Digital parliaments: Adapting democratic institutions to 21st century realities
The coronavirus crisis should be a catalyst for institutionalising the use of digital tools in parliament
Since the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, legislative processes are at a standstill due to physical distancing. Many legislators are now testing technologies that will allow their democratic institutions to meet, deliberate, and vote despite these restrictive measures. We need to use this momentum to be ambitious in terms of participatory and collaborative legislative procedures. How? By institutionalising the use of digital tools in parliament with the required security and privacy measures.
Digital technologies to ensure democratic continuity during the crisis
The French National Assembly introduced temporary solutions to preserve parliamentary debate using videoconferencing applications for deliberation in committees. However, legislative voting is still done in person and is only possible for a very limited number of MPs. This choice to keep institutions functioning mainly physically can be explained by both historical and technical reasons: sincerity of the vote, security, tradition, etc.
Our parliament is lagging behind on modernising its processes, unlike, for example, Latin American parliaments that are pioneering in this field. Besides using videoconferencing apps, the parliaments of Brazil, Chile, and Ecuador have developed their own platforms and online solutions for recording attendance, verifying quorum, and voting. In at least six other South American countries — Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, and Mexico — legislative bodies have started to experiment with virtual participation, applying it to non-decision-making spaces such as working groups or committee meetings. Even European countries like United Kingdom or Spain are moving faster than us. We should follow these examples.
In France, one of the most common arguments against the digitalisation of parliament, is that it will weaken the “ceremonial” aspect of parliamentary deliberation. It is argued that digitalisation could threaten MPs’ symbolic duties and their political weight vis-à-vis other branches of power, including the executive. Another reason can be the lack of digital literacy and skills in the French parliament. A recent study showed that only 5.37% of MPs considered themselves as digital experts, 10.23% as connoisseurs, and 12.65% as enthusiasts.
To achieve a digital parliament, it would also require the recruitment of technical profiles and adapted equipment in the two chambers. Regarding concerns at the political level, the doctrine must evolve. Digital parliaments might be less solemn than traditional procedures, but this horizontality is beneficial and can bring elected officials closer to their citizens.
Privacy, security, and accessibility are requirements for a digital parliament
I do not advocate for a blind race towards digitalisation: of course, there are certain limits to the introduction of digital tools in institutional decision making. For example, Zoom was strongly criticised due to unclear privacy policies, lack of security, and breaches of personal data.
If we look at remote voting, several security questions arise, like fraud for instance. The use of digital tools in parliament faces other challenges, like uneven internet bandwidth, technical problems (bad sound, connection issues, etc.), and unequal digital literacy and skills. However, this doesn’t mean that we should stop modernising legislative bodies. On the contrary, we should address and solve these problems that have been made more visible due to physical distancing measures.
Besides the technical challenges, the use of digital tools requires high standards regarding data privacy, cybersecurity, and decentralisation. First by applying the European General Data Protection Regulation, as well as stronger guarantees against government surveillance and misuse of personal data.
Additionally, open source web solutions should be the norm regarding digital tools in both institutions and public administrations. For instance, decentralised peer-to-peer videoconference applications such as Jitsi or or Big Blue Button can be great alternatives to Zoom or Google Meet.
More broadly, civic tech can help us continue citizen deliberation in times of physical distancing, provided it is open, ethical, and answers a real need. As an example, I used the Decidim platform several times to set up a dialogue with and between citizens. During the COVID-19 crisis, I launched with 65 other MPs the platform “The Day After”, where citizens could propose, deliberate, and vote on ideas to collectively decide the direction to take after the crisis.
Digital technologies can support more resilient, innovative, and living democracies
Lockdown measures showed the urgent need to adapt our democratic institutions and processes to ensure their continuity, even during crisis. Today almost 79% of French respondents have negative feelings towards politics, so beyond the emergency response, such technical — and cultural — evolutions could help strengthen citizen trust in elected officials and institutions by promoting participation, transparency, and accountability.
There is a myriad of examples, tools, and methods available to support the modernisation and openness of our parliaments through, for example, publishing MPs’ agendas and spending, transparency of lobbying in parliament, or citizen participation in law making.
Finally, the underlying question is not whether we need more or less digital tools in our institutions. It is about taking into account the major transformation of our society, the digital revolution, and adapting our political culture to it. We can use current challenges to build a resilient, innovative, and truly living democracy. Even if the present discussion is about the use of digital tools, the ultimate goal remains to transform and adapt our institutions to the needs and realities of the 21st century.
Paula Forteza, born August 8, 1986 in Paris, is a French politician. She is a Member of Parliament since June 2017, representing French citizens from Latin America and Caribbean. She spent over 20 years of her life in Latin America. After several experiences in the government of the city of Buenos Aires, the French administration, in Etalab, or in entrepreneurship, she aims to place digital, transparency, and citizen participation at the heart of the political debate in France.
This post is part of the Digital for Deliberation series. Read the other articles:
Digital for deliberation: Catching the deliberative wave
We are opening a discussion on the use of digital tools for deliberative processes, in collaboration with our colleagues working on digital government and public sector innovation.
How can digital tools support deliberation? Join the conversation!
The series will focus on three overarching questions: (1) How can digital tools support representative deliberative processes? (2) What are the limits of using digital tools for representative deliberative processes? (3) In what other contexts could these learnings be applied?
Designing an online citizens’ assembly: A practitioner perspective
One of the core elements of a citizens’ assembly is to create the space for people to meet face-to-face. That is where the magic of citizens’ assemblies lies. Why go online then? Marcin Gerwin offers some ideas.
Engineering for deliberative democracy
Just as the architecture of a meeting hall affects whose voice can be heard, the design of our digital tools provides and forecloses certain political possibilities. Jessica Feldman outlines where engineering decisions need to be made.
Designing text-based tools for digital deliberation
Understanding and measuring the influence of certain features on the quality of online text-based deliberations can help us make better design decisions.
Online deliberation: Opportunities and challenges
Lyn Carson in conversation with Graham Smith about what we know and don’t know about transferring face-to-face deliberations to an online environment.
The digital participatory process that fed into the French Climate Assembly
The online contributions from the wider public on the Decidim platform enriched the work of the in-person assembly, writes Eloïse Gabadou.
Digital solutions can complement real world participation — but mustn’t exclude
After public meetings can resume, digital participation will likely grow as a complement to offline events. This will broaden citizen engagement — but we have to be careful it doesn’t freeze people out, write Kelly McBride and Anthony Zacharzewski.
Public discussions on Covid-19 lockdown in Scotland
Reflections from government on the challenges of digital engagement by Niamh Webster.
Digital tools to open the judiciary: A perspective from Argentina
Pablo Hilaire writes that by promoting conscious uses of digital technologies in favour of open justice, we have learnt that to facilitate and promote deliberation and participation online, we need to put citizens at the centre, from the design to the collection of data and feedback.
Please note that this is a moderated forum that is subject to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy of the OECD website. The views expressed and arguments employed herein are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OECD or its member countries. The Organisation cannot be held responsible for possible violations of copyright resulting from the posting of any written material on this website. Your comments to posts are valuable; please contribute in a civil and constructive way. OECD reserves the right to delete or edit any comments before they are published. The OECD Secretariat will not respond systematically to each contribution. Note that the views expressed can be personal views.
