Last Thursday, part of the Populism and Civic Engagement ‘PaCE’ team, including Nadja Nickel and Beth Wiltshire from The Democratic Society and Magnus Josefsson from the City of Reykjavik, Iceland presented the PaCE project as part of an interactive ‘Ideas Lab: Discovering innovative forms of citizens engagement against populism.’ at European Public Communication Conference EuroPCom 2019 in Brussels, Belgium.
The entire session was framed around the question ‘How can we make our democracy stronger?’ and it was introduced as a real time citizen participation simulation, with half of participants discovering the #HomeParliaments experience, with Pulse of Europe and half looking at ways to strengthen democracy and fight populism together with the PaCE team. Both of these projects are looking at the need for developing new methods for engaging citizens about decisions that affect their lives.
Many people across Europe feel they are not heard and they do not have an option to influence decisions that affect their lives, beyond the right to vote in an election. From populist parties that are challenging democracies and claiming to speak for the ‘ordinary people’ to the decline of traditional people’s parties and challenges around the forming of coalition governments – the argument was that democracy in Europe is floundering. Participants were asked to think about the need for establishing a close link with European citizens as well as countering and responding to populist movements, and how this must remain at the heart of the EU’s communication goals.
The part of the session run by PaCE was focused on answering the question “What needs to be done to ensure informed voting?”. Key part of the PaCE project is to understand how citizen’s attitudes towards democracy are shaped across Europe and how they arrive at a specific voting decision. Each person evaluates what information, gathered through e.g. media, social media, interpersonal relations or interactions with political representatives, they can trust before making a voting decision. Some only trust specific sources, some ensure they shape their own opinion through discussions, others combine different types of information.
Participants were split into five groups, with each one nominating a moderator, a notetaker, a timekeeper and a presenter. They were asked to come up with five ‘takeaways’ to present to the wider group at the end of the session, but were also asked to note down any other aspects of their conversation.
The discussion revolved around innovative new forms of citizen engagement to address populism in the EU, the need to include emotions & values in our communication, but also the responsibilities that come with citizenship.
Each team came back with different takeaways, although there were several themes:
Access to neutral, objective, non-partisan information was consistently ranked as a priority. However, participants acknowledged that voting decisions have emotional aspects that need to be addressed.
Tougher stance on disinformation and better prioritisation of transparency. This should include accountability measures and e-tool development for ‘fake news’ especially for politicians, as well as more strict rules on social media.
More frequent, meaningful interactions between citizens and politicians to create relationships and mutual understanding.
Focus on education – not only on specific political or citizenship subjects but also in areas such as critical thinking and media literacy.
PaCE is a Horizon 2020 project funded by the European Commision. For this project, nine different partners across Europe are aiming to understand aspects of populist movements, to build upon the lessons from positive examples of connecting with citizens, and through this play a part in constructing a firmer democratic and institutional foundation for the citizens of Europe.
Find out more about the project on Twitter: @popandce, or at www.popandce.eu Follow #DemocracyLab to join the discussion.
Annie Cook from The Democratic Society chats to John Alexander, the current Leader of Dundee City Council, about all things Dundee, participatory budgeting, the role of elected members, and Scotland.
John was part of Dundee Decides, Dundee’s participatory budgeting process that brought people together to decide how a £1.2 million budget across eight local community areas was spent by also using a digital tool for citizens to vote.
Listen to the podcast below or on Spotify via The Democratic Society…
Here are 7 things we learned about PB from Dundee’s John Alexander:
By involving more people in decisions through PB this means more people can understand how decisions are made.
A perk of the John’s job is seeing the benefit of decisions that are made. John says “everybody knows that not all decisions you make are positive ones sometimes necessary ones, but they’re not always well received.”
We also asked John about decision making and the role of elected members:
“I don’t think it’s as black and white, perhaps as it can be portrayed. I think it’s really good for people to get an understanding of how this process (participatory budgeting) works… I think there’s always a balance to be struck between making sure that counsellors are held to account for the decisions that we make, also giving people the opportunity to inform those decisions… So I think it’s not having your cake and eating it, but certainly being reflective and being flexible about who we make those decisions for and listening at the bottom line.”
Making things inclusive means taking the vote to people.
Dundee Decides meant bringing people together in deciding how a 1.2 million pound budget across eight local community areas, was spent. This was a process that ran on a very local level, where people could have input and see the benefits quite quickly of their decision.
In order to involve people John says “we had a widespread participation from skills from community groups, and we didn’t just expect people to log on to the website. We took the vote to people….It was a hugely successful exercise. Over 11,000 people participated in the actual vote and exercise of Dundee Decides, which was more than 10% of those eligible eligible to vote. We made sure that it was as inclusive as possible. So the limit, I suppose… was that you had to be over the age of 11. So being quite liberal and making sure young people had the opportunity to fit in as well.”
PB is worth it.
“I think PB is fantastic. I really wish we had been doing it for a lot longer”
After having done a process with a 1.2 million pound budget, John sees a huge benefit in involving people in decision making.
“A decade ago, we could have been having a discussion about how we deliver services, not just how we deliver them individually. Projects have a capital nature, we could be looking at revenue funding, etc. So, I think it would have completely changed the dynamic in the way that cities work more generally because, you know…it’s power to the people, isn’t it? And I don’t think anybody could see that as a bad thing.”
Getting different people to work together .
The council’s efforts to engage with communities involved people from across the local authority, who would not normally work together. This included professions, such as engineers and others from different services departments. John said it helped people with different backgrounds in the council to work together and listen to different points of view.
Money matters but not for the reason you might think…
“You get what you put in is what I would say, we put in quite a sizable budget at you know, in the current financial climate particularly. And that was deliberate because in order to make it…real in order to get people to buy in, they need to believe that there’s real impetus behind it…And they have an ability to use some significant funds to change their community. Now, if what you do is a token gesture of £10,000, it’s not going to go very far. It’s not going to tell about multiple projects across the world. And so I think you’ve got to mean it, it’s kind of bottom line for me.”
While some councillors may worry about PB John says he doesn’t see how it could negatively affect elected members. “we should never be in this kind of mental state of thinking that we’ve got all the solutions and all the answers because we don’t.”
“For all democrats, there is no better argument for PB and enhancing democracy because that’s what you’re doing and councillors will form views, they’ll have their opinions and that’s all well and good. But, you know, power to the people… I don’t think any of us should lose perspective at the fact that actually the power does lie with people we’re elected for a set period of time… If we don’t deliver, then we’ll be out on our backsides. And that’s right but people should have the ability to formulate plans for their own local areas. Because no matter what councillor, you speak to what party they are from, they do not speak for every single constituent. They represent both their own views the views of their party in which they are elected on and on a subset of their constituents, I’m very conscious that I represent- if you’re considering how many people vote for me over the potential electorate- less than 10% of the electorate voted for me, of those that participated”
There is a real value in engaging with people on their own terms on a daily basis, on projects they are really passionate about. John argues “there is so much to be gained from going out and speaking to people and finding out what their challenges are and ideas, actually, because we should never be in this kind of mental state of thinking that we’ve got all the solutions and all the answers because we don’t…The end result is a more engaged population, who respects what you’ve done, who is engaged in a process of participation, and ultimately, you’ve improved the community in one way, shape or form from the projects that have been voted for. So, I see far more positives than I do pitfalls, from a counsillor perspective”
7.) Jonn says people need ‘guts’ to make PB a mainstream activity for Scottish democracy
“People can see it as passing on potential decisions, and that’s never what it is about. It’s about enhancing democracy, enhancing people’s input. One of the kickbacks I’ve heard from colleagues that I’ve spoken to, is about how do we do this when our budgets are already tight? And what I’ve said to them is just what I would say to you right now is if you are absolutely engaged and participate in the budget, if you believe it, then you just make it work. You make a decision, you do it. There is no kind of grey space, if you are really passionate about delivering something, you’ll find a way of delivering it. And that’s how we’ve delivered projects like the VNA. We didn’t have all the money when we came up with the idea, but we delivered it…if there’s a will there’s a way!”
We’re starting a semi-regular slot where Demsockers (our staff) review books they’ve recently read. To start, Andrew Brightwell talks about How Democracy Ends, by David Runciman.
If you’re looking for a light spot of summer/autumn reading, this book by the Director of POLIS at Cambridge University might not make it to the top of your list, starting as it does with the observation that democracy will end, and its demise might be rather closer than we might hope.
But if this doesn’t leave you spitting out your Pina Colada and rifling through your hotel’s battered paperbacks for an alternative, you’ll find a fascinating, accessible introduction to many of the most interesting existential questions our democracies face.
Unlike a slew of editorials, books and other media calling time on democracy, Runciman steers clear of hyperbole and melodrama. The notion that tanks will roll on to the manicured lawns of the White House, trundle up Downing Street, or burst the gates of the Elysees Palace, is quickly dismissed. Instead, he suggests, the risks to democracy – at least for wealthy nations, where coups are vanishingly unlikely – is that democracy is deemed unfit for the challenges ahead.
As the author points out, democracy is more likely threatened by our technological revolution and, and the potential for existential catastrophe. Indeed, while the threat of coup d’etat may have withered, the good times our liberal democracies have enjoyed are unlikely to be repeated either.
A historian of political thought, he is skilled at introducing us to the development of our democracies, their weaknesses and to a range of academic responses and critiques. These include an insightful exploration of a contemporary proposal for ‘epistocracy’, rule by the experts, which was made into a long read for The Guardian.
Gideon Rachman, reviewing the book for the Financial Times, suggests that it’s probably best to see Runciman’s work as a thought experiment. In fact, it’s part of a growing body of work that the writer is amassing, which explores what might – perhaps should – happen to our democracies. And some of Runciman’s most interesting suggestions are to be found outside this work, in particular in a series of lectures he has delivered since its publication – which are available as part of his Talking Politics Podcast. These include the startling, but not entirely serious suggestion that we should lower the voting age to six – and Runciman’s use of the Copernican Principle to underline how fleeting our current form of representative democracy might prove to be.
It makes How Democracy Ends a fascinating read, and a great introduction to the problems contemporary representative democracy face, but it is only the start of a longer journey – a journey we’re all on.
With partners from Jam and Justice, we’ve recently published
a short final report about our Space in Common project. This project was about
building relationships and exploring collaboration between different groups
with a stake in ‘spatial planning’ decisions about how Greater Manchester takes
shape. And exploring how these decisions could be approached in a more
collaborative and constructive way.
What was Space in Common?
Local authorities across England are required to set out long-term plans for how their area will take shape, which inform what can be built where – referred to as ‘spatial planning’. In October 2016 a draft ‘Greater Manchester Spatial Framework’ attracted considerable opposition, from resident groups and campaigners, objecting to plans to build on the greenbelt. In response to this recent history, and leading up of a planned re-draft, Space in Common was set-up.
The project aimed to build relationships between different
people who were trying to
influence spatial planning decisions in Greater Manchester. And help people to learn more about each other’s perspectives,
identify points of common ground, and explore possibilities for collaboration.
Through this process, we
also hoped to learn how to build more constructive discussion and
decision-making about spatial plans.
We decided to run four workshops with participants from a
range of local groups with an active interest in how these decisions are made.. Through a series of workshops, we:
helped the group
share their previous experiences and ambitions;
examined how planning
currently works with a planner from a local council;
learnt about the
alternative approach built by the community network ‘Just Space’ in London; and
possibilities for collaboration in Greater Manchester
Our Final Report
With our partners, we’ve now
created a short report summarising this project and what was learnt. This
evaluates what the workshops were able to achieve, and shares some of what was
learnt from discussions between participants.
Through the course of these workshops we heard how communities feel under threat from a system that is hard to understand, and where communities can only respond once plans are already drawn up. There are also a lack of opportunities for people with different views to come together and discuss how they feel. And we heard how local authorities lack the resources to reach out and engage effectively and can feel overwhelmed by the weight of public opposition when plans are consulted on. And at the same time feel under threat from housing developers who have disproportionately greater resources to dedicate to contesting their decisions.
How the system can improve
But we also saw glimpses of how things could work better.
The experiences of Just Space, show what collaboration can achieve. This
brought together and empowered a range of London community-based groups with
an interest in decisions about how their city takes shape.
Rather than just responding to consultations these groups have set out their own vision for the development of their city, and are bringing new voices into spatial planning decisions. You can read more about the work of Just Space work through this blog post. And there are promising signs of collaboration and empowerment in Manchester, where greenbelt campaigners are cascading a growing understanding of spatial planning from one person to the next.
Jam and Justice
Space in Common was part of a
wider Jam and Justice programme of action and research Local academics
partnered with a range of citizens and practitioners on 10 projects,
that developed creative responses to urban challenges, such as care
provision, energy, and young people’s democratic participation.
Space in Common was delivered in partnership between a three-person team from Jam and Justice’s ‘Action Research Collective’ and Demsoc. The idea
for the project came from discussions of the Action Research Collective.
We are really grateful to Adrian Ball, Beth Perry, and Bert Russell from the Action
Research Collective for
all their work, and to all the speakers who gave their
time to these workshops, and participants
for sharing their experiences, energy and ideas.
If you are interested
in this topic and would like to learn more about this project please contact
Mat on firstname.lastname@example.org.
Plans for a two-year national deliberation, in which citizens are asked to shape the UK’s democratic future, have been announced.
Advocated by Graham Allen, led by the Centre for British Politics and Government, King’s College London, and backed by a high-profile group of MPs, The Citizens’ Convention aims to deliver a new ‘partnership between elected representatives and citizens’. The team supporting the Conventions’ plans includes the King’s Policy Institute at King’s College London, Involve and us, The Democratic Society!
A process for democratic change
The Convention proposes starting with a national conversation on the future of UK democracy, open to all citizens in the UK, to establish themes and ideas for a series of citizens’ assembly-style events to then consider.
Randomly selected citizens, convened to be demographically representative of the UK population, will then work together “to learn, deliberate and make decisions on how democracy can be deepened and improved.”
Everything is up for grabs
While citizens will be at the driving seat of any recommendations the convention makes, a Parliamentary leaders group has set areas of interest for the convention. This includes powers and membership of the House of Lords, the voting systems we use, and how politics should be paid for – but leaves open any proposals or changes citizens want to see.
The Parliamentary Leaders Group of MPs includes Tom Watson MP, David Davis MP, Dominic Grieve MP, Sir Vince Cable and Caroline Lucas. Importantly, Graham Allen says in the Independent: “The MPs have signed a pledge to seek manifesto commitments from their parties that parliament will receive and then decide upon the recommendations and Bills proposed by the Citizens’ Convention.”
What effect is technology having on democracy in Europe?
Against the background of social and technological change, how can democracy in Europe be made more responsive?
Are there ways in which technology can revitalise democracy in Europe?
Chatham House are very keen to develop answers to these research questions in a crowd-sourced and collaborative fashion. Given our expertise in and commitment to improving participatory democracy, we were invited to initially share our thoughts and, subsequently, lead the writing of a response to the question 2:
‘Against the background of social and technological change, how can democracy in Europe be made more responsive?’.
What is the problem?
In keeping with the idea of collaborative research, we pulled together a problem statement of the current challenges and broad landscape drawing upon prior submissions received in the first phase as well as our own experience, thoughts, and views. You can read it on the Chatham House website.
We believe that profound technological and social changes in recent decades, together with globalisation, have enabled citizens to self-organise like never before. At the same time, however, this enormous progress has been accompanied by a growth in mass disinformation and distrust in government institutions.
Indeed, there is no doubt that representative democratic systems are floundering the world over. Against this backdrop, there is a growing movement for more experiments in direct democracy. But while this is welcome, what confidence can we have that these experiments will always work – or successfully mitigate against democratic deficits – if these experiments rely on existing network technologies that in some cases themselves stand accused of reinforcing or exacerbating existing inequalities or creating new ones?
Others are looking to participatory and deliberative democracy as a way to make existing decision-making more consensual, more meaningful and well-informed. For example, with our partners mySociety and funder Luminate, Demsoc is involved in Public Square. This programme is exploring how citizens can be more meaningfully involved in decision making in a handful of councils in the UK.
Does this mean democracy is doomed? Absolutely not! But if you’re interested in finding out more about our response, please visit the Chatham House website. And while you’re at it, we’d love to hear your thoughts on the topic. Only have a spare three minutes? Watch Demsoc’s president, Anthony Zacharzewski, discuss our thinking on European democracy and technological change at the Chatham House London conference in June.
Camden Council’s Citizens’ Assembly on “how the council and the people of Camden can help limit the impact of climate change whilst protecting and enhancing our natural environment” was completed last week.
It becomes the first Citizens’ Assembly to be carried out on climate crisis by a local authority – but is unlikely to be the last. A number of councils are either considering assemblies for a range of issues, or already in the process of developing their own.
We’re delighted to tell you about Demsoc’s involvement in the UK Government’s Innovation in Democracy Programme.
We will be working with three areas in the planning, design and delivery of Area Democracy Forums – the programme’s name for mini-public deliberative democracy events similar to citizens’ assemblies.
The Innovation in Democracy Programme was announced last year by the UK Government – Demsoc is are part of a partnership delivery team including Involve, mySociety and the RSA.
We have already started work with the Greater Cambridge Partnership, which recently announced its plans for a Citizens’ Assembly on traffic congestion in Cambridge, and is being led by our colleagues at Involve.
The Innovation in Democracy programme is being led by two government departments, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. You can see more about the programme on the Government’s website, and on Involve’s website.
Tomorrow, voters in the UK will go to the polls to elect new members of the European Parliament. Unlike most other votes held in England, Wales and Scotland, these elections will use a system called D’Hondt to decide how seats are won.
Developed by a Belgian lawyer and mathematician, Victor D’Hondt, it’s one way of ensuring that seats are awarded to parties proportionately. D’Hondt does this with a complicated system of counting that penalises parties that have already won seats, so other parties or independent candidates have a chance of winning seats.
At Demsoc, a big part of what we do is explain how democratic decision making works. So, for a bit of fun, we’ve had a crack at explaining D’Hondt. It’s not easy!
But D’Hondt worry
What makes the D’Hondt system interesting, however, is that from a voter’s perspective, it’s really easy to vote.
Unlike some other proportional systems, where you may have to indicate which candidate or party you prefer by voting several times, with D’Hondt you vote once. It’s what happens after you vote that’s a bit more complicated.
Nonetheless, learning how it works is a good idea. If you are a voter, and you’re trying to work out who to vote for, you’re going to want to know how likely it is that your chosen candidate or party will win a seat.
How it works
So here are some slides we’ve prepared that take you through the nuts and bolts of the D’Hondt system.
D’Hondt stop now
Just so you know, this is the system that’s used in Great Britain, but not in Northern Ireland – which uses a different voting system. This guide explains more.
Elsewhere, EU elections are different too – the rules only state that a form of proportional representation must be used. For an overview of some of the differences across the EU, you could look at this European Parliament PDF – but be warned: it’s also a bit complicated!
Oh yeah… D’Hondt forget to vote! And sorry about all the terrible puns!
As part of our work developing the use of digital participatory budgeting (PB) in Scotland, Demsoc has been sharing inspiring examples of how digital tools have been used for PB around the world. This time we’re looking at Reykjavik’s long-standing PB process. This blog was written with the help of Róbert Bjarnason, who gave us a short interview about Reykjavik’s PB process. Róbert is Chief Exec of Citizens Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation, whose technology has been used in this process. Citizens Foundation are also one of the providers we’ve worked with to support digital PB in Scotland.
Why read this post?
Are you interested in:
Using Participatory Budgeting as a way to give citizens power to change what happens on their doorstep?
Using digital to make it easy to get involved in political decision making?
The promotion of digital PB and dealing with security of voting?
When the city of Reykjavik introduced Participatory Budgeting it was an attempt to do politics differently: giving citizens tangible power to make things happen on their doorstep; and turning participation from something onerous into something easy, or even fun.
This blogpost shows how they did it. It also shows some of the key considerations needed for digitally enabled PB to work, particularly around promotion and security. Lastly, we look at how the PB process fits into other forms of online democracy in the city.
The history of participatory budgeting in Reykjavik
After the Icelandic financial crisis there was huge distrust in Icelandic politics. The Citizens Foundation was set up as a not-for-profit civic tech provider in response. The Foundation developed a platform that allows parties standing in a forthcoming election to crowdsource policy ideas. The Best Party, set up as a satirical response to Iceland’s crisis of confidence in its traditional politics, really took this up and thousands of people engaged with the opportunity. In elections to Reykjavik’s city government, The Best Party won enough seats to form a coalition government and continued to look to the public for direction on policy making. It was in this context that participatory budgeting was first set up in Reykjavik in 2011. According to Róbert Bjarnason of the Citizens Foundation, a key motivation for introducing participatory budgeting was to build a different way for politics to be done, where engagement was more fun, and where the effects of taking part were really tangible to citizens. But it was also a response to substantial cuts to spending that followed the economic crisis that focused the reduced resources on the best uses.
The digital PB process in Reykjavik
Roughly 6% of Reykjavik’s city council investment budget of €3.5 millions is subject to participatory budgeting each year. This is split between the city’s 10 districts. The PB process is based online, with offline activities feeding into the online idea generation and deliberation.
Stage one: generating ideas
Participants submit ideas for how one of the city’s ten neighbourhoods can be improved on the open-source online platform, Your Priorities, developed by Citizens Foundation. They just need to register with Facebook Connect or an email and password to do so. They are then asked for a short description, an image, and to click on a map to share their proposal’s location. You can also comment on other people’s ideas, by adding points for, or against the proposal. You can express support by ‘liking’ an idea, and can up-vote or down-vote other people’s comments. This idea generation stage lasts for about a month.
Stage two: assessment
Following the completion of this stage, the city’s construction board judges how much they will cost. Ideas that are beyond the scope of the process are rejected. Where ideas are not taken forward, participants are emailed to tell them why.
Stage three: voting online
Voters have the chance to choose which of the ten districts they will vote in, and they then decide which projects they think their district’s budget should be spent on. Anyone 15 and over can vote, two years younger than the voting age ceiling applied in other Icelandic elections. To cast their vote, residents divide the available budget up between their favourite projects. This encourages people to think about trade-offs and get the best value for money. It’s also designed to be a fun way of casting a vote.
Voters are also able to select one project as their favourite, and therefore give it double the vote. Voters aren’t given a lot of information about projects, but instead the focus has been on making it easy for voters to express their preference. Róbert told us that the process of casting a vote takes on average 4.3 minutes. Voters can also go back and change their vote at any time during the voting period. Every time a voter clicks on the site ideas are presented in a random order to protect against bias. The software used for the vote is called Open Active Voting, which is also open source. The votes are announced through a voting ceremony, with participants emailed to share the results.
Each year about 100 – 120 ideas are implemented. Róbert suggested that having a large number of proposals involved could help to increase the chance of a range of different interests getting their projects implemented.
Róbert said that you can roughly predict how many people will take part in a the PB process by how much is put into the promotion. Reykjavik has made a conscious effort to invest in using professional marketing companies and a multi-channel marketing campaign to make people aware of the PB process. This has included Google and Facebook ads, and adverts on radio and TV. Comedians have been hired as the face of the process.
The city also runs face-to-face meetings. Ideas put forward here are fed directly into the online process. And they conduct outreach in places like shopping malls, older people’s homes, and schools. Using tablets makes it easy for such outreach to feed straight into the online process.
Security is an important consideration for online PB, ensuring that only Reykjavik residents get a vote, and that people aren’t getting more than one vote. This has become even more important over time as concerns about foreign interference have grown around the world. It’s also important that processes are protected from the possibility of corruption – particularly when sizeable budgets are involved.
To make it easier to take part, the ideas generation stage just uses an email and password or Facebook Connect, but stronger security is introduced at the voting stage. The Icelandic National Registry operates a single sign-on system, using citizens’ phones, which is used for a variety of services, including banking. This system is used to verify voters within the PB process.
In offline votes different people would perform different roles to protect against fraud. This principle is emulated in Reykjavik’s online vote. Citizens Foundation created the code used, but they do not have access to data about how people have voted. The election itself is operated by the City of Reykjavik. The city’s Internal Audit monitors the election, and there is also a security audit each year, before, during and after the vote.
Online democracy in Reykjavik
The online PB process, branded as ‘My Neighbourhood’, is hosted on a site called ‘Better Reykjavik’. This site, built using the Your Priorities software, brings together a range of ways that citizens can have their voice heard in the city.
One part of Better Reykjavik is ‘My voice at the city council’ which allows citizens to make suggestions online about how their city can be improved. These ideas can be commented on and voted up or down by other participants on the site. Every month the top five ideas, and the top idea in each category, are discussed in the appropriate standing committee within the council. Their response is published on the site.
In 2017 the city also experimented with using this site to crowdsource ideas for their education policy over two stages.
As such, Better Reykjavik provides an online location where a number of opportunities are brought together. There has also been some movement between these, for instance ideas first submitted to the PB process have been moved into the ongoing ideation section.
What has been achieved?
In Reykjavik the annual PB process has been able to attract participation of around 12.5% of the city’s population. PB can act as a gateway for bringing citizens and bureaucracies together. It has now become something demanded by voters, and which politicians also really like. At time of writing (April 2019) the city has had just completed its 8th annual idea generation, with around 39,000 people visiting Better Reykjavik (approximately 37% of the voting population) and 5,800 logging in to take part.
The population of Reykjavik makes up about 35% of Iceland’s population. Since being introduced to the capital, PB has subsequently spread to other smaller municipalities.
Find out more
Reykjavik’s PB process shows how online PB can give citizens an easy way to have real power, which they can see working. It also shows how this can be built into a wider array of online opportunities for participation. In creating this accessible front-end, there is lots of work that has to be put in behind the scenes – some of these considerations have been shown here. If you want to know about this case study, or the topic in general, you can contact Róbert via the Citizens Foundation website, or speak to us at: Scotland@demsoc.org.