Transforming Governance: How Can Technology Help Reshape Democracy?

"How can we adjust our democratic formulas so that they are more sustainable, powerful, fulfilling - and, well, democratic? Some of the parts of this equation may come from the development of online tools and platforms that help people to engage with their governments, with organisations and institutions, and with each other."

This paper explores the extent to which different forms of "civic tech", the smart use of online platforms and tools that better connect people with their governments, enable citizens to engage with governance processes. "Despite the rapid growth of civic tech around the world, in most cases these forums and tools are not fully satisfying expectations." It is one of the background papers prepared for the Making All Voices Count Transforming Governance learning event, held in Manila, the Philippines, in February 2016. This event introduced three key ideas - transformative governance, vertical integration, and accountability ecosystems - to frame learning conversations.

What does it mean to "transform governance"? Matt Leighninger suggests that democratic systems can improve our lives in at least 3 ways:

• Changing how people think and act in democracies by giving them the information they need, the chance to connect with other citizens, the opportunity to provide ideas and recommendations to public officials and public employees, the confidence that government is accountable to citizens' needs and desires, and the encouragement to devote some of their own time and energy to improving their communities.
• Changing how governments work, so that public officials and employees can interact effectively with large numbers of people, bridge divides between different groups of citizens, provide information that people can use, gather and use public input, and support citizens to become better public problem solvers.
• Changing how civil society organisations, or CSOs ("intermediaries") and information mediators ("infomediaries") work, so that they are better able to facilitate the interactions between citizens and government, monitor and report on how decisions are being made and problems are being solved, and provide training and support to new leaders.

In assessing whether and how technologies can aid in transforming governance, Leighninger suggests that we have to look more closely not only at the technologies themselves but also at the contexts in which they are being introduced. We also need to make a distinction between "thick" and "thin" engagement. The former relies on small-group settings, either online or offline, in which people share their experiences, consider a range of views or policy options, and decide how they want to help solve problems. Thin engagement is faster, easier, and potentially viral. Some observers and researchers argue that many recent attempts at democratic innovation haven't paid sufficient attention to the surrounding systems, and haven't adequately combined thick and thin engagement.

The paper next explores 3 civic tech approaches that can be said to have transformed governance, but in very different ways. Here is a summary of the case studies:

1. Governance through Twitter in Jun, Spain, where citizens and the local government engage proactively on a wide range of issues, from street-sweeping schedules to European Union (EU) policy. A long-time Twitter user, the mayor wanted to test how the technology could be used to communicate with residents on matters large and small. Twitter has since become the town's "community noticeboard", where people get information on everything from incidents of crime to school lunch menus. Residents also use it to ask questions of town employees and report problems with public services. Because residents are using Twitter for other reasons related to their daily lives, and because some of the tweets are entertaining, people have more incentive to engage in the conversation. It also works thanks to strong leadership by the government, and trust between citizens and the government, and the "critical mass" of participants, especially relative to the size of the community.
2. Generating and prioritising policy in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, where a tailor-made multi-channel approach has actively involved citizens in policy decisions. Built on existing participatory budgeting processes and a strong civic infrastructure, The Government Asks is a multi-channel approach to crowdsourcing and voting on policy ideas. At face-to-face meetings and then through websites and mobile phones, citizens are presented with wiki surveys, using the All Our Ideas platform, that enable them to give input on policy alternatives. People can vote for the ideas and proposals they like best. The technological design uses dynamic pair-wise preference aggregation to address challenges commonly associated with crowdsourcing efforts, such as preventing information cascades and early-voting bias. Specific outreach initiatives are carried out to ensure that the process is as inclusive as possible (e.g., vans equipped with internet access and trained personnel travel across the state to collect feedback, particularly from marginalised communities). The process has been credited with impacts such as a 166% increase in the allocation for primary health care and the implementation of a specialised network for prenatal and childbirth care.
3. Connecting diaspora in a global crisis, in which the West African diaspora in Minnesota, United States (US), used web-based technology and apps to change how stakeholders - health-care practitioners, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and people on the ground in West Africa - engaged during the Ebola crisis. The Minnesota Ebola Task Force (MATFAE) integrated face-to-face meetings with online and mobile technology to engage concerned stakeholders by facilitating a coordinated response to the Ebola outbreak in their home countries and abroad. The network also addressed gaps in how the West African diaspora was consulted and incorporated into the global response effort. Som eof the reasons it worked: Mobile devices are commonly used by the African diaspora; it introduced culturally appropriate tactics in an often purely clinical response to disasters and public health outbreaks; and it built a community by utilising and strengthening already established social networks, elevating voices and connecting people on the ground as well as abroad.

Per Leighninger: "Perhaps the most striking common denominator in all three examples is the fact that the people who created them seemed to have a systemic perspective. In each case, leaders knew their technological innovations would require some kind of supportive civic infrastructure in order to thrive. They were aware of the skills, training and support that citizens would need in order to use the technology. And they had a clear sense of how the tools and processes would lead to change: in policy, in public services, in actions by NGOs, or in actions by citizens themselves. This question of how to incorporate new technologies into public decision-making and problem-solving is one that is ripe for further research, practice and innovation. But no matter whether the task is to gather more information or to create a successful new project, starting with a systemic analysis may be essential."