Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
e-participation case study: Direct democracy portal "Today I Decide" by Ms. Nele Leosk, e-Governance Academy, Estonia
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

e-participation case study: Direct democracy portal "Today I Decide" by Ms. Nele Leosk, e-Governance Academy, Estonia

2,901
views

Published on

Presentation by Ms. Nele Leosk, e-Governance Academy, Estonia at the third International Conference e-Society.Mk: e-participation case study: Direct democracy portal "Today I Decide", December 1, …

Presentation by Ms. Nele Leosk, e-Governance Academy, Estonia at the third International Conference e-Society.Mk: e-participation case study: Direct democracy portal "Today I Decide", December 1, 2007, Skopje Macedonia

Published in: Technology, News & Politics

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,901
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
34
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Today I Decide (TOM) Nele Leosk e-Governance Academy (eGA) Skopje, November 30, 2007
  • 2. TOM - Government Initiative
    • Main idea – to enhance public participation in political decision-making providing opportunity to propose and discuss new legislative initiatives via Internet
    • Also- to enhance dialogue between citizens, public officials, etc
    • Started in June, 2001
    • Administrated by State Chancellery
    • Promoted as Direct Democracy Portal
  • 3.  
  • 4. TOM - Two modes of operation
    • Policy documents presented for discussion by ministries (functioned just 2 months, from 2008 under e-participation portal again)
    • Proposals submitted by people
    • Only regist ered users can submit proposals and participate in discussions
    • Everybody can follow discussions
  • 5. Processing ideas
    • Idea is presented
    • 1 0 days for commenting, discussion
    • 3 days for editing
    • 3 days for secret voting
    • Only ideas getting more than half of votes in favour are considered further
    • Ministry has 1 month for analysis and answer
    • Answer is posted on TOM
  • 6. TOM statistics
    • 1 140 ideas presented (64% voted in, 34 % voted out)
    • 654 proposals sent to the ministries (89% answered: 6% possible implementation, 48% negative, 7% supportive)
    • 6 910 regist ered users
    • 100-150 visits per day (up to 300 when mentioned elsewere, eg in blogs, forums, etc)
    • 7 proposals applied
        • Introduction of summer time
        • Wireless internet signs
        • Estonian anthem downloadable from the Internet
  • 7. Visits to TOM
  • 8. New users of TOM (registered)
  • 9. New ideas
  • 10. Positive sides of TOM
    • Possibility to rise political issues
    • Obligation of state administration to respond
    • Communication between users (possibility to form an idea together)
    • Communication with state administration
    • Everybody can follow proposals and discussions
  • 11. Problems of TOM
    • Many non-constructive proposals
    • Passive discussions
    • Low level of the idea author’s ivolvement (35% participate in later phases)
    • Few votes
    • Small number of active users
    • No publicity, buzz
    • Rejection of proposals by state administration on formal grounds
    • Little dialogue between citizen s and political decision makers
    • Few ideas implemented
  • 12. Mobilising citizens
    • Has to be advertised permanently in the Internet and other media
    • a system of email or RSS notification linking authors and discussants is necessary to improve the quality and quantity of discussion of generated ideas
    • database of ideas to signal previous attempts to address a problem and make it easier to mobilize users
    • tracing the progress of the ideas once they have been delivered to the government
  • 13. Increasing legislative impact
    • ideas should also be circulated to a wider network of interested parties, including parliamentary committees, political parties and NGOs
    • connect users to outside sources of information to help the drafting and commenting of ideas (legislation, etc)
    • Indicat ion of the policy priorities of government ministries
    • revise and resubmit ideas that have received a negative answer from the relevant government ministry
  • 14.
    • THANK YOU!
    • nele @ega.ee
    • +372 55 61 71 53