto se alargue la pervivencia del término casta nos indicará qué camino se ha acabado tomando. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como El fin de la casta

Sun, 28 Jun 2015 10:04:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20150628-el-fin-de-la-casta/
New democratic movements (V). Taking stock: workshop concluding remarks http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18631 Notes from the Workshop on New democratic movements, civic culture and the transformations of democracy, organized by the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, Spain, on June 18th and 19th, 2015. More notes on this event: new_democratic_movements. Taking stock: workshop concluding remarksIntroduced by José Luís Martí A common trend of these social movements is the way democracy works, coming after a deep discontent of the quality of democracy in general and its institutions in particular. Another common trend, now in the how movements work, is horizontality. An idea that resonates with the movements back in the 1960s in the US. These movements are highly deliberative. Deliberative and not aiming at representing anyone: it is precisely this deliberative nature that is highly inclusive not only in the sense of not leaving anyone out, but also in the sense that everyone should be invited to represent themselves, on their own. The role of consensus — highly opposed to violence, being non-violence another key of the movement — is key, and is closely related with their view regarding to leadership. These are movements that seamlessly combine the occupation of physical public spaces and the creation and use of virtual digital spaces. In many cases — though is not that common as with other issues — this comes accompanied by a defence of the common good and the commons, sometimes relabelled or reinterpreted or enhanced as the digital commons (and related to digital culture, including software). There is an interesting point to be made: the movements not only aim at transforming the democratic institutions, but also want to perform a deep transformation in citizens. They expect that citizens are transformed by the movement and rethink their attitudes towards democracy and its institutions, and the way they feel about participation. Discussion Marianne Maeckelbergh: it is crucial to acknowledge the non-violent nature of the movements. But not (only) from an ethic point of view, but also from a strategic point of view, as a very well though modus operandi. Michael Gould-Wartofsky: maybe it is not totally accurate to call these movements totally horizontal. They were born in cases of huge inequality, and thus they were also accessed or participated unevenly. Maybe multiplicity and modularity are better ways to define them. Jane Mansbridge: There was a huge effort to get more people to think about new ways to put pressure on the State. The focus of the deliberation was often to rethink one’s own role as a citizen, what is one’s relationship with the institutions, and how to take action after that awareness of who one is and what the relationship is with public decision-making. Ismael Peña-López: These are movements that are not “against the system” but totally in favour of it, fighting to reinforce it, to strengthen it, to heal it. They are nor (or not all of them) unconditionally for direct democracy. Instead, they aim at taking the best of Ancient Greek democracy and the best of modern democracy: will it be liquid or hybrid democracy or another thing, we do not know. But we may expect that extra-representative democracy will have a strong role in it. Thus, we need new tools to measure how extra-representative participation works, what are their outputs and outcomes, and how does it relate with democratic institutions. And a last thought goes to the movement for the independence of Catalonia, which had some similarities with the 15M (indeed, the topic was debate during the Barcelona camps) in the ways that it is working and some similarities in some (not always shared, though) of the principles, especially about regaining sovereignty upon the governance of the system. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as New democratic movements (V). Taking stock: workshop concluding remarks

Fri, 19 Jun 2015 04:42:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150619-new-democratic-movements-v-taking-stock-workshop-concluding-remarks/
New democratic movements (IV). The civic culture of the new democratic movements http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18630 Notes from the Workshop on New democratic movements, civic culture and the transformations of democracy, organized by the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, Spain, on June 18th and 19th, 2015. More notes on this event: new_democratic_movements. The civic culture of the new democratic movementsIntroduced by Donatella della Porta and Mariona Ferrer Donatella della Porta The movements initiated in the squares look like they will stay in the long term. They have shown different ways of civic action that are very inclusive, horizontal, autonomous… these values are deeply rooted in important citizen values that anyone can embrace. Inclusiveness, for instance, is crucial for deliberation to take place smoothly. Pluralism, another value of the new movements, is a continuation of the essence of former movements against globalization, but it is more inclusive than those. The value of equality is also a continuity with the global justice movement, but it is not as a side return of representative democracy, but now a direct return of direct democracy, of direct participation in politics. In the new movements there is a need to rebuild a new identity that is not related with past movements, but a new thing. And made of individual nodes in a network, and not made of associations or people being part of associations. Strong emphasis on solidarity, on reciprocity. Aim at a transnational diffusion of ideas, the idea of a different democracy, a participatory democracy based on the idea of the commons. But will political parties tied to the social movements be able to bring on these values when they are in office, or they are in the institutions? The idea of the commons is strictly related with the idea of consensus, with the idea of discussing probable conflicts and try to find solutions together. The idea of building cities within the city, to reorganize resources, to redistribute them. Mariona Ferrer Did a research on how people lived the events and their evolution after to get to the institutions. The interviews showed a huge commitment with shared values like democracy, deliberation, the importance of listening to the others, equality, respect… Participants acknowledged that taking part of the assemblies was very time consuming and needed a strong commitment. Consensus is very well respected, and it is believed to be the way to respect all views and reach agreements, but at the same time consensus was felt like a difficult methodology for big assemblies. Participants had a critical vision on leadership, and recognised instead the need of facilitators and coordinators of events, commissions, etc. Thus, it was a new kind of leadership, neutral, facilitating, that was expected, and not the usual frontman. Representative democracy was very negatively qualified, and in the case of Spain, the Transition (the transition from Franco Dictatorship into the actual democratic regime) was also badly criticised. Discussion José Luís Martí: we are finding out that people that were not participating in politics, that were not voting, that were saying that institutions and politicians did not represent them, they were actually not against democracy, but on the contrary, they show very strong values for democracy. We should retune our indicators to better measure what is going on, to see why these people that we labelled as not being interested in democracy were actually saying, with their actions, that they actually did. These people should be recognized as having higher civic values. David Karpf: if we now witnessed a new movement occupying the streets, but not with these values, would we consider them as part of these new movements, or would it be a new thing? Marianne Maeckelberg: horizontal politics will continue to be in many other movements. But the nature of the movements is different and, thus, movements are distinguishable. Ismael Peña-López: the difference between the social movements that were born in the 15M in Spain, or as Occupy Wall Street in the US, and what will come after is similar to the differences between the Free Software and Open Source Software: the procedures will be replicated, with success and in interesting, genuine and legitimate projects. But the ethos will necessarily be different, and one will be able to identify distinct movements by the distinct ethos attached to them. Jane Mansbridge: what won’t happen in the next 20 years is that traditional parties or unions will occupy streets. It would just seem anachronistic that old politics would use such new practices. And part of keeping these forms within the boundaries of what’s new, and keeping them as long as possible, is part of trying to keep people into the movement, to keep the momentum of the movement, to try to make it an important part of one’s life and, all in all, to try that people feel that they are being part of History. This needs not be fully conscious: it may just be so, it may just happen, but the underlying idea is that, to mark it as you were part of making History. Ignacia Perugorría: It is important to highlight the importance of the squatter movement. Many of the methodologies used during the camps and assemblies were already being used at places like Patio Maravillas. People that had participated in squatter movements had already the values of horizontality and consensus. Adolfo Estalella: occupation was also about creating new infrastructures — one’s own infrastructures — and about challenging private property. In this sense, the occupations and the camps highly resonate with free software in the sense that they also create infrastructures that are needed to reach a specific goal, to be able to work, and at the same time these are community infrastructures that anyone can use and reuse. José Luís Martí: but is this that different from what happened in the 1960s? Jane Mansbridge: it is. On the one hand, we have the digital revolution and what comes with it, which is not only a revolution in communications, but a revolution at all levels in society. On the other hand, the economic context cannot be more different: the 1960s were living and economic boom, and everything was possible, while now we are living a dire contraction, where the feeling is that nothing is possible and that there is no future. David Kapf: is there a certain degree of elitism in these movements, as there is in free software? if one does not have the skills to participate — or to code — can one really be part of it? Marianne Maeckelberg: there is a similarity between the 1960s in the US and the new social movements in the sense that they challenge the discipline of the party, the hierarchy of the democracies of that time, they bring in participatory practices, and with these, also new issues come to the public arena like the environment, feminism, racism, etc. which in many senses now resonate in new movements. And like then, there is now a second wave that struggles with keeping the essence of the assembly and the consensus while “scaping” the assembly and trying to get things done. Jane Mansbridge: a new thing that did not exist in the 1960s is the revival of the concept of the commons and the direct challenge to redefine private property, especially in what are common spaces, common tools, common protocols. Ismael Peña-López: the granularity of participation was also new, and not only that you could participate in many and different things and ways, but also that it was one’s choice to decide whether to participate in e.g. an assembly in a camp or blogging the whole thing from home. That is, granularity of participation that also came in a decentraized and non-hierarchical way. Q: It’s interesting to note how the Indignados movement succeeded in gathering different ideologies and sensibilities in political matters. Maybe what they have in common is the common good. Adolfo Estalella: Maybe. But it may be more correct to say that they have in common the concept of the commons, not of the common good. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as New democratic movements (IV). The civic culture of the new democratic movements

Fri, 19 Jun 2015 03:03:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150619-new-democratic-movements-iv-the-civic-culture-of-the-new-democratic-movements/
New democratic movements (III). Occupy Wall Street and the 15M Spanish Indignados movement http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18629 Notes from the Workshop on New democratic movements, civic culture and the transformations of democracy, organized by the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, Spain, on June 18th and 19th, 2015. More notes on this event: new_democratic_movements. New democratic movementsIntroduced by Michael Gould-Wartofsky and Ismael Peña López Michael Gould-Wartofsky: Occupy Wall Street Occupy movements: critique of actual politics, focus on the economic side of politics (both how they deal about economics and the economics of power), direct democracy, horizontality, etc. Occupations where planned on a decentralized way, with a huge network of supporters. After the occupation, people would concur and build the necessary infrastructures to carry on with the occupations. They would stablish procedures like “the people’s microphone” to initiate debates and deliberation, to set up a “school of democracy”. What were the conditions of the initial success of Occupy Wall Street (OWS)? The success had to do with giving people a voice, to try and make desires and needs be heard and sometimes met. OWS enabled the confluence of different ways of activism: traditional demonstrations, hacktivism, slacktivism, artivism… Dire inequalities of the resources required to participate: time, education, political capital, etc. And there were not mechanisms to share or distribute this power to participate. Instead, inner circles were created including a “division of labour”. How can we translate deliberation and distributed decision-making in other contexts, like institutional/representative democracy? Can they be translated? Do they scale? Are they sustainable? Sometimes, the movement would close in itself, and lack of openness led to a certain degree of dogmatism. Ismael Peña-López: 15M Spanish Indignados Movement The Indignados movement begins with the terrorist attacks in March 2004, when the government lies to the citizens and they (a) go out to the Internet in the search of truthful news and (b) coordinate by means of SMS. In May 2011, after some years of essay and error, comes the “pilot project”, the camps. The indignados movement will never more quit the public arena and will be characterized by:

decentralization in decision-making individualization in initiating action, do-ocracy enable casual participation, by increasing the granularity of participation

How does the movement work:

process co-decision radical subsidiarity

What do assemblies and movements do:

context agora interaction

Discussion Francesca Polletta: Where do these movements came from? Were they spontaneous? We know that some collectives played key roles, we know there were networks before, and, still, we say that they were spontaneous. How do we make sense of that? Ismael Peña-López: for many years, people share data, information, documents, protocols, guidelines, etc. and they are appropriated by the different nodes of the network. The more exchanges and sharing of knowledge, the more the collective political or social capital grows. In the end, one only needs one spark (“let’s camp in Puerta del Sol on May 15th”) for everyone to act, and they will act similarly because they share the language, the protocols and the tools. Francesca Polletta: About the process of decision-making, who are these movements prefiguring to? Marianne Maeckelbergh: maybe prefiguration is not the best approach when the outcomes that the movement aims at are blurry, or not very well defined. Prefiguration works best in stable, well defined issues. But these movements are more about gathering first and buitding later, and thus prefiguration may not be a good methodology at all. José Luís Martí: are these new movements a new thing? are they new from the movements of the 1960s…1990s? Ismael Peña-López: They are built upon the shoulders of former movements, but they are brand new in the sense that they were born in a digital age, and not in an industrial age. Thus, they had to adapt to new contexts. Michael Gould-Wartofsky: They are new people and they interact in new ways. People that were not politicized and now are, people that act in new ways. José Luís Martí: why do we now see a coexistence of offline and online politics that was not present in e.g. 2004, during and after the terrorist attacks of March 11th, 2004? Ismael Peña-López: the first decade of the XXIst century is an impasse, where industrial politics are already dying, but technopolitics (with a still young Web 2.0 and social networking sites about to gain momentum) are still not deployed. Some pioneers detach themselves from traditional politics and during a whole decade go out and explore the digital landscape. In the second decade of the XXIst century, they find they’ve mapped technopolitics and can now bridge new practices with traditional ones, taking the best of both worlds. David Karpf: what is the origin of OWS? Michael Gould-Wartofsky: OWS generated from a split of a general assembly. After that split, there was the need to come together, to try and put in common what they had in common and leave aside what separated them. And take action. Q: did the participants in the social movements see themselves representatives of other citizens within the movement? did see themselves as representatives outside the movement? did as a way to becoming elected representatives? Ismael Peña-López: in general, no one in the social movements was aiming to represent anyone, neither insider nor outside of the movement. And being an elected representative was out of the question until a year ago in Spain. But, the mechanics of participation have made it difficult for some people to participate and, thus, by construction, the ones participating were actually representing the whole collective. In general, though, most movements and new parties are really devoting lots of effort and resources to enable participation, and self-representation, so that no minor contribution is set aside just because it was minor, or punctual. Jane Mansfield: it seems that Spain had more resources in putting up an inclusive movement. Maybe because of the economic context and the general despair with politics. But also maybe because of the longer tradition of labour and left movements in mobilizing people and being inclusive in doing so. Q: was really face-to-face deliberation important in social movements? José Luís Martí: these movements were supposed to be highly technologized, and you could have expected that these super-technological people would just have aimed at online participation, and online voting. But it did not go this way: they aimed at physical gathering, they promoted face-to-face deliberation. Jane Mansfield: there was an excellent combination of coming together to the squares, and feel empowered and that people could make a change, and then also acting online, coordinating, sharing practices and approaches and tools. Adolfo Estalella: people during the assembly were not allowed to speak for anyone else but themselves, and the assembly itself was not allowed, or believed to be speaking for no one else than the participants of that given assembly, not for the neighbourhood, not for any association, not for anyone. Adolfo Estalella: for many people, the assemblies where both a “school of democracy” and a place where to ask for some demands. But demands that were not their own private demands, but related to the collective, to the neighbourhood. The assemblies not only re-imagined politics and political practices, but they did create a new ontology in the field of politics. And they did not only theorized about that, but created prototypes to put it into practice. Q: the difference of these movements and previous ones is that for new movements, the process was key, and the goals themselves were secondary. New movements are more fighting for transforming democracy rather than reaching a specific goal. Q: what things these movements feel powerless about? do hey think that they can transform institutions so that they work better? if thy succeed in transforming them, what comes after? Ismael Peña-López: there is no feeling of being powerless because the aim is to change the whole system, not a part of it. Its about governance, not about empowerment. And it’s not as much as transforming institutions, but regaining the sovereignty upon them. So, there is no “after” at all: once the citizenry — not the “illegitimate” parties that now are ruling them — occupies the institutions, there is no “after” because that was just the point: to regain sovereignty upon the institutions, not to rule them, not to represent anyone. Mariona Ferrer: in Barcelona en Comú, inclusiveness was something that was cared about, but nevertheless some people fell off because of the speedy pace of the process. In what relates to the participatory process, when it was dealt within small assemblies, consensus was very important; but later, when more people came and assemblies became massive, making decisions became more difficult, so decisions were taken at different levels, and with different degrees of participation or openness: more than in traditional parties, but far from being ideal. And creating the programme was also participatory, but again the limitations of time and resources sometimes forced some shortcuts in participation. Ignacia Perugorría: maybe initial movements were highly decentralized, but the parties that came after them — especially Podemos &mash; had much more effort put in their design, and with a purpose. So, some of the initial nature of social movements was kept in new parties, but some other nature was borrowed from traditional parties. Marianne Maeckelbergh: traditionally there have been opposing forces of centralization vs. decentralization. In the case of the 15M, the decentralization happened in the online sphere while the centralization took place in the camps and the plazas and the assemblies. And yes, there was some representation, but the meaning of representation was different from the usual sense of representation in electoral politics: this representation was not as much as deciding for others, but speaking in the name of similar ones. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as New democratic movements (III). Occupy Wall Street and the 15M Spanish Indignados movement

Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:52:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150618-new-democratic-movements-iii-occupy-wall-street-and-the-15m-spanish-indignados-movement/
New democratic movements (II). New technologies, social networks, and democracy http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18628 Notes from the Workshop on New democratic movements, civic culture and the transformations of democracy, organized by the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, Spain, on June 18th and 19th, 2015. More notes on this event: new_democratic_movements. New technologies, social networks, and democracyIntroduced by David Karpf We are living in a period of deep deep inequality of democratic exercise. Yes, one man has one vote, but not everyone has the same means to influence politics. If you build it… they will not come. It is extremely difficult to make people participate. New media do not create our preferences, but just help in revealing our preferences. This is after an (institutional) effort to make politics unattractive to people, that they should not participate in politics. So, it’s not enough building things for participation, but we need to engage people. Discussion Jane Mansbridge: what if everyone — especially parties and politicians — use the same tools as activists? Ismael Peña-López: it’s the ethos behind that changes the landscape. Parties have been using the Internet and doing “politics 2.0″, which is but traditional politics with a digital support. While citizens are doing “technopolitics”, which is something brand new, decentralized, distributed. Mayo Fuster: one of he difference between Occupy Wall Street and the 15M Spanish Indignados is the ability to create confluences of movements. In Spain, there has been some degree of success when it comes to come together, join forces, including connections with the free culture and the free software movement. This has been very successful in Spain while in the US fragmentation has stood. Ismael Peña-López: it is true that power is still unevenly distributed, but the tools are more and more evenly distributed. It may be only a matter of time that things change and become more balanced. On the issue of participation, it is true that people do not want to participate (Hibbing & Theiss-Morse, 2002), but also that it is provided that institutions work (Font et al., 2012). If they do not work, people will participate to fix them. Marianne Maeckeberg: there has been a deep difference between the Spanish Indignados movement and Occupy Wall Street. While the former tried to tame technology so that it did what they wanted to sere their purposes of achieving a higher level of democracy quality, OWS was obsessed with “having the spotlight back”, of appearing on the news. And when media came back not, they were disappointed. In the meanwhile, the Indignados organized and even got to the local and regional governments. Can Kurban: information is the core of politics, of democracy, of decision-making. And it still is important if some people get more informed, even if not more people get more informed. This can be crucial to spread the information. Q: what happens if people do not want to be bothered with political information? how do we engage them? Ismael Peña-López: we begin to have evidence that the “Daily Me” is ceasing to be true (if it ever was) and that people that use the Internet and especially social networking sites are more exposed to political information even if they are not looking for it. This is due to the fact that political content is easily created and spread on the Net, and it comes to you through people you trust. Q: what was the role of youth unemployment in the success of the 15M Spanish Indignados movement? Mariona Ferrer: of course it had a major role. But not only. Also the quality of the employments of the most qualified people, the precarious employment of a big majority, the previous movements for free culture, etc. José Luís Martí: what was the role of technologies? David Karpf: I don’t think technologies made the institutions irrelevant. But they did make them more vulnerable. And this provides new opportunities for new activism. José Luís Martí: you could o a lot of stuff to influence politics in the past, but now you can much more and much easier. Mayo Fuster: the use of technology is becoming organic. It’s not about a quantitative change — more people using these tools — but a qualitative one, with increasingly people using in a different way these tools and for different purposes and thus changing the system, probably forever. As Benkler said, these tools are making it possible to reduce the costs of transaction and, thus, change behaviours and organizations. And this is changing everything. And these changes are not only more democratic, but also more efficient. Adolfo Estalella: these movements, and especially coders, are challenging the way we understand code itself and legal and social code in general, challenging how we understand politics, etc. Ismael Peña-López: more than the profile of who used the technology, it is more relevant to look whom the technology reached. Or, even better, whom benefited from the use (maybe by others) of the technology for political or civic purposes. And it did reach many people, and many disconnected from the net, or from political networks. Indeed, this is the point of interest in the connections that technology brought: not only the coordination of synchronous action, but sharing information and protocols so that they could be applied in place, and free from the network. Jane Mansbridge: the collective intelligence is just that, gathering scattered information from remote corners and putting it together for anyone to make use of it. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as New democratic movements (II). New technologies, social networks, and democracy

Thu, 18 Jun 2015 07:58:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150618-new-democratic-movements-ii-new-technologies-social-networks-and-democracy/
New democratic movements (I). Transformations of democracy. Deliberative democracy, participatory democracy, digital democracy http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18627 Notes from the Workshop on New democratic movements, civic culture and the transformations of democracy, organized by the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, in Barcelona, Spain, on June 18th and 19th, 2015. More notes on this event: new_democratic_movements. Transformations of democracy. Deliberative democracy, participatory democracy, digital democracyIntroduced by Jane Mansbridge Trust in government has worsened in most places, plummeting towards illegitimacy. We need more and more of public goods, goods that are freely available for everyone once they are created: roads, a stable climate, etc. And we create them by coercion, legitimate coercion through which we force ourselves to create such public goods. And this only happens through deliberation. And to be more deliberative you have to be more reflective. But there has not been a requirement for more deliberation. Habermasian standards for good deliberation should be, if not challenged, at least revised. Respect and absence of power, for instance, are very likely still unchallenged nowadays. But reasons might be. Deliberation, yes, is about reason, leaving aside emotional considerations. But this does not mean that there are no emotional reasons behind some issues. Aim at consensus, on the other hand, may still apply. But it has usually left aside the conflicts between different interests. And clarifying interests when interests conflict may help in subsequent searches for consensus. Equal power in the group and consensus in the group are two issues that we have been looking forward as ideals in any deliberation process. Equality, openness and consensus as main pieces to do better democracy together. But these ideals are more contextual that we often think of. Equal power, for instance, is a highly contextual and, more important even, contingent principle. Circumstances change and we have to take that into account. Discussion Mayo Fuster: trust has left institutions and has found networks as a way to channel it. So, the decrease of trust in institutions has been corresponded by higher trust in P2P and decentralized ways of decision-making. Mariona Ferrer: Deliberation was also about understanding the complexity of the issues at stake, and being empowered to understand them and to face them. Jane Mansbridge: it depends on the purpose, deliberation may deliver better or not. If the purpose, the mission, is to understand, then deliberation and consensus are just great. If the goal of deliberation is to make a decision, things may be a little bit more complex. David Karpf: participating in social movements is partly about one’s own transformation: by participating, one transforms onesef. Besides, there’s the goal of social transformation. And sometimes there is a trade-off between the personal and the social transformation. Adolfo Estalella: local assemblies usually had their own personal, local, micro goals, very specific, and very explicit on the other hand. E.g. stopping evictions, helping migrants to integrate, etc. But most assemblies had not specific goals headed towards specific decisions, but the goal was to be itself, to be a “political topos”, to establish a political space. Ismael Peña-López: if the goals were making decisions, yes, the goals may not have been very clear in past social movements. But if the goal was to draw a comperehensive diagnosis of the problems felt by the citizens, the goals were clear and the movements succeeded not only in the diagnosis, but in putting those problems in the pubic agenda. The problem is that governments did not answer accordingly, they did not take the gauntlet, and threw it back to the movements asking for “concrete proposals”, which the movements did not succeed at making. Q: Why are we so much thrilled now about consensus when, in the past, we had enough with some deliberative majoritarian processes. José Luís Martí: we should not take consensus as unanimity. Consensus is about the process, and it can lead indeed to voting, and to the rule of the majority. But the process of how things are discussed, the concurrence of actors, the comparison of different options, that is the nature of deliberation and consensus. Jane Mansbridge: the has been a raise in the feeling of autonomy. This raise in the feeling, the need for autonomy is a powerful driver towards consensus and partly against unanimity, or the majority rule. Marianne Maeckelberg: a good reason for consensus beating majoritarian processes is that they take into consideration the voice of the minorities. And even if the result may not be the minority’s will, it is taken into account. With simple majoritarian voting, this is not so. Jane Mansbridge: Many people see these movements and practices as prefigurative, as a “model for tomorrow”. But this is a mistake: this is an actual practice, a today’s practice, rooted in the nature of our times. Ismael Peña-López: two more answers on why now we care about consensus and not the traditional majoritarian processes. First, because as the motto We are the 99% says, the problem is that most governments are not seen as representing the majority. Second, because “now we can”. Meaning: the costs of participating in democracy have lowered down dramatically due to technology. So, maybe, majoritarian processes were just good for the context given, they were optimal for the resources (time, money) given for participation. But now the citizen can be an active actor in democracy, at ridiculous costs. And the citizen is claiming that, now that they can participate, they want to. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as New democratic movements (I). Transformations of democracy. Deliberative democracy, participatory democracy, digital democracy

Thu, 18 Jun 2015 04:41:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20150618-new-democratic-movements-i-transformations-of-democracy-deliberative-democracy-participatory-democracy-digital-democracy/
Teoría y práctica de la participación ciudadana http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18626 Una de las principales críticas que se hacen a la participación de la ciudadanía es que ralentiza el proceso de toma de decisiones. En la teoría, se imagina uno un proceso donde los representantes de los ciudadanos preparan una decisión (se documentan, debaten entre ellos, negocian en los pasillos del poder legislativo o ejecutivo) y deciden. Abrir esta decisión a la ciudadanía supone intercalar una fase entre la previa a la decisión y la decisión misma, fase en la que se hace participar a la ciudadanía: se le consulta alguna cuestión, se le permite hacer alguna enmienda, etc. Y pasada esta fase, se toma la decisión final. Y, como la mayoría de añadidos, supone tiempo y recursos. Y retrasos a la hora de tomar la decisión. Esta creencia no viene, en mi opinión, avalada por la realidad. Sobre todo porque ni el proceso tradicional sin la participación ciudadana suele ser como se pinta, ni porque el proceso participativo es habitualmente como debería ser de hacerse a consciencia y, sobre todo, convencimiento de que la participación es algo bueno. Simple esquema de la participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones políticas Empecemos por lo que no es, por cómo se toman, en la mayoría de los casos, las decisiones políticas. La realidad — y ahí está la hemeroteca y ahí están millones de folios de informes técnicos y literatura científica — es que muchas decisiones se toman si no en caliente, sí sin grandes esfuerzos a la hora de documentarse, de diagnosticar bien el problema, de cotejar las opciones disponibles y, sobre todo, de analizar costes y beneficios, y costes de oportunidad y evaluaciones de impacto. Dicho de otro modo, la fase previa a la decisión es a menudo exigua — cuando no inexistente &mash; y las decisiones se toman con un fuerte componente ideológico en detrimento de un análisis objetivo y sosegado. Dejo aquí de lado otros casos mucho peores pero no por ello infrecuentes: decisiones tomadas de forma fraudulenta y corrupta, para beneficiar a amigos, al partido o a los bolsillos de uno mismo. Esta toma de decisiones tiene varios problemas, o mejor dicho, uno solo: la realidad no se ajusta a las expectativas. Así, la decisión tomada de forma indocumentada produce conflictos. Algunos son de carácter técnico (soluciones que no son tales, costes económicos que se disparan) y otros son de naturaleza humana o social: las decisiones poco fundamentadas suelen ser, al mismo tiempo, poco legítimas (o poco legitimadas socialmente, aplíquese lo que uno considere más ajustado), con lo que la conflictividad social se incrementa. Y debe gestionarse. Y cuesta tiempo y dinero. Y, a menudo, nos devuelve a la casilla de partida: el problema sin resolver, y tiempo y dinero tirados por la alcantarilla. Vayamos ahora a lo que debería ser la participación. No ese parche que se hace pasar por participación — y que no pasa de gesto condescendiente con aras de cumplir un expediente. Tampoco es la participación (solamente) el voto en un referéndum o para escoger entre varias opciones. Como tampoco es la participación (solamente) la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas. Si algo caracteriza fuertemente la participación en la toma de decisiones públicas es, precisamente, en lo que viene antes de la decisión misma. Dicho de mejor forma: la participación no debería ser un proceso discreto, que tiene lugar de vez en cuando, sino un proceso continuo, que tiene lugar constantemente.

Diagnóstico: el inicio de una decisión sucede (o debería suceder) inevitablemente constatando que hay un problema, una necesidad o un anhelo entre la población. El proceso de participación debe indudablemente empezar aquí, dado que no habrá buen diagnóstico sin la concurrencia de todos los agentes implicados. Deliberación: si concurren todos los agentes, concurrirán con sus puntos de vista y con sus propias propuestas. Permitir que se encuentren, que debatan, que contrasten es, también, participación. Y siempre será una mejor decisión aquella que se haya tomado de forma no solamente informada sino deliberada y contrastando cuantas más alternativas mejor. Negociación: nuestros problemas, necesidades y anhelos son maximalistas, pero nuestra realidad suele ser de mínimos. La negociación es necesaria para separar el óptimo de lo irrenunciable, lo deseado de lo posible. En la negociación, actores y alternativas se enfrentan a los recursos existentes y deciden sus prioridades en función de sus valores. Este punto es esencial para cocer decisiones más legítimas, menos conflictivas y, por tanto, más sostenibles socialmente.

Si nos creemos que la toma de decisiones tradicional tiene un elaborado proceso previo a la decisión misma, abrirla a la ciudadanía no debería ser un gran cambio. Una ciudadanía informada y con herramientas de deliberación y negociación entrará en una sana dinámica de participar, sin necesariamente alterar (en demasía) los tempos de la política, que a menudo deben cumplirse para que los problemas no se agraven o las ventanas de oportunidad no se cierren. El problema es que el diagnóstico colaborativo es imposible porque no hay datos ni información abiertos. La deliberación es difícil por la ausencia de espacios (presenciales y virtuales) de participación. Y la negociación se desincentiva porque ceder es de perdedores. Así, la participación pasa a ser un pegote, un parche, un añadido, un algo que tiene lugar de vez en cuando y que, además de añadir tiempo a la toma de decisiones, deja insatisfechos a ciudadanos, gestores y políticos. Valdría la pena, pues, arriesgarse a probar otro tipo de participación. Una participación continua, constante, exhaustiva, comprehensiva. Tiene otros (muchos) problemas, por supuesto. Pero podría darnos una sorpresa el constatar que, dentro de sus dificultades, paga la pena. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Teoría y práctica de la participación ciudadana

Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:38:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20150614-teoria-y-practica-de-la-participacion-ciudadana/
La exquisita democracia de los antisistema: de la PAH a la alcaldesa Colau http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18625 Los antisistema llegan al poder. Muera la democracia. O, a lo mejor, lo que ha muerto es la inteligencia. Porque, mi impresión, es que es precisamente más y mejor democracia lo que está en el programa de muchos de los nuevos movimientos de confluencia que ahora formarán parte de las instituciones. ¿Son planteamientos sinceros? Aunque lo sean, ¿podrán llevarlos a cabo? El tiempo nos dirá cuántos y cuánto nos equivocamos. p>Pero, de momento, cuando se piensa en qué pedían los indignados que acampaban el 15M y que ahora van a acampar en plenos y parlamentos, mi impresión sigue siendo que se sigue pidiendo mejorar el sistema democrático, devolviéndolo a esa ágora de la que nunca debió salir (para entrar en pasillos, despachos y palcos), especialmente ahora que se puede y se transita de una obsoleta democracia industrial a una incipiente democracia en red. Para ver qué nos traen estos nuevos “antisistema”, el caso de Colau es paradigmático. Mi aproximación aquí intenta estar desapegada de valoraciones subjetivas, y así invito a leerse al margen de simpatías o antipatías personales, tan legítimas como, a veces, también cegadoras. Y acabaré mi reflexión de la misma forma que ahora la comienzo: así, como ahora lo expondré, han ido las cosas. Si los nuevos movimientos, desde las instituciones, no dan una solución de continuidad a esta forma de hacer política, antes que al ciudadano se estarán traicionando a sí mismos. Sistemas de alerta temprana Es de esperar que algo que va a cambiar a muy corto plazo es la puesta en marcha de sistema de alerta temprana en materia de detección de necesidades y peticiones de los ciudadanos. Vale la pena recordar que la Plataforma por una Vivienda Digna se creó a caballo de 2003 y 2004, se convocó a una manifestación masiva en 2006 y en 2009 se creaba la Plataforma de Afectados por la Hipoteca (PAH). Con pocas y poco relevantes excepciones, el Congreso empezó a tratar el tema de los desahucios de forma explícita y “decidida” ya entrado 2013, y porque dos años antes se había iniciado una iniciativa legislativa popular que tras un largo calvario llegaba al Congreso. El Congreso tardó 10 años en aceptar debatir (que no solucionar) una cuestión que en la calle ya mostraba un altísimo grado de preocupación. Es de esperar que estos nuevos movimientos tendrán sistemas de alerta temprana sobre los problemas que preocupan a la sociedad, por su especial configuración de redes con fuerte arraigo en el territorio y en las nuevas ágoras digitales que son las redes sociales. Huelga decir que más allá del hecho “anecdótico” de un desahucio, lo que allí (y ahora) se defendía era un derecho fundamental recogido como tal en la norma de más alto rango en España: la Constitución. Acompañamiento y empoderamiento Si algo ha caracterizado la PAH — al menos para mí, por supuesto — no ha sido el número de desahucios que ha parado, o el número de pisos que ha ocupado, o las daciones que ha negociado. De hecho, en sentido estricto, no ha hecho nada de eso. Si algo ha caracterizado la PAH ha sido el acompañamiento y la dotación de herramientas para que, cada uno, decida por sí mismo. Acompañado por otros de igual condición, por supuesto. Con la ayuda de muchos otros, claro que sí. Pero siempre decidiendo por uno mismo. Quedarse en los escraches es, a mi modo de ver, de una frivolidad pasmosa. Esos escraches fueron o son la punta de un enorme iceberg compuesto por acompañamiento psicológico, legal y económico que ha permitido a muchas personas renegociar una deuda, tramitar una dación en pago o proceder a una reubicación, la mayoría de los casos dentro de la más estricta legalidad. Si recordamos — vale la pena hacerlo — que hablamos de un derecho amparado por la Constitución, ¿no será más antisistema hacer dejación de funciones y abandonar a su sino a tantísimos ciudadanos que no acompañarlos y obrar de mediador entre actores para una resolución pacífica a un problema? Recordemos, de nuevo, que muchos de esos desahuciados lo fueron de casas de protección oficial, propiedad de la Administración para cederlas… a… ¿quiénes más las necesitaban? (Podríamos añadir aquí que las ocupaciones ilegales se han hecho en viviendas propiedad de bancos rescatados con dinero público, a los que tanto se dio y nada se pidió a cambio, que acabaron siendo de facto sostenidos y administrados por la Administración, con lo que volvemos al punto anterior). Es de esperar que estos nuevos movimientos tendrán sistemas de mediación basados en el acompañamiento y la co-decisión entre los distintos actores afectados por una cuestión que requiere una decisión colectiva: la esencia misma y razón de ser de la democracia representativa. Procesos abiertos, fundamentados y multinivel Además de esos nuevos radares — o no tan nuevos: simplemente mejor sintonizados — para escuchar más y mejor al ciudadano, además de poner mesas de negociación en igualdad de condiciones, algo interesante — si no lo más interesante — de lo sucedido dentro de los movimientos sociales es… que no ha sucedido “dentro”. Con contadísimas excepciones, la mayoría de propuestas, deliberaciones y decisiones se han tomado en abierto y con herramientas (lo que incluye organización, protocolos y plataformas tecnológicas) de libre disposición, bien documentadas y fáciles de trasladar a otros escenarios. Así, los “antisistema” han colocado su traición y nocturnidad en páginas web, entornos colaborativos, sistemas de voto abierto; han compartido su tecnología, sus modus operandi, su organización, sus procesos para que, por ejemplo la PAH, pudiese replicarse en más de 200 nodos en todo el territorio español. Ha sucedido de forma similar con los círculos Podemos o las distintas encarnaciones de Ganemos. Huelga decir que, como “antisistema”, son un desastre. En cambio. Es de esperar que estos nuevos movimientos abrirán agendas, presupuestos, planes, actas de reuniones, documentación técnica, desarrollos tecnológicos y demás herramientas para que, una vez ventiladas y saneadas muchas instituciones democráticas, puedan restaurarse con amplios ventanales y enormes puertas por las que la ciudadanía pueda entrar a participar en igualdad de condiciones y, sobre todo, bien informada. Democracia deliberativa Vale la pena destacar dos ámbitos donde los procesos han sido más exquisitamente abiertos y participados: la elección de las ideas a defender (llámese programa) y la elección de las personas a llevarlas ante las instituciones (llámese lista de candidatos). Ya sea con programas participativos — se puede criticar su complejidad, pero dudo que pueda su esencia — o ya sea con elecciones primarias, respectivamente, la democracia ha empezado dentro de las formaciones. Es de esperar que estos nuevos movimientos harán de la democracia deliberativa una práctica habitual. Habrá quien piense que el asamblearismo y una participación ciudadana “en demasía” ralentizan la toma de decisiones. Puede ser. Puede ser también que ello suceda solamente cuando se trata de parches añadidos que, como todo añadido, no hace más que extender los procesos. Si, no obstante, esa participación no es discreta, sino continua; si la información no viene en contagotas, sino que lo hace en tiempo real; si no se consulta a la ciudadanía, sino que se han establecido vías de diálogo constante y no intermediado; es posible que no solamente no se entorpezca el proceso de toma de decisiones, sino que nos ahorremos lo que viene después de las decisiones mal tomadas: descontento, protestas, contestación y, en el límite, desobediencia. El consenso tiene costes, pero también beneficios. La política es el arte de defraudar Últimamente se ha sacado sistemáticamente a colación la famosa frase de Gerry Stoker de que la política debe decepcionar. Debe decepcionar porque la complejidad de la toma de decisiones colectivas es tan alta que jamás podrá contentar a todos — a no ser que engañemos a alguien o a todos al mismo tiempo. El problema es que la política de hoy en día no ha decepcionado, sino que ha defraudado. Y eso es muy distinto. Si bien es cierto que no se puede complacer a todos o completamente a todos, ello es muy distinto de hacer pasar decepción por fraude: hacer creer que alguien no tiene derecho a algo cuando, por ley, sí le corresponde dicho derecho. No hablamos ya del derecho a la vivienda, sino del derecho a estar informado, a poder participar del diagnóstico de una situación, a conocer cómo se ha diagnosticado, qué actores están implicados y qué intereses les mueven, qué opciones hay a nuestro alcance, qué valores ponemos en funcionamiento al ordenar nuestras preferencias, cómo determinamos o elegimos una opción, cómo la llevamos a cabo, cómo medimos su puesta en marcha, cómo evaluamos su impacto, y cómo avanzamos a partir de todo ese conocimiento generado que debería derivar en aprendizaje colectivo. Repitámoslo de nuevo. La política no ha decepcionado: ha defraudado. Y ha defraudado por antisistema. Esa sí ha sido antisistema. Ocultando agendas y presupuestos, tomando decisiones sin informar (y, peor todavía, sin informarse), prescindiendo del ciudadano porque el voto lo legitima todo, politiqueandolo todo (¿habrá mayor antagonismo a la democracia que el politiqueo?). Sería de esperar que los nuevos movimientos, ahora en las instituciones, decepcionen a los ciudadanos. No a todos de golpe, pero seguramente sí por turnos. Si no se cae en el clientelismo y/o en la corrupción, así deberá ser. Pero cabría esperar que no defraude. Porque, si los nuevos movimientos, desde las instituciones, no dan una solución de continuidad a esta forma de hacer política — escuchadora, acompañada, abierta, deliberada —, antes que al ciudadano se estarán traicionando a sí mismos — como ya hicieron la mayoría de los anteriores. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como La exquisita democracia de los antisistema: de la PAH a la alcaldesa Colau

Mon, 08 Jun 2015 08:31:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20150608-la-exquisita-democracia-de-los-antisistema-de-la-pah-a-la-alcaldesa-colau/
<a href="https://youtube.com/devicesupport" rel="external">https://youtube.com/devicesupport</a> http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18624 https://youtube.com/devicesupport

https://youtube.com/devicesupport http://m.youtube.com From: YouTube Help Views: 33749260

0 ratings Time: 03:56 More in Howto & Style

Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:54:00 -0700 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKY3scPIMd8&feature=youtube_gdata
<a href="https://youtube.com/devicesupport" rel="external">https://youtube.com/devicesupport</a> http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18623 https://youtube.com/devicesupport

https://youtube.com/devicesupport http://m.youtube.com From: YouTube Help Views: 33746854

0 ratings Time: 03:56 More in Howto & Style

Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:22:00 -0700 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKY3scPIMd8&feature=youtube_gdata