AA13CR05ADD1

AS (2013) CR 05
Addendum 1

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Fifth sitting

Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 10 a.m.

ADDENDUM 1

Internet and politics: the impact of new information and communication technology on democracy

The following texts were submitted for inclusion in the official report by members who were present in the Chamber but were prevented by lack of time from delivering them.

      Ms AMBLER (Observer from Canada) – Voter turnout, ultimately, is tied to confidence in Parliament. A World Values survey showed only 38% of Canadians reported a high level of confidence. Why is this important? Because confidence in the structures of government is crucial for the functioning of democracy. The Internet and social media in particular can help in this regard – to reconnect citizens with their democratic institutions in new and dynamic ways.

      The Council of Europe's Committee on Culture, Science, Education and Media has identified Internet governance as a subject for fruitful discussion at this time, the aim being to make more effective use of the Internet as a tool for transparent parliament and government action as well as a forum for exchange and dialogue with society.

      In that vein, my remarks will focus on what can be done to fight youth disengagement and boost youth participation. If we succeed in doing this, we also make governments more accountable, functional and democratic. Studies show that young people today are less interested in politics and they know less. But they are not indifferent. Their interests lie in more activist-style politics, which could be considered a more individualised or private – if non-traditional – style of participation. They demonstrate, sign petitions and volunteer more than their older counterparts.

      The importance of civics education has also been identified and addressed in the literature. One organisation I deal with at home in Canada is called simply CIVIX and it connects elected representatives with 10 and 15-year-old children who are studying the subject of governance as part of the curriculum. Groups like CIVIX recognise the importance of instilling in young Canadians the desire and motivation to participate in electoral politics. It is the most effective way to address the lack of political knowledge that I mentioned, but it also imparts greater understanding of the responsibilities associated with citizenship. When a person understands these concepts, they are much less likely to use the most common excuse for not voting, which is that they are "not interested" in politics.

      Election campaigns are also excellent opportunities to engage young people. Giving them more responsibility than simply stuffing envelopes would recognise their unique abilities. Candidates who take advantage of their superior knowledge of social media and the online world – and combine it with research skills they learned at school – are going to be at least one step further ahead of their opponents. And that young person will be engaged in the political process for a lifetime.

      The enormous advances in information technology have raised expectations about citizen involvement in the political process, making government more responsive to citizens. We absolutely should increase and improve the use of technology to enable greater citizen involvement but we must also ensure that a greater understanding of the democratic process is imparted along the way. Using the Internet for the sake of itself does not further the goal of giving people a stronger voice in governance. Instilling trust through understanding is crucial and the Internet can help us accomplish this goal.

      Mr HANSON (Estonia) – Let me, at the outset, compliment Madame Brasseur for undertaking this important work and tabling this report on the Internet and politics. The Internet indeed has an ever- increasing presence in the everyday lives of our citizens and this must also be reflected in the discussions of our Assembly. I therefore fully support the draft resolution and recommendation and look forward to future discussions on the issue, and especially to the coming report on access to the Internet by my Finnish colleague Jaana Pelkonen. Today, I would like to make two additional points.

      Firstly, I agree with Madame Brasseur that there is a need for a strategic response from the Council of Europe to help us safeguard human rights amidst the myriad State and non-State actors which govern the Internet. The dramatic events concerning the mass-surveillance of personal data on the Internet have destabilised current Internet governance arrangements and there is a need to restore trust. The Council of Europe’s dynamic work could be of considerable added value in this regard, both in and beyond its geographical borders. I have noted that Madame Brasseur has proposed that the Committee of Ministers prepare a White Paper on “Democracy, politics and the Internet.” My suggestion is that rather than developing a new set of texts, the Committee of Ministers should look into already existing documents and standards and respond to our request by compiling those and filling the gaps where necessary. There is in fact already plenty of work which has been done or which is ongoing, such as the Internet Governance Strategy for 2012-2015, which has produced a number of recommendations and declarations on various aspects of Internet governance.

      Secondly, I would like to reflect a little upon the electronic democracy that was also discussed in the report. As you probably know, Estonia has undertaken various initiatives that use new technologies for bringing the government closer to people and vice versa. We are known for our e-Cabinet, e-Health service and also e-voting, which has attracted the most international attention. We consider this as one of the most promising avenues in contributing to increasing popular participation in elections. E-voting, in our case, means voting via Internet and not voting by using a special voting device. E-voting was first introduced in the local elections of 2005 when about 2% of all participating voters voted in this manner. E-voting has taken place six times in Estonia with binding results; during the last local elections in October more than 20% of all voters voted via e-voting, at home or at the office. This is clear proof that over the years an overwhelming trust in the safety of this method of voting has emerged; this does not mean that there are no discussions on how to improve and develop the method further. We are always ready to share our experiences with countries who are interested in venturing into this promising avenue as a way of increasing the political participation of populations.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) - This discussion is very timely and it will be relevant at all our meetings in the coming years. I strongly support the core recommendation of the report and here I refer to article 111 in the conclusion of the report which proposes launching the drafting of a Council of Europe White Paper on “Democracy, politics and the Internet”. This “would constitute logical follow-up to the World Forum on Democracy held in Strasbourg on 27-29 November 2013. It should involve all our national parliaments and governments in a wide-ranging collective discussion process, as well as the political forces, the main Internet operators, the media – particularly the public broadcasting services and the national and European media associations – the universities and the leading experts in this field.” This is a good proposal and I strongly support it.

      I attended the above-mentioned World Forum on Democracy, where there was a very good and lively discussion on democracy. There were varying views on different forms of democracy, the dividing line being between representative democracy on the one hand and direct democracy on the other.

      This paper takes sides in this debate, strongly favouring representative and institutional democracy, calling as a witness in this respect no less a person than Edmund Burke, the 18th century philosophical founder of modern day Conservatism.

      On liquid democracy in paragraph 33 the following is said: “Individual citizens become aware of and participate in mobilizations, sign petitions, demonstrate electronically without ever belonging to anything.” But I ask you, why do you have to belong to anything? Can you not, in your own right, come forward with your own views and standpoints without belonging either to a political party or indeed any other social institution? This is an example of growing conservatism in the institutional world which is becoming ever more defensive and conservative in the face of new technologies that open up new dimensions in democratic discourse and decision making with enormous liberating potential.

      To do the report justice, however, it must be said that it meticulously refers to the various nuances of this debate, though always siding with the institutional world. In the summary at the outset it says: “The Internet now lies at the heart of democratic society… It has enabled citizen groups to mobilise and hold governments and politicians accountable as never before, expanding public participation in democratic processes”.

      “On the other hand”, it says in the summary “fragmented web-based decision-making is not necessarily suited to complex policy-making…Replacing representative democracy with some form of ‘direct democracy’ via Internet voting would bring the risk that small groups with greater resources could dictate final decisions without being known or required to account for them, wielding illegitimate power. The web can also facilitate abuse”.Alt

      Although I have strong reservations on the criticism of direct democracy, which I think will become the norm, increasingly replacing representative democracy in the 21st century, I do agree that the Internet can be and certainly is being misused. Here I refer to the way in which the Internet is being used for exploitation. In our work on child abuse in the Council of Europe we have had reports on how the Internet is being increasingly used as a vehicle for child abuse, something we should not take lightly, any more than we are willing to tolerate such abuse in other open spaces in society. Let us never forget that the Internet is a part of, not peripheral to society.

      But I am grateful for this valuable report and I reiterate my support for further work in this field as suggested in the recommendations.

Ms PELKONEN (Finland) - Let me start by congratulating the rapporteur on this excellent and timely report. Internet communication is growing at a remarkable rate and continues to change our societies. In January last year, there were an estimated 2.4 billion internet users worldwide. This figure includes many of our voters and we need to be aware of that.

The Internet has revolutionised the way people interact and exercise their freedom of expression and information as well as other human rights, including cultural, civil and political rights. Some countries have introduced e-voting, and many politicians have a constant discussion with their voters on their blogs. Finland has introduced the Citizen’s Initiative, by which anyone can make a proposal for a law which has to be discussed in Parliament, provided it meets set criteria. It has become increasingly easy for citizens to be involved and participate in politics, and I agree with the rapporteur that we need to discuss how to use the Internet more effectively and responsibly in order to enhance democracy.

Having said that, I would like to point out that if we want the Internet to be an effective tool for democracy, we must ensure that Internet access is equally available to all. In April I will present my report on the right to Internet access to this Assembly. As the issue is profoundly connected to Ms Brasseur’s report, I would like to take this opportunity to make a few remarks.

The Internet is an enabler of human rights, such as the freedom of speech and the right to private life. However, digital divides still exist all over Europe. In some states, Internet access is or can be restricted by public authorities. In addition, commercial market pressure may lead Internet access providers to privilege some users and disadvantage others. We simply cannot discuss the possibilities of participation online without simultaneously addressing the issues related to internet access.

Therefore I urge all your governments to recognise a fundamental right to Internet access in your domestic law and practice. Affordable, unlimited and functional Internet services should be available to all, be it in private homes or through public access points. Research suggests that individual countries will face huge economic, social and democratic deficits, if a large percentage of their population is excluded from cyberspace.

Creating more innovative tools for participation is good news for democracy. But democracy means the power of all people and we should all have the same possibilities to participate.

Ms ANTTILA (Finland) - I would like to congratulate Ms Anne Brasseur on her excellent report on the impact of new information and communication technology on democracy. It is true that the Internet lies at the heart of democratic society. The Internet expands public participation in the democratic processes. Social media reconnect citizens with their democratic institutions in new and dynamic ways.

The complex political decision making also has serious challenges, as described in the report. If we replace representative democracy with some form of "direct democracy" via Internet voting, there is a threat that some small groups with greater resources could dictate final decisions. This is not acceptable.

Participation and representation are inseparable: representative democracy must be genuinely participatory. The erosion of public confidence in political institutions must be stopped. In order to halt this tendency, we politicians should listen more to electors, develop citizen participation and promote active citizenship.

The Internet and social media are opening many new doors to increased dialogue between citizens and elected representatives and stimulating more dynamic participation in democratic life. The political parties have a very important role to play. The use of the new information and communication technologies helps to develop permanent dialogue with electors and competences required for exploiting this positive potential provided by the Internet.

We are living in very challenging times and facing an economic crisis. Making the necessary decisions is very hard. Under these circumstances the Internet gives politicians the chance to give more information to citizens about the decisions that are made.

New technology gives us the chance to improve citizens’ trust in us: they can contact us directly and have answers to their questions during the whole election period, not only just before the elections. This is very important because we need our citizens to trust us. That is the basis for democracy.

In the draft resolution there are very many good proposals on how to avoid the problems we face in this new information technology sector.

Ms GORGHIU (Romania) - Let me first congratulate the rapporteur on an excellent piece of work that allows us to have this debate today.

I speak to you today both as a politician and as a blog owner, as a Facebook user and as someone with an active account on Twitter. I come before you as a representative of the voters who follow my public activity, with whom I debate current issues and who express their grievances online. Furthermore, I had the pleasure of being appointed by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe as a rapporteur to the plenary session for the World Forum for Democracy, for the Online Petitions and Campaigning Laboratory.

The conclusion that I have reached is an obvious one: communication paradigms have changed fundamentally with the development of the Internet. This new tool of information sharing could be considered a solution to the democratic crisis that Europe is experiencing. The Internet may be the key to reconciling civic life with the political one.

Taking into account the new challenges, I salute the initiative of Mr. Abdou Diouf, Secretary General of La Francophonie, regarding the establishment of international rules and standards. Like him, I rely on the idea of accountability when it comes to democracy. People, dignity and freedom should represent the centre of democracy, and public and political institutions should ensure this by using new technological means.

I told you that I recently participated in the World Forum for Democracy, and I can easily say that the online petitions platforms play a crucial role, encouraging citizens’ participation in public life on the one hand, and on the other providing a rapid response to the representative institutions regarding public opinion on certain topics. Online petitions are a tool to exercise democracy and democracy is always complicated. Online petitions are a means of adapting to the era of globalisation in which the online environment is the most used form of communication. I must emphasise - and here I think you will agree with me – that democratic participation means more than signing a petition on these platforms. It is the first step to connect people to decision makers, but in order to make the government or parliament accountable or to bring changes, additional actions need to be developed.

In conclusion, I ask you all these questions: what can we do in order to ensure that our governments and parliaments are bound to react to these online petitions, positively or negatively? Are legal provisions a necessary step to ensure the responsiveness of parliaments and governments? All of us should find the correct answer to these questions.