Advertisement

Participatory Constitutional Design: A Grassroots Experiment for (Re)Designing the Constitution in Greece

  • Evika KaramagioliEmail author
  • Mary Karatza
  • Stephania Xydia
  • Dimitris Gouscos
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)

Abstract

This chapter reports how participatory processes and ICT tools can go against rule-driven bureaucratic approaches to political participation and public deliberation, trying to defy strict procedural norms in favor of more flexible formats for citizen mobilization, political co-thinking, and sustained social innovation in the area of constitutional building. After describing key theoretical issues on trends and perspectives of public participation in constitution building processes, we review arguments in favor of ICT and social media use in constitutional building and then discuss an ongoing Greek bottom-up experiment named Syntagma 2.0 that introduced an innovative co-creative process for the production of a new Constitution for Greece, to be delivered by the citizens for the citizens. Based on the results of the aforementioned project so far, we present success factors for such initiatives.

Keywords

Social Medium Public Participation Public Deliberation Constitutional Reform Constitution Building 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aitamurto, T. (2012) Crowdsourcing for Democracy: New Era In Policy–Making. Committee for the Future, Parliament of FinlandGoogle Scholar
  2. Bater, R (2011) “Hope from Below: Composing the Commons of Iceland,” Open Democracy, December 11, 2011, www.opendemocracy.net/richard-bater/hope-from-below-composing-commons-in-iceland.
  3. Blount, J., Elkins, Z. & Ginsburg, T. (2012) “Does the Process of Constitution-Making Matter?” in Ginsburg, T. (Ed.) Comparative Constitutional Design,Cambridge University Press: New York.Google Scholar
  4. Blount, J., Elkins, Z., & Ginsburg, T. (2012) “Does the Process of Constitution-Making Matter?” in Ginsburg, T. (Ed.) Comparative Constitutional Design Cambridge University Press: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Brandt, M., Cottrell, J., Ghai, Y. & Regan, A. (2011) “Constitution-making and Reform: Options for the Process”. Interpeace: Geneva. Retrieved January 2016 from http://www.constitutionnet.org/files/constitution-making_and_reform-handbook.pdf.
  6. Campoy A (2016) “Mexico City is crowdsourcing its new constitution using Change.org in a democracy experiment” Quartz, April 26, 2016 http://qz.com/662159/mexico-city-is-crowdsourcing-its-new-constitution-using-change-org-in-a-democracy-experiment/
  7. Casanovas P (2012) Legal crowdsourcing and relational law: What the semantic web can do for legal education. Journal of the Australasian Law Teachers Association pp. 159–176.Google Scholar
  8. Deely, S. & Nesh-Nash, M.S., (2014) “The Future of Democratic Participation: my.con: An Online Constitution Making Platform”, CROWD 2014: Sintelnet WG5 Workshop: Crowd Intelligence: Foundations, Methods, and Practices, 8–9 January 2014, Barcelona, Spain available at http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1148/
  9. Eisenstadt, T., Levan A & Maboudi T (2014) “When Talk Trumps Text: The Democratizing Effects of Deliberation during Constitution-Making, 1974–2011” American Political Science Review, vol 109, Issue 04, pp 833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elkins Z, Ginsburg T, Melton J. (2009). The Lifespan of Written Constitutions. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  11. Elkins, Z., Ginsburg, T., & Blount, J. (2008). The Citizen as Founder: Public Participation in Constitutional Approval. Temple Law Review, vol 81, no 2 pp 361–382.Google Scholar
  12. Fox, J. (2014). Social Accountability: What Does the Evidence Really Say? Global Partnership for Social Accountability Working Paper No. 1. World Bank.Google Scholar
  13. Frank, T. M., & Thiruvengadam, A. K. (2010). Norms of International Law Relating to the Constitution-Making Process. In L. E. Miller, Framing the State in Times of Transition: Case Studies in Constitution Making (pp. 3-19). Washington, D.C.: USIP.Google Scholar
  14. Ghai, Y. & Gali, G. (2006). Constitution Building Processes and Democratization. InternationalGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghai, Y. (2004) The Constitution Reform Process: Comparative Perspectives. Presented atGoogle Scholar
  16. Ginsburg, T., Elkins, E., Blount J (2009) Does the Process of Constitution-Making Matter? Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci., vol 5 pp 201–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gluck,J. & Ballou,B. (2014) New Technologies in Constitution Making, Special Report 343 for USIPGoogle Scholar
  18. Gluck, J. & Brandt, M. (2015) “Participatory And Inclusive Constitution Making”, United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved January 2016 from http://www.usip.org.
  19. Hart, V. (2003) Democratic Constitution Making (July 2003), USIP Special Report 107, United States Institute of Peace available at http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/ sr107.pdf
  20. Klein C, & Sajo A. (2012) Constitution-Making: Process and substance. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law pp 419.Google Scholar
  21. Landemore H (2014) Inclusive Constitution-Making: The Icelandic Experiment. Journal of Political PhilosophyGoogle Scholar
  22. Luz, N.; Poblet, M.; Silva, N.; Novais, P. (2015) “Defining human-machine micro-task workflows for constitution making” Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, Vol. 218 pp 333–344. available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2643270
  23. Moehler, D. (2006) ‘Participation and Support for the Constitution in Uganda’, Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 44 (2), 275-308.Google Scholar
  24. Moehler, D.C. & Marchant, E. (2013) “A Multi-Dimensional Model of Participatory Constitution Making and Legitimacy”. Retrieved January 2016 from http://www.american.edu/spa/gov/upload/democracy2013-moehler_marchant.pdf.
  25. Saati, A. (2010) “How do Participatory Constitution Building Processes Effect the Quality of Democracy?” National Conference on Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, 16–17 December 2010, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
  26. Samuels, K. (2006) Constitution Building Processes and Democratization: A Discussion of Twelve Case Studies. Geneva: IDEAGoogle Scholar
  27. The Guardian (2016) Mexico City is ‘crowdsourcing’ a new constitution. But will it change anything?” June 2, 2016 available at https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jun/02/mexico-city-crowdsourcing-new-constitution-change-mayor-mancera-president June 2
  28. Towards A Comparative Analysis” in Deliberation And Decision: Economics, ConstitutionalGoogle Scholar
  29. Voigt, S. (2003) “The Consequences of Popular Participation in Constitutional Choice -Google Scholar
  30. von Beyme, K. (2011) “Representative Democracy and the Populist Temptation.” In The Future of Representative Democracy, ed. S. Alonso, J. Keane, W. Merkel and M. Fotou. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Widner, J. (2005) ‘Constitution Writing and Conflict Resolution’, The Round Table, 94, (381), 503-518.  Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evika Karamagioli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary Karatza
    • 2
  • Stephania Xydia
    • 3
  • Dimitris Gouscos
    • 4
  1. 1.Scientific Associate, Laboratory of New Technologies in Communication, Department of Communication and Media StudiesEducation and the Mass Media, University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Strategic Designer & Founder, Place Identity ClustersAthensGreece
  3. 3.Cultural Manager & Founder, Place Identity ClustersAthensGreece
  4. 4.Assistant ProfessorDepartment of Communication and Media Studies, University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations