CITIZENS RESOLVE

PROPOSAL version 2

Michael Macpherson

Berlin, March 1997.

Suggested name of the initiative

OPEN FORUM

CITIZENS RESOLVE

(see note 1) ->1

(CONTENTS at end of document)

PREAMBLE:

Some basic postulates

We need ->2 (note 2):

- to fill in social and global space with people's creative discourse,

- to move towards better expression of citizen-will in public decisions (what's to be done, or not done), and in deciding and administering public policy ((how to solve problems with available resources; plus getting things done) ->3 (see note 3),

- to seek ways to learn to make better public decisions, to exemplify and demonstrate better public debate; deliberation on public issues; decision-making (and along the way to attempt to influence existing public opinion as well as public -- government and administrative -- policy),

- decentralised, as far as posssible autonomous forms of citizens' communication and organisation.

Thoughts

Most people are still not on-line. So discourse must also be accessible via traditional media, e.g. compose a printed periodic digest of debates, use computer-to-fax transmission, cooperate with print media, public libraries and schools, arrange access to fora content via tv-Videotext, be innovative, encourage e-mail access-for-all-who-want-it ;-)

Communication experiments should be tried, which aim to help get people talking about public (their own) affairs, also about how to "gestalt" (give form to) the discourse! There should be different experiments so that we can find out what is better. Only one suggestion is made here, although others are referenced/linked ->4 (see note 4).

POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD:

As a way to get Open Forum/Citizens Resolve off the ground we suggest taking Proposal 1 (see Appendix) as a rough guide, and add further detail here in this "version 2". Citizens set up multiple fora which cover the briefs (areas of responsibility) of existing ministries or departments of government and administration but are not limited to those conventional areas and concepts. (Socio-technical suggestions are made below.) By building fora which overlap with these established thematic areas, we aim to connect into (local and regional etc.) real-life structures ->5 (note 5). Themes and agendas of existing movements and lobbies may (perhaps in cooperation) be adopted, e.g. environmental, labour, gender issues. Other thematic suggestions - not an exhaustive list - have been made in Proposal 1. Comments and discussion on all proposals are welcome, indeed essential (some have already arrived). For example, "umbrella" or "root" fora could be designated as follows: for.educ(ation), for.fin(ance), for.ecol-econ (ecology-economy), for.noconf (conflict avoidance). Specialisation can be easily shown in a branching system of sub-group names, e.g for.educ.pr_t (professional training), for.fin.tax.i_t (taxation of international transactions) ->6 (see note 6). All fora will not immediately become active but their inclusion is important to show that citizens are going beyond "single issue" thinking, are adopting a holistic, integrating approach to governing, are preparing themselves for and beginning to rehearse the assumption of greater responsiblity for their own affairs ->7 (note 7). To make a start, there is no need to have government cooperation or support of politicians, although anyone can join in or read the debates (compare and contrast govnews, e-dem/Minnesota, British online citizens URLs given below, see note 4). Nor, to get Open Forum/Citizens Resolve going, are any changes of law, constitutional reform or official permission required. Assuming that active debates develop, that public problems are identified and citizens want to influence the pertaining policy, then the groups will collect required information (much of which may be formally available but unknown, unorganised or inaccessible), they will demand and struggle for what they additionally need from official sources. Information collected by each forum can be made accessible to all citizens by referencing, much can be provided easily in computers, even on-line (computer memory has become very cheap), in de-centralised and mirrored data banks. Political educational resources and others may be added. Real social or political influence may be exerted by focussing on a controversial issue, making the debate publicly known, cooperating with other public media, mixing up in parliamentary or extra-parliamentary politics (a successful recent example Toronto ->6 see note 6) or attempting to steer public administration. (Some organisational matters and potential bugs are mentioned in ->8 note 8.)

The "open forum" or some other "forum of fora" may be used for discussion about e.g. organisational matters, outreach, and for treatment of things which are beyond scope of or not addressed by other fora.

E-mail is most suitable at present to allow uncensored and (by third parties) uncontrolled communication, because inter alia
- it's the most widely distributed electronic communication form
- it's technically easy to use
- censorship of e-mail is not (yet) widespread and would be quite difficult to operate
- the user is relatively independent. She needs access to a computer and modem or equivalent. There is a growing choice of Internet providers, so if one such organisation causes difficulty, it may be "fired" and changed.

Also, of course, e-mail may be complemented by other technical systems, should they be adequately uncensored and uncontrolled (by officialdom/commerce etc.), flexible, available - e.g citizens' web sites may be netted into a back-up system for the polity's discourse (e.g. archives of debates, users' addresses, data banks, links to government and administration, links among CR fora etc.)

E-mail discussions can be created very rapidly. Conspiratorial features or appearance need to be avoided -- openness to broad public and press, especially exposure in the global Internet, can help here. Such exposure can also defend against possible censorship. Netiquette rules!

"SOCIOTECHNICS" ;-)

The suggested socio-technical system is simple and uses RESOURCES AVAILABLE NOW. To start, a small group needs to express interest in an issue which may become the topic of a CR forum, e.g. an aspect of education, a proposal in politics of finance, or an issue of public ethics. (At first, there may be quite a lot to discuss about how to identify problems, how to gestalt the discourse). The author of a message on a particular issue (a piece of information, request for comment "RFC", call for discussion etc.) sends her/his message to all citizens of the group/ forum, by pasting the forum address list into her/his e-mail programme "to:" or "cc:". Anyone can reply to the whole group or only to the first author. So, debates on important public issues and a new process of monitoring and making politics can start.

_________________________________

notes

1. That's a suggested title for the proposed process in english. In german it might be "BÜRGER/INNEN BESCHLIESSEN". How would it be in danish? french? a chinese language? esperanto? ... :-). GO BACK

2. Why? Very briefly, IMO: in order to begin to find solutions for pressing problems facing humanity; and to improve collective decision making, to strengthen democracy. For more arguments that "something must be done" in this context see writing by the following authors, and their links to many other relevant authors and projects.

John Gøtze, Participation in the information age
http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~itsjg/sverige/wired.htm

Michael Macpherson, some thoughts of a cyber-surfing real-life democrat: Citizen participation in politics and the new communication media. Draft of a paper accepted for publication by Psicología Politica, the Spanish Journal of Political Psychology, via http://www.snafu.de/~mjm/init.html

thought provoking:
Pierre Lèvy, Manifesto for a molecular politics. Via on-line Telepolis report on the recent Munich conference Internet & Politik. http://www.heise.de/tp/fpol.htm
GO BACK

3. Recently much has been said and written about what is wrong with the way democracies are run. Many people simply do not participate at all, they refrain from voting and do not or cannot take part in politics in any other way. Citizens in western-style democracies have often been fobbed off, offered a sop of participation by being allowed to contribute to local construction planning decisions. (Often a sham anyway - these decisions are usually made by others elsewhere.) This is not enough. What's the point of being asked where or how a school should be built if the people have no influence on educational policy? Many central and local government Internet sites similarly give a deceptive impression that citizens are being empowered to participate, when this is not at all the case. GO BACK

4. Some frameworks for improving citizen participation, democracy and governing have been suggested e.g.

govnews, a complex Usenet-type system to inform about United States of America's government
http://www.govnews.org/govnews/govnews.html

a nearly holistic Dutch model, teledemocracy (Marcel Bullinga) http://www.xs4all.nl/~roesderz/english/

British citizens on-line Minnesota e-democracy

"Proposal 1" (with examples for Brandenburg and Berlin), by Michael Macpherson. Proposal 1 is reproduced below.

GO BACK

5. This does not mean considering only local issues. In the most obvious example, fora which focus on the local natural environment must consider regional and global as well as local issues. In the B|B model, citizens consider German Federal Republican issues and so come to consider the involvement of FRG in international affairs, not only local issues of the districts, cities and states (Laender) of Brandenburg and Berlin.
GO BACK

6. Because the "root" fora address broad areas of public concern - a reason for that has been mentioned - it does not mean that each whole area has to be covered by citizens at the beginning, or, for some things, ever. For the forseeable future citizens will continue to choose to delegate administration of and certain decisions about some of their affairs to representatives and public servants. But (and a big "but"), important public issues and problems, about which citizens' voices should be heard, must be selected for deliberation and action. Regarding the examples of fora given above, firstly a regional example of theme
- for.educ.p_t (root forum Education, branch Professional Training). A current controversy in the German federal state (Land) of Brandenburg is the issue of Citizenship Education for adolescents and young adults in apprenticeships and professional training. The government plans deep cuts in Citizenship Education. On a background of high youth unemployment, growing racism and gang violence, to date the voice of the citizen, of the apprentices and parents, has hardly been heard ...

and now a global example
- for.fin.i_t (root forum Financial Affairs, branch International Taxation) Just about everywhere there are drastic cuts in public spending, governments claiming lack of revenue. Real hardship is occurring. In some localities the economic conditions are causing public unrest and there is danger of violent conflict. There are proposals to remedy things partly by introducing taxation of massive transnational money flows. Some economists and recently pro-environment groups are proposing this type of taxation (named after Tobin). Should this be done? If so, where could the political will to push it through come from? A broad and well informed public debate could help wise decisions to be reached, and a strong lobby could help with the implementation of policy.

and a real-life local example of Democracy in Action

A campaign to protect and nourish local democracy, showing benefits of applying new communication technology, is running successfully in Toronto, Canada. Some basic principles are (quote) 1. Local government belongs to and should be responsible to the local citizens who elected it. Bill 103 imposes amalgamation on the cities in Metro Toronto, and must be opposed. 2. Citizens should have democratic control over education in local schools. Bill 104 imposes amalgamation of school boards in Metro Toronto, puts the control of local education until Year 2000 in the hands of appointed officials, and paves the way for cuts to education. Bill 104 must be opposed. (unquote) E-mail has been used for building and co-ordination of citizens' efforts. Electronic fora have aided exchange of information, debate and decision-making. World Wide Web sites are being used to inform and educate about the issues and about how to organise change democratically. The opposition is taking this campaign very seriously! Long term, much improved participation of citizens in Toronto's political system could result from this experience and example. Visit Citizens for Local Democracy, Toronto, Canada
http://community.web.net/citizens/
GO BACK

7. "are preparing themselves for and beginning to rehearse the assumption of greater responsiblity for their own affairs"
There are some essential differences (i agree they are not absolute) between these CR proposals and existing projects such as newsgroups and usenet discussions, even those with social or political themes (de.soc.pol, CL-demokratie, british citizens on-line and many others). E.g.:

- here we seek to bring in citizens of all political persuasions and from a wide range of social and professional backgrounds (eventually, as all citizens cannot deliberate on all issues, then representative groups may be allocated to debate/recommend on particular issues)

- as shown in the name "Citizens Resolve", in forming the "forum of fora" citizens are expressing their right to rule themselves (that is what the term "democracy" means); at very least to gain much more influence on serious matters affecting their lives.
GO BACK

8. A number of organisational questions arise. At first, enthusiasts and volunteers can launch the system as it has been presented. One or two volunteers can archive each forum's messages, perhaps post them on WWW site(s), and several participants should store and update the list of addresses. If a forum group becomes too large, or if technical problems emerge, then the now large group can be expected to seek solutions, e.g. the author of a message to the forum splits the address list and sends several packets of e-mails; the group employs another mail distribution or conferencing system (always paying attention to important criteria such as autonomy and openness). If, in a forum, discussion becomes too diffuse then specialised or more focussed fora may be set up. Should a problem prove too complicated, requiring detailed inquiry, research etc, then task-groups may be employed. A "list of lists" showing branching structure and names of fora needs to be stored and updated. Also, a system to decide on new fora needs to be established, e.g Usenet-type system. A group of volunteers (may be changing/rotating) would be needed to look after this. Also, maybe one or two facilitators for each thematic area/forum etc. is needed, at least at first. And, who will do outreach, print stuff for ink-age citizens, chisel tablets for stone-age citizens, etc.? Netiquette prevails!
GO BACK

APPENDIX

Author's note added mid-March 1997. The following draft proposal was first published late January 1997 in internet fora including Direkte Demokratie (based in Federal Republic of Germany), Democr@cy (based in Denmark), "information society" discussions of the European Commission. Although it is entitled "...for Brandenburg and Berlin" almost all of it could be considered for application in other regions and countries.

Proposal 1:

A citizens' participation programme for Brandenburg and Berlin (B|B).

INTRODUCTORY FRONT ("HOME") PAGE

THIS WILL PRESENT:

THE OPEN FORUM
The open forum is an electronic and conventional discussion intended initially to help identify important issues and decide which topics deserve to have their own forum. Later it may be used to make general announcements and to discuss proposed additional topics.

Procedure may be:
OPEN FORUM first collects issues of concern from contributors (citizens who join the new participation programme will be referred to below as "citizens" or "users"). (Consider adding a representative questionnaire of regional inhabitants in order to identify themes of priority.) Users then decide on themes, starting new sub-fora etc.

Possible development may look like the following:

DEBATES/BLACKBOARDS

(to be set up as electronic fora/announcement boards etc.)

THEMES (examples follow)

(each thematic debate will be linked to information about the structure and activities of the relevant parliament, of administrative and government departments, to background material, educational material, news, experts etc.)

WORK
e.g. may be sub-divided as follows:

and the other chosen themes, e.g.
GENDER ISSUES (e-groups)
ENVIRONMENT (e-groups)
EDUCATION (e-groups)
INDUSTRY (e-groups)
AGRICULTURE (e-groups)
SOCIAL AFFAIRS (e-groups)
HEALTH (e-groups)
CONFLICT AVOIDANCE (e-groups)
CULTURE (e-groups)
FEDERAL AFFAIRS (e-groups)

similarly sub-divided.

HOT ISSUES could be for instance:

-----------------------------------------------

For the proposed "citizens' participation programme for Brandenburg and Berlin" the following methods/principles may be applied:

Debates are open to all.

Consider a Usenet-type voting method to decide on new themes for debates (i.e. in order to set up a new electronic forum).

From time to time, if a debate shows direction and conclusions, then recommendations may be formulated for publication, and questions may be sent to local or regional politicians and parliaments and/or ministries. Publications may appear in WWW or be presented via mass media, perhaps as "RFCs" in Internet - for region, FRG or world.

Parliaments and governments may be requested to provide (preferably "on-line") information about their activities, relevant to the issues of the programme.

Encourage at least yearly statements in which "CITIZENS SPEAK OUT" on each issue.

After debate and formulation of questions or proposals, organise public off/on-line debate of citizens and the responsible politicians/officials/ entrepreneurs.

Organise ETMs from time to time, encouraging all citizens in the issue-relevant region to join in (maybe try some "representative sample" ETMs, juries, issue-panels etc.) (ETM- electronic town meeting)

Enable Net access for anyone who wishes to take part in the process of self-education, information, debate and politics. (e.g. by computer-sharing, public access points)

Acknowledging that Net connectivity and acceptance are low in B|B, allow participation in debates by other means, e.g provide print-outs of e-debates on request, print key documents as brochures etc., supply bibliographies to political information and guides through administrative jungles etc..

Because the federal state (Brandenburg) and city-state (Berlin) are politically separate, it will be necesary to provide parallel fora on some issues, and separate links to administrations and political organs.

***
Then, if it gets off the ground, let's see how it goes ......... :-)

____________________________________

Author's remark: I'll wait a while for feed-back on this english language version of this brief, draft proposal, then try to get a good translation into german (it needs a native speaker ...wer moechte helfen?)
END OF APPENDIX

CONTENTS of this document

(TOP of document)

PROPOSAL version 2

_Suggested name of the initiative_

OPEN FORUM: CITIZENS RESOLVE --- BÜRGER/INNEN BESCHLIESSEN ----

PREAMBLE:
_Some basic postulates_

_Thoughts_

POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD

"SOCIOTECHNICS"

NOTES 1 to 8

APPENDIX
Author's note March 1997
Proposal (version) 1

by Dr. Michael Macpherson M.R.C.P. (U.K.)
Integral Studies/Psycho-Social and Medical Research

e-mail: mjm@berlin.snafu.de

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
World Wide Web address (URL):

INTEGRAL STUDIES: proposals, opportunities to co-operate:
http://www.snafu.de/~mjm/

(TOP of this document)

contact: Dr. Michael Macpherson via e-mail, mjm@berlin.snafu.de

URL of this document <http://www.snafu.de/~mjm/prop2.html>

back to CITIZEN, SOCIETY, POLITY (linking to initiatives, debates, papers)
back to INTEGRAL STUDIES home page