I forward this detailed explanation of what really happened in Estonia from a member of the Pirate Party in there, I think it is quite interesting. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mdrt Puder <boamaod@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:15 PM Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] Fwd: [liberationtech] Fwd: Democracy crowdsourcing in Estonia To: Pirate Parties International -- General Talk < pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net> It's a long story with lots of details, but we can start from the fact that the process was split in phases [1]: 1. Gathering the proposals (so called co-creation or crowdsourcing, everybody eith eID and Internet could participate). 2. Sorting/analysing the proposals from a strictly neutral/impartial perspective (experts). 3. Neutral/impartial impact assessments of the sorted proposals (experts). 4. Seminars with selected experts to rank the proposals (another set of experts). 5. Deliberation day to select the proposals to be handed to the parliament (unbiased sample of population). 1. The proposals were gathered using a flavour [2] of Your Priorities software [3]. You could log in with national eID service. In the end there were about 2000 proposals (from which 1300 were analysed). They were voted up and down, commented on etc. There were lot of duplicate proposals and there was no real possibility to discuss the proposotions because of duplication, bugs and the format that encouraged making self-sufficient points (arguments) instead of threaded discussions or something similar. So, from my perspective it was just mass posting proposals, that could be done with random forum software. The topics were agreed to be (1) funding of political parties, (2) laws about political parties, (3) election mechanisms, (4) participation processes, (5) forced politization of society. Not relevant proposals were sorted into section "varia". 2. This was the point where I started to severely doubt the process. Some of my own proposals were already lost in this phase and there was already some kind of prioritizing, although this wasn't what was promised. Some people complained about these problems, but since the results were published in an obscure manner and in several parts, not many people bothered to pay attention at all. The original proposals had pro/against votes, pro/con arguments and duplicates (had to be detected by analysts). Somehow the analysts explained that they treated duplication of proposals as main criterion to evaluate "prevalence" of the proposal, although this is counter-intuitive (spamming was the way to success). Besides that, some of the proposals were sorted into section "Overall state issues" which in fact meant that they were just censored from the next phases. Note, that among others all the proposals to use liquid democracy or something similar were put into that pile of proposals by "the experts". 3. The impact assessments were the next step to censor the proposals, because the experts brought their understanding and presumptions of those general political issues and although the resulting assessments were not stupid, some of them were highly debatable. 4. In this phase another set of chosen experts and some makers of proposals were invited to live seminars to select the most important topics to be discussed in deliberation day phase. From each of the five categories 2-4 most important issues were sorted out to be voted on later. They used the materials produced by 2nd and 3rd phases. 5. On deliberation day there were 550 people invited who should have represented all areas of the society. Only a bit more than 300 came. Those 2-4 most important issues of five categories were voted on using the prescribed multiple choice answers (whoever created those). This made the process highly manipulative, the participants were there just to discuss the topics using the materials provided by organizers and vote on predefined options. After the last vote the organizers were all rejoicing on Twitter and Facebook that the crowd was so "intelligent", since it didn't vote for direct election of the president, although the public opinion in Estonia is for direct election. If this is not an example of manipulation, it's at least clear indicator of the will to manipulate. But some people who were present actually say that it was good company and the discussions were led professionally, so it wasn't that bad either. === There is also a background story to this. There were anti-decitfulness protests in Estonia in November 2012 [4], which were sort of benevolently hijacked by certain group of intellectuals and political activists under the name of Charter 12 [5], which led to the crowdsourcing process under the presidental blessing. I was in touch with the organizers of the protests as well as later took part of some of the meetings to start the crowdsourcing process. Although I was a bit disappointed by the hijacking part, I didn't really make an issue of it, because the organizers of the protests didn't have better plan anyway. On the first meeting of the crowdsourcing initiative I proposed to have an intelligent discussion evironment with the process that would contribute to the quality of proposals and discussions. But the initiative group didn't care much about that. Instead they already had the proposals that they wanted to see handed to the parliament in the end and they wanted to create a process that would lead to the desired result. And they were more interested in numerically gathering more proposals (lot of participants as some kind of mandate) than enabling intelligent process. My argument was that if the process were designed well enough, the need for experts would be minimized and everybody would be in the same position to gather support for a proposal. We even managed to discuss Lessig's "Code is law" argument, but in the end that was just intellectual entertainment for them. Since the organizers had their own plan to influence the political regime, I dind't try to engage in the process later on. Some Estonian pirates who wanted to do that anyway, they were kept away from mailing lists etc, so I might have been blocked too, I'm not sure. The process was said to be open, transparent, grassroots etc, but it really was (and still is, because it hasn't ended) a regular manipulative political process. Anyway, I didn't want to undermine their project, I kept low profile and just criticized some parts of the process in discussions on social networks, university seminars etc. In the beginning we reported on the progress of People's Assembly in our Pirate Party channels, but after the 2nd phase ended, I stopped doing that. Some of our members have criticized the process in their blogs and suggested that in the end it is just poll of public opinion and as that even not a decent one. I'm also on a position that the process had very little to do with democracy, I cannot even agree that it was an experiment in direct or participative or deliberative democracy. Actually, they could have skipped all the phases from 1st to 4th and just organized a nice manipulative deliberation day. You should also know that most of the public criticism of the process is either that (a) it doesn't lead to the changes promised because the proposed changes suck and parliament won't agree with them anyway or (b) the crowdsourcing and Charter 12 hijacked and discharged the protests against our neo-liberal+conservative government which may have led to something better and besides that the fake crowdsourcing is actually election campaign for our social democrats. For me the main problem is the non-democratic nature of the process which noone outside the Pirate Party really seems to care about. And from that I also have some kind of ethical dilemma, if I should remain silent on the issue and therefore silently support the process (hoping that parliament will take some of the good proposals and implement them, for example lowering the threshold used in elections) or publicly condemn it (joining the conspiracy theorists and doomsdayers) with the chance of helping to stall the initative and ruin the chances of public support to whatever direct democracy initiatives that might appear in the future (we have two of them failed already, besides the one we're discussing now). So our People's Assembly is not totally evil, but nothing to be proud of either. That should be enough for the start. Anyway, some notes and trivia for the conlusion... * The Charter 12 people composed their manifest and vanished giving their place to some ad hoc group of activists who were hanging around at the president's place anyway. * The preparation of the crowdsourcing process by these activists was rather non-transparent. * Everything was done in a hurry and therefore resulted lots of problems, technical as well as substantial. * The rhetoric that it was first implementation and therefore had flaws and next time we do even better is not to be taken seriously, because there was no intention engage specialists from universities to make it better etc. * There was no proper definition of the process, it constantly changed, 4th and 5th phases were invented/decided ad hoc after the 1st phase was over. * Although the 1st phase of the process was quite open in a sense (you can exactly see who voted, argued, proposed what), rest of the process was rather untransparent and there was no way to participate in it. * There were also problems with AGPL licensed source code, which was not published because of "intensive development process" as they explained it. * One of our members (I think he's also reading this list) even used presidental reception to put on an artistic performance for writing citizen initiative into proper law to making our People's Assembly really binding and transparent. [6] [1] http://news.err.ee/Politics/f1fb8b53-d0ff-4582-99f0-83de232b9201 [2] https://github.com/cenotaph/rahvakogu [3] http://www.yrpri.org/home/world [4] http://news.err.ee/politics/64bff71c-3716-42a0-ad54-7724b8c43555 [5] http://www.opendemocracy.net/ahto-lobjakas/charter-12-estonias-stab-at-direc... [6] http://news.postimees.ee/1151090/surprise-guest-in-protest-action-first-lady... ____________________________________________________ Pirate Parties International - General Talk pp.international.general@lists.pirateweb.net http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general -- Eduardo -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys@stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE