ICTs and Constitution Building Tech Fair

On October 16, 2015 International IDEA, in partnership with the Google Docs and Google Ideas, organized a “Constitution Building Tech Fair” for technology entrepreneurs to present services, platforms and products that could help in a constitution making process, and have an exchange with leading constitutional experts and practitioners regarding currently unmet needs and challenges for which existing technologies could be adapted. This event was hosted by the National Constitutional Center, and curated by ICT4Peace.

The Constitution Building Tech Fair featured TED-talk-like keynote speeches on the challenges of constitution making today and how public domain information can be leveraged for participatory processes around governance. It furthermore featured “ignite talks” where tech entrepreneurs present their tools as they may relate to three interrelated issues in any given constitution building process: Access to information, transparency in the process, and encouraging public debate.

Recordings of all speeches are available on this page

Technology and Public Participation – What’s New?

 

In the first opening keynote, Sanjana Hattotuwa of the ICT4Peace Foundation speaks about the key characteristics and functionalities of the internet, social media and mobile technologies which have changed our world, and which offer promise for democratizing constitution building processes.

What’s changing?

Information flow is new.  The diffusion of information and events is far faster than before.  Information flow across countries, languages, identity groups is faster and more diffuse than ever before such that we are able to watch, from thousands of miles away, a plethora of events unfolding in real-time in our handheld devices.  However, information flows are still asymmetric with many biases we should be aware of.  For example, the world was instantly aware of terror attacks which took place in Paris on 13 November 2015, but far fewer were aware of near contemporaneous attacks in Turkey and Lebanon.

The power of new technology companies is new.  Growth of customer bases for instant messaging technologies such as WhatsApp is almost a vertical line, and is unprecedented for any commercial company in history.  In Myanmar, polls reveal that many citizens use Facebook as their entire online communications experience - for email, receiving news, advertising etc.   This puts unprecedented power into the hands of individuals and their companies.

Our ability to understand societies is new.  Social media data provide instant insights into national discussions, which allows us to seek answers to questions which we didn’t know existed. 

Mechanisms and Forms of Political Engagement are new.  Platforms such as Instagram provide discursive terrains for deep political engagement which are capable of appealing to the imaginations of millions of people.  If you are not connected to these platforms, you are not engaging with national exchanges of ideas and opinions occurring, on a continuous basis, around the future of their society.

The ubiquity of two-way communications is new.  Citizens are no longer passive recipients of the wisdom of elected representatives or a small cabal of media moguls, but now – whoever you are – you have the power to make your voice heard and influence others.

The reach of technology is new. In our lifetimes, everyone in our world will be addressable.  A dream for marketing companies, but also of key importance for participatory constitution building processes. It is possible to engage with perspectives at the granular level of the individual or with the overarching sentiments of society at large.

Key concerns

  • We have a glut of information but not a great deal more intelligence.  There are increasing difficulties in separating the signal from the noise
  • Filter bubbles: social media reinforces existing information networks, and risks contributing to polarization through the formation of echo chambers

The key new promise of technology for constitution building

If these new technologies are to truly bring us something “new” in regards to connecting citizens to decisions which affect their lives, we must go beyond merely informing the public and move into real empowerment through engagement with citizens’ own voices, interests, ideas and opinions as individuals and communities.

Name of the technology: Code for Philly, a Code for America brigade

Presenter: Dawn McDougall (@de_mcdougs on Twitter)

What is it for: Code for Philly is a volunteer-based group of civic technologists. They use technology as a means of solving social issues with technological solutions. They focus on the process in which the technology is built rather than the exact outcome. It is through this process that civic engagement is increased and principals of constitution-building practices are leveraged. Civic technology is important to see how people think about issues, get input and create a sense of purpose for a citizen, and develop citizen-led prototypes that may ultimately become adopted and implemented by government.

Where has it been used: Through the practice of civic tech many important projects have emerged from the community solving issues in the biking community, education, litter and trash, re-integration, mentorship, and more. These technologies play a critical role in rewriting social contracts in an urban context and improving how citizens interact with local government. Code for Philly is a local chapter based in Philadelphia, PA, US but these efforts have extended across the country and internationally, in Germany, Japan, Australia, Mexico and several countries in sub-saharan Africa.

Why is it important: This process is fundamental for making real change happen by engaging people in governance and decision-making via citizen-led and citizen-built technologies.

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: codeforphilly.org

Dawn McDougall from Code for Philly noted how civic tech and civic hacking is re-engineering the way governments work, and citizens interact with government. She spoke of changing government (for the better) from within as well as from outside through technology, and indeed, the use of technology to strengthen governance as an act of citizenship. Civic hacking, she noted was the process of rapid prototyping and rapid iteration of solutions to problems, including social problems. This required a lot of different skill sets, as well as the consciousness that collective intelligence and the confluence of ideas mattered more than individual expertise. Civic hacking was undergirded by open data, which she said needed to be machine readable, and free to use and access. This data, coupled with individuals – not all of whom needed to have any background in computer coding and technology – could result in innovative solutions to long-standing civic challenges. This process she also noted helped build trust in government, and also amongst the individuals involved in the process.

Questions that arose from the presentation were anchored to assumptions around the underlying technical and technological infrastructures that needed to be in place for the kind of civic hacking that was showcased, along with of course web, data and media literacy. Another question was around how civic hacking could be democratized, taking the principles of such engagement to the field and grassroots.

Name of the technology: Rooster Logic

Presenter: Suman Shakya (@sushak on Twitter)

What is it for: Rooster Logic is a Nepal-based ICT company focused on data mining, analysis and visualization through its REMO (Research and Monitoring) System, which is an android-smartphone enabled and tablet compatible tool that helps the user collect, aggregate, and report on relevant data. REMO helps both ascertain public opinion, and monitor changes of opinion as data might be further collected.

Where has it been used: Nepal

How has it been used: REMO was used, for instance, by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) to support national surveys on the constitution-building process, collecting and analyzing data from all 75 districts, and all 240 constituencies the Constituent Assembly members came from. It intends to collect data on a regular basis by creating 1000 “touch-points” throughout Nepal, which will provide data/information on a daily basis allowing their continuous integration and analysis.

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: roosterlogic.com

Suman Shakya from Nepal’s Rooster Logic spoke next, and highlighted the very different context in the Global South, where government was largely offline, and records were largely still retained and recorded in physical files. He flagged technology developed and deployed in the country around the constitution building process that was local-language based, designed for mobiles and resulted in a national survey of around 8,000 respondents in a record time. In what would be a leitmotif across many of the ignites, he noted that technology could help gauge the pulse of a country through active engagement with the people.

Questions that arose from Rooster Logic’s presentation were around (the lack of) political will and whether decision makers, even when confronted with public opinion, actually took account of what were often parochial and partisan policies.

Name of the technology: Local Interventions Group

Presenter: Ravi Phuyal

What is it for: Local Interventions Group is a Nepal-based ICT company that has created a platform – Janata Sambidhan or Peoples’ Constitution – that will allow users to upload the Constitution to leave comments, annotate specific sections and report their grievances online. The platform serves as an enabling tool for citizen feedback, bringing the constitution-making process straight to the citizens, and giving citizens a voice in the constitution-making process.

Where has it been used: Nepal

How has it been used: As part of Nepal’ first citizen feedback loop regarding the constitution-making process, Local Interventions Group has just concluded an innovative pilot where citizens of two different districts – in Mahottari and Tanahun – used their mobile phones as a tool to report their grievances at the local level, enabling them to amplify their voices in demand for better services from their government. This initiative was coordinated with the government at both the central and local levels, and used Ushahidi and mobile telephones as their implementation tools.

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: www.localinterventions.org.uk

Ravi Phuyal from Nepal’s Local Interventions Group spoke to much of the same points around the context that the country’s constitution was negotiated. In addition, he said technology encouraged trust in a constitution making process, and to this end, showcased the Hamro Constitution initiative that married web and mobile based deliberative platforms to channel feedback and opinion from those on the ground in the country.

Discussion points around this presentation were anchored to how to best harmonize varied ICT platforms, tools, apps and services that were operational in a CBP, and also how to best analyze sentiments that were in local languages.

Name of the technology: Souktel Digital Solutions

Presenter: Maggie McDonough

What is it for: Souktel designs and delivers custom mobile solutions that connect job seekers with employers, and help development implementers get information to & from the people they serve.

Where has it been used: Globally

How has it been used: On Election Day or at local meetings, Souktel’s digital solutions give a powerful voice to the voiceless. In the first elections after the Arab Spring, they helped ensure free and fair voting in Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt, through mobile exit polls and incident reporting. Souktel has also helped more than 250,000 Somalis get clear information about their new draft constitution, through audio content hotlines. Souktel’s solutions are used daily by USAID and UN projects across the globe, and by regional media networks in the Middle East and Africa.

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: souktel.org

Maggie McDonough from Souktel Digital Solutions spoke about how a few years ago, before the advent of modern 3G connectivity and smartphone telephony, they had engineered a process over basic SMS as a news and information service to help public engagement. She said ICT tools supporting political processes are not a panacea in and of themselves. She also noted that training is essential to properly use ICTs, along with outreach strategies to engage communities.

The central question around this presentation was around what some called ‘failing forward’ – a culture of openly sharing failure (around for example pilot projects) that was instructive, and helped others avoid the same mistakes around similar initiatives.

Name of the technology: Elva

Presenter: Mark van Embden Andres

What is it for: Elva is an internet platform that allows local organizations to design and implement data-driven civic advocacy campaigns. From survey design to data visualization, Elva presents users with an end-to-end solution for citizen action on local issues of concerns.

Where has it been used: Multiple countries / contexts

How has it been used: The Elva Platform combines a range of possible data collection tools for the design and dissemination of survey data, via SMS, Smartphone and web reports. These data can be collected from a virtually unlimited number of (citizen) respondents, from even the most remote and hard-to-reach areas. It uses interactive maps, dynamic graphs, data tables, at-a-glance overviews of key states, photo and video report on local needs and incidents. It has been used in a number of use cases ranging from public health to constitutional reform

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: elva.org

Mark van Embden Andres from Elva spoke to the importance of engagement, participation and data visualization, and began his Ignite presentation with a quote from the Sri Lankan Kumar Rupesinghe , that “information is useful if acted upon, and when the information so produced provides choices of action to policy makers”. He made the point that the very fact that ICT platforms were instantiated could lead to those who felt they were excluded from them to become, over time, spoilers in the larger process – obliquely strengthening what others before had said around the importance of public engagement. He also spoke about the dynamics of such public engagement, noting that in his opinion, payment to secure opinions from certain constituencies could work.

Related to some of the questions raised earlier, discussion around this presentation was anchored to how the democratization of analysis could occur, noting that visualizations and data analysis were ideal if done by communities, within their own community, for communities.

Name of the technology: Al Bawsala

Presenter: Ons Ben Abdelkarim

What is it for: Albawsala is an internet portal that assists citizens seeking political information, members of parliament looking to embrace democratic and consultative practices, and associations that seek to ensure the rights of citizens.

Where has it been used: Tunisia

How has it been used: Al Bawsala has three objectives: (1) To reposition citizens at the core of political action by offering them the means to stay updated with their elected representatives and by providing them ways to defend their fundamental rights. (2) To build relationships with elected representatives and decision-makers in order to work towards the establishment of good governance practices and political ethics. (3) To participate in defending the concepts of social progress and citizen empowerment. It uses three main programmatic strategies, including monitoring – observing legislative and executive proceedings, and promoting transparency, advocating – defending fundamental rights and individual freedoms, and empowering – assisting in the development of citizen initiatives.

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: www.albawsala.com

Ons Ben Abdelkarim from Tunisia’s Al Bawsala presented on how technology had helped shed the sunlight of scrutiny on the country’s legislative body / constituent assembly, and how technology around transparency had strengthened law-making.

Name of the technology: GovRight / Legislation Lab

Presenter: Tarik Nesh-Nash

What is it for: GovRight is an organization that provides citizens the opportunity to understand and actively contribute to legislative processes in their given country. Legislation Lab is an internet portal aimed at supporting authentic citizen engagement on legislation, and is supported by GovRight’s expertise in the field of online participation.

Where has it been used: Globally

How has it been used: GovRight has been used in a number of different but related fields. Access to Law: The publication of law documents and data in a format that is modern, accessible, and designed to be shared and integrated. Civic Education: Applying educational methodology and technology to create citizens that better understand the function and effects of the legislation in their country. Participation: Creating opportunities for citizens to voice their knowledge and opinions on the purpose and implementation of legislation.

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: govright.org

Tarik Nesh-Nash from GovRight began by noting that the constitution was the supreme pact between the citizens and the rulers. He noted that the current processes to author constitutions are anchored to a time where the horses were the main transportation vehicle. He then asked the participants to think of how, at a time when the internet, web and mobiles are almost ubiquitous, the processes to change or draft a constitution could also change? Who should write the constitution? How can citizens contribute to the draft? How can they add a new article? Change an existing article or remove one? He said in relation to these questions that the focus should not be on technology but rather on impact and how much ICTs contributed to authoring the constitution. He also cautioned that architects of ICT platforms and tools in a constitution building process (CBP) needed to remain neutral and impartial. Local partners needed to drive the agenda of the participation, and ICTs architects only needed to share the tools and best practices – differentiating between advocacy and participation, and stressing that citizen participation in a CBP shouldn’t be a technology project. He saw public participation as a combination of expertise from international development, technology, law, political sciences, social sciences and also media and anthropology.

Linked to the questions raised by the Al Bawsala presentation, some challenges raised in the discussion included how mainstream media could be engaged in the work that resided primarily in web, Internet and mobile domains or platforms. Another question, also applicable in other contexts, was around a self-effacing approach – how best to work oneself out of a CBP without creating systemic, institutional or individual dependencies that couldn’t be sustained over the longer-term.

Name of the technology: DemocracyOS

Presenter: Felipe Muñoz

What is it for: : DemocracyOS is a software that allows citizens to achieve a better understanding about a certain topic. Through a simple interface it enables anyone to get relevant information on a specific topic of debate, to build relevant arguments and debate, and to vote on a specific issue.

Where has it been used: DemocracyOS has been released in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, the United States, Spain, Hungary, France and many others places around the world. Being as it is, an open source software, it allows citizens worldwide to take the code from Github and readapt it to their necessities without any additional cost.

How has it been used: DemocracyOS evolved to become one of the most used platforms for collaborative decision-making and it got translated into 15 languages. It has been used, for instance, in Tunisia to debate its national constitution; by the Federal Government of Mexico to develop its open goverment policy; or the Congress of Buenos Aires becoming the first experience on digital democracy in the American continent. It has also been used by political activists and other stakeholders to build political parties such as the Partido de la Red, clubs, student unions, or government departments. DemocracyOS enables any large-scale discussion on any given topic.

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: democracyos.org

Felipe Muñoz from Argentina’s Democracia en Red also talked about citizen empowerment through technology, and the importance of diversity and plurality in civic tech initiatives. He also flagged the importance of engaging different stakeholders, such as minorities or academics, to increase the legitimacy of any discussion. Like others before he said ICTs in a CBP should not be just for technology enthusiasts but for all citizens, and emphasized the importance of a constitution building process that would include both technology and face-to-face interactions.

The key question as a result of this talk was how and if the systems and ideas proposed by Democracia en Red (i.e. web based as well as mobile enabled participatory and deliberative frameworks) could work in a context where there was a serious and perhaps growing democratic deficit, or in authoritarian regimes where the rule of law was suspect, with resulting challenges around independent institutions and the freedom of expression.

Name of the technology: Manthri

Presenter: Asoka Obeyesekere

What is it for: Manthri.lk is a pioneering trilingual website which, for the first time, profiles the actions and activities of each of the 225 Members of Parliament in Sri Lanka. As a MP monitoring scorecard, Manthri.lk recognizes the need for accountability between MPs and their electorates. In doing so, it seeks to promote transparency and good governance in order to improve Sri Lanka's democratic framework.

How has it been used: Manthri.lk ranks MP's on the basis of productive time spent, on a comprehensive collection of topics (42 in total) based on an objective and impartial coding system. Topics range from Foreign Affairs and Economic Development to Human Rights and Reconciliation. Manthri.lk collects its data from an in-depth analysis of the parliamentary Hansard, a verbatim record of parliamentary proceedings. The data that is captured is then entered into a detailed classification coding system. This system classifies the contributions and scores them against an objective concept of productive time spent in Parliament.

Hyperlink to video of Ignite presentation

More information: www.manthri.lk

Asoka Obeyesekere from Transparency International Sri Lanka spoke about a platform he had engineered called Manthri.lk, where aside from the technology he spoke about the importance of using the public as a reporting tool as the first validators around a process of consultation, where a smaller team could then go on to verify the most pertinent points. In what could be termed ‘bounded crowdsourcing’, this could mean that domain experts would engage with ideas and content, generated by a broader public, which had been up-voted by the community, ensuring only the most pertinent, popular or important points would be primarily taken up for consideration. This process, for instance around governance reform or anti-corruption, could generate greater buy in from the media, and also make such initiatives more relevant to those outside urban areas.

A challenge raised here was around how one could engineer CBPs that were hostage to the actions of spoilers, and how initiatives like Manthri.lk could be sustained over the long term, beyond what could be the original reasons or context for the instantiation of the project or platform.

Technology and Public Participation – What’s New?

 

In the first opening keynote, Sanjana Hattotuwa of the ICT4Peace Foundation speaks about the key characteristics and functionalities of the internet, social media and mobile technologies which have changed our world, and which offer promise for democratizing constitution building processes.

What’s changing?

Information flow is new.  The diffusion of information and events is far faster than before.  Information flow across countries, languages, identity groups is faster and more diffuse than ever before such that we are able to watch, from thousands of miles away, a plethora of events unfolding in real-time in our handheld devices.  However, information flows are still asymmetric with many biases we should be aware of.  For example, the world was instantly aware of terror attacks which took place in Paris on 13 November 2015, but far fewer were aware of near contemporaneous attacks in Turkey and Lebanon.

The power of new technology companies is new.  Growth of customer bases for instant messaging technologies such as WhatsApp is almost a vertical line, and is unprecedented for any commercial company in history.  In Myanmar, polls reveal that many citizens use Facebook as their entire online communications experience - for email, receiving news, advertising etc.   This puts unprecedented power into the hands of individuals and their companies.

Our ability to understand societies is new.  Social media data provide instant insights into national discussions, which allows us to seek answers to questions which we didn’t know existed. 

Mechanisms and Forms of Political Engagement are new.  Platforms such as Instagram provide discursive terrains for deep political engagement which are capable of appealing to the imaginations of millions of people.  If you are not connected to these platforms, you are not engaging with national exchanges of ideas and opinions occurring, on a continuous basis, around the future of their society.

The ubiquity of two-way communications is new.  Citizens are no longer passive recipients of the wisdom of elected representatives or a small cabal of media moguls, but now – whoever you are – you have the power to make your voice heard and influence others.

The reach of technology is new. In our lifetimes, everyone in our world will be addressable.  A dream for marketing companies, but also of key importance for participatory constitution building processes. It is possible to engage with perspectives at the granular level of the individual or with the overarching sentiments of society at large.

Key concerns

  • We have a glut of information but not a great deal more intelligence.  There are increasing difficulties in separating the signal from the noise
  • Filter bubbles: social media reinforces existing information networks, and risks contributing to polarization through the formation of echo chambers

The key new promise of technology for constitution building

If these new technologies are to truly bring us something “new” in regards to connecting citizens to decisions which affect their lives, we must go beyond merely informing the public and move into real empowerment through engagement with citizens’ own voices, interests, ideas and opinions as individuals and communities.

In his presentation, Ekuru Aukot focused on the challenges facing constitution drafters, based on his participation in the Kenyan constitutional reform process. He noted the importance of broadening the reach of such processes. Aukot indicated that this requires initial decisions on identifying the addressees of the constitution and determining who should participate, including in particular the youth. Nevertheless, while inclusivity is important, in practice, it is difficult to get people to participate in the process. As such, crucial civic, public and constitutional education should precede constitutional reform processes. In addition, people consider reform processes as instances where they could submit their ‘shopping list’. It is important to find ways of translating these lists into actionable constitutional provisions.

Overall, Aukot inquired how ICTs could play a role in reaching a broader audience and encouraging active and meaningful participation. Furthermore, constitutional implementation poses significant challenges. He asked whether ICTs could help in evaluating the implementation of constitutional provisions.Aukot's presentation provided the basis for subsequent discussions on the role of specific tools in enhancing the reach and quality of public participation. Overall, while optimistic, Aukot emphasized that the use of ICTs, just as constitution making processes themselves, should be designed with the specific context in mind. In particular, low levels of smart phone penetration, poor telecommunications infrastructure, and high illiteracy levels could hamper the deployment and success of ICTs in constitutional building and implementation processes.

In this video, Sean Deely - Deputy Director of the Postwar Reconstruction and Development Unit (PRDU), University of York, and formerly a Senior Recovery Advisor for the United Nations in Libya - chaired a session on how the Internet and social media could be harnessed to promote meaningful participation in constitution making. Deely started with a cautious note and flagged the importance of anchoring discussions on the potential of ICTs to revolutionize public participation in constitution building processes to their use and availability on the ground. Despite ambitious goals, the scale of challenges in transitional societies necessitates modesty in expectations. More often than not, the vast majority of the people do not always have the time, capacity and willingness to engage in-depth in constitution building processes. Nevertheless, they must be provided with information on the process and on how, if and when they so choose, they could provide input into the process.

In particular, violent conflicts, a breakdown of law and order, multiple and competing languages, low literacy levels, varied topography, poor transport and communications infrastructure, and democratic deficit pose significant challenges to the deployment of ICTs in constitution building processes. Deely broadly discussed the nature of public participation from the initial state of awareness creation about the process to civil education and consultations – mainly in the form of oral and written submissions, to opinion formation and aggregation. ICTs have potential benefits in each of these processes. Finally, Deely noted the importance of collaboration and parallel drafting processes where different actors produce alternative drafts that could be used to complement and to gauge official drafts.

Questions around Deely’s introductory remarks focused on what the ‘sweet spot’ could be, in various contexts, to make the larger population feel they were fully participating in a constitution building process. There were also questions on the potential issues of cybersecurity in the use of ICTs in constitution building processes, in a global context where information security and the assurance of identity or anonymity is increasingly at risk from state and non-state actors. The discussion triggered fundamental questions on what exactly was meant by ICTs, contexts, and how ICTs, at their most useful, were selected, crafted or adapted on the basis of real, contextual needs and not imposed based on pre-determined perceptions or interests.

Questions around Deely’s introductory remarks focused on what the ‘sweet spot’ could be, in various contexts, to make the larger population feel they were fully participating in a constitution building process. There were also questions on the potential issues of cybersecurity in the use of ICTs in constitution building processes, in a global context where information security and the assurance of identity or anonymity is increasingly at risk from state and non-state actors. The discussion triggered fundamental questions on what exactly was meant by ICTs, contexts, and how ICTs, at their most useful, were selected, crafted or adapted on the basis of real, contextual needs and not imposed based on pre-determined perceptions or interests.

In the final keynote address, Malachy Browne , from Reportedly, noted that it is now possible to mine data around public perceptions based on activities on social media. He gave fascinating insights into how social media, when carefully crafted around a specific goal in certain contexts, could generate actionable intelligence on what people are thinking, saying and doing. Constitutional drafters could rely on tools employed by journalists to capture developing stories in any given area and point of time to ascertain – close to real time - public sentiment around key issues or clauses and to proactively generate public engagement with constitutional reforms. Many people now naturally reside in social media platforms and it is important that constitutional drafters harvest public domain information, keeping in mind the limitations around demography, internet penetration and the use of ICTs in particular contexts.

Browne provided some examples on how deliberative and collaborative platforms engineered for the sharing of computer code and the media could be, with relative ease, adapted for constitution building or legislative reform processes. He nevertheless stressed that one cannot just retrofit technology and social media to complex social processes. It is important that individuals be organically part of these processes in using ICT tools to generate comprehensive, representative – including across regions and groups, and useful data.