Democracy 2.0 – political transparency online
Kjersti Corneliussen, Håkon Skramstad,
Bjørn Tennøe,
André Kongevold, Ola Halset,
Eivind Mølster, Ivar Lyngve
Making Waves, FAST
Christian Krohgs gate 60, 0186 Oslo, Norway
{hakon, kjersti}@makingwaves.no
ABSTRACT
Democracy 2.0 is a proposed service to enable DEMOCRACY 2.0
electorate enlightenment and participation. This What
paper constitutes the need for new mechanisms to Presenting a new tool to support and enable true e-
turn a trend against alienation and disinterest in democracy, our proposal intends to contest non-
common causes. An open online hub to facilitate transparency in politics and facilitate understanding
civic political discourse is envisioned. of and participation in political discourse. This up-
to-date and advanced service combines user
Author keywords managed input like statements and opinions with
E-democracy, topic maps, politics, transparency, official assertions, documents, statistics and press
interaction, collaborative communities clippings. Visualisation of relations aims to make a
balanced and politically independent view of the
ACM classification keywords discussions and debates accessible.
H5.2 User Interfaces, H5.3 Group and Organization
In supporting transparency in politics, through
interfaces K4.1 Public Policy Issues
illustrating the relationship between what, when,
who, and how a debate evolves, we hope to permit
INTRODUCTION
extraction of meaning for the users. This depends
Decreasing interest in politics is evident in many
on the available levels of abstraction. It must be
instances, amongst others through decreasing
possible to choose at what level to review a topic,
participation in elections. Observed increase in
i.e. on the global, national or local level. In
partaking on the net on topics of interest through
addition, a left or right wing view should be
discussion forums, blogs, wikis and the like,
offered. Another interesting aspect is demonstrating
indicates that the reason for political disinterest is
weak and strong relationships. A strong one could
not people’s unwillingness to contribute. Perhaps
be Bill Gates and Microsoft, a weaker one Bill
participation just needs to be easier and more
Gates and polar bears.
relevant?
User participation is central to the success of the
By enabling extraction of meaning on multiple service; a wide range of perspectives must be
levels, Democracy 2.0 aims to facilitate access to available for the information to be trustworthy.
political debate. Providing resources and making Essential in such a respect is providing users an
information findable creates transparency. Making option as to what level they would like to
contexts and perspectives explicit supports participate and make their contribution. In addition,
balanced overview. In turn, empowerment of the the service should support open APIs to facilitate
general public is feasible. generation of third-party tools, including semantic
analysis. First and foremost, Democracy 2.0 must
Democracy 2.0 is a means of influencing the be easy to interact with.
current political agenda. A sound knowledge base
may well inspire participation, and power Simplicity is usually the key to a successful story
distribution shifts towards balance. on the web. Immense amounts of information will
be available for presentation, underlining the need
E-democracy will with Democracy 2.0 have the for simplicity. Effortless navigation and context
opportunity to explore the potential of internet and retention become essential features. Highly
civic involvement. Through this, the potential dependent on a positive user experience, this
decrease in distance between the general public and proposal focuses on the importance of easy
the power elite will invigorate democracy on the interaction.
whole. Democracy 2.0 is about giving everybody access to
politics and decrease the distance between the

general public and the power elite through power monopoly of the Communist Party [].
transparency in the political process. And we are Exactly because the net is such a difficult medium
not talking e-democracy in its simplest form of to control, laymen have the opportunity to be heard.
online voting. No matter the powerful opposition.
Why There are a number of issues that need to be
Democracy 2.0 aims to put trust back into politics, addressed in relation to Democracy 2.0. The service
invigorate democracy and create a counterweight to needs to provide an overview showing the context
one-sided, populist politics. We are experiencing a and which relations are present to generate
lack of interest for political participation amongst understanding. Exactly because lack of
the general public. This balance shift is evident. In understanding and an absence of overview were
fact, a recent study quoted in a Norwegian mentioned as some of the main reasons for people’s
newspaper stated 50,8 percent of Norwegians are disinterest in politics [1], Democracy 2.0 aims to
"little or not at all interested in politics" [] illustrate political debate and thereby support the
Consequences are increasing distance to the process of democratic rule through transparency.
political representatives and increasing mistrust in Possible consequences supporting this claim are
their intentions. shown in figure 1.
At the same time, we see a revival of public debate
and exchange of views through discussion forums Democracy 1.0
in online papers, political hubs and newsgroups. 
Young people are no longer seeking out the Democracy 2.0 Agree
Accusations
traditional arenas for public debate, such as on differences
Populist rhetoric
newspapers, but are increasingly participating Balance & consideration
Concealed
through the internet. Especially in the US, blogs Accessible & transparent
Non-stimulating
have been known to set the agenda for the political Interesting
Subjective allegations
debate. The attractiveness of the web, in this Objective facts
Boring articles
respect, could well be its availability. We are Nice interactive visuals
No contact w/ populace
increasingly adopting the online 24-7 lifestyle. Interactive Confidence
Distrust
Evolving
Merging these trends give nourishment to the idea Static
of Democracy 2.0. We believe the time has come to
enable political overview and, hence, participation Figure 1: Desired effect of Democracy 2.0
How
through the web. Democracy depends on the
As a fundament for Democracy 2.0, we propose to
electorate’s ability to debate matters of public
use topic maps with a dynamic, visual and search-
importance. And with society increasingly
powered user interface. Topic maps are a new ISO
administered on level remote from general public
standard for describing knowledge structures and
democracy is in fact not practised. According to
associating them with information resources.
Habermas [], a contemporary sociologist and
[ Pepper ]. This will provide an expandable
philosopher, democratic public life only thrives
framework that is connectable to external resources
where institutions enable citizens to debate matters
whilst retaining an independent presentation layer.
of public importance and actors are equally
According to Newcomb [], originator of the topic
endowed with the capacities of discourse.
maps paradigm, knowledge sharing involves
Enforcing transparency could prevent populist making perspectives and contexts explicit.
politics gaining support in that there is an Furthermore, he asserts that a topic map always
alternative to simplistic argumentation. The expresses one or more perspectives, thus facilitating
sometimes lacking appropriate political democratic collaboration without dictating a specific ontology.
process would be challenged, and the experienced Topic maps provide an open model for describing
disinterest perhaps turned. By making the just about anything, simultaneously providing
complexity of political discourse available, its multiple paths to information. Furthermore, the
accessible form would assist in involving the topic maps paradigm is strong in the mapping of
general public. relationships, so abundant in complex political
processes.
The power of the general public should not be
underestimated; public debate has changed the
Political discourse is a good example of how
outcome of profiled decisions before. With the
knowledge is interconnected. Democracy 2.0
increasing popularity of sharing through the net,
should be considered a process: a dynamic map of
trends like social tagging, blogging, rating etc, we
the political landscape with no defined start or
believe there is potential in the idea of Democracy
beginning, but where Democracy 2.0 applies the
2.0. In China, the countermeasures put in place
necessary framework.
makes evident how the inherent democratic
potential of the internet challenges the established

the
Figure 2. An interface draft for further development
Based on the building blocks of topic maps, namely user browses through articles, the discussion pattern
topics, associations and occurrences Pepper [], a is indicated visually. To the right is an area for
number of layered and interconnected concepts examining the body of the current article. Here, the
would make up the knowledge structure of article is analyzed for different purposes, e.g.
Democracy 2.0. Starting out with some basic arguments represented as facts may be investigated
categories such as person, role, time, organization, and discussed.
medium and subject, the ontology of Democracy
2.0 would be allowed to evolve with time. Facts Democracy 2.0 should aim to put things up on the
could be differentiated from assertions, agreements political agenda. This requires a continuous
from disagreements and so forth. In turn, a fact presence in the public sphere and a large base of
could be granulated into domains such as statistics participants and interested parties. To obtain this, it
and theory. Relationships could be envisioned in is necessary to find the tipping point, namely the
degrees such as strong or weak. Different critical mass for success: in order to get more
viewpoints would be supported, enabling the people interested, content is essential. However, to
display of a topic or a combination of topics from produce quality content, a large number of
different perspectives, such as local or global. contributors are required. Admittedly, this is a
challenge.
Perceived as a coherent whole, Democracy 2.0
would in fact consist of several different interfaces The lesson learned from the start-up of Wikipedia
and system components. Figure 2 displays an [], the online collaborative encyclopaedia which
example of how such a component could be now counts 1 212 000+ articles in English, was that
manifested: in the Participant Area (top left), during the start-up years contributions were limited.
participants in a discussion are associated with After a few years, however, content contribution
other stakeholders and organisations. Also, seemed to reach a critical limit and started to grow
organisations may be clustered in greater groups. In exponentially. In order to reach the tipping point, a
this case, there are two main camps, the "Yea" and number of criteria must be fulfilled. A value
the "Nay". This is an ordinary situation in elections. proposition must be evident and a number of
Below the participant area is a tool for selecting personal incentives must be present. By providing
articles and other inputs in the debate. The input has an immediate insight into the political discourse,
been organised along a timeline. In this instance, an Democracy 2.0 must be a hub for political
article by a representative of the Greens is selected. participation and debate. This could be obtained
Note that this contributor is currently highlighted in through a summarised, but explorable visualisation
the participant area. An icon is assigned to this of the dominant topics currently being discussed,
person and other participants are less visually e.g. based on the topics that are currently most
distinct. As the Green representative has quoted a popular in terms of contributions and visits. In
Red member and a Blue member, these are also addition to focusing on the contemporary and
assigned icons and are slightly highlighted. The immediate, it must be easy to use Democracy 2.0 as
icons show whether the Green member agrees or a reference tool to check up on a topic of interest,
disagrees with the persons he / she is quoting. As for example through a powerful search- and tagging

functionality. Simultaneously, it remains important, contributions across scales of trustworthiness and
as in any democratic process, that the less popular reliability. A person claiming to be an authority
topics also get their spot in the limelight, by making within a field would accumulate confidence by
the plethora of opinions apparent. having many people vouching for his or her
production. Rating would not require authentication
Other personal incentives for use could be to find and must be immediate and easy. There can be no
arguments for a dispute, express opinions, get guarantee of the quality of the information present
inspired, attract attention, get an issue into the in Democracy 2.0. It will be up to the contributors
public debate, connect and collaborate with like to convince affiliated users. In order to avoid a
minded people, participate in arguments or predominance of unserious or offensive content,
challenge personal perspective. Furthermore, some moderating would be required. A few
Democracy 2.0 should utilise the idealistic dedicated monitors must be able to remove content
implications of the project: for the purpose of deemed objectionable by a critical number of users.
democracy, what is contributed will be free to use
for everybody. It is crucial that the system retains Who
focus on politics. From the interface and In societies that increasingly rely on
components that make up Democracy 2.0, it must interdependencies and technological mediation,
be apparent that it is a dedicated tool for e- revitalising the political discourse among ordinary
democracy, primarily facilitating discussions on citizens is crucial. Although the main target group
topics of interest to the participants. It is an is the general public, the service may also be useful
extended debate forum; not an encyclopaedia. as a tool for lobbyists, politicians, journalists, media
Moreover, it is pertinent that content contribution is agents, Non Governmental Organisations (NGO’s)
open and simple to be accessible for anyone. and corporations. These groups may have different
Everyone who might be affected should also be agendas for participation: specialists and academics
able to take part in the discussion. There should be would have an interest in visibility and discussion
no set boundaries to the topics: all users should with fellow specialists. Lay people may desire to
have equal and free interaction to any topic so that express personal opinion about a matter in a place
anything may be discussed. The knowledge base where their ideas attract response. Journalists may
established through time would be accessible from want to create references to their own production.
many perspectives and entry points; level, topic, The larger part of the users of Democracy 2.0 will
search, order in time, contributors, relations be viewers who will not contribute content to any
between issues discussed or statistical connections. large extent. Nevertheless, one could expect people
The system should encourage informal to change roles according to topic and mindset.
contributions, as others might elaborate or improve Occasionally the viewers will contribute with
argumentation. In order to separate what is comments and arguments, at times reporting on
discussed from the discussion itself, Democracy 2.0 content considered inappropriate.
must clearly distinguish between opinions of
contributors and occurrences in the real world. Democracy 2.0 presupposes a large share of the
Moreover, the participants should be able to population having access to a web client.
provide external resources and discuss particular Availability for all citizens is non-crucial as the
concerns from local issues to matters of worldwide proposed solution is not intended to replace any of
interest. In addition to debates, contributors should the current institutions of public debate. In future
be encouraged to update information about current developments of Democracy 2.0 it is plausible to
events. Democracy 2.0 should start with a core of envision different mediums for expression and
people involving academics, the politically contribution, for example video and images, so
involved and students of the social sciences. When commonplace in many of today’s content-sharing
a sufficient user base is established, one should facilitators. Annany and Strohecker [] argue that
reach out to the press and political establishment. civic discourse can be public storytelling. A wide
Ultimately, exposure though other channels is range of public services and mass media could
essential to promote existence. Trustworthiness and provide inroads to Democracy 2.0.
reliability of information will be an important
success factor for Democracy 2.0. How do people
know that the information is reliable? Blogs usually CONCLUSION
obtain a degree of trustworthiness from the author
This concept is in its very first phase. We believe
being a professional authority within his or her area
that the domain beyond this starting point has
of interest. To increase trustworthiness, a rating
potential to truly change the political landscape.
system could be incorporated. Aiming for
Political discourse will be made available, and
transparency, Democracy 2.0 should therefore
transparency applied in areas seemingly
require contributors to be registered. Registered and
inaccessible to the general public today.
unregistered users would be encouraged to rate

With a first prototype some of the main challenges http://www.zipworld.com.au/~athornto/
will be explored. The need for an effective, simple 6. Daily News. Civic duty! Make your own law?
and accessible way of political contribution is http://www.nydailynews.com/news/local/story/
present. A continuing development of the prototype 352247p-300402c.html
will indicate solutions to these challenges. In future 7. Kiwipedia. Wikipedia
work with Democracy 2.0 it would be natural to http://www.kiwipedia.com/wikipedia.html
involve expertise from the social sciences, e.g. 8. Annany M and Strohecker C. Designing Public
sociology, communication theory, law and so forth. Spaces for Democratic Stories
http://carolstrohecker.info/PapersByYear/2004/
REFERENCES DemocraticStories.pdf
9. Åström, J. Should Democracy Online be
1. Aftenposten. Halvparten blåser i politikk Quick, Strong or Thin?
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/politik Communications of the ACM January 2001,
k/article1349470.ece Vol. 44 No. 1
2. Wikipedia. Habermas, J. 10. Anttiroiko, A. Building Strong E-Democracy –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J The Role of Technology in Developing
%C3%BCrgen_Habermas Democracy for the Information Age
3. Amnesty International Communications of the ACM September 2003,
http://web.amnesty.org/web/content.nsf/pages/ Vol. 46 No. 9ve
gbr_china_internet 11. Iversen, O.S. A Visit to the “New Utopia”
4. Pepper, S. The Tao of Topic Maps Revitalizing Democracy, Emancipation and the
http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tao Quality in Co-operative Design.
.html NordiCHI October 2004
5. Newcomb, S. (Emnekart 2006 Conference 12. Watson, R. T. and Mundy B. A Strategic
Publications) Perspective of Electronic Democracy
http://forum.dataforeningen.no/attachment.php Communications of the ACM January 2001,
?attachmentid=606 Vol 44 No 1