Using Democratic Innovation to Rebuild Trust between Elected Officials and Citizens

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Nick Vlahos: “According to Pew Research, public trust in government is among the lowest it has been in 70 years of polling. Today, 25% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say they trust the federal government just about always or most of the time, compared with 8% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

The dismal statistics we continue to see year in and year out are compounded by the fact that democracy is under threat around the world. In response, many are turning to democratic innovations. According to Oliver Escobar and Stephen Elstub, democratic innovations are “processes or institutions that are new to a policy issue, policy role, or level of governance, and developed to reimagine and deepen the role of citizens in governance processes by increasing opportunities for participation, deliberation and influence.”

Many of these innovations intend to redefine the role of citizens and carve out unique opportunities for them to engage with their peers, collectively problem-solving, and making decisions on important issues. However, there are increasing calls for re-envisioning the relationship between elected officials and citizens using deliberative and participatory processes.

One such approach is the deliberative town hall, implemented by the Institute for Democratic Engagement and Accountability at Ohio State University. The model utilizes democratic innovation in the form of a deliberative mini-public within a single constituency, in relation to an elected official. Deliberative town halls bring together a cross-section of the community using stratified sampling, or civic lottery. The process further involves informed discussion on a topic with an elected official.

This approach has been commonly used with Members of Congress, but has recently been used in other Commonwealth countries, notably in Australia. What we know from this experience is that deliberative town halls can rebuild democratic relations by making interactions between elected officials and citizens more authentic, using reciprocal reason giving and sharing, and through active listening. In addition, ensuring that people with lived experience and scientific or topical expertise are present in conversations creates conditions for members of the public to better understand the nuances of an issue. Lastly, the Australian example highlights how having some type of impact over an outcome is highly prized by the public – they want to have their input factored into a decision, if not determining a decision altogether…(More)”.

A Manifesto on Enforcing Law in the Age of ‘Artificial Intelligence’

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Manifesto by the Transatlantic Reflection Group on Democracy and the Rule of Law in the Age of ‘Artificial Intelligence’: “… calls for the effective and legitimate enforcement of laws concerning AI systems. In doing so, we recognise the important and complementary role of standards and compliance practices. Whereas the first manifesto focused on the relationship between democratic law-making and technology, this second manifesto shifts focus from the design of law in the age of AI to the enforcement of law. Concretely, we offer 10 recommendations for addressing the key enforcement challenges shared across transatlantic stakeholders. We call on those who support these recommendations to sign this manifesto…(More)”.

AI and Democracy’s Digital Identity Crisis

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Shrey Jain, Connor Spelliscy, Samuel Vance-Law and Scott Moore: “AI-enabled tools have become sophisticated enough to allow a small number of individuals to run disinformation campaigns of an unprecedented scale. Privacy-preserving identity attestations can drastically reduce instances of impersonation and make disinformation easy to identify and potentially hinder. By understanding how identity attestations are positioned across the spectrum of decentralization, we can gain a better understanding of the costs and benefits of various attestations. In this paper, we discuss attestation types, including governmental, biometric, federated, and web of trust-based, and include examples such as e-Estonia, China’s social credit system, Worldcoin, OAuth, X (formerly Twitter), Gitcoin Passport, and EAS. We believe that the most resilient systems create an identity that evolves and is connected to a network of similarly evolving identities that verify one another. In this type of system, each entity contributes its respective credibility to the attestation process, creating a larger, more comprehensive set of attestations. We believe these systems could be the best approach to authenticating identity and protecting against some of the threats to democracy that AI can pose in the hands of malicious actors. However, governments will likely attempt to mitigate these risks by implementing centralized identity authentication systems; these centralized systems could themselves pose risks to the democratic processes they are built to defend. We therefore recommend that policymakers support the development of standards-setting organizations for identity, provide legal clarity for builders of decentralized tooling, and fund research critical to effective identity authentication systems…(More)”.

Speak Youth To Power

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by The National Democratic Institute: “Under the Speak Youth To Power campaign, NDI has emphasized the importance of young people translating their power to sustained action and influence over political decision-making and democratic processes….

In Turkey, Sosyal Iklim aims to develop a culture of dialogue among young people and to ensure their active participation in social and political life. Board Chair, Gaye Tuğrulöz, shared that her organization is, “… trying to create spaces for young people to see themselves as leaders. We are trying to say that we don’t have to be older to become decision-makers. We are not the leaders of the future. We are not living for the future. We are the leaders and decision-makers of today. Any decisions that are relevant to young people, we want to get involved. We want to establish these spaces where we have a voice.”…

In Libya, members of the Dialogue and Debate Association (DDA), a youth-led partner organization, are working to promote democracy, civic engagement and peaceful societies. DDA works to empower young people to participate in the political process, make their voices heard, and build a better future for Libya through civic education and building skills for dialogue and debate….

The New Generation Girls and Women Development Initiative (NIGAWD), a youth and young women-led organization in Nigeria is working on youth advocacy and policy development, good governance and anti-corruption, elections and human rights. NIGAWD described how youth political participation means the government making spaces to listen to the desires and concerns of young people and allowing them to be part of the policy-making process….(More)”.

Elon Musk is now taking applications for data to study X — but only EU risk researchers need apply…

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Natasha Lomas: “Lawmakers take note: Elon Musk-owned X appears to have quietly complied with a hard legal requirement in the European Union that requires larger platforms (aka VLOPs) to provide researchers with data access in order to study systemic risks arising from use of their services — risks such as disinformation, child safety issues, gender-based violence and mental heath concerns.

X (or Twitter as it was still called at the time) was designated a VLOP under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) back in April after the bloc’s regulators confirmed it meets their criteria for an extra layer of rules to kick in that are intended to drive algorithmic accountability via applying transparency measures on larger platforms.

Researchers intending to study systemic risks in the EU now appear to at least be able to apply for access to study X’s data by accessing a web form through a button which appears at the bottom of this page on its developer platform. (Note researchers can be based in the EU but don’t have to be to meet the criteria; they just need to intend to study systemic risks in the EU.)…(More)”.

Making democratic innovations stick

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Report by NESTA: “A survey of 52 people working on participation in local government in the UK and the Nordic countries found that:

  • a lack of funding and bureaucracy are the biggest barriers to using and scaling democratic innovations
  • enabling citizens to influence decision making, building trust and being more inclusive are the most important reasons for using democratic innovations
  • tackling climate change and reducing poverty and inequality are seen as the most important challenges to involve the public in.

When we focused on attitudes towards participation in the UK more broadly, and on attitudes to participation in climate change more specifically we found that:

  • the public think it is important that they are being involved in how we make decisions on climate change. 71% of the public think it is important they are given a say in how to reduce the UK’s carbon emissions and transition to net zero
  • the public doesn’t think the government is doing a good job of involving them – only 12% thought that the government is doing a good job of involving them in making decisions on how we tackle climate change
  • not having the ability to influence decision makers and not having the right skills to participate are seen as the biggest barriers by the public….(More)”.

Was vTaiwan such a big flop, after all?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Beth Noveck: “A recent issue of the Daily Beast featured an article about vTaiwan, Taiwan’s flagship crowdlaw project to engage the public in the legislative process, reporting what I long suspected and feared: early success has not translated into lasting impact or institutionalization of public participation in policymaking.

“The platform hasn’t been used for any major decisions since 2018” said vTaiwan co-creator and former Taiwanese legislator Jason Hsu. He went on to add that: “since the government is not mandated to adopt recommendations coming from vTaiwan, ‘legislators don’t take it seriously.’”

After vTaiwan enabled over two hundred thousand people to participate in crafting 26 pieces of national legislation, advocates for tech and democracy hailed this four-stage online and offline deliberative process as the poster child of tech-enabled public engagement. We celebrated vTaiwan as evidence of the powerful potential for meaningful public participation in governance.

vTaiwan began with a proposal stage, with offline and online discussion of problems using a series of different tools for deliberation and frequent polling.This collaborative problem-definition process, which lasted from a few weeks to a year, helped a large number of people to agree on and define which problems should be tackled.

While disappointing, vTaiwan is not unique in failing to deliver on the promise of tech-enabled participation. As my GovLab colleagues and I reported last year, Madrid’s online engagement platform Decide Madrid attracted almost half a million sign-ups. But of the 28,000 legislative proposals submitted by residents since 2015, only one became policy. Sign-ups have declined dramatically.

Online public engagements fizzle for a variety of reasons…(More)”.

The public good of statistics – narratives from around the world

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Blog by Ken Roy:” I have been looking at some of the narratives used by bodies producing Official Statistics – specifically those in a sample of recent strategies and business plans from different National Statistical Offices. Inevitably these documents focus on planned programmes of work – the key statistical outputs, the technical and methodological investments etc – and occasionally on interesting things like budgets.

When these documents touch on the rationale for (or purpose of) Official Statistics, one approach is to present Official Statistics as a ‘right’ of citizens or as essential national infrastructure. For example Statistics Finland frame Official Statistics as “our shared national capital”. A further common approach is to reference the broad purpose of improved decision making – Statistics Canada has the aim that “Canadians have the key information they need to make evidence-based decisions.”

Looking beyond these high-level statements, I was keen to find any further, more specific, expressions of real-world impacts. The following sets out some initial groups of ideas and some representative quotes.

In terms of direct impacts for citizens, some strategies have a headline aim that citizens are knowledgeable about their world – Statistics Iceland aims to enable an “informed society”. A slightly different ambition is that different groups of citizens are represented or ‘seen’ by Official Statistics. The UK Statistics Authority aims to “reflect the experiences of everyone in our society so that everyone counts, and is counted, and no one is forgotten”. There are also references to the role of Official Statistics (and data more broadly) in empowering citizens – most commonly through giving them the means to hold government to account. One of the headline aims of New Zealand’s Data Investment Plan is that “government is held to account through a robust and transparent data system”.

Also relevant to citizens is the ambition for Official Statistics to enable healthy, informed public debate – one aim of the Australian Bureau of Statistics is that their work will “provide reliable information on a range of matters critical to public debate”.

Some narratives hint at the contribution of Official Statistics systems to national economic success. Stats NZ notes that “the integrity of official data can have wide-ranging implications … such as the interest charged on government borrowing.” The Papua New Guinea statistics office references a focus on “private sector investors who want to use data and statistics to aid investment decisions”.

Finally, we come to governments. Official Statistics are regularly presented as essential to a better, more effective, government process – through establishing understanding of the circumstances and needs of citizens, businesses and places and hence supporting the development and implementation of better policies, programmes and services in response. The National Bureau of Statistics (Tanzania) sees Official Statistics as enabling “evidence-based formulation, planning, monitoring and evaluation which are key in the realization of development aspirations.” A related theme is the contribution to good governance – the United Nations presents Official Statistics as “an essential element of the accountability of governments and public bodies to the public in a democratic society…(More)”.

Open Government for Stronger Democracies

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

A Global Assessment by the OECD: “Open government is a powerful catalyst for driving democracy, public trust, and inclusive growth. In recognition of this, the OECD Council adopted the Recommendation on Open Government in 2017. To date, it remains the first – and only – internationally recognised legal instrument on open government and has guided many countries in designing and implementing their open government agendas. This report takes stock of countries’ implementation of the Recommendation, its dissemination, and its ongoing significance. It is based on an OECD survey carried out in 2020/2021 among all countries that adhered to the Recommendation and other partner countries, as well as on further data collected through a perception survey with delegates to the OECD Working Party on Open Government…(More)”.

What causes such maddening bottlenecks in government? ‘Kludgeocracy.’

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Article by Jennifer Pahlka: “Former president Donald Trump wants to “obliterate the deep state.” As a Democrat who values government, I am chilled by the prospect. But I sometimes partly agree with him.

Certainly, Trump and I are poles apart on the nature of the problem. His “deep state” evokes a shadowy cabal that doesn’t exist. What is true, however, is that red tape and misaligned gears frequently stymie progress on even the most straightforward challenges. Ten years ago, Steven M. Teles, a political science professor at Johns Hopkins University, coined the term “kludgeocracy” to describe the problem. Since then, it has only gotten worse.

Whatever you call it, the sprawling federal bureaucracy takes care of everything from the nuclear arsenal to the social safety net to making sure our planes don’t crash. Public servants do critical work; they should be honored, not disparaged.

Yet most of them are frustrated. I’ve spoken with staffers in a dozen federal agencies this year while rolling out my book about government culture and effectiveness. I heard over and over about rigid, maximalist interpretations of rules, regulations, policies and procedures that take precedence over mission. Too often acting responsibly in government has come to mean not acting at all.

Kludgeocracy Example No. 1: Within government, designers are working to make online forms and applications easier to use. To succeed, they need to do user research, most of which is supposed to be exempt from the data-collection requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Yet compliance officers insist that designers send their research plans for approval by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) under the act. Countless hours can go into the preparation and internal approvals of a “package” for OIRA, which then might post the plans to the Federal Register for the fun-house-mirror purpose of collecting public input on a plan to collect public input. This can result in months of delay. Meanwhile, no input happens, and no paperwork gets reduced.

Kludgeocracy Example No. 2: For critical economic and national security reasons, Congress passed a law mandating the establishment of a center for scientific research. Despite clear legislative intent, work was bogged down for months when one agency applied a statute to prohibit a certain structure for the center and another applied a different statute to require that structure. The lawyers ultimately found a solution, but it was more complex and cumbersome than anyone had hoped for. All the while, the clock was ticking.

What causes such maddening bottlenecks? The problem is mainly one of culture and incentives. It could be solved if leaders in each branch — in good faith — took the costs seriously…(More)”.