Zmiany w „The Political Life Cycle of Digital Participation Platforms”
Treść (English)
-<xml><dl class="decidim_awesome-custom_fields" data-generator="decidim_awesome" data-version="0.11.3">-<dt name="text-1714747956243-0">Hypothesis</dt>-<dd id="text-1714747956243-0" name="text"><div>The governance of digital participation platforms is deeply shaped by political cycles, with ruling parties designing platforms that reflect their participatory values, while subsequent administrations may either preserve, repurpose, or dismantle these infrastructures. The durability and neutrality of these platforms depend on institutional safeguards, legal frameworks, and the role of platform providers in ensuring the continuity of citizen participation records.</div></dd>-<dt name="textarea-1714747947319-0">Context</dt>-<dd id="textarea-1714747947319-0" name="textarea"><div>Digital participation platforms are often launched under specific political administrations as tools to enhance citizen engagement. However, they are not neutral infrastructures; their design reflects the political ideology and governance approach of the party in power. As seen in Barcelona and Madrid, platforms like Decidim and Consul evolved under progressive administrations but were later modified, repurposed, or discontinued when political control shifted. The case of Madrid’s Consul, initially designed by Más Madrid and later inherited by a conservative administration, illustrates how political transitions impact the governance, use, and even ideological orientation of digital participation tools. In other cases, such as various regional and municipal governments, platforms have been unplugged entirely.--This raises fundamental questions about the institutionalization of digital participation, the rights of citizens to have their contributions preserved, and the role of platform providers in ensuring democratic continuity. The hypothesis explores whether legal frameworks, technological safeguards, or governance mechanisms can protect participatory processes from political erasure or manipulation.</div></dd>-<dt name="textarea-1714747993772-0">Case Studies/Examples:</dt>-<dd id="textarea-1714747993772-0" name="textarea"><div>The research will examine several cases where digital participation platforms have undergone transformations due to political shifts, providing a comparative perspective on governance models, institutional resilience, and the risks of manipulation or deletion.-The Consul platform in Madrid serves as a key example, initially designed by Más Madrid as a progressive participatory infrastructure and later inherited by a conservative administration. The study will analyze how the platform’s governance, accessibility, and participatory functions evolved after the political transition and whether it retained its original democratic intent or was altered to fit new political priorities.-The Decidim platform in Barcelona represents another critical case, where the city’s participatory model has remained relatively stable but has undergone modifications based on different governing coalitions. The study will assess whether its open-source nature and participatory governance model have ensured continuity despite political changes or whether vulnerabilities have emerged that could threaten its long-term sustainability.-Beyond Spain, other European cases will be examined, such as instances where regional and municipal governments have discontinued or repurposed participatory platforms, raising concerns about data deletion and loss of participatory rights. The study will explore cases from France, Italy, and Germany where participatory infrastructures were abandoned or restructured after elections.-The research will also investigate efforts to institutionalize digital participation in Estonia’s e-governance system, where citizen participation is embedded in a long-term digital infrastructure, offering a potential model for platform resilience beyond electoral cycles. Additionally, insights from the Taiwanese vTaiwan platform and its ability to maintain participatory governance mechanisms under different political administrations will be considered.-</div></dd>-<dt name="text-1718180319686-0">Primary Question: State the main question your hypothesis aims to answer</dt>-<dd id="text-1718180319686-0" name="text"><div>The primary question is how political transitions impact the governance, continuity, and integrity of digital participation platforms. This includes examining how political parties design long-term institutional digital infrastructures when in power and how these infrastructures are preserved or altered by successor administrations. Additional questions focus on identifying risks of political manipulation, data erasure, or ideological repurposing of participatory platforms, exploring legal mechanisms or contractual agreements that could ensure citizen participation records are safeguarded, and assessing the role of platform providers in ensuring the neutrality, security, and longevity of digital participation infrastructures.</div></dd>-<dt name="textarea-1718180392889-0">Assumptions</dt>-<dd id="textarea-1718180392889-0" name="textarea"><div>Digital participation platforms are political artifacts that reflect the governance philosophy of the ruling administration. Political transitions directly influence whether digital participation infrastructures are maintained, altered, or dismantled. Citizens’ participation rights should include the preservation of their contributions, preventing deletion or manipulation. The lack of legal protections for digital participation platforms allows their discontinuation or ideological repurposing.-</div></dd>-<dt name="textarea-1714747978532-0">Collaboration</dt>-<dd id="textarea-1714747978532-0" name="textarea"><div>How can we prevent digital participation infrastructures from being politicized or dismantled after political transitions?-Should digital participation records be treated as public democratic assets protected by law?-What safeguards should be put in place to prevent future governments from erasing or manipulating past participation?-Contributions from legal experts, political scientists, civic technologists, and democracy practitioners are welcome.-</div></dd>-<dt name="textarea-1714748028099-0">Methods</dt>-<dd id="textarea-1714748028099-0" name="textarea"><div>A multi-method approach combining legal, political, and technological analyses, qualitative interviews, and participatory design workshops will explore governance strategies for long-term participatory infrastructures.-Comparative case studies of political transitions in digital participation will be conducted, examining cities and regions where participatory platforms have been altered or dismantled after elections, including Madrid (Consul), Barcelona (Decidim), and other European cities where platforms were unplugged or restructured. A policy analysis will assess whether existing legal frameworks protect digital participation infrastructures.-Interviews and focus groups will be conducted with former and current government officials, digital participation administrators, platform providers, and civil society organizations. These will be complemented by discussions with citizen users of participation platforms to understand their perceptions of political shifts and risks to their participation data.-A legal and governance framework analysis will review participation laws to assess whether existing legal frameworks include provisions for digital participation preservation. This will be accompanied by an examination of the role of platform providers in ensuring data protection and institutional continuity.-Co-creation workshops for policy and governance solutions will bring together policymakers, technologists, and citizens to develop governance mechanisms that ensure digital participation continuity across political cycles. The workshops will generate a prototype "Digital Participation Protection Charter", proposing legal clauses, institutional safeguards, and technological solutions to prevent manipulation or deletion of participatory records.-A gamified scenario planning exercise will simulate different political transition scenarios where participants take on roles of various political actors and engage in decision-making on whether to maintain, modify, or delete a participatory platform after a political transition. The exercise will provide insights into strategic and ethical decision-making processes regarding digital participation continuity.-</div></dd>-<dt name="textarea-1718180478189-0">Expected Outcomes: Describe the expected results if the hypothesis is correct.</dt>-<dd id="textarea-1718180478189-0" name="textarea"><div>The study will develop a typology of political approaches to digital participation governance, identifying patterns in how parties build, dismantle, or repurpose digital participation infrastructures. It will generate insights into how citizens’ participation data is managed, preserved, or erased in different governance transitions. A comparative analysis of legal protections for digital participation platforms will highlight gaps and best practices across different regions.-Recommendations for legal safeguards will be proposed, including specific clauses in participation laws that guarantee the preservation of votes, proposals, comments, and interactions in deliberative platforms. Policy proposals will define the role of platform providers in maintaining transparency and accountability in digital participation tools.-A Digital Participation Protection Charter will be drafted, outlining ethical and legal guidelines for ensuring the continuity, neutrality, and security of participatory infrastructures across political transitions. A framework for responsible decommissioning of digital participation platforms will be developed, ensuring that, even if platforms are retired, participatory data and citizen contributions are archived in a transparent and publicly accessible manner.</div></dd>-</dl></xml>- +<xml>
- + <dl class="decidim_awesome-custom_fields" data-generator="decidim_awesome" data-version="0.11.3">
- + <dt name="text-1714747956243-0">Hypothesis</dt>
- + <dd id="text-1714747956243-0" name="text">
- + <div>
- + <ul>
- + <li>The governance of digital participation platforms is deeply shaped by political cycles, with ruling parties designing platforms that reflect their participatory values, while subsequent administrations may either preserve, repurpose, or dismantle these infrastructures.</li>
- + <li>The durability and neutrality of these platforms depend on:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Institutional safeguards</li>
- + <li>Legal frameworks</li>
- + <li>The role of platform providers in ensuring the continuity of citizen participation records</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + </ul>
- + </div>
- + </dd>
- +
- + <dt name="textarea-1714747947319-0">Context</dt>
- + <dd id="textarea-1714747947319-0" name="textarea">
- + <div>
- + <ul>
- + <li>Digital participation platforms are often launched under specific political administrations as tools to enhance citizen engagement.</li>
- + <li>These platforms are not neutral infrastructures; their design reflects the political ideology and governance approach of the party in power.</li>
- + <li>Examples from Barcelona and Madrid:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Platforms like Decidim and Consul evolved under progressive administrations but were later modified, repurposed, or discontinued when political control shifted.</li>
- + <li>Madrid’s Consul, initially designed by Más Madrid, was inherited by a conservative administration, illustrating how political transitions impact governance, use, and ideological orientation.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li>In other cases, such as various regional and municipal governments, platforms have been unplugged entirely.</li>
- + <li>Key questions raised:
- + <ul>
- + <li>How can digital participation be institutionalized?</li>
- + <li>What are the rights of citizens to have their contributions preserved?</li>
- + <li>What is the role of platform providers in ensuring democratic continuity?</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li>The hypothesis explores whether legal frameworks, technological safeguards, or governance mechanisms can protect participatory processes from political erasure or manipulation.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </div>
- + </dd>
- +
- + <dt name="textarea-1714747993772-0">Case Studies/Examples:</dt>
- + <dd id="textarea-1714747993772-0" name="textarea">
- + <div>
- + <ul>
- + <li>The research will examine several cases where digital participation platforms have undergone transformations due to political shifts, providing a comparative perspective on:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Governance models</li>
- + <li>Institutional resilience</li>
- + <li>Risks of manipulation or deletion</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li>Key examples:
- + <ul>
- + <li><strong>Consul platform in Madrid</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Initially designed by Más Madrid as a progressive participatory infrastructure.</li>
- + <li>Later inherited by a conservative administration.</li>
- + <li>Analysis will focus on how governance, accessibility, and participatory functions evolved post-transition and whether it retained its original democratic intent or was altered.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Decidim platform in Barcelona</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Represents a relatively stable participatory model but has undergone modifications based on governing coalitions.</li>
- + <li>Assessment will explore whether its open-source nature and participatory governance model ensure continuity or if vulnerabilities threaten long-term sustainability.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Other European cases</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Instances in France, Italy, and Germany where regional/municipal governments discontinued or repurposed platforms, raising concerns about data deletion and loss of participatory rights.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Estonia’s e-governance system</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Citizen participation is embedded in a long-term digital infrastructure, offering a potential model for platform resilience beyond electoral cycles.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Taiwan’s vTaiwan platform</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Examines its ability to maintain participatory governance mechanisms under different political administrations.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + </ul>
- + </div>
- + </dd>
- +
- + <dt name="text-1718180319686-0">Primary Question: State the main question your hypothesis aims to answer</dt>
- + <dd id="text-1718180319686-0" name="text">
- + <div>
- + <ul>
- + <li>Main question: How do political transitions impact the governance, continuity, and integrity of digital participation platforms?</li>
- + <li>Sub-questions:
- + <ul>
- + <li>How do political parties design long-term institutional digital infrastructures when in power?</li>
- + <li>How are these infrastructures preserved or altered by successor administrations?</li>
- + <li>What are the risks of political manipulation, data erasure, or ideological repurposing?</li>
- + <li>What legal mechanisms or contractual agreements could safeguard citizen participation records?</li>
- + <li>What is the role of platform providers in ensuring neutrality, security, and longevity?</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + </ul>
- + </div>
- + </dd>
- +
- + <dt name="textarea-1718180392889-0">Assumptions</dt>
- + <dd id="textarea-1718180392889-0" name="textarea">
- + <div>
- + <ul>
- + <li>Digital participation platforms are political artifacts reflecting the governance philosophy of the ruling administration.</li>
- + <li>Political transitions directly influence whether these infrastructures are maintained, altered, or dismantled.</li>
- + <li>Citizens’ participation rights should include preservation of their contributions, preventing deletion or manipulation.</li>
- + <li>The lack of legal protections allows discontinuation or ideological repurposing of these platforms.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </div>
- + </dd>
- +
- + <dt name="textarea-1714747978532-0">Collaboration</dt>
- + <dd id="textarea-1714747978532-0" name="textarea">
- + <div>
- + <ul>
- + <li>Key questions for collaboration:
- + <ul>
- + <li>How can we prevent digital participation infrastructures from being politicized or dismantled after political transitions?</li>
- + <li>Should digital participation records be treated as public democratic assets protected by law?</li>
- + <li>What safeguards should be in place to prevent future governments from erasing or manipulating past participation?</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li>Contributions welcome from:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Legal experts</li>
- + <li>Political scientists</li>
- + <li>Civic technologists</li>
- + <li>Democracy practitioners</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + </ul>
- + </div>
- + </dd>
- +
- + <dt name="textarea-1714748028099-0">Methods</dt>
- + <dd id="textarea-1714748028099-0" name="textarea">
- + <div>
- + <ul>
- + <li>A multi-method approach will include:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Legal, political, and technological analyses</li>
- + <li>Qualitative interviews</li>
- + <li>Participatory design workshops</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li>Research components:
- + <ul>
- + <li><strong>Comparative case studies</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Examining cities/regions like Madrid (Consul), Barcelona (Decidim), and other European cities where platforms were altered or dismantled post-election.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Policy analysis</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Assessing whether existing legal frameworks protect digital participation infrastructures.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Interviews and focus groups</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>With former/current government officials, digital participation administrators, platform providers, civil society organizations, and citizen users.</li>
- + <li>Focus on perceptions of political shifts and risks to participation data.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Legal and governance framework analysis</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Reviewing participation laws for provisions on digital participation preservation.</li>
- + <li>Examining the role of platform providers in data protection and continuity.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Co-creation workshops</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Bringing together policymakers, technologists, and citizens to develop governance mechanisms.</li>
- + <li>Outcome: Prototype "Digital Participation Protection Charter" with legal clauses, institutional safeguards, and technological solutions.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + <li><strong>Gamified scenario planning</strong>:
- + <ul>
- + <li>Simulating political transition scenarios where participants (as political actors) decide whether to maintain, modify, or delete a platform.</li>
- + <li>Provides insights into strategic and ethical decision-making.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + </ul>
- + </div>
- + </dd>
- +
- + <dt name="textarea-1718180478189-0">Expected Outcomes: Describe the expected results if the hypothesis is correct.</dt>
- + <dd id="textarea-1718180478189-0" name="textarea">
- + <div>
- + <ul>
- + <li>If the hypothesis is correct, expected results include:
- + <ul>
- + <li>A typology of political approaches to digital participation governance, identifying patterns in how parties build, dismantle, or repurpose infrastructures.</li>
- + <li>Insights into how citizens’ participation data is managed, preserved, or erased during governance transitions.</li>
- + <li>A comparative analysis of legal protections, highlighting gaps and best practices.</li>
- + <li>Recommendations for legal safeguards, including specific clauses in participation laws to preserve votes, proposals, comments, and interactions.</li>
- + <li>Policy proposals defining the role of platform providers in maintaining transparency and accountability.</li>
- + <li>A "Digital Participation Protection Charter" outlining ethical and legal guidelines for continuity, neutrality, and security.</li>
- + <li>A framework for responsible decommissioning, ensuring participatory data is archived transparently if platforms are retired.</li>
- + </ul>
- + </li>
- + </ul>
- + </div>
- + </dd>
- + </dl>
- +</xml>
Udostępnij