On invitation by the Electronic Governance Center and the e-Macao Program, I visited Macao for presentations and talks about cooperation on eGovernment projects with the United Nations University - International Institute for Software Technology  (UNU-IIST)

Seminar on CitizenVision 2.0 in e-Macao Program

Summary of presentation

Paper From Electronic Government to Collaborative Governance

Conference Website

Volgens het rapport “Vertrouwen in burgers” van de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) dreigt de overheid de aansluiting te missen op een samenleving waarin burgers op velerlei wijze actief willen zijn. Ook de Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur (ROB) kwam in “Vertrouwen op democratie” tot een vergelijkbare conclusie, namelijk dat de overheid te weinig gebruik maakt van de aanwezige kennis in de samenleving. Al eerder had onderzoek naar eParticipatie door Burgerlink en de Nationale Ombudsman uitgewezen dat de overheid kansen laat liggen: burgers willen best meedoen, mits ze serieus worden genomen.

De WRR vindt het zorgelijk dat weinig burgers zich aangesproken voelen door de huidige pogingen van de overheid om burgers te betrekken. De resultaten daarvan stellen dan ook teleur: er is sprake van weinig leren, het sluit niet aan bij de behoeften van burgers, een structurele inbedding ontbreekt. Vandaar dat de WRR een groot aantal aanbevelingen doet aan beleidsmakers om burgers te verleiden tot actieve betrokkenheid.

De vraag is of dat voldoende is. Het gevaar is niet denkbeeldig dat succes blijft afhangen van toevalligheden, zoals het doorzettingsvermogen van een burger of de ontvankelijkheid van een overheidsorganisatie. Waar het aan schort is een visie op de participatieve democratie, als aanvulling op de representatieve democratie.

De remedie van de WRR is: de overheid moet leren denken vanuit de burger en ruimte bieden voor tegenspel. Dat blijkt gemakkelijker gezegd dan gedaan. Daarvoor is namelijk wederzijds vertrouwen nodig. Dat vertrouwen ontstaat pas als men elkaars ambities en verwachtingen kent en honoreert.

Om een klantgestuurde ontwikkeling van de elektronische overheid te bevorderen, is destijds de BurgerServiceCode opgesteld. Deze kwaliteitsstandaard gaf normen voor de nieuwe verhoudingen. Voor de overgang van de ‘elektronische’ naar de ‘collaboratieve’ overheid waar we nu mee te maken hebben, is een herziene BurgerServiceCode nodig die nieuwe spelregels formuleert.

Volgens de WRR zijn actieve burgers wezenlijk zijn voor een levensvatbare democratie. Ze houden de overheid bij de les, vernieuwen de samenleving en zorgen voor draagvlak. Daarom moet de participatieve democratie als aanvulling op de representatieve een impuls krijgen. Een structurele inbedding van burgerparticipatie is eigenlijk het onafgemaakte deel van de Dualisering. Die modernisering van het (lokale) bestuur in het afgelopen decennium was gericht op de interne verhouding tussen college en raad. Nu is de externe tegenhanger aan bod: een nieuwe relatie overheid – burger. Het is hoog tijd voor een Burgervisie 2.0.

Matt Poelmans is geestelijk vader van de BurgerServiceCode en senior adviseur bij PBLQ (voorheen HEC)

Gepubliceerd in: InGovernment, 2 augustus 2012

eGovernment und Netzpolitik im europäischen Vergleich, NOMOS Verlag

Alle sprechen von Netzpolitik, aber was ist das eigentlich? Und wie lässt sich elektronische Verwaltung oder E-Government von Politik im und fürs Netz unterscheiden? Der Band soll Antworten auf diese aktuellen Fragen geben.

Er beginnt mit einer allgemeinen Einführung in den Themenkomplex, in der auch der Stand der vergleichenden Forschung im Bereich E-Government und Netzpolitik dargestellt wird. Es folgt eine Reihe von nationalen und regionalen Fall- und Vergleichsstudien von Experten aus Wissenschaft und Praxis zu verschiedenen Themen.

Die Autoren untersuchen E-Government-Projekte und die netzpolitischen Debatten in Deutschland, Frankreich, den Niederlanden, Luxemburg, Österreich, der Schweiz sowie auf EU-Ebene aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven. Dabei wird eine breite Vielfalt von thematischen Aspekten beleuchtet, es geht sowohl um Fragen der verwaltungstechnischen Umsetzung als auch um strukturelle Aspekte wie Internetinfrastruktur, Datensicherheit, Medienkompetenz etc. bis hin zu Fragen der demokratischen Theorie und Praxis, also elektronische Wahlen, Online-Wahlkämpfe, Abgeordneten- und Wählerkommunikation via Internet sowie elektronische Partizipationsverfahren.

ISBN 978-3-8329-6529-7

Matt Poelmans, Co Author

Zowel burgers als overheden doen hun best om burgerparticipatie tot stand te brengen, maar de resultaten vallen tegen. Volgens de WRR komt dat door een gebrek aan vertrouwen en moet de overheid gaan denken vanuit de burger. HEC-adviseur Matt Poelmans heeft dat eerder gehoord en vindt het tijd voor een concrete volgende stap: Dualisering 2.0, het combineren van de representatieve met participatieve democratie.

Vertrouwenskwestie

Actief betrokken burgers zijn wezenlijk voor een levende democratie. Er zijn meer betrokken burgers dan gedacht. Maar die voelen zich niet aangesproken door de manier waarop de overheid betrokkenheid vorm geeft. Om de kansen te benutten moeten overheid en burgers elkaar meer vertrouwen.

Dat zegt het onlangs verschenen rapport “Vertrouwen in burgers” van de Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR) . Daarin heeft de WRR de kansen en mogelijkheden op allerlei vormen burgerbetrokkenheid in kaart gebracht. Op basis daarvan concludeert hij dat de overheid zich veel inspanningen getroost, maar dat de resultaten teleurstellen: veel losse projecten, weinig van elkaar leren en onvoldoende structurele inbedding. Ernstiger is dat de overheid de aansluiting mist op een samenleving die juist snel verandert en waarin burgers op velerlei nieuwe wijzen actief zijn en willen zijn (o.a. via sociale media). Zo er al geen vertrouwenscrisis is, leeft er in ieder geval veel onbehagen. Door te gaan denken vanuit burgers kan het vertrouwen groeien.

De WRR is niet de enige die een gebrek aan vertrouwen constateert. Vorig jaar publiceerde de Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur (ROB) het rapport “Vertrouwen op democratie”, waarin hij zegt dat er onvoldoende kanalen zijn voor mondige burgers om direct invloed uit te oefenen op zaken die hen raken. Belangrijkste reden om ons daarover zorgen te maken is dat er te weinig gebruik wordt gemaakt van de kennis die aanwezig is bij burgers (wisdom of the crowd). Ook het jaarverslag 2011 van de Nationale Ombudsman is gewijd aan een “Vertrouwde Overheid”. Hij constateert dat vertrouwen onder druk staat, terwijl vertrouwen het fundament is voor een zinvolle relatie.

Déjà vu

De WRR is ook niet de eerste die aangeeft wat er anders moet. De belangrijkste constatering is dat de overheid moet “Denken vanuit de burger”. Het is al weer 15 jaar geleden dat het Overheidsloket2000 onder dit motto van start ging als een van de eerste programma’s van wat later de eOverheid is gaan heten. Maar het gemakkelijker gebleken dit met de mond te belijden dan in de praktijk toe te passen.

In zijn rapport beschrijft de WRR uitvoerig de tekortkomingen van het “burgerbetrokkenheidsbeleid”, met uitzondering van de grootste: dat zo’n beleid eigenlijk volstrekt ontbreekt. Iedere overheidsorganisatie doet maar wat (of niet). Ook als we in aanmerking nemen dat dé burger en dé overheid niet bestaan, illustreren de vele voorbeelden een gebrek aan afstemming of een schrijnende tegenstelling tussen de pogingen van de overheid en de behoeften van burgers.

Een typisch voorbeeld van die mismatch is de WMO-raad. De Wet Maatschappelijk Ondersteuning die de taken op het gebied van zorg en welzijn overhevelt van het rijk naar gemeenten, verplicht tot instelling van een cliëntenraad. Dat leidt een vorm van “gemeenteraadje” spelen, en het blijkt dan ook moeilijk om mensen te vinden die zitting willen nemen in zo’n praatclub. In een kwart van de gemeenten bestaat zo’n cliëntenvertegenwoordiging om die reden niet. Tegelijk noemt het WRR-rapport voorbeelden van het frustreren van veel directere en modernere vormen betrokkenheid die burger wel boeien (zoals kwaliteitssturing en terugkoppeling via een handige beoordeling door direct belanghebbenden, de echte gebruikers van de prestaties van dit soort voorzieningen).

Het rapport doet ook een poging tot verklaring en geeft de nodige aanbevelingen. Hoewel goed bedoeld, zijn deze helaas vrijblijvend en fragmentarisch: men noemt veel wat er moet gebeuren (er moet een participatievisie komen, initiatiefnemers verdienen rugdekking, er moet een vonk overslaan), maar laat in het midden hoe. Er is dan ook geen enkele reden om aan te nemend dat het met deze aanbevelingen voortaan beter gaat. Het wordt het zoveelste rapport dat in een la verdwijnt.

Dualisering 2.0

Indien actieve burgers wezenlijk zijn voor een levensvatbare democratie, mogen we de beschreven situatie niet op zijn beloop laten. Volgens de WRR vergt de noodzakelijke doorbraak aanzienlijke veranderingen in overheidscultuur en zijn de drempels voor verandering hoog. Dan komen we er niet met een rapport van bijna 300 pagina’s anekdotische beschrijvingen en vrijblijvende suggesties. De WRR heeft de kans gemist een concrete invulling te geven aan de burgervisie en de structurele inbedding.

Zo’n burgervisie moet een serie concrete omgangsregels geven voor de nieuwe relatie burger-overheid. Tijdens de achter ons liggende periode waarin zich de overgang van de papieren naar de “elektronische” overheid voltrok, heeft de BurgerServiceCode daarvoor zijn nut bewezen. Die gedragsregels koppelden de verwachtingen van burgers aan de ambities van overheden. We staan nu voor de transitie van de elektronische overheid naar de “collaborative” overheid. Dat maakt nieuwe “rules of engagement” nodig voor een relatie die vertrouwen stimuleert: een BurgerVisie 2.0.

Structurele inbedding betekent uit de experimenteer-fase komen en niet langer toestaan dat overheden op kosten van de belastingbetaler zo nodig (d.w.z. onnodig) weer een eigen participatie-wiel moeten uitvinden. Zoals overduidelijk blijkt uit het WRR rapport, zijn er inmiddels voldoende levensvatbare voorbeelden die in aanmerking komen voor standaardisering en opschaling tot “participatiediensten”. Voorbeelden zijn VerbeterDeBuurt (meldingen) of de door het programma Burgerlink ontwikkelde modellen WatStemtMijnRaad (controleren), Petites.nl (agenderen), WijWaarderen (beoordelen).

Burgerparticipatie is het – oningevulde – tweede deel van de Dualisering waarmee sinds 2000 de modernisering van het (lokale en regionale) openbaar bestuur in gang is gezet. De eerste stap betrof een nieuwe interne verhouding (lokaal tussen gemeenteraad en college van B&W). De tweede – tot dusver verwaarloosde – is de externe tegenhanger: het leggen van een vertrouwensbasis tussen de (gemeentelijke) overheid en burgerij. Dualisering 2.0 is het daadwerkelijk combineren van de representatieve met de participatieve democratie.

Ook verschenen VK Opinie

Suppose you have a problem, what’s the best way to solve it? How about inviting a selected number of experts on the topic from all over the world, pay for their travel, lock them up in a former prison on an island, seduce them to present their views, facilitate that by excellent food, cleverly moderate the discussion, confront the solutions with the problems, integrate and merge different views, and you’ll end up with a deliverable in the form of a manual to solve your problem. Good for you and inspiring for all participants.

 This is precisely what the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) did when they discovered that eParticipation at the local and regional level in Sweden needed a boost. Of course there are lots of pilots and experiments, but they felt that a consistent view on possibilities and challenges posed by new media was lacking. So they convened a 48 hour #eSummit about this topic on the island of Långholmen in Stockholm.

The eSummit started with 12 minutes statements by the experts about their core view. These covered Big data society, Co creation, Open government, Crowd sourcing, Participatory budgetting, Collaborative spatial planning, Empowerment by e-charters, Anti corruption & social accountability mechanisms, Business process redesign, and so on. Subsequently the experts worked in twos and fours to integrate their views. These were confronted with the expectations of the hosts as expressed by a “ginger group”.

After this the question arose whether or not Sweden actually does have a problem. Being one of the richest countries in the world, with an egalitarian society and high trust in government, one would hardly believe so. However, after some deliberations it was concluded that an ageing population, increasing expenditure and diminishing tax returns does require new approaches to reform the welfare state and its public sector.

eParticipation, meaning that government is willing to let civil society participate in its processes, can help. Even better is eCollaboration, which assumes a more equal relationship in interaction between government and society, when the latter takes the initiatieve. Like in many other countries, Swedish public administrations experiment with eParticipation, Social media and collaborative tools, but these remain fragmented. So the challenge is to put these together in a consistent framework and embed them in daily work.

Thus the experts started drafting an “eCollaboration Manifesto” consisting of a balanced set of ambitions, expectations, approaches and instruments for state-of-the-art citizen engagement. The first version contains integrated and consolidated suggestions for participative policymaking and public service delivery, to be further elaborated by experts and users. Next generation participation projects should combine public agenda setting, open data and collaborative decision making. This eCollaboration approach can be of help not only in the case of public sector reform, but also in other circumstances, like supporting austerity measures or fighting corruption.

The Swedish firm IKEA reinvented home furniture by going back to its core function and restyling it with utmost simplicity. The eCollaboration Manifesto is an IDEA like IKEA, and will provide a construction manual with eGovernance utensils Swedish Design.

From 22 – 24 April 2012, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) held a meeting in Dublin about “Promoting Good Governance and Combating Corruption in Support of Socio-Economic Development”. I was invited as a panellist for the Session “The key role of civil society towards developing comprehensive and effective anti-corruption approaches”.

My contribution was about the eCitizen Charter as a tool for citizen engagement and social accountability. The invitation was a follow up on two previous meetings organized last year about the same topic, held in Vienna (UNDESA) and Marrakesh (UNCAC).

This panel (photos courtesy OSCE), scheduled at the beginning of the second day, was moderated by Elaine Byrne, an Irish journalist and political scientist. She just this week published a book entitled “Political Corruption in Ireland 1922-2010″.

In my contribution I stressed the importance of clear “rules of engagement” between citizen and governmment. The eCitizen Charter provides a framework which empowers civil society. The use of social media has shown to be effective in fighting corruption, notably in the Arabic world. My plea for participative democracy as a necessary supplement to representative democracy was supported by other speakers later that day.

Other panellists covered topics like training of civil servants (Georg Grabenweger from the International Anti-Corruption Academy and Violetta Yan from the Kirgiz OSCE Academy), transparent procedures (Anne-Christine Wegener of Transparency International), anti money loundering action by banks (Roxana Cefan of Raiffaisen Bank International) and monitoring the UNCAC traty (Londa Esadze of UN Transnational Crime and Corruption Centre). The moderator could summarise that in anti-corruption not one size fits all, but civil society indeed cannot be left out as partner in a comprehensive approach.

The OSCE is an organization under the UN Charter created during the Cold War as a West-East forum, and has 57 participating states from Europe, the former Soviet Union, USA, Canada. The meeting was attended by some 250 representatives from states, academia, civil society, private sector and NGOs.

The first day was devoted to an overview of instruments such as international frameworks, legal instuments and monitoring mechanisms for which the states are responsible. Ppreventing corruption by promoting a culture of integrity, transparency and accountability was also given attention, as were regulatory reforms in public procurement and countering bribery. The rest of the conference covered topics like simplification of business relations, integrity of customs and border services, and identifying and recovering stolen assets.

The meeting, held in Dublin Castle was well organised by mr. Goran Svilanovič, Co-ordinatorof the OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities together with his colleagues Edelmira Campos Núñez and and Andrea Gredler. The background paper prepared by the OSCE secretariat convincingly argues the need for measures against corruption because of the econonomic costs and the losses in trust it causes. Corruption exits everywhere, but it does make a difference whether is has become a fact of life that is tolerated, or whether it is considered as an evil that should be erradicated.

This Dublin event actally was the Second Preparatory Meeting for the September 2012 OSCE Forum on “Promoting Security and Stability through Good Governance”. Because of the busy agenda, an approach that got less attention than it deserves was social media and internet. However, during the closing session both the host of the meeting, the Irish Minister of Justice , and the American Ambassador recommended a robust role by civil society in anticorruption measures as an item on the agenda at the Good Governance meeting later this year in Prague.

The eCitizenCharter is translated in 22 languages, to be found under Downloads

From 8 – 11 April the Bahrain International eGovernment Forum 2012 was held. On invitation by the eGovernment Authority (EGA) of Bahrain I attended the forum as a speaker. The venue was the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Manama, Bahrain’s capital. At the opening session of the forum, attended by the Prime Minster, the host country presented its new eGoverment strategy. Bahrain does comparatively well in the UN eReadiness ranking (number 36 out of 196) and is a leader in integrated online services provided through multichannels (actually number 10 of the world).

The UN eGovernment Survey 2012 apparently was used as selection criteria for the first panel session. Since the Republic of Korea is the world leader followed by the Netherlands, I was the second speaker after Deok Soo Park from Korea. In the same session Bill McCluggage of the UK and Hannes Astok of Estonia presented their countries’ strategies. In my presentation entitled “Citizen Centred eGovernment in the Netherlands” I explained our approach to citizen engagement, with the eCitizen Charter as an awareness tool. Moreover I set out why it’s time for a paradigm shift from eGoverment (technology) to Collaborative Governance (participation), which is necessary for citizen engagement to thrive and contribute to social accountablity.

During the rest of the forum a great number of international speakers presented views and cases on eGovernment and several trends and topicslike Social Media, eParticipation, Mobility, Open Data. There was overall agreement on the need for citizen centricity and inclusion. Many speakers covered this, notably Raul Zambrano of UNDP, Julia Glidden of 21c Consultancy UK, Kei Shimada of Japan, Chris Rourke of UserVision UK, Thomasz Janovsky of UN-IIST in Macao, Stefan Gehrke of Germany. The moderators Richard Kerby and Julia Glidden led stimulating discussions. Noteworthy I found Talal Abu Ghazalah’s speech in which he made a convincing case for the eCitizen and the urgency of education reform and free online learning in the Arabic world. One of the fringe meeting was devoted to legal aspects and privacy, with contributions from Ramazan Altinok of the Turkish Prime Minster’s Office, Nibal Idlebi of UNESCWA and Wojcieh Cellary of Poznan University. One other fringe meeting about social media organised by the Social Media Club of Bahrain was successfully overcrowded.

The forum provided an excellent opportunity to share knowledge and exchange views, and the social program gave the speakers a taste of the country. Memorable was the Royal reception of the speakers by the Crown Prince as acting King. Sincere thanks for a well organised forum and friendly hospitality are due to EGA’s CEO Mohammed Ali Al-Qaed and his Forum organizer Lamya Ebrahim Hasan.

In view of the political situation in Bahrain, I was pleasantly surprised by the open program and free discussions during the conference. Bahrain is criticised for its suppression last year of a revolt which looks similar to other Arabic Spring uprisings. The country is devided into a sunnite ruling class and shiite population majority. The help of Saudi Arabia for the government and the supposed influence of Iran on the opposition complicate the conflict. The present situation seems stable, after an independent Inquiry Commission recommended reforms.

Traveling to Bahrain, I reread Peter Mansfield’s “A History of the Middle East” to refresh my historical knowledge of the region where tradition and religion play another role than in the democratic and egalitarian country I live in.

On my way back I took a stopover in Dubai to see the future and visit the world’s tallest building: Burj Khalifa. That was the last missing on my track record of the top 5 buildings in the world, 4 of which I already saw as a speaker on international conferences: Twin Towers in NY, CN Tower in Toronto, Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur and 101 in Taipei.

Electronic Government is no longer an appropriate framework for innovation in the public sector. The emphasis must shift to Collaborative Governance, and a CitizenVision 2.0 can support that transition

Ambition
Fifteen years ago in the Netherlands the first program started of what later became known as Electronic Government (eGovernment). Public Counter 2000 introduced the one-stop shop model and did so under the motto “Thinking and working from the citizen’s perspective”. Ever since, each eGovernment project has called itself “citizen centric”. However, the past years prove that rhetoric is easier than actual implementation. Citizen centricity not only requires a change in attitude, also necessary are practical methods and tools. What progress has been made since and how did citizens benefit from eGovernment?

Results
In order to determine whether a target has been reached, one needs a benchmark. Surprisingly this was missing from the very beginning. Therefore in 2005 the Citizen@Government Forum devised the eCitizenCharter. It intends to match the ambitions of government with the expectations of citizens. The charter consists of 10 quality standards that can be applied both as design requirements beforehand and evaluation criteria afterwards.

As design requirements, the quality standards have been incorporated in the Dutch Government Reference Architecture (NORA). Unfortunately, this has been no guarantee for systematic application. Thus the neglect of transparency has been a major cause for problems like the premature discontinuation of electronic voting, the failure of the eHealth file, the trouble with the public transportation chip card or the commotion about the smart energy meters.

As evaluation criteria, the quality standards were used to measure citizen satisfaction. From 2008 to 2010, the ICTU Citizen Link program annually measured how citizens appreciate the performance of government. That judgment was rather disappointing, not in the least because it did not focus as usual on the delivery of individual products or services, but at the solution of life events. For citizens these are more meaningful than quick services like a passport renewal, so it‘s unfortunate that this approach has been discontinued recently.

Lessons
Plans for the future which 15 years ago were labelled “2000″, are now called “2.0″ but still concern the same problem: how can government reform be truly citizen centric. The eCitizenCharter was ahead of his time because it not only sees the citizen as a passive customer but also as an active participant.

Subsequently, other checklists have become in vogue, such as the Ten Problems of the Ministry of the Interior, the Five promises of the Union of Local Municipalities and the Six Principles for Government-wide Services. The good news is that they do (partially) overlap. The bad news is that they are one-sided propositions by government to improve its own performance. These restrictions are also substantiated in a 2011 critical analysis on the feasibility of the government-wide eServices. This calls for reconsideration whether we are on the right track.

Vision
Because the conceptual framework of eGovernment focuses on services and internal procedures, it cannot cope with two recent trends: interaction and transparency.
With the advent of Web 2.0 new forms of interaction became available, resulting in networks and platforms as organizational models. Methodologies and approaches such as crowd sourcing, open data, co-creation, cloud computing, apps, social media should be embedded in business processes for political policy development and public service delivery.
Since the 2011 “iGovernment” report of the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) awareness has grown that eGovernment paradigm is no longer suitable and that unhindered flows of data compel for better privacy protection.

According to the present cabinet, citizens are supposed to defend their own interests. Transparency is the key to this. For citizens to be able to act like this, they should possess tools and skills. Therefore we don’t need (yet another) government vision, but a citizen vision that  can support the transition from Electronic Government to Collaborative Governance.  This “Citizen Vision 2.0″ should stipulate the new rules of engagement between citizen and government.

The eCitizen Charter is an excellent starting point. Here are some considerations of how the development of the building blocks of Electronic Government should be adjusted in the direction of Collaborative Goverment.

Accessibility
The website as the default channel for eGovernment is still inadequate as far as accessibility and customer focus is concerned, especially on the local level. Following the example on the national level, on the local level too a standardized website is required. Moreover, this standard should provide for integration in the multichannel platform that citizens themselves use for information sources, contacts and interventions.

Identity
DigiD was a clever intermediate step towards a reliable digital identity, but is no longer suited now that increasingly sensitive information is stored digitally. Besides offering higher security levels in the public sector, government should provide its citizens with a digital identifier (as successor of the paper passport) to remedy the chaos of user names, passwords and PIN codes.

Usefulness
The public is bombarded with “myFiles”, also outside government proper. There is an urgent need for a standardized interface for digital transactions. In redesigning service delivery processes, the nature of the products should not be leading. On the contrary, it’s skils, experience and various citizen profiles that must be taken into  account.

Openness
If openness is the norm, processes should be transparent from the outset. This is a requirement for monitoring (through access and correction rights) and promoting social accountability (fighting corruption). Public Sector Information (PSI) not only supposes releasing datasets, but also calls for a fundamental reconsideration of the character of public service provision (what the government should do and what they can leave the private sector). Citizen’s self-reliance and self-determination call for wider variety in the nature of the services to be provided.

Involvement
Citizens who want to represent their own interests or who want to act for the common good should get the chance. The administration’s reflex to install a committee to solve a problem should be redirected towards setting up of a platform for interaction. From the perspective of a citizen there is no difference between public service delivery and political participation. Standardised prototypes for participation services are to be developed in the field of information, monitoring, evaluation and agenda setting. This should preferably be done through open source standards (like petities.nl) or apps (like ImproveYourNeighbourhood).

Governance
Last year marked the tenth anniversary ICTU, the foundation in which all of Dutch government work together on eGoverment projects. During this period, this foundation contributed to cohesion and cooperation in the establishment of the building blocks of eGovernment. But the trends described above require a fundamental rethinking.

The UN eGovernment Report 2012 ranks the Netherlands secondly worldwide. That’s a boost for everyone working at ICTU and involved in its strategy (iNUP). But like many other rankings, it mainly concerns the supply side, not use, let alone satisfaction. No reason to sit back and relax.

Although during the past decade great progress has been made in the digitization of government, the final conclusion must be that the potential for citizen centricity is still under-exploited. Since many eGoverment targets have been postponed to 2015-2020, eventual success depends on the development of a CitizenVision 2.0 as an updated benchmark.

Matt Poelmans was director of several eGovernment programs at ICTU and is currently senior advisor at HEC

Whether we like it or not, Europe is becoming increasingly important. For that very reason, new tools are needed to increase the quality of european democracy. The European Citizens’ Initiative is a first step..

Matt Poelmans. Member of the Board, Petities.nl Foundation

Democratic deficit
If anything, the euro crisis has made it clear that we can not escape european cooperation. The alternative, the disintegration of the European Union (EU), has more disadvantages or brings even greater consequences and costs. In his recent book “The Hound of Tišma, What if Europe collapsed?” the Dutch historian Geert Mak notes that postponing decisions tends to makethe final solution even more difficult.

Whether the euro will be a failure or a success, does not depend so much on what happened in the past, but rather what is awaiting us. Both supporters and opponents are right. The single currency in recent years has obscured the need for adjustments. But the euro now forces action that otherwise would also have been necessary because of diverging economic developments. The 20th century has shown how drastic and uncontrolled this can work out. The 21st century should reveal whether the awareness will rise that a better outcome can be reached through consultation. Greece is the test case.

Anyway, when Europe gets more to say, the democratic deficit is increasingly a barrier. The EU political system is democratic in intent, but in practice people do not experience this. Hence the Euro scepticism is understandable. But instead of waiting until this changes for the better, we might as well seize the opportunity to create the requirements for further integration.

European Citizens’ Initiative
So there is every reason to look for tools that further integration. One is the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) that the Lisbon Treaty has made possible. The ECI enables 1 million EU citizens from at least 7 countries to call on the European Commission (EC) to propose legislation on matters where the union is competent. That goes beyond a petition, which is unbinding.

The EBI procedure consists of several steps. The organisers of an initiative first have to form a citizens’ committee composed of 7 EU citizens living in at least 7 countries. Then they must register their idea with the EC which will published the initiative. Before the collection of statements of support can begin, the system for online collection must be certified by the Member States, to ensure that it meets the requirements of security and reliability. The Member States should also check the database and validate the outcome. If a sufficient number valid endorsements is reached, the citizens’ committee can submit the initiative to the EC and the European Parliament.

The regulation comes into force 1 April 2012 and it remains to be seen whether or not al matters will be dealt with in time. The EC launched a special website last month, where open source software for online collection of signatures is available. However, most countries are still busy with their assigned duties. They must provide their citizens the opportunity to have an online collection system certified (the initiators may use their own system) and to have the outcome validated (stating if sufficient valid endorsements are collected).

In the Netherlands the Ministry of Finance will probably be designated as the competent authority to certify the system for the collection of support, and the municipality of The Hague for the validation of the endorsements.

Despite these provisions, the initiators face quite some organizational and technical obstacles. They should have a website up and running and must check with various authorities, and that in several countries. The foundation Petities.nl, which has experience in helping citizens and government bodies with petitions and citizens’ initiatives, is ready to support Dutch citizens with the ECI. The foundation works together with similar NGOs in other EU countries.

Social media
For petitions and citizens’ initiatives not only the collection of signatures matters, but also the campaign before and the debate after. Social media come in handy and it is therefore expected that the ECI is an incentive to cross-border civil awareness and political mobilization.

The ECI is an example of “agenda setting”, i.e. an element of participatory democracy that complements representative democracy. Actually it is just a modest step towards Government 2.0 on a European scale, which must ultimately derive its legitimacy from web 2.0 tools like open data, crowd sourcing, co-production, and more.

This first step is badly needed for the EU to become more democratic in decision-making and more interactive in public service delivery. Let’s hope that the requirements for an ECI will prove not to be too high. That there are different expectations is already shown by the official translation of what the ECI aims to be. Whereas the Dutch text (“U bepaalt de agenda”) is identical to the German one (“Sie bestimmen die Tagesordnung”), the English is a bit more careful (“You can set the agenda”) and the Italian is even less conclusive (“Il tuo contributo al proccesso legislativo europeo “).

Also published in Dutch at Volkskrant Opinie