Promoting Democracy Policy and Practice

8/14/2019 Promoting Democracy Policy and Practice

1/116

1

Promoting democracy

An international exploration of policy and implementation practice


2/116

2

I m p r i n t

Published by

The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations

Department of Constitutional Matters and Legislation

A u t h o r

Eva Wisse

Democracy Programme

Cover design

The Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations

Department of Communications and Public information

Layout and printing

Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties

Department of Communications and Public Information


3/116

3

Co n t e n t s

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s 7

Summary 9

I Introduction 1 1

Terms of reference 11

Working method and explanation 11

Structure 14

II Policy practices per country 1 5

A u s t r a l i a 1 5

Introduction 15

1 Civics and Citizenship 15

2 Teaching in the Primary school 18

Ca n a d a 2 1

Introduction 21

3 The Democracy Canada Institute 21

4 The Parliamentary Center 21

5 Elections Canada 22

6 Canada World Youth 22

United States 2 5

Introduction 25

7 Center for Civic Education 26

8 American Democracy Project 26

9 Youth04.org 27

10 The Kettering Foundation 28

More projects 29

Denmark and Norway 3 1

Introduction 31

11 Brevstemmeafgivning 31

12 The Youth Parliament 2005 32


4/116

4

Germany 3 5

Introduction 35

13 Modern State, Modern Administration 35

14 E-democracy, Call Centre and Open House 3515 Bundesnetzwerk ber Burgerschaftliches Engagement 36

16 Bundeszentrale fr Politische Bildung 37

17 Werkstatt fr Demokratie 37

18 Workshop for journalists 38

S w e d e n 3 9

Introduction 39

The programmes 3919 Elections Act 40

20 Time for Democracy 40

21 Political representatives 41

22 Participation between elections 43

23 Equal Participation 45

F i n l a n d 4 9

24 Citizen Participation Programme 49

25 Hear The Citizens Draft Wisely 51

26 Citizenship education 52

27 Social activity 52

28 Representative democracy 53

United Kingdom 5 5

Introduction 55

29 The Electoral Commission 55

30 Gender and Political Participation 56

31 Securing the Vote 57

32 Youth Voting Network 57

33 Institute for Citizenship 59

34 Citizenship foundation 62

35 The funding of political parties 63

36 Conclusion: the plans up to 2009 64

A u s t r i a 6 5

Introduction 65

37 Politische Bildung 65

38 E-Government and cyberdemocracy 66


5/116

5

Switzerland 6 9

39 Size and Democracy 69

I t a l y 7 3Introduction 73

40 Art. 118.4 of the Constitution 73

41 Cittadinanzattiva 74

South Korea 7 5

Introduction 75

42 Participating in political parties 75

43 Removing obstacles that reduce access to politics 7644 Reducing exclusion: integration and inclusivity 76

45 Transparent politics 77

S p a i n 7 9

Introduction 79

46 Hablamos De Europa 79

47 EMSI 79

P o r t u g a l 8 1

Introduction 81

48 Young Peoples Parliament 81

J a p a n 8 3

Introduction 83

49 Towards a Cohesive Society, 2001 83

50 Youth Development Plan 83

51 Save and Peaceful National Life 84

New Zealand 8 5

Introduction 85

52 Young people 85

- Hands Up! Teacher resource 85

- Wallace Awards 86

- Youth Law sponsorship 86

53 Journalists 86

54 Education and information for everyone 86


6/116

6

Belgium 8 9

55 Introduction: King Baudouin Foundation 89

56 Media 89

57 Democracy Portal 9058 Voluntary work 91

III Analysis 9 3

A Introduction 93

B Democratic Structure 93

- Introduction 93

- Analysis of policy practices 94

- Conclusions with regard to democratic structure 96C Political Representation 97

- Introduction 97


- Conclusions with regard to political representation 100

D Civil Society 101

- Introduction 101


- Conclusions with regard to civil society 103

E Citizenship 104

- Introduction 104


- Conclusions with regard to citizenship 107

IV Co n c l u s i o n s 1 0 9


7/116

7

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those who assisted in this study. The Dutch embassies in

the eighteen countries made a major contribution to this analysis. Their employees

gave tips about useful websites and the right people to contact at the various

government bodies. Employees in other embassies contacted the relevant persons

themselves, which considerably simplified the process of finding the right information.

But the overwhelming majority of the embassies supported the study in an even

more intensive manner and went looking for the information themselves, maintaining

contact with the researcher and the relevant contact persons in the country to bestudied.

In a number of the countries studied, members of the Public Governance

Committee of the OECD who came from the countries in question were contacted.

Ms Hvas and Mr Christensen in Denmark, Ms Santi in Canada, Ms Tacy in Australia,

Mr Moog and Ms Brevern in Germany, Mr Dahlberg in Sweden, Ms Schollum and

Mr Northcote in New Zealand and Ms Cohen in the United States helped with the

study by contacting others and looking for the requested information. I am very

grateful to them, as well as to Mr Koos Roest who asked the aforementioned

colleagues to give their assistance to the study.

During the investigation into the various countries, the employees of the Dutch

Centre for Political Participation (IPP) were contacted on a number of occasions

and made their network available. Much of the information from social organisations

in the respective countries was obtained as a result of contact with the IPP.

There were also many colleagues abroad who willingly made their information

available for the study. These include employees of IDEA (international),

Cittadinanzattiva and Lega Nord in Italy, the Danish Parliament, the Australian

Public Service Commission in Australia and the Electoral Commission in Great

Britain.

I would also like to thank all those persons at ministries abroad, social organisations

abroad and at the Dutch embassies who have not been named above but who did

contribute to the study. Almost everyone approached for the study was prepared to

free up time in often very busy schedules to help complete this study. This has

been a very pleasant surprise.

Eva Wisse

January 2006


8/116

8


9/116

9

Summary

This study deals with policy (programmes) and legislation aimed at promoting

constitutional democracy. This study is based on two questions. Firstly: what is

needed to make a democracy robust and sustainable? and secondly: what

solutions found by other countries may also prove to be solutions for the

Netherlands? Section II looks at the policy practices which have been or will be

initiated in eighteen countries. This gives an overview of 58 (policy) practices which

are all geared towards a specific problem which is being experienced not only in the

Netherlands but also in the other thriving, more established democracies. Thisproblem relates to the decreasing involvement of citizens in politics and society

and declining confidence in public and political institutions. This problem is often

referred to as the gap between citizens and their government or the gap between

voters and elected representatives.

Information from the eighteen countries offers an overview of policy programmes

to promote democracy in these countries. Various practices focus on strengthening

the government, the political party or the elected representatives of the people.

Other practices are more geared towards improving the interaction between the

government and society. Finally, there are also practices which are aimed purely at

the citizen and strive to turn him or her into a socially and politically involved

citizen. Such a citizen can actively contribute to reducing the so-called gap.

All practices are aimed at increasing the efficiency and sustainability of democracy,

but it is of course difficult to say whether this actually happens. Section III attempts

to assess the usefulness of each practice for the Netherlands, with the caveat,

however, that it is not possible to make hard and fast judgements about the

anticipated success of such practices in the Netherlands on the basis of this study.

A general conclusion is that the study supports the assumption that a sustainable

and robust democracy is a long-term affair and requires positive incentives at

various points in society.

Furthermore, policy aimed at promoting democracy often targets children and

young people in particular. In addition to the various initiatives that focus on

children in general, such as a youth council or a youth parliament, education is

in many countries a key instrument for preparing all citizens for their democratic

tasks. Since democracy is, in various countries, regarded as something that takes

time to become sustainable, it is not surprising that so much attention is focused


10/116

1 0

on education. As part of lifelong learning, in some countries all (secondary)

schools are equipped with a teaching package for citizenship education and/or

political education.

Finally, most countries have a different focus to the Netherlands. In many othercountries, the emphasis is placed heavily on society and the citizen. It appears that

other countries act in another way to promote democratic citizenship. The concept

of strengthening the democratic structure does recur on a regular basis, but only a

few countries see this as the only subject of policy in relation to promoting demo-

cracy. Usually, attempts are made to strengthen democracy from the bottom up,

by means of close cooperation with civil society organisations which also have the

aim of promoting democracy.


11/116

1 1

I Introduction

In order to develop the Democracy programme, the Ministry of the Interior and

Kingdom Relations needed a picture of the current situation in the other OECD

countries. The Democracy programme has the aim of establishing and

implementing a coherent programme based on the theme Living Democracy.

The idea behind this international study is that by exploring the activities in other

countries, we can formulate answers to a number of open questions within the

Democracy Programme. One of the questions is what is needed to make a

democracy robust and sustainable. This investigation into the activities in othercountries in the area of living democracy, the democracy of the citizen, offers the

Netherlands insight into the various possibilities and the opportunity to learn from

other countries experiences. The study not only discusses all kinds of creative and

well thought-out foreign initiatives, but also offers insight into what is possible and

impossible in relation to democracy in general.

Terms of reference

This study deals with (policy) programmes and legislation aimed at promoting

the democratic constitutional state in other countries with a democratic tradition.

The point of departure is that the problems in our democracy are not unique and

that other (comparable) countries have experience and knowledge in this area.

In other words, we can learn from and be inspired by the experiences of other

countries. Furthermore, this study also fits in with a modern approach to policy

development.

Working method and explanation

The study was carried out in four phases. Phase 1 involved placing the subject to

be investigated within a framework. The two questions underlying the study are

what is needed to make a democracy robust and sustainable? and what solutions

found by other countries may also prove to be solutions for the Netherlands?.

Eighteen countries were studied, with the same question being asked of each,

namely what is your country doing to make your democracy robust?. The countries

are all OECD countries. They correspond to the Netherlands in two ways which are

of importance for this study. Firstly, they are wealthy, and secondly, they have been

democracies for a long time. These two factors ensure that there is some similarity

1 11 1


12/116

1 2

with the Netherlands, which means that it is reasonable to assume that the

Netherlands can learn from the countries in question how to promote

constitutional democracy.

The following countries were studied: Australia; Canada; the United States;Denmark; Norway; Germany; Sweden; Finland; the United Kingdom; Austria;

Switzerland; Italy; Spain; South Korea; Portugal; Japan; New Zealand; and Belgium.

The order in which the countries were studied does have some significance. It was

expected that the first category (up to Sweden) would provide the most relevant

and interesting practices. These are all countries which have a long democratic

history, are wealthy and have a highly developed public administration. It has been

assumed that these countries are very similar to the Netherlands, which may

increase the possibility of good, suitable examples of policy. The other countrieswere added because, on the one hand, they have certain similarities with the

Netherlands, but on the other, they deviate in the area of political culture, the age

of the democracy or the proportion of direct and indirect democratic instruments

available to the citizen.

This study is based on a number of basic assumptions about the problems in the

various countries. The literature scan carried out prior to this study and informal

contact with OECD representatives indicated that many countries, like the Nether-

lands, are experiencing a decline in political participation by citizens, decreasing

involvement in social problems and reduced levels of confidence in the public

administration. This set of problems was the link between all the policy practices

and also links the foreign solutions to the problems in the Netherlands.

In each country, at least two of the three sources were used. The three sources

were the Dutch embassies in the relevant countries, the members of the Public

Governance Committee of the OECD who came from the countries in question,

and social organisations belonging to the network of the Dutch Centre for Political

Participation (IPP). The (policy) practices therefore consist not only of government

programmes, but also of projects carried out by non-governmental organisations.

In many cases, however, there is a substantial collaborative arrangement between

the relevant ministry and the non-governmental organisation. A final important

additional source was the internet, with most of the relevant information being

found on the government websites.

Phase 2 involved the actual start of the study. Letters were sent to the contact

persons (by email). In some cases the request was specified in greater detail in

response to a question from a contact person. In a few cases, the embassy found

a contact person at one of the ministries, but most of the embassies went looking

for the requested information themselves. In some cases, the relevant employees


13/116

1 3

at the embassy replied that the country did not fulfil the criteria (established,

thriving democracy), but the other sources nevertheless always led to the requested

information. It proved to be the case that attempts to promote democracy were

being made in all the countries.The process of sorting through the information also led to a selection of practices,

on average just over three per country. This information related to legislation,

national policy, academic documents (often evaluations of policy), government

publications, publications of non-governmental organisations and, finally, websites.

During the selection process the initial question was always taken into account,

to exclude the risk that different countries would react on the basis of different

presuppositions about the requested information. To ensure the accuracy of the

method, it was very important that the Dutch problem be clearly highlighted.In the question sent to the contact persons, reference points were given only for

the problem on which the practices had to be based, no examples were given as

these would have determined the outcomes. The question that was sent to all the

contact persons was the following (a quotation from the standard email, with the

name of the country being entered in the blank spaces):

For . , the question is what the government is doing to get citizens more

involved in politics and the government. Various sources have indicated that the

Netherlands, and also the other wealthy, more established democracies are

struggling with a similar problem. This problem relates to the decline in civic

participation and social cohesion, reduced involvement and confidence in politics

and the greater distance between politics and citizens that have developed over a

number of decades. This all ultimately leads to the question of what the

Netherlands can learn from the practices of other governments, aimed at

promoting democracy.

Phase 3 involved analysing the information or practices received and classifying

these. The analysis led to the division of the 58 (policy) practices into four clusters,

which also represent four domains in democracy.

The four clusters are a source of both problems and solutions. The relevant

literature is briefly explained for each of the four clusters, before the policy practices

are analysed. The policy practices are then considered in the light of the theory.

The study was completed and the conclusions drawn up in phase 4. This study

does not lend itself to judgements about the chances of success for the policy

practices in the Netherlands. It is however possible to focus on the relationship

with the context of the policy and how much impact a specific p0olicy practice has.

1 3


14/116

1 4

The evaluations of the relevant ministry are also important for assessing the policy

practices. If something does not work abroad this does not mean that the policy

practice provides useless information, instead it indicates what can be expected

with a similar approach in the Netherlands. Worst practices may indeed be evenmore useful than the best practices from the study, since to be forewarned is to

be forearmed.

Structure

After the introduction in section I, section II deals with the results from the country

studies. The countries are dealt with in succession, with the (policy) practices set

up in that country to promote democracy. The policy practices are numbered from1 to 58. This means that when reading section III, which contains the analysis in

which the practices are divided into four clusters, the reader can easily locate the

policy practice in section II.

Section III contains the four clusters which were highlighted by the study. This

classification was chosen so that a distinction could be made between the level

of the state (Democratic Structure (III-B) and Political Representation (III-C)) and

society (Civil Society (III-D) and Citizenship (III-E)). Section III also attempts to

answer the principal questions of the study. These are as follows: what is needed

to make a democracy robust and sustainable? and what solutions found by other

countries may also prove to be solutions for the Netherlands?. Each cluster is dealt

with in the same way, namely with a theoretical introduction followed by an analysis

of the practices falling under the cluster and finally an interim conclusion.

Section IV contains the conclusions.


15/116

1 5

I I Policy practices per country

A u s t r a l i a

I n t r o d u c t i o n

The information about Australia given below was obtained from the following

sources

1

: a member of the Public Governance Committee of the OECD, the DutchEmbassy and websites of the Australian government. All this ultimately led to a

great deal of information, with the project Discovering Democracy of the New

South Wales Discovering Democracy Professional Development Committee

offering the most useful material. The discussion papers about citizenship

education offer insight into the Australian governments approach in this area.

Practice 1 is about citizenship education in general, while practice 2 focuses more

on primary education.

1 Discovering democracy; civics and citizenship education:

an Australian Perspective

Education is regarded as an important means of promoting democratic citizenship

in Australia. Civics education has been very important for a long time, with the first

five decades of the Commonwealth being the most important period. It helped

students and pupils to think about what it meant to be an Australian.

Formal civics education declined as a result of the arrival of social studies as part

of the curriculum. The social revolution of the 1960s also played a role. Prosperity

and new values made an appearance. People started to think differently about

citizenship, as well as about democracy and national identity. Nevertheless,

renewed attention was paid to citizenship education in the 1980s and 1990s.

Education for active citizenship (1989) and Active citizenship revisited (1991)

were policy programmes of the government which revived social discussion about

this topic. A discussion paper2 investigated how citizenship could be developed

and encouraged. It was however difficult to generate support in the educational

sector.

Halfway through the 1990s it became clear, however, that young people were largely

ignorant of, and showed little interest in their role as citizens. Australia is part of a


16/116

1 6

worldwide phenomenon where people are once again asking the fundamental

question of what it means to be a citizen. Citizenship is under discussion in other

established democracies too.

The federal governments Civics Group (CEG) was given the task of dealing withthis problem. The report3 put citizenship on the map in the educational sector as

well. Increasing importance was also attached to the topic in the United Kingdom,

Canada, the United States, France and other countries as well. Accordingly, the

International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) was

founded.

The debate was significantly boosted by the Keating government and his initiative

in respect of a new identity for Australians. It was seen as necessary for Australians

to be aware of their own government system as a step towards independence.Australia was to become a republic and the whole nation would have to support

this, according to the government this could be achieved by citizens assuming a

new identity and becoming aware of their citizenship. This campaign was targeted

at young Australians in particular, because they were in favour of the formation of

a republic.

There was very broad consensus that it was right to educate young people to

become involved citizens by, among other things, teaching school pupils about

the history of the constitutional democracy.

The federal government allocated a large amount of money to implement the

recommendations from the report. Teachers skills and knowledge had to be

developed, as well as the teaching material. In 1996, the government was replaced

by a conservative coalition. This meant that citizenship initiatives were put on hold

at the federal level, with the majority of states adopting a wait and see attitude.

The question of citizenship education has however been an important topic at

various levels of society since the 1990s and will therefore also gain a place in

Australian education.

Discovering Democracy is an adapted version of the policy by the new cabinet and

replaces CEG(1994). More importance is now attached to teaching history as the

most important cornerstone of the educational programme. Democratic values

and the constitutional state are also discussed in the teaching material. The most

important elements of Discovering Democracy are:

- the development of sufficient curriculum material for social and citizenship

education for all Australian schools;

- professional development of teachers to enable them to communicate the teaching

material;

- the installation of the Civics Expert Group which controls, supervises and directs the

process from within the federal government.


17/116

1 7

Ev a l u a t i o n :

After the first three years of Discovering Democracy, the federal government

decided to continue for a further three years (2000-2003). It is not yet possible

to assess whether the project has been successful based on the first three years.Teaching material was distributed to 10,000 Australian schools in 1997 and 1998

already. The reactions to the sources of the teaching material were positive in the

various states, but applying the material effectively in classes has been somewhat

problematic. An early evaluation showed that the material was being introduced in

schools slowly and to a limited extent. Some history teachers were not very positive

about the material (according to Dickson, 19984) because it was seen as too great

an interference, teachers had their own opinions about what teaching material

should look like. Adjustments (extensive professional development and theproduction of sources to support teachers) which were carried out in 1999-2000

helped primary schools to put citizenship education into practice more effectively.

The Australian government is still grappling with the question of how much space

to give citizenship education in an already overfull curriculum. It can replace part

of the social studies and history subjects, but structuring this integration has proved

to be problematic.

So what should the new-style citizenship entail for Australians? Five aspects are

cited:

- Citizenship goes further than the national borders, regional and international topics

also affect the life of the citizen. (Japan offers an example of a concrete project that

was started according to this principle, the Youth Exchange Programme)

- Citizenship is important for all Australians, therefore for the cultural and ethnic

minorities and those with lower levels of education as well.

- Citizenship emphasises the rights, duties and responsibilities of each citizen.

The responsibilities of the citizen in a democratic society come to the fore in the

case of political participation and promoting the common good.

- Citizenship is based on the principles of a civil society, where every citizen

endeavours to live as he or she wishes while taking account of and ensuring the

preservation of the society and common property.

- Citizenship encourages participation for the common good, an aspect which is

expressed most strongly at the local and regional level, where people live together

in a community (an example is the Clean up Australia campaign).

The aim is to train pupils to think about morality, ethical questions and social

justice within the framework of citizenship education and values. It is also about

learning values which will help pupils to participate in society as active and well-

informed citizens (also in an international context). Thirdly, teachers are instilling


18/116

1 8

respect in their pupils for their own culture, including the culture of the ancestors

who are now a minority. Finally, the aim is to teach pupils that it is important, with

a view to the future, to care for the environment properly by means of sustainable

development.School-leavers should be active and well-informed in their role of citizens and

should have knowledge of, and be interested in, the Australian government system

and society. Despite the agreement about the importance of these campaigns,

converting the policy into teaching material was not very successful. There was

criticism from the conservatives about the use of values in relation to sustainable

development and social justice in the domain of citizenship education.

As the project progressed, the people involved became more willing to implement

the policy in practice. Citizenship is now something which many Australians regardas very important. Support for citizenship education is increasing. The following

values are central:

- democratic processes and freedoms

- public responsibility and accountability

- civilisation and respect for the law

- tolerance and respect for others

- social justice

- acceptance of cultural diversity

2 Discovering democracy; Teaching democracy in the primary

s c h o o l

According to Australian policymakers, school teachers must have a strong conviction

that democracy is possible, they must believe in it. There must also be broad

consensus about the use of education in relation to democracy.

In a healthy democracy, citizens adopt a critical attitude towards the motives of

their politicians. In a democracy, there is the belief that no government is perfect,

and that no ideology has an absolute hold on the truth. Educations task is to

ensure that citizens are critical, which means that the democracy remains healthy,

but above all

to provide the education that forms the basis for critical citizens. Citizens cannot

keep a sharp and critical eye on the government if they do not have the knowledge

to do so. Learning about other cultures is also important to instil respect and

tolerance across the whole of society.

What does education in democracy look like? Australia is using a 2-step plan.

The basic concepts of democracy must be taught, such as basic knowledge about

democracy, political science and the underlying ideas (the history lesson goes all


19/116

1 9

the way back to Athens). Secondly, teachers and pupils must be given the opportunity

to really experience democracy. It is important to remember that ideas dont

become knowledge except by being embodied in practice and in consequent

transformations of the self (Gutman 1987).5

The ethos, the function of role modeland the structure of the school also determine the degree of success.

The Federal Discovering Democracy Education Program was allocated 17.5 million

dollars over four years to provide schools with material and for the professional

development of teachers.

The Australian democracy is envied the world over and, policymakers believe,

Australia must therefore act carefully and continue to invest money in this if it is

to retain its position as a leader in this field. The idea is that democracy will have

to face considerable challenges in the future and Australia wants to prepare forthese in the meantime. It is up to the teachers to convey the values of democracy

to the generation that will have to keep democracy healthy in such a future.

Finally, the report contains a number of discussion starters. These are questions

which should be raised when setting up a similar citizenship education

programme.

1 9


20/116

2 0


21/116

2 1

Ca n a d a


Contact with the Dutch Embassy in Canada led, via the website of the Canadian

government, to information about the institutions below. The Democracy Canada

Institute was the most important direct source of information for this study as far

as Canada is concerned. The institute falls under the Canadian parliament and

maintains close ties with the various organisations involved in strengthening

democracy.

3 The Democracy Canada Institute

A report6 from the Institute describes a number of organisations that Canada has

in the area of citizenship, electoral matters, voter education, strengthening political

capacity and training political representatives. The most relevant institutions are

discussed below.

4 The Parliamentary Ce n t e r

The first institution is the Parliamentary Center7. This is a non-profit organisation

with the aim of supporting elected representatives in carrying out their democratic

task.

Canada has inter-parliamentary networks by means of which members of parliament

maintain contact with one another and their colleagues abroad to exchange

experiences in this area. There are also capacity-development programmes to

keep representative democracy at the required standard. This is done by training

elected representatives, with the emphasis on their representative function and to

a lesser degree on developing skills to use at meetings and in dealing with the

media.

The aim of the centre is to serve the Canadian parliament and its members, to

ensure that they can play a more effective role in the parliament as policy

entrepreneurs and to act as an intermediary between society and the government.

Its activities include providing a parliamentary forum (where information and tips

are exchanged over the internet) and the centre for Legislative Exchange, where,

as the name indicates, legislation is exchanged at an international level.


22/116

2 2

5 Elections Ca n a d a

The second institution in Canada in the area of representative democracy is

Elections Canada8

, founded in 2004. This organisation also has both a nationaland an international outlook. It is dedicated to ensuring free and fair elections,

both inside and outside the country. The aim is to ensure that citizens are involved

both in elections and by means of other democratic instruments, not only at

election times but also in-between. Citizens must be able to become involved if

they want to. Guaranteeing the impartiality of democratic processes is important.

The organisation is dedicated to increasing the voter turnout in Canada, by means

of active promotion with the help of various media in the run-up to the elections.

EC tries to set up a dialogue with citizens by issuing crosswords containingdemocratic words such as Vote, Assembly and Elections. An Elections Trivia

Game is also available on the internet, which is an informative game where players

have to answer questions about parliament and elections. For those who want to

take a more active role, there is information about how to stand as a candidate

and what (youth) organisations offer opportunities to influence politics.

6 Canada World Youth

Canada World Youth9 designs institutional education programmes for teenagers

and young adults from 17 to 29 years of age, which focus on voluntary work and

the community in a cross-cultural setting. The aim is to get young people more

involved in a harmonious and sustainable society.

There are three core objectives: to promote the acquisition of knowledge, skills

and values which are necessary in an active and involved community; to create a

network of people from different backgrounds and cultures that is characterised by

respect and understanding; and to build partnerships with countries, organisations,

communities, groups and persons who/which can serve as sources of joint action.

It is about learning by doing. This is an informal educational model based on

concepts such as cooperation and reciprocal relationships.

In concrete terms, young people are offered a programme that consist of two

phases. One in Canada and one in Africa, Asia, Latin America or Eastern Europe.

It lasts six to seven months in total, three of which are in Canada. Each student is

allocated a counterpart from the relevant country, with whom he or she shares the

whole experience, and with whom he or she stays with a host family and does

voluntary work. There are classes during the entire project, to ensure that the

students get the best possible grasp of global and local issues. According to the

organisation, this is an intercultural learning experience that students will never


23/116

2 3

forget, and during which they will acquire new knowledge and skills. Depending on

the students destination, they will learn about the environment, HIV/AIDS and/or

poverty.

The foundation works together with a network of 30 member states which make thearrangements for the young Canadians. The programme is financed via funds,

sponsoring and a contribution of 250 dollars per participant. Various schools in

Canada give study points to students who participate in the programme. More than

22,000 young people have taken part in the programme since 1971.


24/116

2 4


25/116

2 5

United States


Further to contact with the Dutch Embassy it became apparent that the US is a

separate case in this study. Firstly, according to the contact person, promoting

democracy is hardly necessary in the US, partly because the participation figures

(not just voting at elections, but also voluntary work) are good, in contrast to most

of the other countries studied where the figures show a steady downward trend.

Secondly, if there were to be a problem in this area, the state would not getinvolved in this, primarily because of the liberal view of government in the US.

Contrary to the above, however, some internet research shows that political and

social involvement is declining in many places in the US. This development is often

linked to inadequate education in American history and citizenship.

In the US, citizenship is closely linked to the national history. Constitution Day is

celebrated annually (during Constitution Week). The National Conference on

Citizenship is also held each year. These initiatives, supported by the federal

government, aim to promote citizen participation and dialogue.10

Furthermore, numerous organisations are developing initiatives to promote

citizenship, such as The National Commission on Civic Renewal and the

Americans for More Civility movement. New initiatives have recently been

developed at the federal level as well. For example, the expansion of the Education

for Democracy Act. This included proposals for promoting democracy. A number

of proposals in 2003 related to The American History and Civics Education Act of

2003 and the NEH We the People Initiative. This led to the strengthening of the

programme We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution. This programme is

financed by the federal Ministry of Education.

New legislation in 2003 introduced a pilot programme of 25 million dollars per year

during the period 2004-2007 for the collaboration of teachers and students in the

area of American history and citizenship. We The People - The National Endowment

for the Humanities (NEH)11 is an agency of the federal government that aims to

boost, with a view to promoting democracy and democratic citizenship, social

sciences and American history research. The means used here are cultural in

nature and relate to education, research and public programmes.

The law provides the basis for subsidies for associations of teachers and educational

institutes in this regard. The law also provides for the establishment of a National

Alliance of Teachers of American History and Civics.


26/116

2 6

The above summary shows that the American (federal) government is developing

a number of initiatives for sustainable democracy. A few American initiatives are

discussed in more detail below.

7 Center for Civic Education

The USs Center for Civic Education12 has set out what characteristics society must

have if democracy is to succeed. These will be dealt with briefly here. The first

characteristic is citizenship. According to the document on which the centre is

based, being a citizen in a democracy is something completely different to being

a citizen in a state that is not based on democratic values. In a democracy, each

citizen has not only specific rights but also responsibilities.This entails - and this is the second requirement - the need for citizens to have the

knowledge and skills to carry out their democratic task. Citizens must be informed

if they are to participate effectively. Citizens must also be able to weigh up the

various principles and values that are important in the relevant society. The most

important areas of knowledge include, for example, history, geography, general

political movements and the political system. Skills which have been found to be

important for carrying out the democratic task are cognitive and participatory skills.

Behaviour and characteristics which have been found to be valuable within the

framework of citizenship are politeness, individual responsibility, self-discipline,

social involvement, neutrality (open mind), willingness to compromise, tolerance,

loyalty and perseverance.

8 American Democracy Project

In addition to the aforementioned institutions, the US has another organisation

that is geared towards strengthening democracy. This is the American Democracy

P r o j e c t1 3. The American Democracy Project is an initiative of 144 different American

schools and universities which are working together to increase the election

turnout among young people. This project reaches more than 1.3 million students.

The project only covers schools and universities which are members of the

American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). The objectives

of the collaborative project are as follows:

increasing the number of pupils and students involved in associative and partici-

patory institutions. More students should engage in extracurricular activities.

generating support among policymakers and public opinion for promoting the

social value of schools and universities for society.

The project is trying to start a national debate, particularly among educators, about


27/116

2 7

the theory and practice of social involvement. The aim is also to cultivate

institutional commitment among young citizens, by organising discussions with

senior policy officials from various government organisations, with an emphasis

on the learning process of the pupil or student. Projects, courses and educationalprogrammes are also initiated and updated.

9 Yo u t h 0 4 . o r g

Youth04.org14 is a non-profit organisation (part of the Center for Democracy) with

more or less the same target group as the aforementioned project. It focuses on

young adults of between 18 and 25 years of age, and their contribution to the 2004

elections. This organisation introduces young people to the internet sites ofpolitical institutions to motivate them and encourage them to make themselves

known in the political playing field. Via the internet, young people are alerted to the

importance of politics and the political topics that specifically affect them. There is,

for example, an internet forum where young people can exchange views about

specific topics.

In Minnesota, at the Mankato University, a series of debates was organised in the

run-up to the 2004 elections. The Campus debates were designed to highlight

politics, the community and liberty as a common focus. The technique used to do

this was taken over from the Institute of Cultural Affairs, which helped villages in

Kenya to discuss their common values and ideas for the future. This was a success

and actually resulted in action plans. During one of the debates in Minnesota, the

students jointly discussed under which circumstances the university policy could

be called a socially involved policy. They came up with a series of characteristics of

citizenship and social involvement, for example acting as members of a single

community who share democratic ideals and ideas with one another. The point was

also raised that it was necessary to take responsibility as an individual for the

public interest, to consider different points of view and finally to actively participate

in the political decision-making process.

In addition, the students found it important to keep themselves and others well

informed about the public discourse. As a result of this, extracurricular activities

were organised. Initiatives by students to build stronger communities were

encouraged. A professor of speech communication was employed who could act as

the coordinator for community based learning. He also worked on new programmes

and their promotion and on kindling students enthusiasm for political education.

The candidates for the State House Offices answered questions from one hundred

and fifty students at the university. This led to an increase in voter registration. The

American Democracy Project was a great success at this university. Since it was all


28/116

2 8

about the elections, some people feared, as can be seen from an article in the New

York Times about this,15 that once the elections were over, the increased social and

political involvement would fall by the wayside.

Nevertheless, attempts are being made to sustain the students attention. Thefocus will be less on generating specific discussion about the elections, and more

on the other part, stimulating social activity and political involvement in general.

The plan is to keep the discussion alive by keeping the link with the American

Democracy Project, making politics a theme of the lessons about speaking in

public, and finally, awarding pupils and students bonus points / study points if

they work on their democratic and communicative skills in their spare time.

1 0 The Kettering Fo u n d a t i o n

The Kettering Foundation16 is an organisation which deals primarily with the

question: What does it take to make democracy work as it should? This is based on

three hypotheses. Firstly, a democracy requires its citizens to bear their responsibilities

and to be able to take decisions about the public interest. Secondly, society, the

community and the citizen must all be healthy and reasonably stable units. Thirdly,

the institutions which make up civil society must be legitimate.

The Foundation is very clear about the current state of democracy in the US,

because although Americans are extremely proud of their democracy, it is in a bad

way. According to the Foundation, the American political system must change to

meet the demands of the 21st century. Many Americans see their lives as

dominated by all kinds of large systems: the economic, legal, educational and

political system. The institutions on which a society is based lack importance or

no longer fit in with the needs of the citizen.

One of the aims and research areas of the Foundation is that communities should

start functioning better than they ever have before. The Foundation is trying to find

out what elements are needed for a flourishing public domain, whether this can be

strengthened and what instruments are suitable for this. The diagnosis is that too

many citizens get left behind or only watch from the sidelines. The Foundation

wants to achieve these aims together with communities and community-based

organisations. The role of leadership in the public domain is one of the topics

under discussion. The Foundation has found that more leaders are needed because

this has a positive effect on the intensity of a community. The more people take the

lead and the more people have the feeling that they are part of the organisation, the

better the organisation will function. The Foundation is investigating how leader-

ship (also at neighbourhood and group level) can be encouraged and what forms


29/116

2 9

of training can be offered for this. In this case, the aim is to encourage social and

political involvement and boost a thriving public domain.

Two institutions are discussed by the Foundation, as well as what can be done to

re-anchor these firmly in society: the media and education. A short summary isgiven below.

M e d i a

Citizens often regard the media as part of the professional political class that drives

citizens away from their citizenship task. Focusing on the education of journalists

may offer a solution to this problem. Journalism courses must focus more on an

understanding and knowledge of democracy and dealing with democracy as a

professional journalist. The Kettering Foundation goes into the question not only ofhow journalists see citizens, but also of how citizens view journalists. The relation-

ship, which is important for both parties, can play a major role in how citizens

regard (government) institutions.

Public Scholarship

The second institution to be scrutinised by the Foundation is the educational

establishment. As has already been seen, the requirements of a democratic society

do not link up with the priorities laid down in education. The project devoted to

this topic is public scholarship, which focuses on giving higher education a new

place in the public domain and employing graduates in the public sector.

Representatives

The relationship between the government and society is covered by a project which

focuses on cultivating understanding for the problems experienced by represen-

tatives when carrying out their public tasks. Research has shown that the way in

which representatives communicate with citizens is often unsatisfactory for both

parties. The programme identifies the reasons for the poor communication and

supplies solutions. One reason appears to be that citizens have little understanding

and knowledge of the difficulties that representatives face when resolving the

problems referred to by citizens. Citizens do not have a good idea of what can and

cannot be done for them by politicians and often have too high expectations, which

leads to disappointment and perhaps even a lack of public confidence.

Public Journalism

The King Baudouin Foundation in Brussels has issued a number of interesting

publications, including one on the Public Journalism question in the US, called

A voice for citizens? The reason for this Belgian initiative was a new term that has

recently surfaced in the Netherlands, namely public journalism. In this form of


30/116

3 0

journalism, which has been around in the US for some time, the journalist writes

about topics that arouse the interest of the citizen in relation to his social environ-

ment. Two hundred readers of a newspaper were interviewed in depth in the US in

the 1990s to find out what citizens want in this respect. The reporting was thentailored accordingly. Journalists no longer reported only on things that went wrong,

but also on societys success stories.

As has already been stated, citizens perceive an increasing gulf between themselves

and the media, with aversion to the media also rising. The media are no longer

their allies who contribute to the democratic process of ensuring that the govern-

ment is monitored and held publicly accountable. This has given rise to discussion

about what role a journalist should play in this new society. The Belgian report uses

terms such as personalisation, polarisation and trivialisation to describe thereporting of important events by the media. The idea is that this way of working

may pose a threat to the democratic quality of government campaigns and

institutions. It contributes to a reduced public domain and the fossilisation of

political relationships.

In America, hundreds of newspaper already operate according to the public

journalism principle and some receive support from the Kettering Foundation,

among others17. They involve citizens in the communication process. The idea is

beginning to take on the form of a journalism movement. It is however more of a

basic attitude on the part of the individual journalist rather than a technique or an

aspect of the profession. A few examples of democratic policy practices that such

journalists can implement are: organising political debates with citizens and/or

politicians; bringing journalists and politicians together by means of a project

group; participating (possibly as initiators) in discussions with citizens and

politicians themselves and then publishing an article on this. Some people find

only the first example acceptable, because the other practices make a journalist

more of a political leader rather than the neutral reporter that a journalist is in

principle. Public journalism can be encouraged by the educational institution where

the journalist studies18.


31/116

3 1

Denmark and Norway


Denmark and Norway have - because of their intensive collaboration and their

similarity in many respects partly similar legislation and policy programmes.

The first initiative, postal voting, that is dealt with below is one of the concrete

examples of policy practices implemented by both countries.

The document power and democracy in Denmark19 gives the findings of a study

into the state of democracy in Denmark and the points that could be improved.It deals with problems that have also arisen in the Netherlands, such as

individualisation, deterritorialisation and changes in the place and form of power.

The latter refers, among other things, to the fact that government decisions are

being taken faster and are more oriented to the short term, which means a decline

in transparency and the possibility for citizens to be involved.

On the one hand, democratic rights are better established and anchored than

before. Voters have more influence on elections and human rights are guaranteed

at a high level. This is also reflected in the confidence in Danish politicians, which

is on the increase according to the report. On the other hand, Denmark also has

conflicting trends. Many decisions which interfere with the lives of citizens are not

directly democratically legitimised, particularly EU-related decisions. Furthermore,

there is a growing group of people living in Denmark who cannot vote, namely

people from abroad.

Contact with Ms Bekker of the Dutch Embassy in Denmark and Mr Christensen,

member of the Public Governance Committee of the OECD for Norway, led to the

contact persons at the government departments and to websites. These in turn led

to the following results.

1 1 B r e v s t e m m e a f g i v n i n g

In order to give as many voters as possible the opportunity to cast their vote during

elections, the Danish government has made it possible to vote in advance, that is,

before the elections are held2 0. Citizens who are unable to get to the polling station

on election day for whatever reason are supported in this way. In Denmark, voters

are not allowed to vote at a polling station other than the one where they are

registered and there was therefore a need for some flexibility on this point. In

Danish, the new procedure is called brevstemmeafgivning, which means postal

voting.


32/116

3 2

It is possible to vote in advance in all municipalities. In most cases, the office

where citizens can register to cast their vote in this way is located in the municipal

office. People can vote during a period of 13 working days, starting three weeks

before the elections and ending two days prior to the day of the election. Voterswho are in hospital, a care home or prison can register there. The municipalities

coordinate the process of postal voting and are responsible for ensuring that the

registration process at the various institutions runs smoothly. The ballots are

collected by the administrative staff of the municipality and by members of the

municipal council. In the case of institutions such as hospitals, prisons etc., a

person is appointed (often the administrative head) to collect the ballots. These

and other formal requirements are laid down in a special regulation to ensure that

postal voting is properly implemented. A number of examples of these require-ments are showing proof of identity when registering, ensuring the privacy of the

voter when completing the form, and the conditions under which the vote is valid

(for example, the form must be filled in correctly).

1 2 The Youth Parliament 2005

The aim of this project was to help young people to understand the democratic

process21. They learned how to write their own draft bills, and how to debate these

in parliamentary committees. Young people learned the rules of democracy and

gained an understanding of what actually happens before legislation is passed.

Children learned that the democratic process also means that the people, of whom

they themselves form part, must be represented. Children were encouraged to take

an active part in the development of Danish democracy and became aware of the

opportunities open to them if they wished to go into politics once they were old

enough.

The project lasted for a year and ran from August 2004 to May 2005, and involved

the following activities. In August, the teachers were briefed. They could carry out

the preparatory work for the Youth Parliament together with eight or nine pupils.

This consisted of jointly writing a draft bill and submitting this to the parliament.

The deadline for submitting the bill was November 2004. The Danish Parliament

then selected sixty bills that met the criteria. On 17 November, the various groups

of pupils each selected three representatives from among their number who would

act as their spokespersons in the Youth Parliament. The names of the spokespersons

and their teachers were then passed on to the parliament. The pupils then worked

on the draft bill further, to prepare for the discussion of this in the committees.

The largest part of the written preparatory work took place in November and

December 2004, with the internet playing a major role. A special website was set


33/116

3 3

up where the pupils could find all the information and could also keep in touch

with one another to exchange their experiences and get inspiration from one

another. All meetings could also later be viewed on the internet page.

Each of the twelve committees consisted of multiple groups of pupils and receivedall the relevant bills in December, that is, five per committee. They met partly by

electronic means and partly in the Christiansborg Palace, the parliament. The final

meeting, that the pupils had been working towards in their groups and subsequently

in the committees, was held in April. The Youth Parliament was opened by the

Speaker of the Danish Parliament. In the morning the committees met in the

official chambers used for this purpose by members of parliament. Lunch was

followed by the plenary meeting in the afternoon, finishing off with voting by the

members of parliament. The pupils learned to deal with parliamentary instruments.The day ended with a reception for all participants and was evaluated in the

schools during the weeks thereafter.

3 3


34/116

3 4


35/116

3 5

G e r m a n y


Contact with the German Ministry of the Interior and the websites of German social

organisations delivered the following information22. This information relates to

initiatives to promote democracy developed by both social organisations and the

government. There are various practices which could be useful for Dutch democracy.

The citizen usually takes centre stage, however, something that all the initiatives

described below have in common.

1 3 Modern State, Modern Administration

The German government has set up various projects during the past years which

are aimed at increasing participation by increasing the social orientation of the

public administration. The umbrella project is called Modern State Modern

Administration. An important key objective is achieving a continuous dialogue

with society. The general aim is to achieve greater participation and greater social

responsibility among citizens. According to the German Ministry of the Interior,

the policy areas that require more attention from citizens are legislation, public

involvement and other projects that will be mentioned briefly below.23

14 E - d e m o c r a c y, Call Centre and Open House

The dialogue with citizens has been initiated via various forms of e-democracy and

via call centres specially set up to record complaints and suggestions from citizens.

E-democracy is regarded as a useful addition to the system of representative

d e m o c r a c y2 4. It is seen as offsetting the decreasing transparency of public decision-

making processes, furthermore citizens are experts on society and their contribution

is regarded as extremely important. In concrete terms, this involves chat sessions

in which politicians and civil servants try to answer questions from citizens, usually

relating to sustainable development. Other websites, for example the parliament

website, also offer chat sessions which may deal with various topics. In 2005,

a pilot project was launched allowing citizens to send in their comments and

suggestions to the Bundestag Petition Committee, so that they can exercise

influence in a much more direct manner.

The annual federal government Open House is another initiative that makes it


36/116

3 6

possible for citizens to submit their complaints, feedback and input. Citizens can

talk directly to representatives of the government. Furthermore, the aim is for the

central call centres to be open for complaints and suggestions from citizens

relating to the government in the broadest sense of the word.As far as encouraging citizen participation is concerned, ministries are obliged to

forward draft bills to social organisations which have an interest in the draft bill in

question, so that they have the opportunity to participate at an early stage. (News)

organisations and the general public can also easily consult the information, since

it is published on the internet.

1 5 Bundesnetzwerk ber Burgerschaftliches Engagement

The second component of the German governments policy practices to promote

democracy is the national network for social involvement (Bundesnetzwerk ber

Burgerschaftliches Engagement - BBE)2 5. The aim of this is to stimulate civil society

and social involvement in the entire public domain. Not only the government, but

also social organisations and companies are involved in this network. Together,

they are working towards an active civil society. All this took place after the first

signs of a changing relationship between citizens and the government were

spotted. In Germany, there is a strong need for an accessible state that provides

the basic conditions which are required for a healthy, sustainable democracy. This

is a democracy characterised by social involvement, social activity and cohesion,

independent enterprising citizens and voluntary co-optation.

To this end, the federal government also supports the establishment, development

and maintenance of voluntary organisations. Unnecessary bureaucracy which

distracts voluntary workers from their task will have to disappear. The idea behind

the emphasis on voluntary work and the removal of barriers preventing this is that

the welfare state is on the wane, or in any event will, in the very near future, no

longer be appropriate. A balance must be found between a responsible state and a

flourishing and necessary system of associations and voluntary organisations which

provide society with the required additional care and support. Studies are being

carried out into the opportunities for carrying out voluntary work, and in the

meantime the German government is starting to set up networks and the infra-

structure that is required for an associative society.

It is true that the government wants to implement soft reforms, but the aim is

always to move towards a government that concerns itself with its basic functions,

and therefore towards a more reticent government. Individual responsibility must

be correlated with the basis of solidarity which is symbolised by the welfare state.

According to the information from the BBE, no concrete steps have as yet been

taken, although the network is of course a new institution in itself.


37/116

3 7

16 Bundeszentrale fr Politische Bildung

The Bundeszentrale fr Politische Bildung (BPB)26 has been in existence for more

than fifty years. This federal centre for political education encourages all interestedcitizens to participate in politics in one way or another. The aim is to promote

understanding and knowledge of politics and the political conditions under which

politicians carry out their work. By promoting democratic awareness and a willing-

ness to get involved in politics, the BPB hopes to contribute to the sustainability of

democracy. The BPB is part of the German Ministry of the Interior. In concrete

terms, projects are organised in various cities that cultivate political involvement

among citizens of all ages. Together with a national polycentric network, provision

is made for educational facilities, and teachers who are independent and neutralare sought.

Projekt-P27 is specially geared towards young people in more than ten cities in

Germany. The annual festival for youth politics in Berlin is organised as part of

this project, as are many activities in the cities, such as the Were sending our

Parliament on holiday project. This involves the young people of the state of

Baden-Wrttemberg being visited, at their holiday destinations (youth camps and

suchlike), by political representatives who then exchange experiences and ideas

with them. This is organised by the Baden Jugend Ring, a collaborative project

involving various youth organisations. The organisation also has a youth council

which looks after the interests of young people at both the regional and national

government levels and in society as a whole.

The national variant of the aforementioned organisation, which has the same

objectives, is the Landes Jugend Ring. One project that stands out is the Frauen

Macht Politik! project, where women get the opportunity to spend a day at the

Bundestag and attend workshops.

1 7 Werkstatt fr Demokratie

The Werkstatt fr Demokratie28 is another organisation that is specially geared

towards children. It makes it possible for children to have their say in politics

by providing child-friendly information (in an easy to use manner, also via the

internet) and a special youth forum where children meet one another in a Lower

House setting. Furthermore, it has its own special political agenda only containing

topics which are important for children, such as playing in the streets, childrens

immediate surroundings and the rights which children (should) have. In other

words, these are topics on which children are the experts, based on the democratic

idea that they (usually) know what is best for them.

3 7


38/116

3 8

1 8 Workshop for journalists

One of the Bundestags own projects is a workshop which young journalists can

attend for a lesson in democracy2 9

. And a very intensive lesson it is too, since thereare places for forty journalists who can take a look behind the political scenes of

democracy over the course of a week. They attend plenary sessions of the Bundestag

and get the opportunity to discuss matters with politicians.

This project was set up to give journalists, since they play an important role in

determining public opinion, more understanding of the democratic and administrative

tasks facing politicians and civil servants. Journalists are taught to be critical, but

being critical is not always about being negative. Giving them an honest picture of

politics means that the journalists will, when they come to exercise theirprofession, have enough knowledge to make their own assessments. In this way,

the media can once again function as a watchdog and play an important

monitoring and informative role in a healthy democracy.


39/116

3 9

S w e d e n


On 17 January 2002, the Democracy in the New Century act30 was adopted by the

Swedish government. This was an initiative for the sustainable development and

deepening of Swedish democracy. It has two key aims, namely to safeguard

representative democracy and to encourage citizens to participate, also between

elections.

Sweden is experiencing increasing marginalisation, exclusion and passivity amongcitizens. The turnout for the Swedish parliament elections in 1998 hit an all-time

low. Political parties have problems. Citizens no longer trust politicians. But there

are rays of hope in Sweden: temporary work on a voluntary basis is on the increase.

Faith in democracy as a form of government is strong.

The government has set four long-term objectives which are central to its policy to

strengthen democracy:

turnout should increase considerably in European, national and local elections;

a larger proportion of citizens should hold some form of political or public position

of trust;

citizens should be given more opportunities to influence the political process than

is currently the case; the proportion of citizens participating should increase;

citizens opportunities to influence the political process should be more equal

across different population groups than is currently the case (people must be

treated equally in terms of participation and influence regardless of whether they

are young or old, employed or unemployed or of foreign extraction or natives of

Sweden).

The programmes

The key aims and objectives that have arisen from the above are discussed briefly

below and the results of the evaluation carried out in the meantime are summarised.

Sweden is experiencing decreasing turnout figures for elections, although this trend

seems to be changing since the drop during the period 1998-2004 was less signifi-

cant than during the period 1994-1998. In recent years, a number of attempts have

been made to increase turnout in Sweden, such as simplifying voting procedures


40/116

4 0

and gathering more knowledge about the methods of promoting democracy.

Other actors also play an important role in increasing turnout, such as political

parties. All relevant institutions should be involved in a long-term vision to achieve

a successful end result.The government has taken the following concrete steps to increase turnout: a

number of amendments to the Elections Act, changes to the central electoral

organisation, the project Time For Democracy, extra resources for political parties

to provide better information for people of foreign extraction, Metropolitan policy,

Youth Policy Measures, and finally a new date for elections for the European

Parliament. The first three (Elections Act, electoral board and Time for Democracy)

will be described in greater detail because they offer useful insights into how

Sweden is going about strengthening democracy.

19 Elections Act

The Elections Act31 is, among other things, about increasing opportunities to vote

by mail for voters resident abroad and furthermore about empowering officials at

polling stations to issue duplicate voting cards.

The Electoral Board was replaced by an entirely new organisation in July 2001

(called the Valmyndigheten). As a result, more ballot papers reached voters on time

and voters could find more information about the voting process (for example on

the ballot paper, in the media, via pamphlets and on the newly revamped website of

the Valmyndigheten). In addition, the information was made available in a number

of foreign languages and the Electoral Board concluded an agreement with the

national postal service. The agreement stated that this organisation was devoting

itself to organising institutional voting. The changes mean that the requirements

set by the new Elections Act can be met more effectively, including the removal of

impediments to voting.

According to the report,32 it is difficult to say whether the turnout at elections will

actually improve. In any case, citizens are better informed as a result of the diverse

activities of the electoral authority. The use of different media in the run-up to the

elections is particularly striking, and will in all probability have positive consequences

for the future.

2 0 Time for Democracy

Time for Democracy33 was a two-year project for the development of Swedish

democracy. The aim was to enhance citizens awareness of the democratic process

and promote their participation in that process, particularly in the run-up to


41/116

4 1

elections. Firstly, voluntary organisations working towards this aim were given extra

financial support, and secondly, there were extra activities such as setting up a

voters magazine and organising seminars.

Researchers from a Swedish university evaluated these activities and came to theconclusion that Democracy Needs Time. Although all action groups had met their

targets, the results would only become visible over the course of time. Their

recommendation was to continue along the same path, but in addition to develop

even longer-term projects to make democracy more sustainable. A striking outcome

was however that the employees of the groups questioned perceived a change in

citizen participation during elections. Participation increased as compared to

previous elections. Projects which were aimed at encouraging minority groups

(young people, people from foreign backgrounds) to participate in politics certainlyappeared to be successful, insofar as this could be measured during the project.

More than one-third of the project coordinators were not able to state anything

about the degree of success of their project (they did not perceive any significant

increase in the number of participants before and during the elections as compared

to the period prior to the start of the project). The majority of the coordinators did

however think that citizens had a better understanding and knowledge of demo-

cratic processes and that citizens were discussing political issues with the people

around them more than before. According to the coordinators, the voters magazine

(Rsteror Votes) had a positive influence. For example, it was to a reasonable

extent used as teaching material by Social Studies teachers.

2 1 Political representatives

The second long-term goal focuses on increasing the number of elected political

representatives34. This relates to representatives at the local government level. The

governments responsibility in this regard is about removing obstacles that prevent

people from standing as candidates. A better understanding of why certain sections

of the population continue to be underrepresented in various political bodies is

also needed. This relates to young people, non-Swedish citizens, people with low

incomes, elderly people, citizens who were born in another country and people with

little education.

The number of elected representatives in Sweden has dropped in the last decade.

At the same time, the tasks to be carried out at the local level have become

increasingly concentrated. This can lead to problems since it makes participation

by ordinary citizens more difficult. Most positions simply take up too much time

and the work involved cannot be carried out during the evening. Fewer represen-

tatives also means a decline in the number of contact interfaces that a citizen has

with local politics.

4 1


42/116

4 2

A Swedish study has shown that it is good for social representativity if there are a

large number of ties, both formal and informal, between citizens and the govern-

ment and between citizens and the representative bodies. The efforts of the local

government bodies are extremely important as regards achieving the objectives inrespect of representation and making up lost ground. In addition, the national

government will have to remove barriers and follow and monitor the processes in

all municipalities. These efforts involve education and training, financial compen-

sation and protecting elected representatives against threats and violence.

The evaluation shows that these efforts to improve the conditions for elected

representatives will also be needed in the future. A series of initiatives has recently

been launched to give impetus to these efforts, namely more opportunities for

people with disabilities to stand as candidates and carry out their representativerole; recruitment of elected representatives from a wider section of the population;

cooperation between the various actors. These initiatives will be discussed briefly

below.

People with disabilities

With a view to increasing opportunities for people with disabilities to stand as

candidates, the government has carried out research into the use of sign language

in representative bodies. Consideration has also been given to how the needs of

the blind, the deaf and the hearing-impaired can be better met with regard to policy

documents and other digital and hard-copy information. The aim is for elected

representatives to be able to carry out their tasks on the same terms as other

councillors. This focus was a direct result of a number of amendments to the

Swedish Local Government Act. The results were published in July 2005, and

served as input for further steps to improve the opportunities for people with

disabilities to carry out their representative role.

Recruitment

As regards recruiting elected representatives from a broader section of the popu-

lation, the aim is to have more women, young people and people from foreign

backgrounds stand as candidates. This would mean that political bodies would

reflect society more accurately. Research was carried out and the results of this,

which could form the input for new policy in this regard, are expected in October

2005. Furthermore, the Swedish government released funds for political parties in

2004 already to give them the opportunity to provide their representatives with

preparatory training for their work as representatives. This was done further to a

debate about the recruitment of representatives between the Minister for

Democratic Issues and parliamentary parties in December 2003.


43/116

4 3

Information network

The third point for strengthening the position of elected representatives was

cooperation between the various actors. In Sweden, the Special Unit for Democracy

and Self-Government, the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and the Fe d e r a t i o nof Swedish County Councils work together. One of their joint activities is giving a

series of classes for elected representatives via course material, lectures and

internet discussions. In this way, representatives are kept up to date with all the

information that is relevant to them. By working together and combining

information, they can be of far greater assistance to representatives than was

previously the case.

2 2 Participation between elections

Introduction

The third aim of the democratisation project of the Swedish government is the

creation of more and better opportunities for citizens to influence the political

process35. More citizens must start participating in politics. In Sweden, there has

proved to be a significant desire to get involved and to participate at various levels

of the population, contrary to what the actual participation by citizens appears to

indicate. Citizens are most likely to participate in and initiate procedures which are

not centrally driven or do not require official assistance. Finding ways of fitting in

with what citizens want requires a lot of cooperation from various government

bodies, political parties and voluntary organisations.

Measuring results has proven to be problematic during the evaluation phase here

as well.

It is difficult to assess whether and to what extent the opportunities for citizens to

participate have decreased. In accordance with the wishes of the government, the

proposals to make participating in local politics more attractive have been

implemented to a greater or lesser degree. These are things that now exist in the

majority of the municipalities in Sweden, such as self-regulating bodies, youth

councils, citizens proposals and citizen panels. Most of the local authorities are

also investing in opportunities for people with disabilities to participate and a great

deal of attention is being paid to people from groups which are relatively under-

represented, to ensure that their views are heard as well. It is important to offer

citizens a whole range of participation opportunities, so that there is a suitable way

for each citizen to cast his or her vote or express his or her opinion. Thought will

also have to be given to the decision-making processes and whether these are

comprehensible to citizens who do not deal with politics on an everyday basis.

Sweden has also found it important to offer citizens the opportunity to become


44/116

4 4

involved in EU policy, particularly because of the fact that this is playing an

increasing role in determining the everyday world of every citizen. The evaluation

report repeats on a number of occasions the recommendation that the number of

opportunities for citizens to get involved and the instruments available to them forthis be expanded. It is also important to make it possible for citizens to have their

say abou

Promoting Democracy Policy and Practice

Documents

Transcript of Promoting Democracy Policy and Practice