ICTlogy

Tech as part of the mix
Framer: Duncan Edwards

Technologies that work to channel or amplify voice may increase the ability of government to ‘hear’ citizens more loudly or clearly, but are not necessarily sufficient to lead to ‘listening’ or responsiveness.

Where there is willingness and commitment tech can assist in gathering, aggregating and synthesising voices and data and helping governments to be more attuned to needs and the realities of service provision and receipt.

Tech may offer different opportunities across the various sites and levels of government.

Technologies may have a role in strategies to gain greater commitment to responsiveness on the part of government where it doesn’t exist already.

The internal dynamics and politics of the state and of bureaucracies are important background conditions.

The ‘social design’ of tech for accountability programming needs to fully address issues of capacity and agency; of citizen and state groupings, and of individuals and organisations.

Technologies can be used effectively to support processes of empowerment; the building of agency, sense of self-worth and confidence, and the status that comes from having experiences recognised and validated.

How far tech contributes to the building of individual and collective capacities depends very heavily on how it is integrated in to wider processes and activities.

We can say that forms of intermediation and interlocution are essential to making a tech-for-accountability effort work.

Some of this intermediation is about connecting the online and digital with offline processes. This is particularly important where the aim is citizen mobilisation.

These processes are even more important given the tendency of tech-enabled feedback mechanisms to individualise and disaggregate experiences and voices.

Although we have known for some time that intermediation and infomediation is key to making tech for transparency and advocacy projects work effectively, it seems that these roles are not sufficiently planned in too many projects and that in particular those that can effectively connect technologists with communities, or intermediaries who are connected to communities, are not engaged at an early enough stage.

Unchecked, digital processes further exclude the already marginalised on the basis of income and material resources, as well as distance from urban centres, gender norms, literacy, language barriers, and so on.

Without addressing inequalities in access we risk creating a world where only online or digitised voices count.

Used in certain ways, tech can be part of processes that reduce marginalisation by ensuring that less-heard voices are heard and given legitimacy.

Technology provides some spaces for those experiencing certain marginalisations —for example LGBT voices— to make connections.

Legitimacy is a factor across the ecosystem of actors – for communities and citizen, intermediaries and NGOs, and for state actors.

Different types of data are seen as more and less legitimate —citizen-generated data is often de-legitimised once it reaches governments, but this is potentially less the case when it has entered ‘invited spaces’ created by governments— for example feedback or grievance logging platforms.

The real or perceived risks of surveillance and reprisal —and distrust in the supposed anonymity of tech systems —presents a significant barrier to many citizens engaging with these technologies and new platforms.

One of the roles identified for intermediaries is building trust; between actors, in the data itself, and in the messages or narratives drawn from it.

Host: Ellen Pieterse, Independent/MAVC
Panellists: Koketso Moeti, Amandla.mobi; Tabitha Hrynick, freelance researcher; Tiago Peixoto, World Bank; Ismael Peña-López, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya

(what follows are my own points, as I could not take notes from my co-panellists’ contributions)

The Internet does not add up, it just multiplies. That is, the socio-economic status of the people using the Internet matters the final outcomes of Internet usage.

In this sense, weaving social tissue is key to level the ground and have strong foundations upon which to build any kind of participatory process. On the other hand, this social tissue enables “bridges” between traditional participation and online or technopolitical participation. Without a thick social tissue, these layers may evolve independently one from another.

But these “bridges” do not happen just because: facilitation is very important for the spreading of ideas and for deliberation to take place. Thus, it is a matter of how technology enables wider and stronger social tissue by making weak ties more relevant, by identifying emergent critical masses, and contributing to the self-awareness of critical masses and trends and patterns.

Technology makes it possible to “hack” the system, circumvent (non-functional) democratic institutions and provide new ways to participate even where there were none. Though it is true that true information is difficult to gather due to too much “noise” (e.g. “fake news”), it is also true that technology makes it easier to “unmask” false information.

Accountability is a matter of nearness. This is why we are witnessing a rise of municipalism. This could even lead to a network of participatory cities if citizens believe that national politics are out of reach, but are nevertheless able to “synchronize” local politics in a wide geographic area. The combination of citizens weaving networks easily while officials succeeding in making them formal and institutionalizing them can be a powerful driver for change.

It is important to note the key role of officials, not (as much) politicians. When we speak about intermediaries between citizens and politicians, it is possible that some of these intermediaries actually are officials from the government.

There is a devolution of sovereignty going on. Successful e-participation projects usually have some devolution of sovereignty embedded in them. This devolution is not only in decision-making, but also in the very same design of the project: meta-projects about the governance of the e-participation project are crucial for its social acceptance and sustainability.

Devolution of sovereignty comes with a requisite: democratic culture. Thus, not only technology skills but democratic or participation skills are required for e-participation projects to succeed. And, again, the existing social tissue becomes more relevant, as it is by leveraging the existing social tissue (e.g. civil society organizations) that the potential of participation can be realized.

This democratic culture or skills can be improved with how to’s, shared procedures and protocols, with the work of facilitators (e.g. officials) or intermediaries (e.g. local leaders and civil society organizations.

But, are these projects really empowering citizens and, especially, minorities? Yes, they are. And we find evidence in:

• Minorities not feeling represented by civil society organisations.
• Minorities whose ideas or needs have low momentum or no critical mass.
• Minorities that usually could not overcome barriers to participation.

On the other hand, technology is not only to empower minorities, but can also be used to boost traditional channels and actors, or be the core of a knowledge management strategy or device.

There is an ongoing debate on whether improving traditional ways of participation or setting up new revolutionary or disruptive ways.

• Usually, improving the traditional ways works best.
• But, an avant-garde of pioneers is needed to advance and innovate.
• We need a place where traditional meets new and new meets traditional.
• Enabling many types of participation by increasing the granularity of participation works very well as a bridge between traditional and new.

It is not true that e-participation disintermediates, but what we actually see is shifts in intermediation actors. Or even an increase of them, especially if traditional and new ways of participation live together. Intermediaries include technologists, experts in facilitation methodologies, leaders to foster participation and engagement (e.g. traditional organizations), “inside” intermediaries or champions (e.g. government officials). And, of course, actors that can make all this people work together, building bridges (or networks), inviting them to be part of the design of the initiative.

It is worth bearing in mind that most technopolitical movements won’t engage in “thick” ways of participation as they do not adscribe to institutions or hierarchies but networks. They will expect not discrete participation but continuous one, where the cycle of information-deliberation-negotiation-decision-accountability feeds the next iteration in a continuum. Thus, it is not about direct democracy, but about open government.

In this train of thought, institutions don’t have to “act open”, but “be open”. They have to earn legitimacy not in one initiative, but in a whole attitude. This attitude usually shows when the institution does not limit herself to opening data, but the whole process of decision-making, including its protocols and infrastructures (e.g. free software).

Breakout session: Tech per se

What are we learning about how to design tech for accountable governance?

Can we focus on the whole system and not just individual initiatives? How will the system be affected by our actions? How can we change the system so that it is responsive to the needs of citizens — instead of trying to patch the system where it does not work.

There is a need to correctly identify the problems so that technology can be applied as a specific solution, not a generic solution in the search for problems to be solved.

We have to begin with the weakest link — the citizen — and then build the whole project after that. We have to avoid abstract concepts e.g. improve efficiency of the government, and try instead to identify smaller problems that can be addressed more or less directly and assessed for their improvement.

Where do you see innovation and creativity — including the use of existing technologies — in this field?

Government intentions or will should be embedded in the participatory projects: citizens have to trust their governments and their governments’ intentions so that commitment and engagement happens.

How can we ensure that technologies are adapted to fit the context?

When governments don’t want to listen, and the biggest problem is coordination of citizens, technology can play a very important part. Assembling people is crucial and technology usually is very effective in this field.

Importance of partnerships between citizens and governments.

Round table: Tech per se
Framer: Indra de Lanerolle, University of Witswatersrand/MAVC
Chair: Linda Raftree (independent)
Panellists: Declan Ottaro, Ushahidi – MAVC; Erica Hagen, Groundtruth; Lina Dencik, University of Cardiff; Tony Roberts, IDS

Technologies create enormous opportunities for generating and using data and amplifying and connecting voices — including those of marginalised citizens.

Scaling and replication is a complex process. Disruption may be the wrong approach.

The sector needs to follow more adaptive processes that take account of the affordance and roles of the specific technologies.

Technology cannot be understood outside of the cultural and social framework where it was designed and where it will be applied.

What roles can play technology?

Erica Hagen: distribute information and, most especially, the outcomes of applying this information.

Tony Roberts: availability, affordability, awareness, ability, accessibility. These are the five “levels of access/exclusion” of technology appropriation, to make sense of technology. Most of the time, more than doing “new” things with technology, we have to address these 4A.

Lina Dencik: the challenges of using technological platforms where people already are is that one can’t control how info travels, allows surveillance. We have also to be aware of the core processes of activism and how data can enhance them — not replace them with “data porn”.

Declan Ottaro: we have to remove the stigma that technology does not work for people. Sometimes “projects have to fail”, as this is the nature of innovation: essay and error, fail fast… and correct faster. But after that, we have to be sure that technology is useful for people. And the biggest incentive for citizens to use technology is getting a response from their government.

Erica Hagen: one of the things that technology can do well is unlocking the black box of decision-making and participation, making some processes more visible and understandable, especially in what concerns people relationships.

Tony Roberts: we have to begin with people and not technology, and especially with movements, with actions that can be enhanced with the application of technology.

Declan Ottaro: we have to prepare for change, to be flexible and adapt to always changing people needs.

Tony Robert: technology is not neutral and tends to reproduce patterns of domination and exclusion.

What roles do and don’t technologies play in citizen voice and transparency for achieving accountable and responsive governance?
Dr Rosie McGee, Making All Voices Count, IDS

Not everyone is online. Obvious as this is, planning for e-participation or any kind of online activities to improve democracy have to take this into account. For people to be empowered by ICTs they have to, at least, have access to such technologies.

Making All Voices Count is addressing quite a big set of problems that deal with the quality of democracy, as it is shown in the program’s theory of change.

What roles can technologies play in generating information or data that can be used for accountability and responsiveness purposes?

The problem is that transparency or information are never sufficient. If they were, most problems could be solved by ICTs providing access to information and data. But reality is much more complex. Why would we expect that technology could ever transform governance issues that are fundamentally about power?

Citizens have to engage with information. Information has not only to be public, but accessible, manageable, reusable, etc.

Citizens not only need access to information, but also need to have a voice in public issues. That is, they need to be listened to, they have to have feedback pathways. These pathways usually include intermediaries that link citizens with governments and vice-versa.

Political will to address a problem. Transparency itself will not change government attitudes itself. There have to be activist initiatives to increase the cost of governments of not acting.

Deliberation is indispensable. And deliberation, debate, is quite a leap forward from transparency. Transparency should, thus, be complemented with spaces, platforms, etc. that promote dialogue, based on trust.

These deliberative spaces have to take into account the different profiles of people participating in them: minorities, people excluded from deliberation or from society as a whole, different recognition of others’ voices, etc.

The new institutional environment emerging requires new skills too. Both citizens and representatives need a new set of skills to be able to make the best of technology for democracy. These skills are not only about technology, but about civic participation and democracy at large. If these skill needs are not met, technologies can actually eclipse citizens’ voices and undermine or obstruct accountability and responsiveness.

Discussion

Q: What are the realistic timelines for impact? Rosie McGee: This is indeed a good question. It depends heavily on the context, but as this is a transformation and not just a minor improvement, we should be realistic about the time span that deep changes will require.

Q: There are two important issues in civic participation online. First, fear of being labelled politically and attacked because of your ideology; second, political online propaganda and even online harassment of people that support some given ideologies.

Q: We speak a lot about “technological poverty”, but very little on “time poverty” and the cost of participation in terms of dedication, time, etc. Rosie McGee: a first step to this is that new ways of doing things does not imply a huge change for people. The challenge is how to let people do things as always but improve the outcomes of this traditional way of participating.

decidim.barcelona (Spain), case study

The last report of the collaboration with IT for Change has just been published: decidim.barcelona, Spain. Voice or chatter? Case studies. It belongs to the research project titled Voice or Chatter? Using a Structuration Framework Towards a Theory of ICT-mediated Citizen Engagement, and produced with the financial support of Making All Voices Count, a programme working towards a world in which open, effective and participatory governance is the norm and not the exception. This Grand Challenge focuses global attention on creative and cutting-edge solutions to transform the relationship between citizens and their governments. Making All Voices Count is supported by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID), U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, and Omidyar Network (ON), and is implemented by a consortium consisting of Hivos, the Institute of Development Studies (IDS) and Ushahidi. The programme is inspired by and supports the goals of the Open Government Partnership.

In the following links can be found all the outputs of the aforementioned project:

• Case studies
• Issue papers and policy briefs
• State of the art reports

The report which I have penned deals about the Barcelona (Spain) city council participation program called decidim.barcelona.

Following I reproduce the executive summary and the link to download the full report.

Executive summary

In September 2015, Madrid —the capital of Spain— initiated a participatory democracy project, Decide Madrid (Madrid decides), to enable participatory strategic planning for the municipality. Six month after, Barcelona – the second largest city in Spain and capital of Catalonia – began its own participatory democracy project, decidim.barcelona (Barcelona we decide) in February 2016. Both cities use the same free software platform as a base, and are guided by the same political vision.

The success of these initiatives and the strong political vision behind them have spawned plenty of other initiatives in the country – especially in Catalonia – that are working to emulate the two big cities. These cities are sharing free-software-based technology, procedures and protocols, their reflections – both on open events and formal official meetings. What began as a seemingly one-time project has grown in scale.

Available open documentation suggests that decidim.barcelona has increased the amount of information in the hands of the citizens, and gathered more citizens around key issues. There has been an increase in participation, with many citizen created proposals being widely supported, legitimated and accepted to be part of the municipality strategic plan. As pluralism has been enhanced without damaging the existing social capital, we can only think that the increase of participation has led to an improvement of democratic processes, especially in bolstering legitimacy around decision making. A meta-project has indeed opened the design and development of the project itself to the citizens themselves. This can be summarized in four key points:

• Deliberation becomes the new democracy standard
• Openness becomes the pre-requisite for deliberation
• Accountability and legislative footprint emerge as an important by-product to achieve legitimacy
• Participation leads to more pluralism and stronger social capital, which fosters deliberation, thus closing the (virtuous) circle of deliberative democracy.

What remains to be analyzed is the strength and stability of the new relationships of power and how exactly these will challenge the preceding systemic structures and lead to newer ones. The culture of participation was hitherto scarce and mainly dealt with managing the support of citizens in top-down type initiatives. Changing the mindset implied turning many of the departments and processes of the City Council upside down – a need for new coordination structures, a new balance between the central administration and the districts, a speeding up of the slow tempos of the administration, and new ways to manage public-private partnerships.

Using Anthony Giddens’ Structuration theory, this case study examines the e-participation initiative of the City Council of Barcelona (Spain), decidim.barcelona. The study analyzes the inception and first use of decidim.barcelona for the strategic plan of the municipality in the years 2016-2019.

The case of the participatory process of the City Council of Barcelona to co-design, along with the citizens, the strategic plan 2016-2019 of the municipality is an important milestone, both in the local politics of the region, and in Spanish politics in general. It embodied the demands of the many that took to the streets in May 2011. The grassroots movement in Barcelona self-organized and won the local elections in May 2015, bringing their hacker and technopolitics ethos to the forefront of local politics. Not only does the way participatory process of early 2016 was put into practice matter, but also how it was technically designed and integrated into the core of policy making in sustainable and replicable ways. This is evidenced in the widespread adoption of this model across other Spanish cities and also by supra-municipal entities. The model, and the tool, is being replicated by Localret (a consortium of Catalan municipalities) and the Barcelona County Council. Both these institutions will replicate the initiative (participation model and technological platform) in other municipalities, while also creating a coordination team to share experiences and methodologies or prioritize needs for improvement.

The 180º turn that decidim.barcelona represents in governance goes beyond just “listening” to citizens and “giving them a voice”. In this case, citizens are:

• Invited to design and improve upon the participatory process
• Invited to contribute proposals that will be debated and could translate into binding legislation (provided some technical and social thresholds are reached).
• Invited to monitor and assess both the process in its procedures as in its outcomes (in what has been called the Metadecidim initiative).

This has been done not by substituting other channels of participation but by improving the traditional ways to engage in local politics (face-to-face, channeled through civil society organizations or other institutions) by complementing them with new ICT-mediated mechanisms.

This case study is divided into three main sections. First, we examine the institutionalization of the ethos of the 15M Spanish Indignados movement, the context building up to the decidim.barcelona initiative. In the next section the methodology, the case, its design and philosophy are discussed in greater detail. Anthony Giddens’ Structuration theory and Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network theory are unpacked here. In the final section, the results of the project are analyzed and the shifts of the initiative in meaning, norms and power, both from the government and the citizen end are discussed.

Downloads

Full report:
Peña-López, I. (2017). decidim.barcelona, Spain. Voice or chatter? Case studies. Bengaluru: IT for Change.

Related works

Official reports

Other writings

Speeches

In 2016, Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum wrote a seminal article called The Fourth Industrial Revolution, where he stated that what [he] consider[s] to be the fourth industrial revolution is unlike anything humankind has experienced before and that there is an ongoing digital revolution [that] combines multiple technologies that are leading to unprecedented paradigm shifts in the economy, business, society, and individually. It is not only changing the “what” and the “how” of doing things but also “who” we are.

I mostly agree not only with Schwab’s former statements, but in what he presents in his work in general. The problem is with its title and the bias that the title itself and people later have put on the concept: that the digital revolution is about the industry, about firms, about productivity, about jobs, about the GDP.

There have been two major revolutions in the history of humankind: the Neolithic Revolution or Agricultural Revolution, and the Industrial Revolution. The latter has been divided into three (sub)industrial revolutions. Calling the Digital Revolution not the third major revolution in humankind, but the fourth phase of the Industrial Revolution is, to me, misleading.

Let us see, in Table 1, a summary of some characteristics of the Industrial Revolution and its four sub-revolutions. It does not aim at being a perfect or an unquestionable description, just a general approach to the phenomenon:

This is not exactly what Schwab describes in The Fourth Industrial Revolution, but it is definitely what most people have in mind when speaking about the also called Industrial Revolution 4.0. Even Schwab’s World Economic Forum’s Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution itself falls into the bias for the industry. Out of the nine areas of focus of the Center (Accelerating Innovation in Production for Small and Medium Enterprises, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning, Autonomous Vehicles, Blockchain, Digital Trade and Cross-Border Data Flows, The Future of Drones and Tomorrow’s Airspace, Internet of Things and Connected Devices, A New Vision for the Ocean, Precision Medicine) only the later two are slightly society-centered and not mainly economy-centered.

It is only shocking to speak about a revolution that is going to change “everything” and then only point at issues that, although of the direst importance, only affect a part of our lives. Complementing that approach, we could have a more comprehensive look at what the digital revolution is already changing or has a lot of potential of changing. To do such exercise, we can look at what changed in the former two biggest revolutions: the Agricultural Revolution and the first two Industrial Revolutions. In the table that follows (Table 2) four stages are characterized: the Paleolithic, taken as a starting point for humankind; the Neolithic, as the outcome of the Agricultural Revolution; the Industrial Age, as the outcome of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution(s); and the Information Age, as the outcome of the Digital Revolution. Of course these are just approximate definitions whose purpose is to highlight the importance of the Digital Revolution beyond the boundaries of the industry or even the Economy.

It is obvious that the use of some concepts is far from “correct” (for instance, the row that depicts Culture is more than arguable, among many others). The aim of Table 2 is to move away from the instrumental changes of our society (e.g. whether we will drive our own cars or they will have a high degree of autonomy) and put the focus instead in the changes of paradigm that may come with the Digital Revolution (e.g. will spaces matter at all?). It is, thus, a material for reflection. And a call to put under the spotlight societal changes, not only economic, industrial or production changes.

And, when we look at how humans will relate one with each other, how humans relate with nature, how we produce things, how the balances of power may change, etc. the potential of change is astonishingly high. We may be facing a radical transformation. And we should be driving it, instead of be driven by it.

Related readings