Whatever intergenerational contracts may have been in place – spoken or unspoken, real or perceived – are largely gone. The promise and hope of previous generations—in the Western world at least, the majority of young people around the world could never dream of such things to begin with—to lead a better life than their parents is a flickering image of the past.

But it’s not the lack of economic prosperity alone that infuriates young people. Not that it wouldn’t be reason enough: close to 90 million young people are unemployed, constituting about half of all unemployed people – and also roughly half of all young people interested in working. And that’s the average – in Syria, to quote but one example, the unemployed young people make up nearly 80% of the working-age unemployed population. The growing youth employment crisis, earmarked by these ballpark figures, has been largely ignored.

Add the unsustainability of the current growth-and-screw-the-environment-mantra and the massively rising social injustice to the colossal employment mess, and you get a highly explosive mix, which keeps bubbling to the surface on the streets across the planet. Young people have to watch how the world as we know it, its economic, social and political fabric, disintegrates, day by day. They don’t like the mélange of the cocktail of political, economic and social disfranchisement, and have begun to show their anger about being robbed of their own future with what Heribert Prantl calls “the sacred rage of the young.”

A global youth revolt in the making.

The exploding and imploding inequalities are one of the most impactful consequences of a well-known dilemma: what Zygmunt Bauman calls the tripod of economic, military and cultural sovereignities has long lost its stability. Economic globalisation and the deterritorialisation of capital and labour leave current political structures crumbling and humbled.

As Bauman puts it in his newest book “Collateral Damage. Social inequalities in a global age (2011)”:

“…the exclusive compound of growing social inequality and the rising volume of human suffering relegated to the status of ‘collaterality’ (marginality, externality, disposability, not a legitimate part of the political agenda) has all the markings of being potentially the most disastrous among the many problems humanity may be forced to confront, deal with and resolve in the current century.” (Bauman 2011:9)

Current events only seem to underline Bauman’s grim analysis:

• whether it’s the civil unrests in 2005 in Clichy-sous-Bois, in 2007 in Villiers-le-Bel or in 2011 in London;
• the England riots and the United Kingdom anti-austerity protests;
• the grassroots protests in 2009 in Iceland, 2010 and 2011 in Greece, 2011 in Portugal and Spain;
• the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt;
• the civil uprisings in Bahrain, Syria and Yemen;
• the protests in Algeria, Chile, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Morocco and Oman;

- and the list doesn’t end here! The calls for change—various kinds of change, for different sets of reasons, caused by different triggers, each unique and standing in their own right—have a decisively amplified tone, scale and intensity.

Much has been written and said about all of these events,

• from different, diverse and disputed opinions on the London riots
• to the role of young people and the role of social media in the Arab spring,
• from the Spanish grassroots protests including nolesvotes.org, the Democracia Real Ya collective and the acampadas
• to the clash of generations in Greece.

Probably Slavoj Žižek has, with this observation:

“Opposition to the system can no longer articulate itself in the form of a realistic alternative,”

offered an analysis widely shared across countries and contexts.

Without wanting to or claiming to offer a definite understanding for the various protests and movements across the globe, Manuel Castells summarises more drastically what seems to be happening:

“The disgust becomes a network.”

The note says, in Catalan, "I want to grow up in a better world"

There is a determined and unifying No! to the increasing inequality and a loud and clear Yes! to much-needed change and a different way of living, and living together. It’s obvious that young people, who are expressing their anger and frustration as much as their desire and hope for change so forcefully these days, are determined to shape our times.

“Will it be revolution, evolution, or resignation?” -

so wonder the minds behind One Young World, the global youth leadership summit, in their new 2011 White Paper Beyond the Long Spring of Dissent.

It certainly doesn’t look too much like resignation right now…

In his article The dead end of globalisation looms before our youth, Pankaj Mishra argues that we are witnessing a fresh political awakening, a world awakening with rage about “a condition of prosperity without equality, wealth without peace.”

Wolfgang Gründiger of the Foundation for the Rights of Future Generations makes an equally strong statement when he writes, and warns, that

“all those who claim this generation is apathetic should know: the revolt of the young has only just begun.”

Current events certainly suggest that Mishra and Gründiger are spot-on.

Yet, the question remains:

Where are we headed?

Image credits: David Barrero, Maxi Failla, Muhammed Muheisen, Dominique Faget, Sara Noorbakhsh and Alex Ballesta.

• 1969 Ladder of citizen participation Sherry Arnstein
• 1992 Ladder of children participation Roger Hart
• 1996 Typology of participation Sarah White
• 1997 Degrees of participation Phil Treseder
• 1998 Wheel of participation Scott Davidson
• 2001 Active participation framework OECD
• 2001 Pathways to participation Harry Shier
• 2001 Clarity model of participation Clare Lardner
• 2001 Strategic approach to participation UNICEF
• 2002 Triangle of youth participation Jans & de Backer
• 2002 Youth participation in society Jans & de Backer
• 2002 Dimensions of youth participation David Driskell
• 2003 Ladder of volunteer participation Adam Fletcher
• 2003 Youth engagement continuum FCYO
• 2006 Four Cs of online participation Derek Wenmoth
• 2006 Power law of participation Ross Mayfield
• 2006 Levels, spaces and forms of power John Gaventa
• 2006 Four L Engagement Model Tony Karrer
• 2007 Participation 2.0 Model New Zealand
• 2007 Spectrum of public participation IAP2
• 2007 Engagement in the policy cycle Diane Warburton
• 2007 Online Participation Behaviour Chain Fogg & Eckles
• 2009 Key dimensions of participation Driskell & Neema
• 2009 Matrix of participation Tim Davies
• 2009 Pathways through participation NCVO & IVR
• 2010 Changing views on participation Pedro Martín
• 2010 Ladder of online participation Bernoff & Li
• 2010 Online participation across age Rick Wicklin
• 2010 Three-lens approach to participation DFID-CSO
• 2010 Behavior Grid BJ Fogg

Here are twelve starting points to reload EURODIG for 2012.

Photo by ifranz

01. The content. A good conference stands out due to relevant and engaging content. Making reasonable choices about the scope of the entire conference as well as individual sessions are probably among the most difficult decisions to take, but they are crucial: trying to cover everything will almost inevitably lead to broad interventions, vague discussions and little impact. At the 2011 EURODIG Confe­rence, almost all plenary and workshop sessions suffered from the—understandable, yet ruinous—desire to cover too many themes, aspects and angels at a time. My suggestion: In 2012, we give each EURODIG session a relevant and manageable focus, underpinned with three leading questions.

Photo by pablolizardo

02. The context. Making choices about contents priorities allows to zoom in and debate questions in a meaningful way, but it also carries the risk of loosing sight of the larger context. (Not making a choice and scratching the surface of many aspects carries the same risk, of course, which the 2011 EURODIG Conference demonstrated formidably.) Understanding the larger issues and frameworks when debating specific questions helps to make the discourse on internet governance an informed exchange. My suggestion: In 2012, we produce a conference reader ahead of EURODIG, introducing the larger context and framework as well as all sessions with their foci and leading questions.

Photo by spierisf

03. The crowd. EURODIG wants to be a platform for discussions on internet governance between stakeholders from all over Europe. Way too many stake­holders were absent or underrepresented – some by default, some by choice, some by coincidence, some by mistake. Where were the net activists from La Quadrature du Net or Digitale Gesellschaft? Where was the Creative Commons movement? Where was the Euroblogging scene? Where was the open data movement? Where was the digital rights movement? My sug­gestion: By the end of 2011, we have spoken to all missing stakeholder groups, trying to make sure that EURODIG will become relevant and useful for them.

Photo by tudor

04. The dialogue. EURODIG is, in theory, all about dialogue. In practice, the conference featured a series of speakers, followed by a series of audience inter­ventions from the usual suspects. Almost all panels and many workshops followed this pattern – death by powerpoint instead of inspiration by dialogue. Conferen­ces have been re-thought for a while already, and while it’s not useful to flippantly apply the format of unconferences to EURODIG, there is much to be learned from them. Let’s mix in some Pecha Kucha, Open Space, Fish Bowl, Foo Camp, Knowledge Café, Speed Geeking and add our own inventions. My suggestion: In 2012, we run the conference in a completely re-developed format.

Photo by johnmcnab

05. The facilitation. In every conference, there are gaps of knowledge between attendees, there are power differentials at play, and there is often a—perceived— lack of time. In almost all sessions of the 2011 EURODIG Conference, the facili­tation did not address this and was problematic: from acoustic feedback to dying batteries, from introductory monologues to judgemental commentary, from roaring speedtalkers to hushed whisperers, from manipulative openings to biased conclu­sions (sponsors as moderators?!) we had to witness an impressive array of shortcomings. My sugges­tion: In 2012, the entire conference will be facilitated by a team of experienced and, importantly, neutral moderators.

Photo by stuant63

06. The planning. The planning of the EURODIG Conferences is intended and designed to be participatory, with email groups serving as the main tool for communication. It’s easy to join the groups and join the preparation, but the flip-side of all this is that the planning is quite inefficient: it takes long, is documented badly, and de facto the plans are finalised in last minute manoeuvres by some of the key people involved. There is a common misperception about self-organised and anarchic participation vs dominant and hierarchic facilitation at play here… My suggestion: In 2012, we facilitate the session planning in several steps, document it well and finalise it two months before the event.

Our series of overviews on internet governance in Europe:
(1) Council of Europe | (2) European Union | (3) United Nations | (4) UNESCO | (5) OECD | (6) Civil society

Photo by evilerin

07. The speakers. The line-up of speakers for the 2011 EURODIG Conference was absurd in many ways: too many speakers, too many men, too many persons who had little to say, too many speakers who didn’t know how to present well, and too many panelists unfortunately combining these two weaknesses. It was amusing at the best of times and downright painful at the worst of times. Dialogue does not thrive from dozens of panelists with powerpoint presentations, and it wouldn’t even help if they were great speakers. Let’s please stop this altogether. My suggestion: For 2012, we choose not more than five keynote speakers, men and women who have something to say and who can get their message across.

Photo by opensourceway

08. The website. Wordpress 2.9.1? Cforms 11.4? jQuery 1.3? WP-Tables 1.7? You must be kidding me. I could hack this site and take it down in just a few minutes, and so could many others. I don’t mind that the design of the page is, well, outdated; it can be improved. I don’t mind that the page navigation is, well, confusing; it can be changed. I do mind that the software used to run the site is out-of-date, exploitable and vulnerable; it’s just altogether wrong. An excellent conference site, built with WordPress, is re-publica.de, let’s learn from them. My suggestion: For 2012, we re-develop the website from scratch and make it great: good-looking, easy to navigate and filled to the brim with quality content.

Photo by unanoslucror

09. The venue. I guess oxygen and daylight are overrated, and smelly fitted carpeting and asbestos underappreciated? Sava Center, “erected in 1977 as a modern building complex,” we look at you! Let’s try to find modern convention centers, built with humans and social interaction in mind, respecting modern ecological and energetic standards, and offering decent food for vegetarians. Powerplugs and reliable internet access points are pretty good, but it would be great if they weren’t needed to take attention away from the immediate environ­ment. My suggestion: Before the end of 2011, we develop a concise list of criteria for our conference venues to inform future host countries.

Photo by jona

10. The youth. I was involved in the New Media Summer School, and am thus particularly biased on this point, but why do we perceive young people always as young? This makes no sense — we don’t treat all older attendees as silver surfers, or all civil servants as governmentals, or all business people as money­makers. Why then do we treat young people first and foremost as young people? It’s disempowering and disenfranchising. Let’s put some effort into looking at people’s competences and contexts instead of stereotyping them because of their age. My suggestion: In 2012, we treat young people as we treat everybody else at EURODIG: as experts on internet governance.

Photo by fräuleinschiller

11. The documentation. The documentation of each year’s EURODIG is pretty extensive: reports of the sessions are online as well as complete transcripts, messages from EURODIG ollow each annual conference, and in 2011 some visual documentation was thrown into the documentation mix. Little of it seems to have a noticeable impact though — partly because the docu­men­tation reflects the lack of conclusiveness of many of the debates, partly because the docu­mentation does not manage to convey the progress of the discourse in a way that can be picked up. My suggestion: In 2012, we run the conference with a full reporting team, including a general rapporteur and a visual sensemaking team.

Photo by horiavarlan

12. The outcomes. Discussions are nice, dialogue is great, but it shouldn’t be an infinite loop of indecisive and inconclusive debates. Where are our demands? Where are our commitments? Where are our concise summaries? Where are our state of play documents? Where are our position papers? There are reams of possibilities to trigger, and document, concrete outcomes — they may not hold for everyone in the audience, they may not be the ultimate truth, they may provoke disagreement and friction… And yet! My suggestion: For 2012, we find a way to sum up the conference with some clear recommendations, clever suggestions, new questions and decisive calls for action.

What are your ideas to improve the European Dialogue on Internet Governance?

It’s almost impossible to give a comprehensive overview of all the civil society actors and activities; too much is happening and going on. A few good starting points for globally active civil society organisations, groups and initiatives are:

• the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), defending freedoms in the networked world. The foundation works on issues such as free spech, intellectual property, privacy and transparency;
• the Internet Society (ISOC), one of the leading nonprofit organisation on internet related standards, education and policy;
• the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the main international standards organisation for the web;
• the Internet Governance Caucus of Civil Society Organizations (IGC), striving for internet governance to become inclusive, people centered and development oriented;
• the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRP), an initiative formed to establish an Internet Governance regime founded upon human rights that has developed a Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet;
• La Quadrature du Net, a collective and advocacy group promoting the rights and freedoms of citizens on the Internet that starts from the assumption that net neutrality means that the internet has no gatekeeper;
• Reporters Without Borders (RWB), advocating and fighting for the freedom of the press, on- and offline;
• the Open Rights Group (ORG), striving to preserve and promote citizens’ rights in the digital age;
• the combined effort of the pirate party movement to bring the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) out into the open at www.stopp-acta.info;
• the Creative Commons Network, working towards the vision of universal access to research and education and full participation;
• the European Digital Rights Initiative (EDRI), founded to defend civil rights in the information society and working, among other issues, on privacy, governance and freedom of speech;
• the International Modern Media Institute (IMMI), a foundation working to reopen the discussion about how free speech is defined and how it is to be protected for and in the digital age.
• and, last but not least, and of course, WikiLeaks.

Feel free to add organisations, groups and initiatives in the comments!

The work of the United Nations on internet governance spans across several agencies and bodies within the UN work, most notably the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA), the United Nations Conference on Trade amd Development (UNCTAD) and UNESCO.

Much of the United Nations’ engagement relates back to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the Geneva (2003) and Tunis (2005) conferences aiming to bridge the digital divide and take concrete steps to establish foundations for an information society for all. In Geneva, a common vision of the information society was agreed upon and underpinned with a plan of action, setting out to bring 50 percent of the world’s population online by 2015. This was followed up with the Tunis Commitment and an agenda for the information society in 2005. The World Summit established May 17 as World Information Society Day.

The 11 WSIS Action Lines

The main follow-up process to the World Summit is the WSIS Stocktaking Process, which provides a register of activities carried out by governments, international organisations, the business sector, civil society and other stakeholders with reference to the eleven action lines defined by the World Summit’s Plan of Action. In 2010, the World ICT Development Report (pdf) by ITU focused on monitoring the targets set by the summit. Regular WSIS Fora and a WSIS Community further contribute to connecting, recording and coordinating stakeholder initiatives to implement the action plan.

The World Summit on the Information Society also called—following a recommendation of the Working Group on Internet Governance—for the establishment of the Internet Governance Forum, which convened for the first time in 2006 as a multi-stakeholder forum for policy dialogue on internet governance. The IGF intends to bring together all stakeholders in the internet governance discourse on an equal basis, from governments and the private sector to civil society and the academic community.

The Internet Governance Forum has met in

2006 in Athens – Report (pdf) | 2007 in Rio de Janeiro – Report (pdf) | 2008 in Hyderabad – Report (pdf) | 2009 in Sharm El Sheikh – Report (pdf) | 2010 in Vilnius – Report (pdf)

and will next meet in Nairobi in September 2011. (Its mandate has been extended by the United Nations’ General Assembly (resolution, pdf) for another five years – from 2011 to 2015).

In May 2011, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, published a report on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (pdf), exploring “key trends and challenges to the right of all individuals to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds through the Internet.” In its introduction, the report

“underscores the unique and transformative nature of the Internet not only to enable individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression, but also a range of other human rights, and to promote the progress of society as a whole. Chapter III of the report underlines the applicability of international human rights norms and standards on the right to freedom of opinion and expression to the Internet as a commu­nication medium (…)”,

La Rue, Frank (2011): report on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Page 1.

and the conclusion stresses that

“the full guarantee of the right to freedom of expression must be the norm, and any limitation [prescribed by international human rights law] considered as an exception, and that this principle should never be reversed.”

La Rue, Frank (2011): report on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Page 19.

Further publications of the United Nations on digital governance include:

• Implementing WSIS Outcomes: Experience to Date and Prospects for the Future (2011, pdf)
• Measuring the WSIS targets: A statistical framework (2011, pdf)
• Report on the WSIS Stocktaking 2010: Tracking Progress (2010, pdf)
• Measuring the Information Society (2010, pdf)
• Towards inclusive knowledge societies: implementing the WSIS outcomes (2010, pdf)

The United Nation’s work on internet governance is coordinated by the United Nations Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) together with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

The work of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on internet governance is based on UNESCO’s basic approach of creating the conditions for dialogue among civilizations, cultures and peoples, a dialogue that aims to achieve sustainable development encompassing human rights, mutual respect and the alleviation of poverty.

UNESCO runs two programmes related to internet governance, namely the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC) and the Information for All Programme (IFAP).

UNESCO’s work on communication and information centres on six thematic areas:

Access to Information | Capacity Building | Content Development |
Freedom of Expression | Media Development | Memory of the World

Publications of UNESCO on digital governance include:

• Freedom of Connection – Freedom of Expression: The Changing Legal and Regulatory Ecology Shaping the Internet (2011, pdf)
• Professional journalism and self-regulation: new media, old dilemmas (2011, pdf)
• The Importance of Self Regulation of the Media in Upholding Freedom of Expression (2011, pdf)

UNESCO published the World Report “Towards Knowledge Societies” (2010, pdf).

Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information are two core areas of UNESCO’s work. Additionally, UNESCO has a strong focus on information and communication technology in education, starting from the belief that technology can contribute to universal access to and equity in education as well as efficient education management, governance and administration. The organisation maintains a Portal on Open Educational Resources and an OER-Wiki.

UNESCO’s work on internet governance is coordinated by the organisation’s Communication and Information Sector, headed by Jānis Kārkliņš.

The work of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on internet governance is rooted in the mission of OECD to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world.

The organisation has developed key indicators on information and communication technologies, which are updated annually, to provide a knowledge-base for digital governance policies. The fifteen indicators mostly cover availability, accessibility, affordability and usage of landline, mobile, broadband and internet connections.

The Information Technology Outlook is a complementary regularly OECD updated publication.

The OECD’s work on internet governance spans across several themes, including information economy, information security and privacy, broadband and telecom and e-government.

The OECD has published a number of Digital Economy Papers, among them

• The Protection of Children Online (May 2011, pdf)
• The Evolving Privacy Landscape: 30 Years After the OECD Privacy Guidelines (April 2011, pdf)
• National Strategies and Policies for Digital Identity Management in OECD Countries (March 2011, pdf)
• More OECD Digital Economy Papers

The OECD has developed a privacy statement generator, building on the OECD guidelines on the protection of privacy. They regularly publish policy guidelines on internet economy issues, reviews of good governance in information society, reports — including “Reducing Systemic Cybersecurity Risks” (January 2011, pdf), a report outlining what types of cyberattacks and large scale disruptions hold potential for causing a global shock, and “The Economic and Social Role of Internet Intermediaries” (April 2010, pdf) — and OECD Outlooks including the OECD Communications Outlook and the OECD Information Technology Outlook. Additionally, the OECD releases regular statistical updates on the future of the internet economy (June 2011, pdf).

At the occasion of a High Level Meeting entitled “The Internet Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth” in June 2011, the OECD developed an Issues Paper (June 2011, pdf) outlining some background to the issues discussed at the sessions of the High-Level Meeting, including broadband access, the role of broadband in developing the internet economy, the balance of policy goals to strengthen growth, and policy making principles for an open internet.

Prior to the High Level Meeting, the OECD worked on developing a “Communiqué on Internet Policy-Making Principles” through a multistakeholder discussion. On June 28, the Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council (CSISAC) announced that it has declined to support the Communiqué, stating that it could undermine “online freedom of expression, freedom of information, the right to privacy, and innovation across the world.” More information is available on the website of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) — EFF Declines to Endorse OECD Draft Communiqué on Principles for Internet Policy-Making — the website of the Internet Governance Project (IGP) — Civil Society defects from OECD Internet Policy Principles — and the website of CSISAC — CSISAC Declines to Support OECD Principles on Internet Policy-Making.

The OECD’s work on internet governance is coordinated by the Department of Information and Communications Technologies.

The work of the European Union on internet governance is strongly related by the overarching themes and policy initiatives around economic integration, the single market and the four freedoms of the Union –- the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people.

The Digital Agenda is one of the key documents of the EU and is described as “Europe’s strategy for a flourishing digital economy by 2020.” Starting from the assumption that the free flow of online services is still blocked by too many barriers, the Digital Agenda aims to update the single market rules of the European Union for the digital era. It sets out and defines in total 100 actions for eight pillars:

Digital Single Market | Interoperability and Standards | Trust and Security | Very Fast Internet | Research and Innovation | Enhancing E-Skills | ICT for Social Challenges | International Dimensions

The Council of the European Union, the European Parliament and the European Commission have adopted a number of declarations, directives, recommendations and frameworks related to internet governance, among them:

Communications

• Communication (2011) 287 (pdf) on a single market for intellectual property rights
• Communication (2011) 222 (pdf) on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe
• Communication (2010) 609 (pdf) on a comprehensive strategy on data protection in the European Union
• Communication (2010) 472 (pdf) on European broadband – investing in digitally driven growth
• Communication (2010) 245 (pdf) on a digital agenda for Europe
• Communication (2009) 532 (pdf) on copyright in the knowledge economy
• Communication (2009) 277 (pdf) on internet governance: the next steps

Directives

• Directive 2010/13 (pdf) on the provision of audiovisual media services
• Directive 2006/24 (pdf) on the retention of communications traffic data
• Directive 2002/58 (pdf) on privacy and electronic communications
• Directive 2002/22 (pdf) on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services
• Directive 2002/21 (pdf) on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services
• Directive 2002/20 (pdf) on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services
• Directive 2002/19 (pdf) on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks

Resolutions

• European Parliament Resolution 2010/66 on a new digital agenda for Europe: 2015.eu

Recommendations

• Recommendation 2006/952 (pdf) on the Protection of Minors and Human Dignity

Reports

• European Digital Competitiveness report (2010): Volume 1 – Main report (pdf) and Volume 2 – Country profiles (pdf)
• Background reports on the economic impact of ICT (pdf) and the social impact of ICT (pdf)

The legislative and political work of the EU on digital governance is complemented by initiatives on media literacy, user rights, e-safety, e-health, e-government, e-inclusion as well as a wide range of research projects that are organised in four different strands.

The European Union’s work on internet governance is coordinated by the EU Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes and her team.

The work of the Council of Europe on internet governance centres on human rights issues, most notably freedom of expression, data protection, accessibility and cybercrime.

With the Convention on Cybercrime, the Council of Europe created the first (and so far only) binding international treaty on the subject. The convention outlines guidelines for governments wishing to develop legislation against cybercrime. It entered into force in July 2004, has been signed by 43 states and ratified by 20 countries.

Other relevant treaties are the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, which entered into force in July 2010, has been signed by 42 states and ratified by 12 countries, the Convention on Cybercrime, which entered into force in July 2004, has been signed by 47 states and ratified by 31 countries, and the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing, which entered into force in October 1985, has been signed by 46 states and ratified by 43 countries.

The judgements of the European Court of Human Rights related to new technologies constitute another main pillar of the Council of Europe’s work on digital governance. The Court maintains a fact sheet (pdf) on all rulings on Articles 8 (Right to respect for private and family life) and 10 (Freedom of expression) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly have adopted a number of declarations and recommendations related to internet governance, among them:

• Declarations by the Committee of Ministers
• Declaration, September 2010 on the Digital Agenda for Europe
• Declaration, May 2005 on human rights and the rule of law in the information society
• Declaration, May 2003, pdf on freedom of communication on the internet
• Recommendations by the Committee of Ministers
• Recommendation (2010) 13 on profiling and data protection
• Recommendation (2009) 1 on electronic democracy
• Recommendation (2008) 6 on measures to promote the respect for freedom of expression and information
• Recommendation (2007) 16 on measures to promote the public service value of the internet
• Recommendation (2004) 15 on electronic governance
• Recommendation (2004) 11 on legal, operational and technical standards for e-voting
• Recommendation (2001) 7 on measures to protect copyright and combat piracy
• Recommendations by the Parliamentary Assembly
• Recommendation 1950 (2011) on the protection of journalists’ sources
• Recommendation 1906 (2010) on rethinking creative rights for the internet age
• Recommendation 1860 (2009) on electronic democracy
• Recommendation 1670 (2004) on internet and the law

The Council of Europe is publishing an “Internet Literacy Handbook”, a guide intended to explain how to get the most out of the Internet and, at the same time, how to protect and maintain privacy. It has developed “Human Rights Guidelines for Internet Service Providers (pdf)” and “Human Rights Guidelines for Online Game Providers (pdf)”. The organisation also co-hosts the European dialogue on Internet Governance, “an open platform for informal and inclusive discussion and exchange on public policy issues related to Internet governance between stakeholders from all over Europe.”

Internet Freedom Conference

In May 2009, the Council of Europe organised a conference of ministers responsible for media and new communication services in Reykjavik, for which a background document on internet governance (pdf) was prepared and which led to a declaration by the ministers (pdf).

In April 2011, an Internet Freedom Conference – From Principles to Global Treaty Law? took place in Strasbourg to discuss internet governance principles and to “explore viable options for creating an architecture for multi-stakeholder participation in international Internet-related public policy-making” (Source). A draft document on internet governance principles (pdf) and a draft document on the protection and promotion of the internet’s universality, integrity and openness (pdf) were prepared for debate at the conference.

An information document entitled Internet Governance — Developing the Future Together (pdf) is regularly updated, last in May 2011.

The Council of Europe’s work on internet governance is coordinated by Lee Hibbard and his team on information society and internet governance.

Palomar5 Education organised a small, conspiratory event in reponse to Sir Ken Robinson’s call to bring on the learning revolution, a great opportunity to get some glimpses of how we will learn in the future through the lenses of Basti Hirsch, who went on a five-week education expedition through the United States; Aron Solomon, who is busy creating a boarding school with wheels, the Think Global School; and Margret Rasfeld, who founded a protestant reform school in Berlin. What have I seen?

I am here for the learning revolution.
And you? Photo by wfryer on Flickr.

I have seen three very different approaches to and understandings of learning and education by people who share the belief that—while public education remains a fundamental cornerstone of democratic societies—much of what happens in our institutions of formal education is wrong and represents a broken system.

I have also seen a few shared principles underpinning three schools that are so very different –

• the Science Leadership Academy, “an inquiry-driven, project-based high school focused on 21st century learning in Philadelphia,”
• the Think Global School, “a global, private and non-profit high school that travels the world and tosses educational sterotypes out of the window,”
• the Protestant Reform School, “a Berlin-based reform school aiming to introduce a radical change of learning culture.”

Many of these shared principles, I would guess, are key to most of the innovative education endeavours I know. Add to the list and share what you think in the comments!

We will learn in the future by

• following rhythms of inquiry and learning rather than rhythms of compartmentalised structures and times,
• moving away from memorising and teaching towards exploring and learning by doing,
• turning away from sitting and listening passively to constructing and collaborating actively,
• facilitating learning from failure instead of punishing every little mistake,
• accepting uncertainty as the only certainty there is within the complexity of learning,
• relating learning and living in ways that are fruitful and enriching both ways,
• not teaching what to learn and think, but by teaching how to learn and think,
• inventing and facilitating new and integrated learning formats, combining subjects and approaches,
• turning away from instruction and control towards facilitation and support,
• moving away from spaces controlled by educators towards spaces controlled by learners,
• providing encouragement and support instead of criticism and barriers.

Admittedly, this list is generic—quite possibly, too generic—but it’s a start. Wir fangen schon mal an.

Much has been written about the Copen­hagen Climate Summit, as the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference—inc­luding the 15th Conference of the Parties [COP15] to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] and the 5th Meeting of the Parties [MOP5] to the Kyoto Protocol—has come to be called.

Hundreds of millions of US Dollars were spent on this chaotic, disastrous nightmare of a frantic summit. That is a hell of a lot of money to burn for bickering and filibustering to finally take note of the “Copenhagen Accord“, which no spin-doctoring can mispresent as anything use- or meaningful.

But it’s not the failed negotiations that upset me most.

It is two other aspects – it is how we were ridiculed by power twice.

The ugly face of power | Photo by thousand.wor(l)ds

Firstly, I am upset about the unashamed and disgusting display and abuse of state power. More than 122 million US Dollars—$122.000.000,00—were spent to secure Copenhagen, and none of it was pretty.

The tip of the iceberg: protests were undermined by deployed undercover officers, phones of activists were tapped, meetings were infiltrated…

Protesters were kettled and arrested in vast numbers—thousands—to be wagoned off to steel cages in a former beer warehouse especially constructed for the climate conference apparently called “GuantĂĄnamo Junior”. It’s difficult to see how this could not be called mass repression.

While there is hope that most of this shit will turn out to have been violating the European Convention of Human Rights, we would be lying to ourselves if we continued to praise existing channels of participation as meaningful if even our most basic democratic and human rights are violated so shamelessly.

Secondly, I am upset by the idiocy of the civil society movement. Most NGOs were quick to blaim Obama and claim that the US had wrecked the climate negotiations by demanding too much while offering too little, a sentiment speedily reproduced in the media. But as Mark Lynas—a British author, journalist and environmental activist—points out, many developing countries have much more to lose by legally binding agreements because it would impact their coal-driven growth more directly and more quickly.

Lynas, who was advising the Maldives delegation during the summit, argues in his eyewitness account of the final negotiations behind closed doors that “China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful ‘deal’ so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame.”

In an interview with the New York Times, Mark observes that

“the NGO movement is ten years out of date. They’re still arguing for ‘climate justice’, whatever that means, which is interpreted by the big developing countries like India and China as a right to pollute up to Western levels. To me carbon equity is the logic of mutually assured destruction. I think NGOs are far too soft on the Chinese, given that it’s the world’s biggest polluter, and is the single most important factor in deciding when global emissions will peak, which in turn is the single most important factor in the eventual temperature outcome. Too many leftist activists are therefore tending to side with the big polluters because they think they’re standing in solidarity with the world’s poor.”

Meanwhile India has confirmed that it co-operated with China and other nations to torpedo any legally binding targets at the talks – and while I love the new video of the global youth climate movement, I would much rather hear a well argued response and, more importantly, see a shift in logic and argumentation that leaves antiquated sentiments behind.

Act the fuck now! | Photo by thousand.wor(l)ds

Because there is, regrettably, no open discourse on the situation of the Youth Forum between the different movements and strands—with most youth organisations, in united hypocrisy, happily ignoring their own call to politics for more transparency—these voices cannot be easily heard, but the increasing frequency, intensity and attractiveness of networks and meetings working on the establishment of organisational alternatives will soon lead to visible results, which will exemplify for how long the dissatisfaction with the Youth Forum has simmered.

The few large organisations that currently dominate the platform—most notably the scouts and the socialists—share a lack of interest to make the European Youth Forum a strong voice of young people with key institutional players such as the European Commission: both sides fear the loss of power and influence.

Luckily for these players, the Youth Forum is, in its current state, caught in internal power struggles and ensnared by a lack of critical voices: seemingly endless discussions culminate in carefully negotiated position papers that lack both courage and authenticity.

Having discovered Youtube, the European Youth Forum publicly demonstrates—for anyone who has the strength to sit through their video speeches—that there is no youth spirit left to show; the organisation is light-years away from the creativity and sovereignty of many young people in using media and making their voice heard.

At the press conference marking the public announcement of the European Commission’s new strategy for young people “Youth — Investing and Empowering“, all that the Youth Forum’s President Tine Radinja managed to achieve is that Jan Figel—Commissioner for Education, Training, Culture and Youth and anything but a talented speaker—shines as a seemingly gifted rhetoric.

Is this the voice of young people in Europe?

How is an organisation defending the interests of young people in Europe that doesn’t have the courage to criticise the blatant discrepancy between the Commission’s ambitions in addressing disadvantaged young people and the tools they employ to this end?

How is an organisation defending the interests of young people that lets itself be willingly abused as a tokenistic symbol of pseudo-representation?

It isn’t — no matter how many times it is written or said to be the biggest regional youth platform in the world, bringing together and representing tens of millions of young people from all over Europe.

Photo by warein.holgado on flickr

It would be too easy an explanation to point at the considerable amount of 2.2 Million Euro the European Youth Forum receives every year from the European Union through the Youth in Action Programme.

The EU, even though they would have the leverage, doesn’t need to apply any thumbscrews.

Faced with a structure that fails to protect the interests of small organisations and offers no efficient instruments to constructively negotiate and mediate between different wings, the organisation consistently blocks itself and is as meek as a mouse.

[The alarmingly high turnover of staff is but one indicator for the state of the association, in which the creativity and enthusiasm of individuals seems forfeit to vanish.]

Not surprisingly, the European Commission does not miss a single opportunity to praise the European Youth Forum as an important and reliable partner — smothered in harmony they can hardly breathe, and any criticism towards the institutions is systematically silenced.

For many years, interest in creating an alternative platform has remained low, also because there is so little at stake in a democratically defunct European Union — but sooner or later the much needed alternative will emerge.

Chances are that such a platform will be taken seriously — not because they brag to be the biggest organisation on the continent in every speech, but because they have something meaningful to say in ways which are authentic and honest, direct and powerful.

And when all is said and done, chances are that the European Youth Forum is going to find itself in a much stronger position after what will likely be turbulent times.

‧ Full disclosure: I was a member of the Bureau of the European Youth Forum from 1998 until 2000 with responsibility for education and training, and an unsuccessful candidate for Secretary General in 2003. If you are inclined to believe that I am searching for romantic memories or bitter revenge, feel free to do so.

The emergence of new communication systems is the result of complex interactions among technological, cultural, social, political and economic forces. This puts aside the belief that technologies have themselves an intrinsic power to shape society. Technology – in this case: communication tools – are just part of society and culture, a medium of expression. Therefore social changes cannot be directly identified in technology itself, but rather in its uses.

In the 90s, many studies focused on pathological users of the internet, stating that it creates an “unreal” world and that its users suffer from a lack of social capacities (see, for example, Chandler).

However, this discourse doesn’t seem to make sense today. Obviously there are always uses and abuses of technology, but we have different examples of the political use of the world wide web. Political, in this context, means all activities related to the public life.

In dictatorial regimes such as Belarus, to give but one example, the role that the internet plays for the opposition is well known. Similarly, anti-globalisation movements are often closely linked with new communication technologies.

Why? There are three main reasons: anonymity, geographical scope, and costs.

Anonymity is an increasingly beneficial reality – at times when communication is observed and registered not only in political dictatorships. But it can also be of value for young people growing up in a more traditional context, where questioning about certain themes might be taboo. Available online information provides options and shows possibilities – an informational power of the internet that could hardly be argued. And the very fact that the internet is an information medium makes it political – in the sense that it has and produces influence on social spheres and in public life.

The geographical scope of the internet is well-known, but it is worthwhile to remember that the internet is not global: it does not (yet) reach the entire world population. Economic and geographic disparities where shown by Pipa Norris in «The Digital Divide».

And the gap is not only between the Americas and Africa, or between Europe and Asia! That also, but the geographical divide also exists between Melnik and Sofia in Bulgaria, or between Salvaterra de Magos and Lisbon in Portugal. Inside the same country geographical divides are identifiable along distinctions between urban and rural or central and peripheral, often determined by economical differences or technological limitations.

And yet, part of today’s world population has access to the Internet; indeed, most people in developed countries have to use Internet in their daily life – be it at work, at home, or both.

Photo by Stefan Franke | www.youthphotos.eu

The costs for providing and ensuring access to the internet are relatively low in comparison to other media. Think about the costs related to printing, add the environmental externalities and hold that against the investments related to internet access. Think about TV production costs and compare it with the maintenance of a weblog. And while costs can be a political question and pose the question if and how the state should interfere, the world wide web is definitely cheaper than many other media.

Partly due to the relatively low costs, the internet facilitates the diversification of communication channels. This is politically important because it expands the range of voices that can express themselves. Furthermore, mass media could be (and sometimes are) interpreted as a construct of capitalism, based on consumption as a tool for manufacturing consent. Because of its decentralized nature, low cost and easiness of creating (new, alternative) content, the internet – and new media in general – offer the attractiveness of many-to-many communication patterns. This can also be a metaphor of a changing society, more open, more diverse
 and eventually more diffuse?

This line of thought raises another question: can the internet foster participation? The internet’s comparatively low entry barriers ensure greater access to innovative (or even, at times, revolutionary) ideas. Simultaneously it allows for the circulation of a greater number of messages.

But
 how many can actually be heard, read or listened to!?

If everyone is speaking at once, who is listening?

The social potential of new technologies is determined by their own nature: they are intrinsically different from other media. Unlike mass media, new technologies are not based on a communication system centred on the producer. The economies of scale – that are so characteristic of mass media production and consumption – are not to be found in the same manner in new media technologies.

Traditional mass media may currently have an enormous social power that is based on their ability to deliver huge quantities of information to large numbers of people in short time-spans. However, information reception is often passive and rarely involves thought and learning – one of the main criticisms put forward by the Frankfurt School, arguing that mass media favoured the passive reception of information and entertainment over thoughtful engagement and re-action.

New communication technologies can be used synchronously or asynchronously, which offers the chance to debate, but also the needed time to think and deliberate – with obvious advantages to negotiation and political discussion. However, one has to be critical towards the offer of content – as Benjamin Barber argues, variety is not the same as segmentation and abundance does not mean pluralism of content. The main risk of segmentation is that, in an extreme case, it destroys the common ground on which we base our shared working, living and co-operating.

Therefore, it is essential to find ways of bringing together people with different interests. It is vital for the social existence of democracy in complex societies where common life shall be ruled by common decisions. And in this sense, it is finally also essential to think about youth participation and the internet.

We all know the argument that young people are the future of society – and they also are, already now, the main users of new technologies; many times even their most creative users. Future generations will use technology in ways we cannot even think about today! And their imaginative uses might turn out quite different from those that we expect: just think about the importance of image over text today


These – often co-existing and co-evolving – changes of paradigms are important for democracy.

And yet, the effect of change is barely calculable, and it may well become a part of youth work to help identify resulting opportunities and chances – for which youth workers need to observe and comprehend the uses of technology by young people.

These observations should never be understood or misused as a value-based evaluation returning positive or negative results. Much rather, it should come with a humble and constructive approach that is based on sharing and partaking and focuses on and highlights potential.

If youth work adopts an activist participatory approach in observing the influence of electronically mediated social and participatory networking of young people, we might eventually begin to understand how the social use of new technologies can affect personalities, human relations and the political system.

«Two-thirds say they’ll do it for a year’s tuition. And for a few, even an iPod touch will do.

That’s what NYU students said they’d take in exchange for their right to vote in the next presidential election, a recent survey by an NYU journalism class found.

Only 20 percent said they’d exchange their vote for an iPod touch.

But 66 percent said they’d forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they’d give up the right to vote forever for $1 million.

But they also overwhelmingly lauded the importance of voting.

Ninety percent of the students who said they’d give up their vote for the money also said they consider voting “very important” or “somewhat important”; only 10 percent said it was “not important.”

Also, 70.5 percent said they believe that one vote can make a difference — including 70 percent of the students who said they’d give up their vote for free tuition.

The class — “Foundations of Journalism,” taught by journalism department chairwoman Brooke Kroeger — polled more than 3,000 undergraduates between Oct. 24 and 26 to assess student attitudes toward voting.»

—

The sad list grows longer and longer.

Erfurt › Columbine › Emsdetten › Blacksburg

Where next? What next?

—

There are so many issues to be discussed, among them

» the dignity of media coverage

» the influence of a culture of weapons

» the double standards we all live with

—

Later.

∞

Yet, there is more to this. The article guarantees free and public education for all Greek citizens and to many, a change of such fundamental principles will quickly lead to restrictions of the right to university asylum prohibiting police forces from entering university grounds. It was this right that allowed students to fight the dictatorship in 1973 — which makes it an untouchable right for many students and citizens.

Already in 2006, the Greek education ministry tried to implement reforms but had to back off after the forming of a huge student movement that organised street demonstrations and sit-ins resembling French protest culture.

The change of Article 16 has become a major dispute in Greece. The «People’s Weekly World» writes:

«Pro-education forces throughout Greece took to the streets this week for an all-out offensive of marches and demonstrations to block a parliamentary vote on privatizing the higher education system. The day the vote went to Parliament, Jan. 10, was declared a day of nationwide action.

Marches and demonstrations were held all day long in over 40 cities on the mainland and on the islands. Thousands upon thousands came out to protect the right of this and future generations to be educated. Their battle cry was “Free public education for all!”»

According to inymedia, more than 15.000 people demonstrated alone in Athens against the attempt to constitutionalise the privatisation of education (source). One week later, 20.000 went to the streets in Athens and 10.000 in Thessaloniki (source).

The final vote of the Parliament is scheduled to be held before the end of March 2007. And while the discussion inside the parliament is not expected to be fierce, protests outside will certainly be.

Which leaves us behind with at least one question: Fair enough that students do protest against the privatisation of the higher education system – but how is the public one going to get better? Students and Politics better find an answer soon because, as ESIB puts it:

«When can one say that a country is in crisis? The answer is clear: when students start street protests.«

Indeed.

The most important resource of the twentyfirst century, politicians say, is education. How fatally wrong: The most important resource, being the most scarcely one, is willpower.

In a nutshell, the article argues that transformation and change will happen not through education alone.

So how do we reach for the stars now?

Pictures courtesy of Lida Rose and Carf.

In an (to say the least: unusual) interview with the German SĂŒddeutsche Zeitung, EU Commission Vice President and Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry GĂŒnter Verheugen (62) complains with an amazing level of frustration and honesty about permanent power struggles between Commissioners and their senior staff:

“The development of the past decades has given the Commission’s apparatus of civil servants so much power that meanwhile it has become the most important task of Commissioners to control that machinery and its power.”

According to Verheugen, too many decisions are negotiated between civil servants instead of discussed with the responsible Commissioner – who nonetheless remains politically and legally responsible.

“Making sure that sensitive decisions are tackled in the weekly meeting with the Commissioner implies having to pay hellish attention”.

Verheugen adds that

“sometimes the control over the apparatus gets lost. My thesis is that too many things are decided by civil servants.”

Making the unchecked power of civil servants co-responsible for the high level of bureaucracy, Verheugen demands that the Commissioner not only holds political and legal responsibility for his or her area of work, but also gets the final decision-making power over administrational structure, staff and budget – all of which lie with a Directorate’s Director General at the moment.

He also suggests to re-organise the Commission in fewer Directorates while leaving the number of staff untouched, allowing for a cross-sectorial and holistic approach in the Commission’s work. In his opinion, geographical, cultural and political cultures would remain balanced by allowing the Commission’s President to construct his or her own Cabinet of Commissioners to be endorsed by both the Parliament and the Member States.

In the interview, Verheugen touches on two of the most problematic issues in shifting power back to the politically responsible Commissioners:

“It is about a change in political culture in the institution ‘European Commission’. A change which has to reach the minds of all civil servants.”

Not surprisingly, he leaves in the dark how exactly this could be achieved. Changing the political culture of an institution like the European Commission is not going to be easy. After all, the 18.000 civil servants of the Commission are to be convinced of an evolution essentially taking away some of their most essential powers – powers from wich they have benefited and to which they have grown accustomed.

It may be worthwile considering how some of the 28 reform proposals suggested by the Council of Europe’s Expert Group on “Making democratic instutions work” could contribute to reforming the European Commission’s internal decision-making culture. Guardians to watch the gurdians seems to be a good idea anyway…

Another exciting aspect of this life reform attempt is the observation of the largest European bureaucratic structure trying to apply the principles of learning organisations to itself under cruel scrutiny from a prejudiced public. Take, just for a moment, the 5 key disciplines of organisational learning as published by Peter Senge and try to think about applying them to a machinery of such sheer size, political sensitivity and intercultural complexity. Oh je.

Indeed, as they say: “We are condemned to live in interesting times.”

More on Verheugen’s interview at the “EU Observer” and “Der Spiegel”. More on organisational learning and the discourse on Senge’s approach to it over at “Infed”.

Interview published by Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Translations by Nonformality.

“The future of democracy in Europe – trends, analyses and reforms” is the title of a Green Paper published by the Council of Europe about 24 months ago.

It is one the key outputs of the Council’s integrated project on “Making democratic institutions work”, the second one being a closely related publication entitled “Developing democracy in Europe – an analytical summary of the Council of Europe’s acquis”.

Based on the analysis presented in the latter book, the Green Paper puts forward twenty-eight democratic reform proposals which were critically explored and reviewed at “The Future of Democracy in Europe Conference” in Barcelona 20 months ago. On the basis of the discussions at the conference, suggestions were made on how to proceed from there.

The conference brought together policy makers and civil servants, researchers and academics and civil society representatives. Its main outcomes have been published in a third book “Reflections on the future of democracy in Europe”. One outcome of the conference is the current “Forum on the future of democracy” of the Council of Europe which was established in 2005.

Professor Philippe Schmitter of the European University Institute in Florence used this quote of Karl Popper as an entry point to his keynote presentation in Barcelona.

(Schmitter, Philippe (2004): Democratic Reforms – Que Faire? OĂč faire? In: Reflections on the future of democracy in Europe. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing. P. 37 ff)

By means of his intervention, Schmitter introduced the backdrop of the integrated project, the shared assumptions of the expert group and the recommendations developed by the experts for the project. If this sounds a little technocratic, don’t be mislead because it is thoughtful and inspiring! While I couldn’t be in Barcelona, I wish I could have after reading through the keynote presentation


But not only the speech, also the topic is very exciting and thought-provoking. After all, there is general agreement that our polities and democracies need to evolve on the one hand – and a similarly mutual conformity that such reforms are to happen democratically. Or in the words of Professor Schmitter:

“Ironically, [the] much more favourable regional context [of Europe] presents dilemmas of its own for democracy. Many (if not most) of the major historical advances in democratic institutions and practices came in conjunction with international warfare, national revolution and civil war. Fortunately, none of these Archimedean devices for leveraging large-scale change seems to be available in today’s pacified Europe.”

But how can political and democratic institutions and practices be fundamentally reformed by democratic means? How can progress and development be ensured and norms and practices changed and improved by using these very same rules and norms to do so? How can the current rulers be convinced to change the ruley they have benefited from so far?

Historically these questions remain largely unanswered, and the challenges and opportunities hiding behind these questions are exceptionally diverse and strong. As Professor Schmitter puts it:

“Certainly, we are condemned to live in “interesting times” in which both the rate, and the scale and scope of change seem to be unprecedented and, most important, beyond the reach of traditional units that have heretofore dominated its political landscape.”

In these interesting times, the Council of Europe brought together a group of experts from policy, research and practice to produce a Green Paper on reforming democracy. In more detail, the tasks of the expert group were to:

• identify the challenges and opportunities posed to contemporary European democracy by rapid and irrevocable changes in its national, regional and global contexts;
• specify the processes and actors in both the formal institutions and informal practices that are being affected by these external challenges and opportunities, as well as by internal trends that are intrinsic to democracy itself;
• propose potential and desirable reforms that would improve the quality of democratic institutions in Europe.

During its work, the expert group used a generic working definition of democracy which should not prefer or exclude any of the three main contemporary models of democracy but rather focus and guide the work of the diverse group.

“Modern political democracy is a regime or system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and co-operation of their representatives.”

On the basis of this broad and common understanding, the group developed a set of twenty-eight reform proposals which are not meant to be seen as single and disconnected measures but rather as an interwoven package of reforms. Of course not all reforms make sense in all situations, and therefore the constellation of each reform package is highly context-sensitive: “It is the mix that matters.”

Independent of the specific packaging in a given situation, reforms could and should happen simultaneously and/or sequentially, thus influencing each other in ways which are, experience seems to tell, difficult to calculate and fully predict.

The reform proposals range from lotteries for electors to participatory budgeting by citizens and vouchers for funding civil society organisations. In the order presented in the Green Paper, the expert group’s “wish list” is this (follow the link to read more about each proposal):

01. Universal citizenship
02. Discretionary voting
03. Lotteries for electors
04. Shared mandates
05. Specialised elected councils
06. Democracy kiosks
07. Citizenship mentors
08. Council of Denizens
09. Voting rights for denizens
10. Civic service
11. Education for political participation
12. Guardians to watch the guardians
13. Special guardians for media guardians
14. Freedom of information
15. A “yellow card” provision for legislatures
16. Incompatibility of mandates
17. Framework legislation
18. Participatory budget by citizens
19. A Citizen’s Assembly
20. Variable thresholds for elections
21. Intra-party democracy
22. Vouchers for funding organisations in civil society
23. Vouchers for financing political parties
24. Referendums and initiatives
25. Electronic support for candidates and parliaments (“smart voting”)
26. Electronic monitoring and online deliberation systems
27. Postal and electronic voting
28. An agent for the promotion of democratic reform

Some of these ideas I agree with enthusiastically, others I am more hesitant about. Such differing degrees of enthusiasm were also present in the expert group, but while I am tempted to argue some of the recommendations I won’t. In doing so I would replace the collective and interdisciplinary work of the authors of the Green Book with my individual opinion. In the framework of this article, which aims at introducing the Green Book and the suggestions it contains, I feel such a personalised attempt would be erroneous and egocentric.

Having said this, let me conclude by adding one reform proposal to the list of twenty-eight:

0. Democratic education

This proposal would reform educational institutions (kindergarten, schools, universities etc) to be democratic and participatory in nature. It has been the collective assessment of the expert group developing the Green Book that

“the major generic problem of contemporary European democracy concerns declining citizen trust in political institutions and participation in democratic processes”.

Educational institutions are part of society and part of democratic polities. Political education about democracy will never achieve trust and confidence if it happens in a non-democratic environment. Citizens will not believe in the efficacy of controlling rulers if they have never experienced such control having positive effects or any effects at all.

In other words: As long as we request from our children to recite and remember the principles of our democratic system in an environment which is deeply undemocratic, we should not be astonished that young people do not believe in the power and added value of democracy. As long as we have to learn in institutions in which power-relations are lopsided and constantly abused and in which voluntary engagement results in pressure and downgrading, young people will continue to disengage from what we call democracy and they experience as hegemonial control.

This is, for me, the largest challenge of the world we are condemned to live in: Without an empowering system of education which provides a framework to live and experience democracy, our polities will continue to tumble and topple, and they will never be truly democratic either.

The three books online:

Developing democracy in Europe – An analytical summary of the Council of Europe’s acquis
The future of democracy – Trends, analyses and reforms
Reflections on the future of democracy in Europe

The three books as pdfs:

Developing democracy in Europe – An analytical summary of the Council of Europe’s acquis
The future of democracy – Trends, analyses and reforms
Reflections on the future of democracy in Europe

The three books in the COE bookstore:

Developing democracy in Europe – An analytical summary of the Council of Europe’s acquis
The future of democracy – Trends, analyses and reforms
Reflections on the future of democracy in Europe

Note:

Obviously, you will also find all the documents at the website of the Council of Europe, where they are freely available for download in pdf-format as well as purchasable from the Council’s bookstore. It is against our ethical standards as bloggers to steal bandwidth from other people without them knowing it, which is why we offer you the download directly from our site.

Independent of that, ownership of and credit for the pulications belong solely to the Council of Europe — which has a long tradition in sharing its knowledge.