ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net eDemocracy: Digital Rights and Responsibilities (II). Experts and activists http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18949 Notes from the eDemocracy: Digital Rights and Responsibilities conference, organized by the Government of Catalonia and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 16 November 2018. More notes on this event: edemocracybcn. Experts and activistschaired by Albert Royo Why Voting Technology is Used and How it Affects DemocracyRobert Krimmer, Professor of e-Governance, Tallinn University of Technology, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance Estonia is the only country in the world introducing e-voting universally, at all levels. To address:

Decreasing voting turnout. Increasing distance between rules and ruled. Increased citizen mobility (globalisation)

Governments say they want to engage in a continuous dialogue with citizens, but are quite often reluctant to actually do it. In the same train of thought, citizens also want such dialogue, but cannot vote just everything (quick democracy) and, most especially, cannot be informed on just everything (thin democracy). e-Democracy will transform democracy and challenge representation, but it can also offer more participation possibilities. e-Voting strengthens secrecy and security in comparison to traditional voting, not the other way round. Democracy as citizens’ surveillance on their institutionsSimona Levi, Founder of XNet More than e-democracy we should be talking about distributed governance. Net-neutrality is a must if we do really want that democracy and technology can enhance each other. Democracy and privacy to correct the asymmetry of power between citizens and institutions. Anonymity and encryption are a must to protect communications. Going against this is highly un-democratic. Public money used to create content and innovation should not be privatized. This includes algorithmic democracy or algorithmic decision-making. We must defend technology, not only use it. And transparency and participation must to be at the same level. We want efficient institutions. Catalonia, a Lab for Digital CitizenshipArtur Serra, Deputy Director of i2cat The Internet is helping to change our political systems. The Internet works under a certain distributed architecture, and this embedded technological model is slowly but surely altering the democratic institutions’ model. On the other side, our political systems are also changing the Internet: fake news, firewalls, etc. Can we think of an open living lab, made up of cultural and citizen platforms, digital rights activists, local structures of digital facilitation, research centres, lawyers, etc. Citizen participation and digital tools for upgrading democracy in Iceland and beyondRóbert Bjarnason, CEO and co-founder of Citizens Foundation For there to be trust, citizens must have a strong voice in policy-making.

Your Priorities: policy crowdsourcing to build trust between citizens and civil servants with idea generation and debate. Active Voting: participatory budgeting. Active Citizen: empower citizens with artificial intelligence.

Citizens need to be “rewarded”, show that the government listens and does things — not only talking about things. Good communication is key to success. There is a danger of privatization in the evolution of democracy online. Participation infrastructure has to be kept public. Discussion Simona Levi: traceability of participation is a must. What happened with my contribution? Where did it go? Why was not it accepted? Artur Serra: where does social innovation come from? Does it come from institutions or from the margins? How do we gather these initiatives? Do we care about citizen labs? Robert Bjarnasson: it is not about tools, but about innovation, about opening processes. Start with something tangible, something small, and move from there. Artur Serra: technology is not a tool, technology is a culture. The new tool is the embodiment of a new culture. We have to learn to think different. If we treat participation as consumerism, we are failing. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as eDemocracy: Digital Rights and Responsibilities (II). Experts and activists

]]>
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 03:59:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20181116-edemocracy-digital-rights-and-responsibilities-ii-experts-and-activists/
eDemocracy: Digital Rights and Responsibilities (I). Stakeholders and tech companies http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18948 Notes from the eDemocracy: Digital Rights and Responsibilities conference, organized by the Government of Catalonia and held in Barcelona, Spain, on 16 November 2018. More notes on this event: edemocracybcn. Panel of stakeholders and tech companieschaired by Joana Barbany Municipalities and technology: more political participation?Cllr. Jennifer Layden, Convenor for Equalities and Human Rights of the Glasgow City Council Being involved in new media and social media enables administrations to engage with citizens. There still is the challenge how technology can help to bring better outcomes, to bring increased access to democracy and participation. So far increased access is quite a success, as many people that cannot attend face-to-face meetings do participate online. Enabling access to participation through online technologies should not be in detriment of excluding people for just the opposite reason: they cannot use online tools. Working with local communities with participatory budgeting. Technology and participation, one more step towards democratic pedagogyArnau Mata, tinent d’alcalde de Comunicació, Participació Ciutadana i Sistemes TIC, i portaveu de l’Ajuntament de Sant Vicenç dels Horts The general context of political corruption is affecting all the institutions, regardless whether they or their members are corrupt or not. This is putting a stress on daily governance. Some participatory processes where put to work, to let citizens have their say, and enable new ways so that institutions could speak with the citizens. They are using Decidim, Barcelona City Council’s participatory platform. Online participation allows monitoring of participatory processes, helps people to participate, empowers minorities in the public agenda, legitimates civic organisations, etc. Open government and citizen participation channels in the digital eraCarles Agustí, Open Government Director at the Barcelona Provincial Council Unlike preceding times, now citizens have lots of information, usually much more than governments themselves. Adaptation to this new reality is compulsory. Open Government is the answer to the demands of change of the people in the way to do governance and politics. But it is not only a mere website, but a whole new strategy, a deep cultural change. Technology is absolutely changing the landscape:

Open data would simply not exist without technology. Civic platforms can better organize with technology. e-Participation opens new channels, ways and methodologies for participation. And, last but not least, more and different individual citizens can gather thanks to technology.

It is important to acknowledge that data have a lot of public value when they become open as open data. And that it is not only about giving data away but also about listening to citizens. On-line voting: a security challengeJordi Puiggalí, Head of Research and Security Department, Scytl There are no secure channels: it’s security measures that you implement that make voting secure. This includes on-site voting or postal voting. Cryptographic protocols can guarantee privacy and integrity of voting processes. Cryptography also allows to audit voting processes. Discussion Puiggalí: Blockchain can provide identity, but not integrity nor privacy. Mata: the best way to convince people to participate is showing that it does work, that the government cares about what is being said and applies the general agreements. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as eDemocracy: Digital Rights and Responsibilities (I). Stakeholders and tech companies

]]>
Fri, 16 Nov 2018 02:12:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20181116-edemocracy-digital-rights-and-responsibilities-i-stakeholders-and-tech-companies/
Mara Balestrini. Beyond the transparency portal: citizen data and the right to contribute http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18947 Notes from the VI Conference of the Spanish regional citizen participation network, organized by Conselleria de Transparencia, Responsabilidad Social, Participación y Cooperación de la Generalitat Valenciana and held in Valence, Spain, on 3-4 October 2018. More notes on this event: redparticipacion2018. Mara Balestrini.Beyond the transparency portal: citizen data and the right to contribute We assume that information only goes one way: from the Administration to the citizen. This assumption is not valid anymore. Citizens produce lots of data that could be used to leverage change. We should acknowledge the right of citizens to produce data, not only to receive data. What can citizen-generated data do?

Improve or augment existing data. E.g. air quality. #MakingSense in Plaça del Sol in Barcelona. Check the validity of public data. E.g. #MakingSense in Kosovo. Create new data. E.g. #BristolApproach

How to do it? We need to plan ahead a strategy of participation, and begin with the things people care:

Identify the issue and the people that care: people directly interested in the issue, altruistic people that want to help, communities of practice of people that work in the field, and communities of interest of people that want things to happen in a given field. Frame the issue. It is necessary to link the abstract (“mobility in the city”) with the concrete (“where can I park my bike”). The Administration usually cares about the abstract, while the citizen cares about specific issues. Design a participatory project. It is crucial to avoid the creation of an elite of participation. Deploy it. Orchestrate it. Awareness raising activities so that more people join the project. Though not only by “voting”, but by contributing with what they can/know: helping to define, analysing, explaining, etc. Assess and evaluate the outcome. And include the creation of an infrastructure of participation that remains after the process is over.

Case of the Plaça del Sol in Barcelona, to approach the problem of noise in the square. There are huge amounts of noise, which cannot be measured and, in fact, “no one is doing anything wrong”, but it is the aggregation of small noises that creates discomfort in the neighbourhood. A project was created to measure noise by citizens, aggregate public open data and raise awareness on the issue by showing evidence of the problem. Once the problem was actually measured, citizen assemblies were made to collectively find a solution.

Official website of the project. Mapping noise in one of Barcelona’s noisiest neighbourhoods.

Some outcomes of the project:

Open and shared data. Skills and capacity. The more complex the tools, the more excluding will be — unless we build capacity around them. Co-created solutions. New open technologies and knowledge. New networks and social capital. New politics is about creating emerging communities out of a citizen issue.

Of course, not only should citizens have the right to generate data, but have ownership over these data, to have governance over data. How about co-create license to share citizen data?

TRIEM is a study that uses collective intelligence mechanisms to co-design licenses to access and use our data. DECODE is creating an open data commons. Salus.coop is a citizen cooperative of health data for science.

The Administration should foster the creation of new infrastructures: legal infrastructures, that regulate citizen data, new institutions (such as the recognition the role of citizens in creating and sharing public data), etc. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Mara Balestrini. Beyond the transparency portal: citizen data and the right to contribute

]]>
Thu, 04 Oct 2018 04:02:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20181004-mara-balestrini-beyond-the-transparency-portal-citizen-data-and-the-right-to-contribute/
Article. Alternative economics or technopolitics. Activism from agroecological products cooperative consumption http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18946 ¿Economía alternativa o tecnopolítica? Activismo desde el consumo cooperativo de productos agroecológicos (article) Ricard Espelt, Enrique Rodríguez and I have just published a new article, ¿Economía alternativa o tecnopolítica? Activismo desde el consumo cooperativo de productos agroecológicos [Alternative economics or technopolitics. Activism from agroecological products cooperative consumption] which analyses the relationship between technopolitics and the cooperative movement. Our hypothesis is that some emerging cooperatives go beyond the mere practice of cooperativism for production or consumption, and engage or even are driven by political values. Our findings only partially support this hypothesis, but allow us to characterise three types of cooperatives according to these political values and activism, which we found quite interesting. Expanded summary Agroecological cooperativism is made up by an inter-cooperation network articulated by producers and consumer groups that promotes the acquisition of agroecological products in the context of the Social and Solidarity Economy (Martín-Mayor et al., 2017). At the same time, as part of the anti-globalisation and territorial defense movement, it has political resolution (Vivas, 2010). In this sense, it frames its activity as a response to the homogeneity of global food chains (Mauleón, 2009; Khoury, 2014) and promotes a recovery of the «identity of the sites». This re-appropriation purpose is expressed -especially- in the social movements that emerged during 2011 that, according to Harvey (2012), link with the fight against capitalism and the demand for a collective management of common goods and resources. Across the area of Barcelona, where the map of consumer cooperatives is well defined (Espelt et al., 2015), it has been registered an increase of these kind of organizations during the 15M or the Spanish “Indignados” movement in 2011. As embedded in the era of the Network Society and the expansion of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), this article studies the correlation between agroecological consumer groups, as an instrument to promote an alternative economy, and social movements, as the space where technopolitics develop (Toret, 2013). That is, this article aims to corroborate whether agroecological cooperativism, which emerged in the late 20th century -and grew with remarkable strength during the second decade of the 21st century- and the profound crisis of legitimacy of the democratic institutions, with a rising participation in citizen extra-representative and extra-institutional movements, is connected. This article has a double goal. On the one hand, to assess the existing relation between consumer and cooperative groups and the 15M movement and their ideological similarities, as selfmanaged movements that aim for social and political transformation. On the other hand, if applies, to study how this relation is shaped. The main hypothesis of our research is that nowadays agroecological cooperativism possesses an acute activism component, which is why it is reasonable to predict a relative involvement of this activist cooperativism in movements such as 15M. However, former literature has explained and described the 15M movement as a form of activism that eminently operates outside the institutions and through a network organization. From that point on, a second hypothesis is formulated, proposing that activist cooperativism participation occurs individually, rather than collectively and/or institutionally. That is, it is possible to identify overlaps between activists that take part both in cooperatives and social movements such as 15M, but it is not reasonable to foresee a relevant level of involvement of cooperatives, as collectives, in this movement. In order to respond to the hypothesis, a questionnaire comprising two sets of questions has been designed. A first set aims to determine the level of accomplishment based on the SSE criteria. A second set of questions focuses on the correlation between the studied organizations and the 15M movement, and the relevance of ICT in their organization. Semi-structured interviews were sent between February 2015 and March 2016 with a sample of 44 groups and allowed us to gather information regarding the origins, motivation and functioning of each of them. The questionnaire about the relation between the groups and the 15M movement was sent between December 2015 and March 2016, and 37 responses were collected. Thus, the 37 groups that have completed both questionnaires and the semi-structured interview will be considered the sample for this research. In order to assess the accomplishment level of the variables corresponding to each of the aspects of the Social Solidarity Economy and the relation of the organizations with the 15M movements, we have performed arithmetic measurements for each of the variables studied. To evaluate the performance of the formulated hypothesis we have applied a correlation and a factorial analysis upon the studied variables (Commitment, Ideology, Technology, Group Involvement and Individual Involvement) to quantify the existing association between variables (correlation) and to identify the latent existing relation between them (factorial), with the goal of gathering additional information that has allowed us to interpret the results of the individual classification (nonhierarchical segmentation). Once the groups have been obtained, significant differences between segments have been determined through a variance analysis (ANOVA). The results of our research show that consumer groups are part of a larger group of organizations that conform the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE), which, among others, values the promotion of spaces in which democratic participation is emphasised. If we constrain our analysis to 2011, just in a few cases the creation of new groups can be drawn from the influence of 15M. However, the entities created that year recognise the movement as an agent of change for the individuals in their condition of activists. At the same time, this research allowed us to determine three types of organizations: the traditional cooperative, which shows a low level of social commitment and a moderate level of individual participation, and that barely embraces ICT; the network cooperative, which adds social commitment and ICT usage; and the activist cooperative, which presents a greater group and individual involvement. Despite the sample is limited in quantitative terms, the results confirm our hypothesis, which is to say, that cooperativism has a strong activist component. This finding points in the same direction with what Cantijoch (2009), Christensen (2011), Anduiza et al. (2014) or Peña-López et al. (2014) have expressed with regards to a strong (and even rising) tendency in extra-representative and extra-institutional practices when it comes to take part in political participation or citizen activism. On the other hand, despite the classification of the groups in traditional, network and activist cooperatives, we dare to say that their relation with the 15M movement must be, therefore, exogenous, depending on a non-identified variable, which is highly probable individual and not consubstantial with consumer cooperativism. That is to say, one doesn’t affiliate to a cooperative – as it’s the case as well with political parties, labor unions or NGOs- in order to achieve other political goals, but rather that one’s active participation in cooperativism constitutes the techno-political action by itself. Downloads:

Article: Espelt Rodrigo, R., Peña-López, I. & Rodríguez, E. (2016). “¿Economía alternativa o tecnopolítica? Activismo desde el consumo cooperativo de productos agroecológicos”. In CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, (93), 293-318. Valencia: CIRIEC.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Article. Alternative economics or technopolitics. Activism from agroecological products cooperative consumption

]]>
Sat, 29 Sep 2018 02:47:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180929-article-alternative-economics-or-technopolitics-activism-from-agroecological-products-cooperative-consumption/
Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation (III). Infrastructures for non-formal and informal democratic participation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18952 This is a three-part article entitled Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation. From mass democracy to the networks of democracy. The first part deals with Man-mass and post-democracy and how democracy seems not to be maturing at all, or even going backwards due to lack of democratic culture and education. The second one deals with the Digital revolution and technopolitics and reflects about how the digital revolution might be an opportunity not only to recover but to update and transform democracy. This third part speaks about what kind of Infrastructures for non-formal and informal democratic participation could be put in place.

Democratic participation happens in a planned and structured way: elections, sessions in the representation chambers, etc. they have their place in time and an internal order for their development. Non-formal participation lacks the first feature: although it has an internal structure —provided often by institutions, but increasingly by citizens without an entity behind it— it takes place ad-hoc to respond quickly to a specific issue. Informal participation, finally, is one that is neither planned nor does it have an internal structure determined as a spontaneous manifestation or assembly, or many debates in spaces such as social networks. The general objective of a policy to promote infrastructures for non-formal and informal democratic participation is to identify actors, facilitate spaces and provide instruments that enrich the non-formal and informal democratic practice so that it achieves its objectives, either directly or through channeling action at some point towards a democratic institution.

Actors: in addition to people who may have an interest or knowledge in a given policy, articulate the participation and active intervention of intermediaries (prescribers, experts, representatives), facilitators (experts in making happen democratic participation actions) and infomediaries (experts in the treatment of data and information for public decision-making). Spaces: create the conditions so that the actors can work together, either coinciding in time and space as with other “spaces”, facilitating especially the conditions of participation, mediation strategies, channels and codes, weaving the network and explaining its operation. Instruments: methodologies, operating regulations, technological support (digital or analogue) for information, communication, decision-making and return.

For the deployment of this policy to promote infrastructures for non-formal and informal democratic participation we propose six axes or priority action programs:

Deliberative participation program: to promote and improve projects on deliberative democracy, government 2.0, an appropriate regulatory framework for citizen participation, and awareness of the importance of this instrument through training, research and dissemination. Program of electoral participation and direct democracy: promote and/or improve electoral processes to increase the legitimacy of formal participation processes, as well as projects on direct democracy consisting of the return of sovereignty to the citizen; raise awareness about the importance of these instruments through research and dissemination. Internal participation program: work towards a transformation of how the Administration understands participation, collaboration and cooperation within the institutions as well as in its relationship with citizens, through training and support networks and work, communities of professional innovation practice and open communities of practice between public professionals and citizens. Collaboration program: with the objective of standardizing and normalizing public-social-private consortiums and innovation initiatives according to the quadruple helix model; or, to put it another way, to work for the planning and structuring of non-formal and informal initiatives of democratic participation for its scaling and replication. Intermediaries, facilitators and infomediaries program: to contribute to the growth and consolidation of a trained and/or professionalized sector in the field of participation, in order to achieve the highest quality of participatory practices and projects, providing the sector and citizens involved with knowledge, instruments, technological tools or resources in general. E-participation, electronic voting and technopolitics program: accelerate the adoption of ICT in the field of participation, thus contributing to facilitate and standardize electronic participation, electronic voting, electronic government and electronic democracy in general, at the same time transforming the paradigm behind citizen practices based mainly on passive or merely responsive actors towards a technopolitical paradigm based on active, empowered and networked actors.

We can see a graphic representation of these six programs in the Theory of Change of Citizen Participation that appears below. Theory of Change of citizen participation[click to enlarge] In it we can see how the programs become products or political actions that, in turn, have expected results (measurable according to the established objectives and indicators) and that, according to the theory, will lead to an impact, understood as a change in social behavior —or a latent variable impossible to measure. As we have started saying, the expected impact wants to go far beyond the improvement of efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy of the democratic system, although this is the first desired impact, of course. On the one hand, one should aim at fighting populism, fighting the simplification of politics and the manipulation of citizens working to improve the social fabric, information and the involvement of citizens in public issues. This participation, moreover, is not merely quantitative but qualitative, given that we aspire to explain the complexity of the challenges of public decision-making and management with the concurrence of citizens in the design and evaluation of them. We achieve this, besides reinforcing the traditional channels of institutional participation, by encouraging non-formal and informal participation initiatives, establishing or re-establishing broken bridges between institutions and citizens but, above all, doing it on an equal footing, sharing sovereignties … and sharing the resolution of the problems associated with the responsibility that comes with enjoying such sovereignty, both personal and collective. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation (III). Infrastructures for non-formal and informal democratic participation

]]>
Mon, 10 Sep 2018 02:47:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180910-article-alternative-economics-or-technopolitics-activism-from-agroecological-products-cooperative-consumption/
Per què he acceptat entrar al Govern de la Generalitat de Catalunya http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18945 El dia 19 de juny de 2018 em van nomenar director general de participació ciutadana de la Generalitat de Catalunya. 75 dies després — no tots hàbils per treballar, però sí per pensar — em sento en la necessitat de compartir perquè vaig acceptar entrar al Govern de la Generalitat de Catalunya. Com va anar la cosa El dia 1 de juny per la tarda em va trucar la cap de gabinet del conseller Ernest Maragall per comentar-me que el conseller volia parlar amb mi i que si em podia trucar. Era el dia abans del seu nomenament com a conseller i l’agenda, al final, no li ho va permetre. Em va trucar l’endemà, dissabte, pel matí, hores abans de la seva pròpia investidura. Després de parlar força estona sobre la dura realitat de ser pare, em va dir que estava formant equip i que si estaria interessat en afegir-m’hi, i em va emplaçar al següent dilluns per a concretar. El dia 4 de juny pel em va proposar incorporar-me a l’equip del Jordi Foz, secretari de Transparència i Govern Obert, com a responsable de la nova Direcció general de Participació Ciutadana. Tenim un problema greu, em va dir, el feixisme i el populisme creixen de forma accelerada i els ciutadans s’hi abonen perquè no comprenen la complexitat de la política. Tu creus que la participació ciutadana pot fer-hi res, aquí? Tu em pots ajudar, en això?. Les paraules no són literals, però s’hi acosten força. Vam parlar de feixisme. Vam parlar de participació. Vaig dir que em feia molt de respecte la responsabilitat. Va dir que a ell també la seva. I vaig acceptar. Per què vaig acceptar Vaig acceptar, bàsicament, per quatre motius. El primer per l’encàrrec. Hi ha dues visions complementàries de la participació ciutadana. La visió tradicional és la de fer millors lleis i polítiques públiques gràcies a fer-hi concórrer més persones, amb visions diferents i amb coneixements diversos. Gràcies a la participació obtenim, diu la teoria (i jo la comparteixo), lleis i polítiques més eficaces i més eficients. La segona visió (que, tanmateix, és la que a mi em mou) és que la participació és el tercer estadi de la democràcia, agafant el millor de la democràcia grega (directa) i la democràcia moderna (representativa). La manera de superar la perillosa deriva que anticipava José Ortega y Gasset amb el seu “home-massa” o la post-democràcia de Colin Crouch. Que t’encarreguin intentar millorar la democràcia —el que cal és salvar-la, dirien alguns— per a què no repetim l’error del feixisme, i que t’encarreguin fer-ho transformant les pràctiques polítiques d’institucions i ciutadans, i aplicant la manera com creus que s’ha de fer és un encàrrec molt molt però molt difícil de dir-hi que no. És que et diguin: això que has estat dient els últims 20 anys, ara vas i ho fas. Tant per il·lusió com per coherència, s’ha de dir que sí. I quan dic l’encàrrec també vol dir la llibertat per a complir amb l’encàrrec. Tinc una anècdota que explica bé la llibertat que, de moment, se m’ha confiat. Si la proposta oficiosa va ser el 4 de juny, el meu nomenament va ser el 19 i la incorporació oficial el 21. Tanmateix, el conseller havia de comparèixer a la Comissió Acció Exterior Relacions Institucionals i Transparència del Parlament de Catalunya el 28 de juny. Així que tocava posar-se a treballar des del minut -21.600. Contra-rellotge, vaig treballar una teoria del canvi que agafés els impactes esperats (l’encàrrec), els transformés en resultats tangibles a aconseguir, derivats d’unes actuacions que vindrien d’uns programes amb més o menys recursos. Vaig empapar-me de què havia estat i estava fent la llavors Subdirecció de Qualitat Democràtica en matèria de transparència. Vam mirar de consensuar els grans eixos, mirar de fer lligar teoria i pràctica i passat i futur, vaig fer uns apunts pel PPT del conseller i vaig creuar els dits. Hi ha un passatge de la seva compareixença que podeu llegir a la transcripció que en va fer el Parlament que em va arribar al cor. Això deia el conseller Maragall: Els programes… aquí hi ha una paraula…, en fi, l’Ismael Peña ja ens ho explicarà, jo soc massa vell per utilitzar-la, sincerament. E-participació sí, fins aquí hi arribo. Vot electrònic, també. Tecnopolítica…, bé, donarem sentit al concepte i segur que estarem en condicions també no només de donar-li sentit sinó d’apreciar-ne el valor. És a dir, no sé què és la tecnopolítica [un concepte encara minoritari i que algunes persones treballem per fer cabdal], però si l’Ismael diu que és important, donem-li l’oportunitat que ens ho demostri. En compareixença davant el Parlament, a una setmana de la meva incorporació. No es pot demanar més confiança i recolzament. El segon, i més important, per la possibilitat de fer un impacte. En la democràcia i en la societat en conjunt. La feina que em va fer madurar com a professional va ser dirigir el programa de cooperació al desenvolupament de la UOC durant cinc anys. Una feina precedida per 15 anys de cau. Hi ha coses que deixen petjada. Quan vaig voler ser acadèmic (2005) va ser pels mateixos motius: aprendre per millorar el món… o el tros de món que es deixés millorar. Però fer impacte des de l’acadèmia és —prou paradoxalment— cada cop més difícil. Així que vaig acabar duent una doble vida. L’acadèmica més o menys estàndard i la de fer impacte. Amb totes les sinergies que podia provocar-hi, però doble vida. Això és esgotador i acaba passant factura, tant professional com personal. Amb la paternitat això es va fer molt més difícil. Reagrupar les diferents vides i posar-les en línia era essencial. Hi havia dues opcions: o bé reorientar la vida acadèmica vers una carrera amb més impacte social, o bé sortir de la vida acadèmica. La segona opció s’ha presentat primer i de quina manera: hi ha pocs llocs on tenir més impacte que des d’un govern. El tercer motiu és que sé fer-ho. O, més humilment, si hi ha una cosa que sé fer és aquesta. Porto 20 anys pensant-ho i fent-ho; de vegades una cosa més que l’altra, de vegades més l’altra que l’una. Recerca, formació, disseny i implantació de projectes, avaluació; a la pública i a la privada; a casa i a l’estranger. Dins el molt respecte que em fa la responsabilitat, saber que moltes coses les tens per la mà et dóna confiança per afrontar les moltíssimes altres que et seran noves. No arribar de nou al debat em sembla també una mostra de respecte imprescindible envers la gent amb la que hauràs de treballar, o per la que hauràs de treballar. Per últim, per l’equip amb qui hauria de treballar i el projecte que tenien (tenen… tenim) en marxa. Al Raül Romeva el vaig conèixer fa 20 anys i ens havíem anat trobant aquí i allà. El llavors conseller Romeva m’havia convidat a obrir la jornada de presentació del Pla de Govern Obert 2017-2018 el maig de l’any passat, així que coneixia també el projecte. Al Jordi Foz, el Roger Buch (qualitat democràtica) i la Laura Suñé (subdirectora de participació) els vaig conèixer a rel del disseny d’unes jornades d’innovació democràtica que al final no van ser per culpa del 155, tot i que ja havíem anat coincidint també aquí i allà. La Núria Espuny (directora general llavors de tot l’àmbit de govern obert) m’havia convidat a un grup de treball sobre la nova estratègia de dades obertes i govern obert i en vaig sortir eufòric tant per la qualitat de la feina com pel compromís de l’equip. De fet, l’únic que no coneixia (fals! no coneixia la Montse, la Raquel, la Núria, el Pablo… però ja m’enteneu) era el conseller. I, com he dit més amunt, estem en línia. Però, ets del partit? No. Em consta que la proposta del meu nom va venir de baix a dalt i no de dalt a baix. Amb el nou govern, va sorgir l’oportunitat de reforçar l’estratègia de govern obert —una qüestió reivindicada tant pel propi govern com pels ciutadans interessats en aquests afers— “desdoblant” l’anterior Direcció general de Transparència, Dades Obertes i Qualitat Democràtica en una direcció general de Transparència i Dades Obertes i una de Participació Ciutadana. La idea era, òbviament, reforçar les polítiques de participació. I es va proposar el meu nom perquè, com he dit més amunt, jo ja era actiu dins aquest àmbit. També és cert que soc proper a les idees del partit al què pertany el conseller — i això la direcció del partit ho sabia quan el meu nom hi va arribar. Hi ha qui m’ha etiquetat “de frontera” o “dels conciliadors”. A mi m’agrada dir que visc en un aiguabarreig entre ERC, els Comuns i la CUP, tot i que enyoro la socialdemocràcia europea de la segona meitat del s.XX, tinc bons amics a la resta de partits i amb alguns fins i tot hi he col·laborat en projectes polítics. I ho tornaria a fer: no em convenç la idea que les bones idees són només d’un partit o que un partit determinat té sempre bones idees. Crec, a més, que la meva independència, bo i l’afinitat ideològica, és ara mateix un actiu. Tant per mi com pel projecte. Tanmateix (oh, sorpresa) a l’equip directiu parlem molt de polítiques públiques i (oh, sorpresa) de la política dels partits. Per ara he trobat molta honestedat en separar les unes de les altres, cosa que m’ha semblat una actitud molt respectuosa, no envers mi, sinó envers la institució del govern. Dit això, el cert és que la coordinació de les polítiques públiques, de totes les polítiques públiques, es fa a nivell de partit. Qui pertany al partit té, doncs, l’oportunitat d’un segon torn on donar més cos o més acompanyament a un determinat programa. Si els partits tenen una cosa bona, és (o hauria de ser), precisament, aquesta. Aquestes qüestions — avantatges de la independència o de ser del partit — difícilment es veuen des de fora amb la claredat que es manifesten un cop al govern (i em consta que al Parlament passa de forma semblant). La coherència global i la responsabilitat indirecta pel càrrec La qüestió de ser o no d’un partit no em preocupa tant com el fet de pertànyer a un govern que (1) jo represento però (2) no controlo totalment. A l’acadèmia o als autònoms això no els passa: se li suposa als acadèmics la llibertat de càtedra i als autònoms que estan sols davant el perill; és a dir, cadascú és responsable dels seus actes. A les persones assalariades això tampoc no passa: el responsable és l’amo, o el cap jeràrquic. Al govern, no obstant, tots els que en formem part el representem i, en certa manera, ens representa a tots. Formem o conformem una institució. Això vol dir que si el company fa un disbarat, tots ens hi veiem en certa manera implicats. Som el govern. Però aquest company pot estar tan “aprop” com la direcció general del costat, com tan “lluny” com una altra conselleria que, a més, “pertany” a un altre partit (això, al món, passa molt sovint: no parlo del cas concret actual). En això no m’hi havia trobat mai (bé, sí, quan els meus fills molesten algú quan sortim de casa) i és molt incòmode. I amb diferents graus d’incomoditat: des de no compartir un punt de vista, fins oposar-te a una política que s’està duent a terme fins el límit de no trobar ètic un posicionament. Així, et trobes que el ciutadà pot acabar identificany-te amb (1) coses en les que no hi estàs d’acord, (2) coses en què no hi tens res a dir i menys fer perquè no són competència teva o del teu àmbit jeràrquic proper, o (3) coses que directament creus que atempten contra les teves conviccions personals més profundes. Amb 270 alts càrrecs que té la Generalitat prenent decisions constantment, la probabilitat que estiguem tots sempre d’acord (i donant per descomptat que ens ho parlem tot abans) és pràcticament zero. Gestionar això és una cosa que hauré d’aprendre a fer. I sobretot el tercer punt em fa més por que una pedregada. Les pors No vull deixar sense tocar tres qüestions que, més que respecte, em fan por. La primera són els diners. El meu sou és molt elevat. I a mi no em val si a la privada cobraria més o no: la qüestió és que cobro molts diners i, més important, surten de la butxaca del contribuent. Això em suposa una enorme responsabilitat, la d’utilitzar bé tots i cadascun dels euros del meu sou. Responsabilitat que fa venir por de no defraudar la confiança. Però, més encara, por de no voler-hi renunciar a tota costa, de fer el possible per mantenir el càrrec i, amb ell, el sou. De justificar qualsevol acció, de fer el que calgui pel sou. Aquest pensament el tinc a diari. La segona és el poder i els privilegis. Sota el meu comandament hi ha un equip de persones i un pressupost. Malgrat el que sovint es diu de la política, jo (encara) crec que es poden fer moltes coses des del govern. Puc, a més, influir en gent que té molt més poder que jo: secretaris, consellers, diputats. Influència directa, parlant-hi, o indirecta, gestionant la informació o dissenyant lleis. Per no parlar d’incidir en l’opinió dels ciutadans en massa, i amb la coartada de la participació ciutadana. El risc de passar de voler fer impacte a ser messiànic en el meu comportament també em capfica. Creure’s infal·lible o, en pitjor dels casos, imprescindible només em faria ineficient i ineficaç… però això no ho deus veure quan ets a l’ull del teu propi huracà. Si ser fidel a un sou és perillós, ser cegament fidel a unes idees encara és pitjor perquè hom es torna capaç de trobar justificació a absolutament tot. Per descomptat, encara pot ser pitjor: sumar la primera i la segona i, directament, corrompre’s. Tot i que confio en la meva virtut (com tothom deu confiar en la seva…), sempre he intentat posar-m’ho difícil per deixar de ser virtuós. Tinc la sort d’haver caigut al, probablement, millor lloc per dissenyar institucions a proves de no-virtuosos: la secretaria de transparència i govern obert. L’última por, i relacionada amb això anterior, és ser coherent en el pla ètic, en el respecte dels drets humans i les llibertats ciutadanes. Al marge de la corrupció —que és una qüestió força objectiva— respectar els drets és força més subtil. O, més ben dit, força més fàcil de relativitzar. En parlava més amunt a nivell general i ara hi torno a nivell personal. Entenc que l’estratègia és, des de dins, denunciar quan hom vegi que no es respecten els drets o llibertats i treballar per impedir-ho o corregir-ho. Dir-ho serà més fàcil que fer-ho. En el límit, però, hom ha de veure si un pot fer més impacte dins que fora per impedir o corregir aquestes qüestions — a més de les pròpies per les quals un ha acceptat el càrrec… sense caure en la pròpia idealització i autojustificació, clar. Tot un bucle ètic. Em temo que això em donarà molt de joc per a pensar-hi i, per dissort, segur que algun maldecap. En definitiva, nova etapa tant professional com personal. Fascinant. Plena de possibilitats, tant per bé com per mal. Tothom recomana paciència, reconèixer el terreny, aclimatar-se. Segurament és difícil fer canvis fàcils i ràpids —cal, però, saber explicar perquè— de la mateixa manera que crec molt factible fer alguns canvis importants o, com a mínim, crear les condicions favorables per a què puguin ser possibles en un futur. I fer-ho assumint el pes de tota la responsabilitat, sense perdre el cap, que si m’haig d’equivocar que sigui perquè no ho he sabut fer millor, no perquè no he volgut. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Per què he acceptat entrar al Govern de la Generalitat de Catalunya

]]>
Mon, 03 Sep 2018 07:23:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180903-per-que-he-acceptat-entrar-al-govern-de-la-generalitat-de-catalunya/
Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation (II). Digital revolution and technopolitics http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18950 Ants, courtesy of Fabien Cambi

This is a three-part article entitled Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation. From mass democracy to the networks of democracy. The first part deals with Man-mass and post-democracy and how democracy seems not to be maturing at all, or even going backwards due to lack of democratic culture and education. This second part deals with the Digital revolution and technopolitics and reflects about how the digital revolution might be an opportunity not only to recover but to update and transform democracy. The third speaks about what kind of Infrastructures for non-formal and informal democratic participation could be put in place.

While we are witnessing this possible exhaustion of democracy, the digital revolution has long ceased to merely affect the management of information and communications to be a vector of very deep transformations in absolutely all aspects of daily life. They do not escape to this revolution neither civic action nor democratic commitment. There are many and controversial pros and cons on the so-called electronic democracy, the uses and abuses of the practices that we encompass as Government 2.0 or the enormous disagreement on whether the new channels of information and digital communication improve or worsen the quality of the information that arrives to the citizens, or if citizens are able to form part of more pluralistic communities or, on the contrary, they are enclosed in their own resonance chambers. An issue that seems unquestionable to us, because it transcends the scope of democratic action, is the elimination of intermediaries for many of the collective tasks that traditionally required institutions to promote, articulate, organize, guide and resolve collective action. Or, failing that —the elimination of intermediaries— at least a radical transformation of the roles or actors that will develop these mediation roles. We believe more than proven by the empirical evidence that the cost of participating in any area of ​​collective decision-making has been dramatically reduced. Information, deliberation, negotiation, specification of preferences, decision making in itself, evaluation and accountability. All this can now be done with significantly less material and personal costs than in the past. Likewise, and as mentioned above, the potential to increase the benefits of participation has also increased due in part to the potential increase in participation itself, but also to the potentially much greater quantity and quality of information for the taking of decisions, the possibility of carrying out simulations, pilot tests, obtaining more and better indicators and in real time, the potential increase of the relative benefit by reducing the cost of conflict management, etc. These potentials have been materialized in countless citizen initiatives focused on self-organization, self-management, decision-making distributed in what has come to be called for-institutions, spaces of autonomy or means of mass self-communication. However, the wide range of opportunities offered by these spaces often takes place completely giving their back to institutions. Not only outside of them, but alien to them, when not directly challenging what was previously the natural space of these institutions or even their foundational functions, as Yochai Benkler reminds us. Even in the case where one believes that institutions were not necessary, an orderly transition between the now hegemonic institutional space towards informal spaces of democratic participation would seem desirable. Our bet —based on the belief that institutions have many difficult functions to replace, among them and as a priority the protection of minorities— is towards a deployment of the collective action of institutional spaces towards (also) the new informal spaces, as well as a sharing of sovereignty between these same institutions with the new actors of civic action in particular, and citizens in general. However, we run the risk of falling into what Manuel Delgado calls citizenshism, namely, let citizens participate, but participate just and necessary. To avoid this, we propose a return of sovereignty based on putting the “means of political production” in the hands of citizens.

To be continued in Infrastructures for non-formal and informal democratic participation.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation (II). Digital revolution and technopolitics

]]>
Mon, 20 Aug 2018 10:12:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180820-fostering-non-formal-and-informal-democratic-participation-ii-digital-revolution-and-technopolitics/
Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation (I). Man-mass and post-democracy http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18951 Anthill inside, courtesy by Marcel de Jong

This is a three-part article entitled Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation. From mass democracy to the networks of democracy. This first part deals with Man-mass and post-democracy and how democracy seems not to be maturing at all, or even going backwards due to lack of democratic culture and education. The second one deals with the Digital revolution and technopolitics and reflects about how the digital revolution might be an opportunity not only to recover but to update and transform democracy. The third speaks about what kind of Infrastructures for non-formal and informal democratic participation could be put in place.

There are two complementary views of citizen participation. The traditional view is that participation helps us to design better laws and public policies thanks to making more people work on them, with different visions and with different knowledge. Thanks to this greater concurrence, we get more effective laws and policies —because their diagnosis and range of solutions are more adjusted— and more efficient, since consensus is increased, conflict is reduced and design is technically better. This view, which we could describe as essentially technical, can be complemented by another vision much more philosophical or even political in the sense of social transformation through ideas. This second view is that participation of a deliberative nature could constitute a kind of third stage of democracy, taking the best of Greek democracy (direct) and modern democracy (representative), at the same time that it contributes to addressing more and more manifest shortcomings of both: on the one hand, the cost of participating; on the other hand, the increasing complexity of public decisions. However, this third stage, given its deliberative nature, by definition must occur in new spaces and with new actors, to incorporate the current design of democratic practice centered almost exclusively on institutions. Greek democracy has often been idealized as the perfect paradigm of public decision making: citizens, highly committed to the community, assume the responsibility of managing that public. They inform, debate, make decisions and execute them. Without caricaturizing what was of course a much more elaborate public management scheme, there are at least two aspects that are worth considering. First, the relatively simple sociopolitical context of the time. Second, the existence of citizens of a lesser degree or directly non-citizens (women, foreigners, slaves) on whose shoulders were discharged many tasks that facilitated that citizens with full rights could do politics. The next reincarnation of democracy will take place several centuries later in a totally different socio-economic reality that will change rapidly on the back of science and the industrial revolution. The modern liberal democracies, given the greater complexity of the context, as well as the greater (and also increasing) concurrence of free citizens, will resort to the creation of the State and the institutions of democratic representation for its administration. The delegation of power will be a radical transformation of the exercise of democracy that in turn will transform social organization —and vice versa. Some authors, however, alert us both to deficiencies in their design and signs of depletion. Ortega y Gasset, among others, warns in The rebellion of the masses that the technical and social advances have not been followed by similar advances in the fields of ethics or education, understanding education not as technical training for professional development, but in the humanistic sphere of personal development or as human beings. These so-called mass-men, says Ortega, are capable of operating with revolutionary technologies, but have not been able to grasp the historical dimension of humanity and, with this, are unable to understand and even to rule their own destiny. Ortega warns —and his warnings can be complemented by Elias Canetti‘s reflections on the dynamics of mass and power masses— how easy it is to end up controlling these masses, as well as the degeneration of that manipulation that we have come to call fascism. In a less destructive but equally worrisome version, Colin Crouch describes the current situation of democracy as post-democracy. Crouch explains that the growing complexity of decision-making, as well as political disaffection due to a feeling of alienation and ineffectiveness of politics, expulse tacitly or explicitly the citizens of the public agora, leaving them in the hands of elites who control, with an appearance of democracy, all the springs of public life. Paradoxically, the “solutions” that have appeared for one case (the mass-man) or for another (the post-democracy) are opposite and complementary at the same time: before a mass-man incapable of ruling himself, one aims for technocracy, for political meritocracy to its limit, for the professional rulers that are above a misinformed and ignorant citizenry, for the political aristocracy as a solution. On the other hand, the fight against post-democracy, the struggle of the elite that “does not represent” the citizen, has often led to populisms where a messianic leader, belonging to the people and not to the reviled elite, stands as foreseer of any solution, easy and simple, and many times consistent in finding a scapegoat to sacrifice along with the corrupt political elite. That populism derives in fascism is, as many authors like Rob Riemen say, only a matter of time. The question that remains latent, however, is whether there is a middle ground between fascism and aristocracy. It would seem that in this middle term there should be at least two concurrent circumstances: first, to go beyond education based on information and move towards the upbringing of full citizens, in the sense of individuals aware of their social environment and rights and duties towards their peers and their project as a collective; second, to provide instruments so that these trained citizens can democratically express their wishes and needs within this new globalized and complex system and, above all, under the protection of destructive populist drifts or the dispossession of their rights by the aristocracies.

To be continued in Digital revolution and technopolitics.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Fostering non-formal and informal democratic participation (I). Man-mass and post-democracy

]]>
Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:12:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180718-fostering-non-formal-and-informal-democratic-participation-i-man-mass-and-post-democracy/
A Theory of Change of citizen participation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18941 The Theory of Change is a methodology for strategic planning for social change. It is based on a reverse engineering process: once the systemic changes are stated, the process goes backwards to identify what outcomes are related to these systemic changes, what outputs (products, services) lead to these outcomes, and what activities or groups of activities (programmes, resources, etc.) have to be deployed to create these outputs. What follows is a Theory of Change of citizen participation, in which the engagement of citizens in public decision-making is put at the service of some systemic changes and, reversely, can be fostered through some specific programmes. Theory of Change of citizen participation[click to enlarge] The expected impacts, featured on the right side of the scheme above, are:

Efficiency, efficacy and legitimacy of public decisions improves. Populism has decreased in institutions and the public sphere. Citizens understand the complexity of public decision-making. Citizen participation and political engagement clearly shifts towards a technopolitical paradigm.

The first expected outcome is pretty straightforward and is usually the expected outcome of any citizen participation policy. Second and third are, indeed, the two sides of the same coin, and are related with the quality of democracy in particular and social cohesion in general. The last one, more instrumental, aims at embedding technology not as a mere tool, but as the driver of a deep transformation in how people collaborate with each other and with the Administration: from an institution-centred and hierarchy-articulated collaboration to a people-centred and network articulated collaboration; or, in other words, from centralised to distributed decision-making. The Theory of Change ends up with —or begins with, depending on how one sees it— five main programmes:

Programme of citizen participation. Programme of internal participation. Programme of collaboration. Programme of intermediaries, facilitators and infomediaries. Programme of e-participation, e-voting and technopolitics.

The first one is the traditional ones: make citizens participate. The second one aims at transforming institutions with the same philosophy: let public servants and politicians participate, work together, open up to the citizens. The third one is putting together the former two: let us see what happens when participation takes place between the two spheres. The fourth one aims at addressing the “industrial sector” of participation, but with a hint: it is not about the firms that facilitate projects, but about the collectives that do, as increasingly it is the organised civil society that engages itself in this kind of facilitation: data and research journalists, activists, hackers, social movements, etc. Last, the fifth one is an explicit support to participation infrastructures, including technology but also the methodologies that are embedded in these technologies. As this is a draft, a work in progress, comments are more than welcome. Some references on the Theory of Change Anderson, A.A. (2006). The Community Builder’s Approach to Theory of Change. A practical guide to theory development. New York: The Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. Blamey, A. & Mackenzie, M. (2007). “Theories of Change and Realistic Evaluation”. In Evaluation, 13 (4), 439-455. London: SAGE Publications. Brest, P. (2000). “The Power of Theories of Change”. In Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2000, 47-51. Palo Alto: Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society. Connell, J.P., Kubisch, A.C., Schorr, L.B. & Weiss, C.H. (Eds.) (1995). New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Queenstown: Aspen Institute. Connell, J.P. & Kubisch, A.C. (1998). “Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects, and Problems”. In Fullbright-Anderson, K., Kubisch, A.C. & Connell, J.P. (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Theory, measurement, and analysis. Volume 2. Queenstown: Aspen Institute. Retolaza Eguren, Í. (2010). Teoría del cambio. Un enfoque de pensamiento-acción para navegar en la complejidad de los procesos de cambio social. Guatemala: PNUD/Hivos. Rogers, P. (2014). La Teoría del Cambio. Síntesis metodológicas. Sinopsis de la evaluación de impacto nº2. Florencia: UNICEF. Stein, D. & Valters, C. (2012). Understanding Theory of Change in International Development. London: JSRP, The Asia Foundation. Taplin, D.H. & Clark, H. (2012). Theory of Change Basics. A primer on Theory of Change. New York: ActKnowledge. Vogel, I. (2012). Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’ in international development. London: DFID. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as A Theory of Change of citizen participation

]]>
Sat, 30 Jun 2018 04:21:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180630-a-theory-of-change-of-citizen-participation/
Nomenat Director general de Participación Ciudadana http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18944 Nomenament com a Director general de Participació Ciutadana. El 19 de juny de 2018 he estat nomenat director general de Participació Ciutadana de la Generalitat de Catalunya. Per tant, estaré d’excedència forçosa del meu lloc als Estudis de Dret i Ciències Polítiques de la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, a la qual tornaré quan les meves responsabilitats en el govern arribin a la seva fi. La Direcció General de Participació Ciutadana pertany a la

]]>
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:12:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180619-nomenat-director-general-de-participacion-ciudadana/
Nombrado Director general de Participación Ciudadana http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18942 Nombramiento como Director general de Participación Ciudadana. Hoy, 19 de junio de 2018, he sido nombrado Director General de Participación Ciudadana de la Generalitat de Catalunya. Por lo tanto, estaré de excedencia forzosa de mi puesto en la Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Políticas de la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, a la que regresaré cuando mis responsabilidades en el gobierno lleguen a su fin. La Dirección General de Participación Ciudadana pertenece a la

]]>
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 09:47:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180619-nombrado-director-general-de-participacion-ciudadana-2/
Appointed Director General of Citizen Participation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18943 Appointment as Director General of Citizen Participation On 19 June 2018 I have been appointed Director General of Citizen Participation at the Government of Catalonia. Thus, I am now on leave from my position at the School of Law and Political Science at the Open University of Catalonia, to which I shall return when my duties are over at the government. The Directorate-General of Citizen Participation belongs to the Secretariat of Transparency and Open Government, within the Department of Foreign Affairs, Institutional Relationships and Transparency. I like to explain that the directorate-general I am part of has the responsibility to foster and facilitate the exercise of the “three democracies”, that is:

Direct democracy: the directorate-general is the responsible for running citizen consultations at the regional level (Catalonia) and helps local administrations to run their own. Deliberative democracy: the directorate-general organises deliberative processes related to law-making or policy-making processes, or for better knowing the will of the citizenry in specific issues. Representative democracy: the directorate-general is the governmental body behind the organisation of regional elections and collaborates in the organisation of sub-regional elections.

There are four impacts that as a directorate-general in particular, and as a department, we would like to have:

An improvement in efficiency, efficacy and legitimacy of public decisions improves. A decrease of populism in institutions and the public sphere. Citizens understand the complexity of public decision-making. Citizen participation and political engagement clearly shifts towards a technopolitical paradigm.

During my tenure — expected lasting 4 years —, we are planning to develop six programmes, based on an updated version of this Theory of Change of citizen participation:

Programme of deliberative participation: to foster and improve projects on deliberative democracy, government 2.0, an appropriate regulatory framework for citizen participation, and awareness raising on the importance of this instrument through training, research and dissemination. Programme of electoral participation and direct democracy: to foster and/or improve electoral processes and projects on direct democracy, and awareness raising on the importance of this instrument through research and dissemination. Programme of internal participation: to work towards a transformation of how the Administration understands and makes use of collaboration within the government and with the citizens, by means of training and capacity building on participation, networks of support and work, communities of practice of professional innovation, and open communities of practice between public servants and citizens. Programme of collaboration: which aims at standardising and normalising public-social-private-partnerships and four-helix type of innovation initiatives. Programme of intermediaries, facilitators and infomediaries: to contribute to the growth and consolidation of an expert or professional sector in the field of participation, to achieve the maximum quality in participation practices and projects by bringing onto the sector and engaged citizens knowledge, instruments, technological tools or resources in general. Programme of e-participation, electronic voting and technopolitics: to accelerate the adoption of ICTs in the field of participation thus contributing to ease and normalise e-participation, e-voting, e-government and e-democracy in general while, at the same time, transforming the paradigm behind citizen practices based on mostly passive or responsive actors to a technopolitical paradigm based on active, empowered and networked actors.

This is a most ambitious plan. Some of its parts are of course not reachable on a four-year basis. I am quite convinced, though, that one should plan for the long-run, to aim for ideal horizons, and just constraint oneself when it comes to planning the yearly budget. It is evident that intermediate milestones are needed, both to assess the evolution of one’s work as to provide voters with insights about the government’s performance for the due elections without having to wait for, say, 10 years. But without higher visions there is no transformation possible. And if we want to have an impact, transformation of government in citizen practices is, in my opinion, an absolute need. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Appointed Director General of Citizen Participation

]]>
Tue, 19 Jun 2018 01:07:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180619-appointed-director-general-of-citizen-participation/
Estar a Òmnium, ser Òmnium http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18936 Presentant el projecte de think tank a l’Assemblea General Ordinària d’ Òmnium Cultural del 3 de març de 2018. A finals de 2014 vaig incorporar-me a la Junta Nacional d’Òmnium Cultural. Hi entrava de la mà de la Muriel Casals, a qui li deia obertament que Muriel, jo no soc dels vostres. La seva resposta, tan espontània com sentida, em va fer acceptar a l’acte: precisament la gent que no se sentia partícip del projecte d’Òmnium era la més necessària si es volia que aquest projecte fos de tots. De tots. Omnium. El genitiu d’omnia. De tots. Després la Muriel va deixar el carrer per anar a les institucions, a seguir fent política, i va agafar el seu relleu el Jordi Cuixart al capdavant de l’entitat. Després la Muriel se’n va anar del tot — crec que mai superarem, superaré, del tot aquesta pèrdua, aquesta doble pèrdua: primer la vaig perdre com a professora, on em va marcar per sempre; després com a amiga i activista, on em va marcar per sempre una altra vegada. Després se’n va anar el Jordi Cuixart, a la presó, d’on molts esperem que torni, aviat, si pot ser no massa canviat i, si ha de ser-ho, que sigui per bé. I després, ara, plego jo — incompatibilitats de compromisos personals immediats amb el càrrec a la Junta. Del meu pas per Òmnium, de la meva pròpia aportació vull dir, m’agradaria que fos veritat el que de mi deia el Quico Sallés a un article seu: que soc un dels politòlegs ‘conciliadors’ del sobiranisme. Perquè això és el que he intentat fer: política — en el sentit de gestionar allò col·lectiu — i ser conciliador — d’extrems, de visions paral·leles, se sentiments contraposats. El primer any llarg vaig esforçar-me (sense èxit) a aconseguir que hi hagués un procés constituent o deliberatiu que fes pensar i parlar els ciutadans de Catalunya, entre ells i amb les institucions; i entre tots plegats ho vam acabar canviant per un referèndum (un instrument força diferent). El segon any llarg vaig esforçar-me (amb un èxit parcial) a reivindicar el valor polític, de dret irrenunciable, que la ciutadania es manifesti, també a les urnes; crec que l’exercici de l’1 d’octubre va ser un revulsiu en termes d’emancipació ciutadana, però va ser negatiu en termes de deliberació i de construcció de país (com era d’esperar, i com s’ha demostrat), tot i que segueixo pensant que, en aquell moment, hi havia poques opcions més — les conseqüències ens fan oblidar, sovint, les causes. Els últims mesos he estat esforçant-me (espero que, ara sí, amb èxit) a promoure un gir, tant dins d’Òmnium com fora, que doni més pes a la deliberació (si, una altra vegada la deliberació) i al pensament, no en detriment de l’activisme (més necessari que mai pels drets!) però sí com a complement (o pre-requisit) cada cop més urgent com a eina de cohesió social i de construcció de consensos. Sigui com sigui, la meva aportació ha estat necessàriament petita. Perquè les coses a fer eren i són moltes i profundes, i perquè l’equip d’Òmnium és molt i molt nombrós — un extens univers que transcendeix els càrrecs electes voluntaris i els professionals — i fa de mal dir qui ha fet què. El que a aquestes alçades és important per mi és si he sortit diferent de com vaig entrar. I un bon resum és el següent: vaig acceptar estar a Òmnium i surto essent Òmnium. Quan he tingut l’oportunitat, sempre he dit que Òmnium és l’entitat més plural que té el país. Pot ser que m’equivoqui, però en tot cas és un error de magnitud, no de categoria. A Òmnium — i parlo en particular de la Junta Nacional, però si ho faig extensiu a totes les juntes territorials és encara molt més evident — hi ha gent de dretes i d’esquerres, conservadors i liberals, progressistes i anarquistes, gent que creu que la independència és un fi i gent que creu que és un instrument, gent nacionalista i (sí, sí) gent anti-nacionalista, gent profundament identitària i gent profundament amb pensament de classe, etc. És evident que hi ha sectors que no hi són. I els esforços per a què sentin Òmnium com una entitat útil, també per a ells, són molt grans i, important, creixents. Però una de les coses que m’hauran marcat de la meva estada a Òmnium és que és de tots. I, més important, que aquest és un tret fonamental de l’entitat, sincer, honest, volgut, treballat. I la manera — o maneres — com s’ha aconseguit és un dels aprenentatges més rics que, egoistament, m’enduc i incorporaré a la meva caixa d’eines i la meva manera de fer. I de ser. Ser de tots no està exempt d’inconvenients. Quan tries un camí, se t’acosten companys de viatge que no has triat. I que potser no triaries mai. Però consideres que el fet de compartir camí és el que és realment important. I, si pots, i, si et deixen, i amb tota la humilitat possible, mires d’intentar que el camí, feixuc, sigui més amable per a la resta de viatgers. I, plegats, mirar de sumar. Fa uns anys (molts, ja) vaig llegir El Príncep de Maquiavel. Va ser durant l’època en què vaig haver de començar a prendre decisions (professionals) de vegades complicades. Decisions on (creia jo) importava més amb qui feies les coses que no pas el que feies. La lectura de Maquiavel em va dur a pensar que, sovint, darrere les acusacions de “maquiavèlic!” el que hi ha és maniqueisme (a banda d’una distorsió de la doctrina de Maquiavel, sovint fruit del desconeixement). No tot s’hi val, és cert. Però no és menys cert — o això crec jo — que la puresa ens duu, sovint, a l’immobilisme. Els extrems són, sovint, més lluny del que pensem. I l’àrea de grisos és molt, molt àmplia com per a poder regir-se per un principi cabdal a Òmnium: comencem pel que ens uneix i anem fent; i quan arribem a allò en què estem en desacord, ja ens aturarem a parlar-ne. La realitat és que (1) aconseguir allò que ens uneix és molt difícil i, per tant, sovint no arribem a allò que ens desuneix i (2) en fent coses plegats, anem aprimant i allunyant allò que ens desuneix, pel què sovint tampoc hi acabem arribant. Aquest és un aprenentatge fonamental del funcionament fonamental d’Òmnium. I, si bé el principi no m’era aliè, se m’ha reforçat de manera que crec que s’hauria de prioritzar a tota acció col·lectiva, tant política com social. Això és Òmnium Cultural. Això soc, també, jo. Una mica més que abans. Deixaré d’estar a Òmnium, però difícilment deixaré de ser Òmnium. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Estar a Òmnium, ser Òmnium

]]>
Fri, 15 Jun 2018 23:31:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180616-estar-a-omnium-ser-omnium/
Report. Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18935 Study on the Impact of the Internet and Social Media on Youth Participation and Youth work The Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture of the European Commission has just released the Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work, that was coauthored by Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Alexandra Theben, Federica Porcu and myself. The study analyses 50 good practices and 12 case studies to examine the impact of the internet, social media and new technology on youth participation and look at the role of youth work in supporting young people to develop digital skills and new media literacy. In my opinion, the main result of the study confirms what others have already found and that is increasingly becoming the trend in inclusion and development: top-down approaches only do not work, and bottom-up, grassroots initiatives are necessary for projects to work. In other words, weaving the social tissue has to come first for any kind of community intervention one might want to deploy. The 10 pages of conclusions can more or less be summarised this way:

Socio-economic status is crucial at the individual level and the knowledge gap has to be addressed immediately before social interventions. Enabling the social tissue at the micro level contribute to strengthen the community and thus improve the diagnosis and mobilise social capital. As people act in different communities, weaving networks at the meso level makes sinergies emerge and synchronise multilayer spaces. Skills and training are key at this level. Once the initiatives have begun to scale up, it is necessary to mainstream and institutionalise them at the macro level, which means fixing them in policies and regulation. Quadruple helix of innovation approaches are most recommended. The acquisition of digital skills has to be based on digital empowerment, on a sense of purpose. Digital participation and engagement has to aim at being able to “change the system”, to structural changes, to digital governance. The now mostly deprecated approach of build it and they will come should leave way to an approach in the line of empower them and find them where they gather. That is, to look for extra-institutional ways that young people participate and engage to design your capacity building and intervention scheme.

Abstract: The study examines the impact of the internet, social media and new technology on youth participation and looks at the role of youth work in supporting young people to develop digital skills and new media literacy. It is based on an extensive collection of data, summarised in an inventory of 50 good practices and 12 case studies reflecting the diversity of youth work from across the EU. It confirms that youth work has an important role to play, but more has to be done by policy makers at both EU and national level to respond to the challenges and adapt policies in order to foster engagement and active citizenship of young people. Downloads:

Full report: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Brussels: European Commission.

Executive report: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Executive report. Brussels: European Commission.

Annex 1, Inventory of good practice: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Annex 1, Inventory of good practice. Brussels: European Commission.

Annex 2, Case studies: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Annex 2, Case studies. Brussels: European Commission.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Report. Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work

]]>
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 08:51:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180603-report-study-on-the-impact-of-the-internet-and-social-media-on-youth-participation-and-youth-work/
De la formación de formadores al aprendizaje de formadores http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18934 Magnetic Fields 15, cortesía de Windell Oskay Siempre que se evalúa el desarrollo de los docentes de los centros educativos aparece la formación de formadores como una cuestión clave. Y es clave, simplificando, en dos ámbitos. Por un lado, como indicador del nivel de actualización competencial del docente, es decir, para su evaluación y acreditación profesional. Por otra, como instrumento para que este docente pueda ampliar su caja de herramientas y aplicarla en su día a día con sus estudiantes. Sin ánimos de entrar a juzgar aquí la eficacia y la eficiencia de las diversas iniciativas que actualmente hay en marcha en materia de formación de formadores, lo que es cierto es que la mayoría de ellas han pivotado en la institucionalidad y en la formación. Por institucionalidad nos referimos a que deben iniciarse y desarrollarse desde determinadas instituciones, programarse con bastante antelación, tener una determinada estructura y duración o carga docente y, sobre todo, ser reconocidas como tales, es decir, como iniciativas de formación de formadores dentro de un determinado esquema de la Administración. Por formación entendemos, precisamente, el alto componente formal de estas iniciativas y que, por construcción, deja fuera un amplísimo abanico de iniciativas y oportunidades de aprendizaje que suceden en los márgenes del sistema establecido de formación de formadores. Hay motivos para que esto sea así y no queremos ahora abrir este espacio para debatirlos. Seguramente estaríamos de acuerdo: garantizar una determinada calidad, evitar fraudes (especialmente económicos), etc. Ahora bien, que queramos velar por estos principios no significa que sólo haya una única manera que nuestros docentes aprendan. Es más, empieza a ser altamente disonante que, mientras afirmamos que se abre una era donde es importante aprender a aprender, donde es esencial aprender a lo largo de la vida, donde debemos dar herramientas a nuestros estudiantes para que sean autónomos en su aprendizaje (presente y futuro), mantengamos como prácticamente única opción a la formación de formadores justo todo lo contrario: iniciativas cerradas, circunscritas a un tiempo y un espacio, y altamente dirigidas, prefabricadas y unidireccionales. Fuera del radar de la formación de formadores tradicionales, muchos educadores comienzan a organizarse en comunidades de práctica y de aprendizaje (virtuales o presenciales); comparten dudas y recursos a sus blogs; participan en edcamps, talleres, webinarios o hackathonas educativos; llevan a cabo proyectos innovadores que abren a la comunidad educativa, y un larguísimo etcétera de ejemplos que empiezan a ser no una excepción, sino una verdadera tendencia que no para de ganar masa crítica. ¿Somos capaces de reconocer y, sobre todo, fomentar este tipo de aprendizaje, de altísimo valor (¡porque no es individual, sino colectivo!), pero que sistemáticamente cae fuera de lo que habitualmente hemos entendido como formación de formadores? Entrada originalmente publicada el 28 de febrero de 2018, bajo el título De la formació de formadors a l’aprenentatge de formadors en Edubaromentre.cat. Todos los artículos publicados en esa revista pueden consultarse en castellano bajo la etiqueta edubarometre. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como De la formación de formadores al aprendizaje de formadores

]]>
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:09:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180603-de-la-formacion-de-formadores-al-aprendizaje-de-formadores/
Report. Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18938 Study on the Impact of the Internet and Social Media on Youth Participation and Youth work The Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture of the European Commission has just released the Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work, that was coauthored by Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Alexandra Theben, Federica Porcu and myself. The study analyses 50 good practices and 12 case studies to examine the impact of the internet, social media and new technology on youth participation and look at the role of youth work in supporting young people to develop digital skills and new media literacy. In my opinion, the main result of the study confirms what others have already found and that is increasingly becoming the trend in inclusion and development: top-down approaches only do not work, and bottom-up, grassroots initiatives are necessary for projects to work. In other words, weaving the social tissue has to come first for any kind of community intervention one might want to deploy. The 10 pages of conclusions can more or less be summarised this way:

Socio-economic status is crucial at the individual level and the knowledge gap has to be addressed immediately before social interventions. Enabling the social tissue at the micro level contribute to strengthen the community and thus improve the diagnosis and mobilise social capital. As people act in different communities, weaving networks at the meso level makes sinergies emerge and synchronise multilayer spaces. Skills and training are key at this level. Once the initiatives have begun to scale up, it is necessary to mainstream and institutionalise them at the macro level, which means fixing them in policies and regulation. Quadruple helix of innovation approaches are most recommended. The acquisition of digital skills has to be based on digital empowerment, on a sense of purpose. Digital participation and engagement has to aim at being able to “change the system”, to structural changes, to digital governance. The now mostly deprecated approach of build it and they will come should leave way to an approach in the line of empower them and find them where they gather. That is, to look for extra-institutional ways that young people participate and engage to design your capacity building and intervention scheme.

Abstract: The study examines the impact of the internet, social media and new technology on youth participation and looks at the role of youth work in supporting young people to develop digital skills and new media literacy. It is based on an extensive collection of data, summarised in an inventory of 50 good practices and 12 case studies reflecting the diversity of youth work from across the EU. It confirms that youth work has an important role to play, but more has to be done by policy makers at both EU and national level to respond to the challenges and adapt policies in order to foster engagement and active citizenship of young people. Downloads:

Full report: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Brussels: European Commission.

Executive report: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Executive report. Brussels: European Commission.

Annex 1, Inventory of good practice: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Annex 1, Inventory of good practice. Brussels: European Commission.

Annex 2, Case studies: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Annex 2, Case studies. Brussels: European Commission.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Report. Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work

]]>
Sun, 03 Jun 2018 01:07:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180603-report-study-on-the-impact-of-the-internet-and-social-media-on-youth-participation-and-youth-work-2/
Report. Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18940 Study on the Impact of the Internet and Social Media on Youth Participation and Youth work The Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture of the European Commission has just released the Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work, that was coauthored by Francisco Lupiáñez-Villanueva, Alexandra Theben, Federica Porcu and myself. The study analyses 50 good practices and 12 case studies to examine the impact of the internet, social media and new technology on youth participation and look at the role of youth work in supporting young people to develop digital skills and new media literacy. In my opinion, the main result of the study confirms what others have already found and that is increasingly becoming the trend in inclusion and development: top-down approaches only do not work, and bottom-up, grassroots initiatives are necessary for projects to work. In other words, weaving the social tissue has to come first for any kind of community intervention one might want to deploy. The 10 pages of conclusions can more or less be summarised this way:

Socio-economic status is crucial at the individual level and the knowledge gap has to be addressed immediately before social interventions. Enabling the social tissue at the micro level contribute to strengthen the community and thus improve the diagnosis and mobilise social capital. As people act in different communities, weaving networks at the meso level makes sinergies emerge and synchronise multilayer spaces. Skills and training are key at this level. Once the initiatives have begun to scale up, it is necessary to mainstream and institutionalise them at the macro level, which means fixing them in policies and regulation. Quadruple helix of innovation approaches are most recommended. The acquisition of digital skills has to be based on digital empowerment, on a sense of purpose. Digital participation and engagement has to aim at being able to “change the system”, to structural changes, to digital governance. The now mostly deprecated approach of build it and they will come should leave way to an approach in the line of empower them and find them where they gather. That is, to look for extra-institutional ways that young people participate and engage to design your capacity building and intervention scheme.

Abstract: The study examines the impact of the internet, social media and new technology on youth participation and looks at the role of youth work in supporting young people to develop digital skills and new media literacy. It is based on an extensive collection of data, summarised in an inventory of 50 good practices and 12 case studies reflecting the diversity of youth work from across the EU. It confirms that youth work has an important role to play, but more has to be done by policy makers at both EU and national level to respond to the challenges and adapt policies in order to foster engagement and active citizenship of young people. Downloads:

Full report: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Brussels: European Commission.

Executive report: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Executive report. Brussels: European Commission.

Annex 1, Inventory of good practice: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Annex 1, Inventory of good practice. Brussels: European Commission.

Annex 2, Case studies: Lupiáñez-Villanueva, F., Theben, A., Porcu, F. & Peña-López, I. (2018). Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work. Annex 2, Case studies. Brussels: European Commission.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Report. Study on the impact of the internet and social media on youth participation and youth work

]]>
Thu, 31 May 2018 01:19:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180531-report-study-on-the-impact-of-the-internet-and-social-media-on-youth-participation-and-youth-work/
Carta a mi hija: yo sí te creeré http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18933 Hermana, yo sí te creo, cortesia de Iris Serrano Querida Muriel, Ahora sólo tienes seis años (y medio), pero un día serás capaz no sólo de leer este texto, sino de comprenderlo. Hoy ha salido la sentencia del caso “La Manada”. Cinco hombres violaron a una chica. Dicen los jueces que a pesar de que la chica estaba acorralada por los cinco hombres, aterrorizada, vejada sexualmente una y otra vez contra su voluntad, la violaron sin violencia. Es decir: técnicamente, no la violaron. Muriel, estás sola. Estás sola significa que, salvo mamá y papá, nadie te va a creer. Porque, estadísticamente, un día te ha de ocurrir a ti. Te ha de ocurrir que alguien te fuerce sexualmente. Con “suerte”, “sólo” serán unos tocamientos incómodos. Con menos suerte, será peor. Y te acompañará el resto de tu vida. Y estarás tú sola con este recuerdo imborrable. Sola porque tus amigas te recomendarán que lo olvides, que no vale la pena. Sola porque los amigos dirán que no es para tanto, que seguro que te gustó, que ojalá les hubiera pasado a ellos. Sola porque la policía dudará de tu criterio, de tus intenciones, incluso dirán que lo haces para hacer daño. Sola porque los jueces cuestionarán y relativizarán los hechos, por más patentes que sean, por más bien grabados que hayan quedado, en aras de una interpretación inmaculada de la letra —que no del espíritu— de la Ley. Muriel, estás sola. Muriel, cuesta pensarlo, aún más escribirlo, pero te ocurrirá. De una manera o de otra te ocurrirá. Y estarás sola. Te ocurrirá porque estarás sola y estarás sola porque te ocurrirá. Bajo el aparente juego de palabras se esconde el terrible círculo de la sumisión. La certeza de este horizonte me revuelve por dentro como si me girasen la piel de dentro afuera. Muriel, yo sí te creeré. Mamá y yo te creeremos. Siempre. Incondicionalmente. Sin dudas. Sin matices. Sin preguntas. A medida que te hagas mayor, nuestros caminos deben separarse de forma natural. Quizás geográficamente, seguro de pensamiento, de manera de hacer, de manera de ser. Pero en este punto del camino nos hemos de encontrar siempre. Siempre estaremos allí. Esperándote. Si es necesario. No estarás sola. Yo sí te creeré. Entrada originalmente publicada el 26 de abril de 2018, bajo el título Muriel, jo sí que et creuré en Vadepares. Todos los artículos publicados en esa revista pueden consultarse aquí bajo la etiqueta vadepares. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Carta a mi hija: yo sí te creeré

]]>
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:44:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20180426-carta-a-mi-hija-yo-si-te-creere/
Open government: where to begin with? A showcase http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18939 When we speak about Open Government, it is easy to getting lost in the lingo of names and concepts and not being able to bring things down to Earth. In the past I draw a simplified scheme for Open Government. Now I want to highlight some practical applications of that scheme. The table below presents, on the one hand, the three layers of Open Government:

Transparency: let people know. Participation: let people speak. Collaboration: let people do.

On the other hand, it lists the five stages of public decision-making (there are other models with more or less stages, of course):

Diagnosis: what is going on, what do we need, what do we want. Deliberation: what are the impacts, what are the options. Negotiation: what are our preferences. Vote: what is our decision. Assessment: which were the results.

By crossing these two axes, I suggest some lines of action, some specific projects that can be put into practice. This is of course not an exhaustive list, and many projects can be placed in more than just one cell. It is, as I said, just a showcase of where to begin with.

Layer/Stage Diagnosis Deliberation Negotiation Vote Assessment

Transparency Politician/officer scoreboard Technical reports Open agendas Legislative footprint Open budgetting

Participation Blogs and citizen social networking sites Officers’ and projects’ blogs Policy technical reports Citizen consultations Data visualization

Collaboration Green books Facilitation of citizen deliberation Groups of interest PSPP Citizen scoreboard

Table 1. An open government showcase. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Open government: where to begin with? A showcase

]]>
Sat, 14 Apr 2018 01:51:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/20180414-report-study-on-the-impact-of-the-internet-and-social-media-on-youth-participation-and-youth-work-3/
Corpotate Accountability Index http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18932 Ictlogist:

https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2017/

<blockquote>The Ranking Digital Rights '''Corporate Accountability Index''' evaluates some of the world’s most powerful telecommunications, internet, and mobile companies on their public commitments and disclosed policies affecting users’ freedom of expression and privacy.</blockquote>

Developed by '''[https://rankingdigitalrights.org Ranking Digital Rights]''' and first launched in 2015.

Index categories: * Governance: This category contains six indicators measuring company disclosure of commitments to freedom of expression and privacy principles along with measures taken to implement those commitments across the company's global operations. * Freedom of Expression: This category contains 11 indicators measuring company disclosure of policies that affect users' freedom of expression. * Privacy:This category contains 18 indicators measuring company disclosure of policies and practices that affect users' privacy rights.

[[Category:Data]][[Category:ICT]][[Category:Maps]][[Category:Indices]][[Category:Data_ICT]][[Category:Maps_ICT]][[Category:Indices_ICT]]

]]>
Wed, 11 Apr 2018 06:27:00 -0700 http://ictlogy.net/wiki/index.php?title=Corpotate_Accountability_Index