A presentation I gave to Involve’s board of trustees last week prompted me to collect together these thoughts on why I think open government matters to public participation, and the opportunity and challenge of building an open government movement.

Why open government matters to public participation

Starting at the most basic level, public participation would, of course, be meaningless without the presence of other core elements of open government. For participation to be meaningful and effective, it requires the policy process, systems of governance, accountability and scrutiny, the evidence base, and the engagement process and outcomes to be transparent to citizens. For this reason, any advocate of involving citizens in decision making should also be an advocate of transparent decision-making processes.

This is a fairly obvious point to make. However, not enough attention is paid to the context in which public participation sits, and what changes in that context mean for the practice of participation. For example, what does the data deluge mean for how citizens engage with government? And, what is the likely consequence for public participation of the Government’s plans to weaken FoI legislation and not to extend it to private providers of public services?

At a more conceptual level, open government is arguably the first reform narrative in which citizens are not just the beneficiaries of the transformation of the workings of government, but are integral to bringing it about. The dominant conceptual models of organising the State in the twentieth century – from traditional public administration through New Public Management – almost completely ignored the role of citizens, or at least had an extremely partial understanding of citizenship. To put it crudely, consumers were lauded, voters tolerated and citizens considered an inconvenient distraction from the day-to-day business of governing. Public participation from time to time has caught a wave of political interest, but it has never been considered an integral part of attempts to make government work better.

Open government has the potential to change that. It can move us from a place where public participation is considered a nice-to-have, to one where it is seen as essential not only to good governance, but also to effecting broader cultural and institutional change within government.

The opportunity and challenge of building an open government movement

If a coherent and compelling narrative can be established for open government – that links together its constituent elements and establishes both an intuitive and well evidenced story of its benefits to the lives of citizens – then it should be the case that the open government movement is stronger together. But this will require an open government movement, rather than a set of disparate groups packaged as one.

There are a number of challenges to this – a couple of which I will mention here. The first is creating the space within our own organisational agendas to be able to devote time and effort to collaboration. This is of course the perennial challenge of collaboration: there’s an upfront cost, and the benefits can take longer to accrue and be harder to identify.

The second is that governments are often quite keen to adopt some aspects of openness, but not others. Open government often appears to be seen by governments as a menu from which to choose the most easily digestible dish, rather than a dish itself requiring all of its constituent ingredients. This goes some way to explain how the UK Government can declare it wants to be the most open and transparent government in the world (based on its admirable work on open data), yet be moving in the wrong direction on FoI, and dragging its feet in a number of other key areas. The inevitable question then is how an open government “movement” should engage with government when there is prospect for progress on some issues, but not others? This is a question occupying the UK Open Government Partnership civil society network at the moment.

Eight months into coordinating the UK Open Government Partnership civil society network have left me with no illusions, if I had any before, that overcoming these challenges and others will be easy. But the prize of a broad coalition of reformers (both inside and outside government) working together to make the principles of open government a reality, might just be worth it.

• data-text=”Building an open government movement – why it matters for public participation” class=”twitter-share-button”>Tweet

This June, policymakers and techies from around Europe will come together in Dublin to discuss how technology can be used to improve the policymaking process.

The challenge

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have supported decision-making processes for many years.

Whether used for analyzing datasets, managing processes, or monitoring expenditure, governments have been a traditional large user of technology.

Today’s ICTs are well-suited to dealing with predictable, traditional problems that can be cracked with brute computing force, or a simple linear process.

Unfortunately, the world we live in is not linear, and definitely not simple. Poor policy decisions have flowed from the use of tools ill fitted to anticipate either the problems or impacts of policy decisions. The financial crisis is just one example, enabled by a reliance on models and algorithms based on untested assumptions.

“As a policy maker during the crisis, I found the available models of limited help. In fact, I would go further: in the face of the crisis, we felt abandoned by conventional tools.”

Jean-Claude Trichet, former Head of the European Central Bank

At the same time, social media have accustomed citizens to voice their opinions, but have not yet provided the tools to genuinely improve policy.

The opportunities

The rise of social media and networked tools provide opportunities to take ICTs in government out of the engine room and put them into the public space.

In recent years, we have seen the emergence of an ecosystem of “policy applications” which use technology to improve the quality of policy making:

• Linked, open, big data help making sense of big data, for instance to monitor government performance (as in TopBraid )
• Visualization tools help us better understand the nature of public policy issues, such as demographic problems (see Gapminder)
• Collaborative tools such as Co-ment.com help analyze public policy documents in detail through collective intelligence and collaborative commenting
• Opinion mining solutions such as Discovertext helped to analyze and make sense of thousand of public comments to regulation proposals
• Serious games and persuasive technologies such as Glowcaps induce behavioural change, such as exercising more or sticking to medication, by enhancing feedback and peer pressure
• Systems modeling and simulation such as Gleam help anticipate the impact of policy decisions, taking into account the complexity of human behaviour and feedback systems

The discourse around government 2.0 and open government has focused mainly on open data and collaborative public services.

New models of open, networked governance take these conversations wider and make them richer.

“Open” in this context does not mean passively open like a door, but actively open like a shop, seeking out people to come and join in.

As web 2.0 turned the web into an environment that was experienced and moulded through social action, policymaking 2.0 should turn government into a more social, flexible and participatory experience.

For us to make the case for policy making that fits this century (rather than the last), we have to champion, advance and experiment with models that recognize human beings for what they are: complex, connected and diverse.

More than that, we have to make the case in public for these new approaches, and give credit to those who are leading in the direction we want others to follow.

Time to make it happen!

It is now time to bring together this dispersed community, create links between different experiences and raise the awareness of policy-makers.

For this reason, the Crossover project, UNDP, the Democratic Society and Euractiv are launching the first conference on policy-making 2.0, which will bring together researchers and practitioners from the global community.

The conference will be held at Trinity College, Dublin, on 17 and 18 June, 2013 (alongside the Digital Agenda Assembly 2013).

At the same time, we’re launching the Policy Applications Prize, designed to reward the most impactful and innovative software solutions for policy making.

* Register for the conference

* Submit your policy idea and win a prize

Your apartment is an electronic orchestra and you are the conductor. With simple flicks of the wrist and spoken instructions, you can control temperature, humidity, ambient music and lighting. You are able to skim through the day’s news on translucent screens while a freshly cleaned suit is retrieved from your automated closet. You head to the kitchen for breakfast and the translucent news display follows, as a projected hologram hovering just in front of you. You grab a mug of coffee and a fresh pastry, cooked to perfection in your humidity-controlled oven, and skim new emails on a holographic tablet projected in front of you. Your central computer system suggests a list of chores your housekeeping robots should tackle today, all of which you approve.

Well, I’m sure it would be fine to have a humidity-controlled oven, but what about the wife and kids? And in fact, what about every other part of the community? The whole article presents life as a clean, hygienic, automatic-car bubble of private tech. You don’t even get to see (and presumably remotely spray-sanitise) people on the train to work.

My life in 2033? No thanks.

At City Camp Brighton, I made the winning pitch of a citizens agenda item on the local council meeting agenda. The pitch won and got feedback that this idea would be most likely to create a citywide, sustainable change which benefits people. If you want to see the pitch, made as part of a team including Kirsty Walker from the Trust for Developing Communities, Annie Heath from the BHCC tenant involvement team, Luke Flegg from changethefuture.org and Simon Bannister from the Safe in the City partnership please view here. [Thanks to Jonathan Tilley for videoing!]

What is the problem?

Local election turnouts have been much lower than general election ones, and with a 76% in 1979 to the lowest turnout in 1998 of 28.8%. At the last local elections in 2012 there was a turnout of 33.1% although turnouts always rise to c.60% when held in the same year as a General Election. I think that it is time that we worked to ensure that local government isn’t the poor relation of UK democracy.

Local government and representatives have the greatest opportunity to connect with citizens and make decisions with and for residents that are relevant. Traditional media has, in my opinion played a part in this Cinderella story but so has the risk aversion and unwillingness to share power with local citizens.

Another barrier this project seeks to address is the language barrier that formal and archaic governance processes throw up to the lay person. Notice of motion, amendment, petition, prayer, ‘through you Madam Chairman’. etc etc. Even the most experienced officers and local politicians get in knots with procedures and language. It’s sometimes hilarious but mostly mystifying.

What tools and resources would you need to create a Citizen’s Agenda item?

The Citizen’s Agenda would be shaped positively by the people who live in a local government area. Existing routes could be used to help people deliberate, such as Local Action Teams, community development workers, resident involvement staff could support and signpost people to participate in setting a proposal for the elected Members to debate and consider.

I believe digital tools should be the primary route however, maybe developing the e-petition tool to enable community building and evidence submissions or, perhaps using a brand new tool such as the one that Luke Flegg is developing at ChangeTheFuture.org where people can submit pros and cons, rate other contributions for relevance and importance and develop policy working as a digital community. Being able to help refine a proposal, as well as show how those most affected by the decision feel about it would be invaluable to delivering coproductive council and citizen relationships.

What are the milestones?

Are politicians interested in this project? – During the #ccbtn event at least one politician from every party in the city supported the principle via social media. We will need to submit more detailed proposals for the groups to consider.

Are there constitutional barriers? I am going to meet with the city’s Democratic Services team to find out if there are barriers and if so, plan how to overcome them.

Can we get people to participate? We could build on the Neighbourhood Governance pilot work with Kristy from Trust for Developing Communities to develop skills and interest in the project in order to create a test Agenda Item to see how the project works.
How to choose which item is discussed? What happens if the Council don’t ultimately control the policy decision or budget? Could the Health and Wellbeing Board and PCC participate in the project?

Perhaps every year there should be a Young Citizens Agenda Item chosen and supported by schools?

Please comment, add ideas, barriers and to-dos! We need your help.

Thanks from Emma – Citizens Agenda #citizensagenda @huxley06

Interesting from the Sustainable Cities Collective, via Tessy Britton.

In equitable places, individual citizens feel (first) that they are welcome, and (second) that it is within their power to change those places through their own actions. “The huge problem with citizenship today is that people don’t take it very seriously,” says Harry Boyte, director of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at Augsburg College. “The two dominant frameworks for citizenship in political theory,” he explains, “are the liberal framework, where citizens are voters and consumers of goods, and the communitarian framework, where citizens are volunteers and members of communities. In other words, for most people, citizenship is doing good deeds, or it’s voting and getting things. We need to develop the idea of civic agency, where citizens are co-creators of democracy and the democratic way of life.”

• data-text="Governance Through a Focus on Place: Stronger Citizens, Stronger Cities" class="twitter-share-button">Tweet

So, here are my thoughts on being a woman entering local politics and how I want to be treated, and how I want to behave…mostly. It’s also peppered with my thoughts on how women get treated who want to, whisper, run this town.  I am a feminist. This is what it means to me.

How I want to behave as a local politician:

1. I am sister first, politician second. There is no place for sexist ‘putting her in her place’ remarks in the democracy I want. I don’t care if I oppose her politics, I respect her position and know that it was often more difficult for her to find her voice. I have heard local female activists sniggering over comments men make about the women in their own party. It’s wrong. It’s never right. Stamp it out. Take active responsibility within your own groups and party for making this happen.

2. Play the issues not the person. The people involved in local politics are hardworking, often have a caring responsibility, this is more likely to be the case for women remember, so when they are making the time to represent their communities when you throw your verbal ‘sticks and stones’ this person may have been up all night with a baby or elderly relative. They never claimed to be an expert, or a diplomat, they care about making positive change for their community. When you juggle work, caring for family and politics it is hard not to be ground down by the personal. But don’t be ground down, and don’t toughen up. Just be.

3. In confrontation, frequently the language is gender related too. Implying a ‘shrew’ that needs to be tamed, an irrational hormone ridden harpy, or a terrifying matriarch when they refuse to lie down. I say to my fellow women activists of all parties, don’t change to fit in either as ‘pet’ and a darling or back down from your ground when you are accused of being ‘hard’. Or as the Queen Latifah puts it “Stop dropping so low”. Its a challenge, because I tell myself I must toughen up. I spent an evening in tears because someone I respect, but often disagree with, challenged not my point but my right to make it. I am going to stop to telling myself to toughen up and so should you.

4. We need to reject the culture and trappings of political confrontation. It wasn’t designed by us. It wasn’t designed by the men who inhabit the space today. But in this case, the figures rather than the hips, don’t lie. We are half the population and we inhabit very little political space. We are put off by confrontation, not because we can’t do it. BELIEVE – reference the excellent Cllr Mears and her ability to crush in this way. But because we don’t see the point of confrontation. How does it illuminate an issue? How does it engage and build consensus with our local communities?

Consensus is important and confrontation is the enemy of moving forward. Confrontation is the friend of the status quo and the bread chucking, pass the port and let the officers really decided what is good for communities. It is possible through local government in a way that would be far more difficult to achieve in Westminster.

5. So when you see it, call it. No party tribalism. “Who you callin’ a bitch?”

So, thanks to Queen Latifah and the excellent elected representatives of all parties in Brighton and Hove who make me proud to call them sister…even when they renounce feminism *sigh*. I hope I can soon join you in working towards a better democracy and a better city.

UNITY for Women’s Day – Friday 8th March

Comment away…

Have you thought about standing for elected office? Becoming an elected representative – for example, as a local councillor, a police and crime commissioner, a mayor or an MP – can be an exciting and often life-changing experience.

Starting on the route into elected office can be daunting, particularly if you feel you face particular barriers in taking part fully in your community. As Minister for Women and Equalities, it seems obvious to me our democratic institutions make the best decisions when they have a mix of people with different skills, backgrounds and experiences, from right across the country.

But at the moment there are many faces missing – disabled people are currently under-represented in public life. Less than 5% of public appointments are currently held by disabled people, despite around 20% of the population having some form of disability.

A strong democracy is an inclusive one. We need everyone’s contribution. This is why Government is committed to providing extra support to tackle the particular obstacles faced by disabled people who want to become MPs, councillors or other elected officials.

We ran a public consultation seeking your views on a range of policy proposals designed to provide additional support for disabled candidates running for elected office. You told us what was important to you – and we are now working with political, disability and other stakeholders to make these proposals happen as part of an Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Strategy.

You told us the extra costs disabled candidates faced when standing for election, such as extra transport or sign-language interpreter, created an un-level playing field. We’ve therefore created the Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund which allows disabled candidates to reclaim these additional costs.

You told us that it was important to tackle the negative perceptions that people might have about disabled people in political parties and encourage the political parties to include disabled people fully. So we have launched new guidance to support political parties make reasonable adjustments for disabled people. We have developed this with the help of political parties and Disability Rights UK.

You also told us that training and development opportunities were important to support disabled people achieve elected office. We’ve therefore worked with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations in order to develop an online training package. We have also funded three paid internships for disabled people on this year’s Speaker’s Parliamentary Placement Scheme.

These policies are just the start of what we are doing to make Parliament and councils more representative of the people they serve. Who knows, you could be one of those whose contribution we are currently missing in our council chambers or even in Parliament itself.

To learn more about the Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund click here.

To access the free Access to Elected Office for Disabled People training click here.

This post by Pedro Prieto-Martín of Asociación Ciudades Kyopol (Spain), originally appeared on his blog On the Road to Lórien

The term “Open Government” (OG, hereafter) has been used since the 70s to refer to the effort to reduce bureaucratic opacity and open up governments to public scrutiny. Current notions of GA are thus the result of more than four decades of endeavours to increase the transparency of government actions. These efforts materialized mainly in the enactment of legislation on access to information, privacy, data protection and administrative procedures, and by creating ombudsman offices and supreme audit institutions.

In recent years a new vision of OG has spread, that understand it “as a new linchpin in efforts to improve government capacity and modernize public administration based on the principles of transparency [...], participation and collaboration”. It was, in fact, Barack Obama who popularized these three principles in early 2009 when, on his first day as president, issued a“Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government” which stated: “My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.  We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. […] Government should be transparent. […] Government should be participatory. […] Government should be collaborative. […]”.

Obama placed OG in the center of his executive agenda and, leading by example, transmitted his enthusiasm for openness to governments and organizations all around the world, which are currently developing a myriad of OG initiatives. Of particular significance is the Open Government Partnership that, launched by eight countries in September 2011, is integrated today by 58 countries. All of them have pledged to increase governmental openness and have established its own action plan detailing specific commitments.

However, Obama’s memorandum had also negative consequences: it contributed to extend a superficial and inaccurate understanding of OG, as something consisting of three successive pillars –transparency, participation and collaboration– with a growing complexity and importance. The first limitation of this OG’s conceptualization is that it presents as different two concepts which, in fact, cannot be conceived separately: participation is collaboration, collaboration is participation, or they are nothing. Attempts to draw a clear boundary between the two are fairly arbitrary and artificial.

So much so that many OG experts and promoters are unable to clearly explain the differences between the two, or the reasons why participation should precede collaboration. It is also remarkable the lack of agreement on what tools or activities constitute each of them, eg: the use of social networks strengthens the participatory or the collaborative dimension of an OG strategy? The answer depends entirely on the resource consulted.

Most of the studies and research on OG developed so far have assumed this conceptual triad to a greater or lesser degree. The same is true regardingbenchmarking models, implementation models and even the very OG initiatives and strategies (see, for example, the interesting OG initiative from the Basque Government, Irekia). Typically, these resources only provide detailed guidance for the subject of Open Data –which is often equated with the level of “transparency”– while the other two levels remain in a limbo of conceptual vagueness.

This is where the second issue originates: by conceiving OG as something that starts with transparency and gradually matures into the stages of participation and collaboration, governments can stand as champions of OG even when they are just promoting Open Data initiatives, which do not represent a substantive change in the way governments act or interact with the citizens. Escalating to the higher levels of OG would require a renewal of the mindset, habits and organizational models of public administrations and political bodies, and both are institutions which traditionally dislike novelties and risks. Thus, much of the actions taken so far have focused on the level of transparency. Government information and databases have been published in open and machine readable formats with the hope that applications will be built that make a socially beneficial use of the data.

However, transparency and open data do not add value by themselves (Swartz 2010), as they have an instrumental function: they provide the foundation on which to establish the accountability of public institutions and the collaboration with all kinds of stakeholders. If transparency is not accompanied by participation and accountability activities, its usefulness is limited. Probably this is the reason why the initiative OpenGov Standards and a growing number of academics and professionals prefer a different set of pillars to found OG, namely participation, accountability and transparency.
One of the reasons that have hindered the development of OG initiatives “that go beyond transparency” has been this lack of a solid conceptual basis. It is necessary to improve our understanding of OG dimensions and their relations with each other, before we can firmly promote the development of OG.

To contribute to this effort to deepen our conceptual basis, I am working with Álvaro Ramírez-Alujas-researcher at GIGAPP and one of the foremost experts on Open Government- to write a paper that focuses on the analysis of “Collaborative Participation”, or Participation.

We will present, in particular, what we call “Participation Schemas”, a conceptual model for the analysis of participation that also provides a powerful and flexible tool to communicate, design and evaluate participatory initiatives.

• data-text="Open Government beyond open data and transparency" class="twitter-share-button">Tweet