C Explanatory memorandum by Mr Franken,
rapporteur for opinion
1. I welcome the report of the Committee on Culture,
Science, Education and Media, and the detailed and comprehensive
explanatory memorandum prepared by the rapporteur, Ms Anne Brasseur,
focusing on the Internet as an area of freedom and citizen participation,
which has ended the information oligopoly, allows free expression
of opinion and political protest, and creates new forms of political
aggregation and “liquid democracy”, but which also brings about
new dangers for individual freedoms and risks of disinformation, manipulation
and populism.
2. The theme of last year’s Council of Europe World Forum on
Democracy (23-29 November 2013) was “Rewiring democracy – connecting
citizens and institutions in the digital age” and it focused on
how the Internet is revolutionising our democratic practices, in
particular through social networks, blogs, and online media. These
digital tools offer citizens the possibility to contribute to the
decision-making process, to debate policy options in real time and
to influence decisions made by their elected representatives.
3. It is important to bear in mind that the use of digital communication
technologies may also erode civil and political rights, fragment
the democratic debate and undermine the capacity of representative
institutions to analyse, discuss and shape a common position.
4. Some of the Forum workshops thoroughly analysed current practices
of “liquid” democracy and potential risks for human rights, as well
as problems related to the digital divide, Internet voting and open
government initiatives. Many participants wondered whether the digital
age can provide a remedy for a democracy in poor shape and whether
technical innovations are changing the very nature of democracy.
5. Recent political initiatives, such as “Pirate Parties” which
have spread to over 70 countries worldwide and count more than 30 000
followers, have indeed increased participation and allowed for an
open discussion on various topics and initiatives, which are especially
attracting the young. Other experiments, such as online platforms
for participative budgets and open government initiatives, e-consultations,
e-referenda, and e-initiatives, have offered the opportunity to
debate in a more open fashion and boosted democratic participation. They
also have the potential to re-establish the link between citizens,
policy makers and civil servants by increasing transparency and
co-operation. Internet voting, even with its limitations, has been
proved to increase the turn out, attract young voters and improve
the efficiency of the ballots.
6. I agree with the Forum’s conclusions, that these developments
do not, for the moment, constitute an alternative to representative
democracy. The key issue is how to use the Internet and other digital
tools to make representative democracy more functional or, as it
has been rightly said, to “democratise democracy”, and make us politicians
more accountable so that we can better serve the needs of the people.
7. What is important is not how voters will vote but to ensure
that voters can influence the power structures, which in turn will
need to listen more to the citizens. All available means of communication
must be used to prevent alienation of the people from their governments.
8. It is therefore undeniable that the Internet and social media
constitute an essential component of democracy. However, as parliamentarians
we must bear in mind a number of warnings related to the use of blogs,
Facebook, Twitter and other online tools in our political work,
as follows:
- direct contacts
between policy makers and citizens only concern a limited number
of issues and not other relevant subjects and overall priorities
which are dealt with by parliament;
- Twitter users who react to parliamentarians’ tweets often
do not participate in the election process (sometimes they don’t
even have the right to vote), whereas regular voters are confronted
with a broader action programme;
- online reactions could also come from a software or fictitious
people;
- by instantly reacting to citizens’ tweets, parliamentarians
miss an important element of democracy, which is analysis, reflection
and discussions with other parliamentarians, which allows them to
ponder the feasibility of a proposal;
- opinions and tweets of a single parliamentarian can be
the source of wrong expectation by the public;
- in some Council of Europe member States, such as my own,
the Netherlands, parliamentarians do not enjoy the immunity which
they have when speaking in their parliaments, if they express their
opinions via Twitter;
- third parties may manipulate some messages with semantic
polling techniques.
9. We need to pursue our reflection on how to combine traditional
and digital tools of participation and to find a balance between
forms of “liquid” and representative democracy, so as to strengthen
the infrastructures of our political life, boost participation and
improve our democracies.
10. At the last European Conference of Presidents of Parliaments
on 20 and 21 November 2012, President Mignon stressed that national
parliaments should not oppose changes in society, but adapt to societal
and technological developments, while guaranteeing the stability
of democracy by building a strong link between the institutions
of representative democracy and citizens. This should be done,
inter alia, through the establishment
of better communication channels with the public, notably via the
Internet, social networks, parliamentary television channels and/or
civil society associations. Parliaments should move into social networks
so as not to lose contact with the younger generations.
Note At the same time, parliaments
should pay attention to the risks of information distortion and
manipulation of public opinion. That is why I suggest
Amendment B to the draft resolution
to better clarify the actions expected by our parliaments.
11. The accountability of Internet operators is a key issue which
needs to be mentioned along with the concerns expressed in paragraph
13 of the draft resolution, related to the Internet becoming a no-go
area, dominated by hidden powers with no clearly assigned responsibility.
Two Assembly reports are being prepared on the right to Internet
access and on co-ordinated strategies for effective Internet governance
and two important initiatives exist at European Union level, namely
the “Code of EU online rights” and the “Digital Agenda for Europe”,
which should be mentioned in the resolution (Amendment
A).
12. This amendment should be seen in conjunction with Amendment C. Neutrality needs to
be ensured on the Internet as well and not just on television and
other traditional media. Paragraph 17.9.2.2 suggests establishing
an independent institution with sufficient powers, technical competences
and resources to give expert opinion on the algorithms of the search
engines which filter and condition access to information and knowledge
on the web. However, we should be aware of the risk that such an
institution could undermine the very nature of the freedom of expression
by exerting undue influence and creating unnecessary restrictions.
13. Resolution 1653
(2009) on electronic democracy stressed that the technological
evolution of e-democracy should be pursued in accordance with democratic
principles. E-democracy can only be instrumental in a democratic
environment in which human rights and the rule of law are implemented
and observed. I should also like to refer to Recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1
of the Committee of Ministers on electronic democracy, which was
the first international legal instrument to set standards in the
field of e-democracy. The recommendation was prepared by the ad
hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE, 2006-2008) and offers all European
Governments and other stakeholders substantial guidelines and principles
when dealing with e-democracy. This text was accompanied by a number
of practical tools prepared for those who require hands-on information
about combining modern information and communication tools and democratic requirements
and practice.
14. Finally, in the framework of the 2010 debate on “Democracy
in Europe: crisis and perspectives”, our Assembly stressed that
the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, be it
at local, regional, national or European level, is a human right
and a fundamental political freedom, which should thus be embodied
as such in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Assembly
decided to undertake further reflection in close consultation with
the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission),
with a view to elaborating such a protocol.
Note I believe that this reflection should
include the contribution of the Internet and other digital tools,
such as social networks, online platforms of discussion, electronic
voting and open government initiatives. For this reason, I propose
Amendment D to the draft resolution.
