‘Supra-stewardship’: A Tool for Citizen Participation in European Union Pandemic Preparedness Planning

This article proposes developing the public bioethics aspect of stewardship and applying it to the EU as ‘supra-stewardship’, a tool for opening a discursive space for citizen participation in EU preparedness planning. With this in mind the article highlights some of the contours for engagement on the boundaries of responsibility and the production of governance distortions and failures brought out by attention to framing, distribution, vulnerability and learning. This should help citizens to tackle the complementary expert and public rationalities that undermine their involvement, contribute supplementary knowledge towards governance, and help promote institutional learning by the EU and resilience.

Regulatory or Regulating Publics? The European Union’s Regulation of Emerging Health Technologies and Citizen Participation

‘Citizen participation’ includes various participatory techniques and is frequently viewed as an unproblematic and important social good when used as part of the regulation of the innovation and implementation of science and technology. This is perhaps especially evident in debates around ‘anticipatory governance’ or ‘upstream engagement’. Here, we interrogate this thesis using the example of the European Union’s regulation of emerging health technologies (such as nanotechnology). In this case, citizen participation in regulatory debate is concerned with innovative objects for medical application that are considered to be emergent or not yet concrete. Through synthesising insights from law, regulatory studies, critical theory, and science and technology studies (STS), we seek to cast new light on the promises, paradoxes and pitfalls of citizen participation as a tool or technology of regulation in itself. As such we aim to generate a new vantage point from which to view the values and sociotechnical imaginaries that are both ‘designed-in’ and ‘designed-out’ of citizen participation. In so doing, we show not only how publics (do not) regulate technologies, but also how citizens themselves are regulated through the techniques of participation. © The Author [2012].

Protecting peaceful protest:The OSCE/ODIHR and freedom of peaceful assembly

This article reviews ongoing work to increase awareness of, and raise standards in relation to, freedom of peaceful assembly across Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. The work is led by the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) at the Organisation of Security and Co-operation in Europe (OCSE). The article begins by highlighting the importance of freedom of peaceful assembly within democratic societies, and then describes the development of the ODIHR Guidelines on Peaceful Assembly. The article outlines some of the key issues of contention relating to the regulation of freedom of assembly, and discusses the process of reviewing the existing and draft legislation against the standards articulated in the Guidelines. In this context, the article also explores the potential for constructive engagement between government, civil society, and the OSCE to facilitate legislative amendments that respect key human rights norms and principles. Finally, the article reviews recent developments in training monitors of public assemblies with the aim of building local monitoring capacity and thus developing an evidence base of the practical implementation of laws relating to freedom of peaceful assembly. © The Author (2009). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Sustainable Technoscientific Development and the Innovator Citizen

Sustainable development could provide a critical foil for individual
and especially collective reflection on the normative
direction, ends and means employed by societies, particularly
around the economy, its technology and resource-intensive
orientation and configuration with ecosystems. However,
although sustainable development is a constitutional objective
of the EU, its implementation in strategies and policies reveals
a much narrower meaning. By framing sustainable development
as ecological modernisation on the basis of technoscientific
innovation, and by imagining citizens as entrepreneurs in a
knowledge-based European economy, openings for democratic
experimentation and social innovation are limited and even
forestalled. In addition, the disruptive and transformational
potential of citizenship is stymied. Still, sustainable development
has resonance within citizenship and human rights
discourses that provide important resources for the fashioning
of common understanding. These are valuable supplements to
the repertoire of European citizenship that could help to embed
sustainable development in the social fabric and generate
alternative imaginaries and futures of a sustainable Europe.

Challenging the SD benefits attributed to sport Mega-Events hosting

Sport Mega-event hosting faces opposition that is manifested with different intensity during the different phases of the event, from its inception as an idea to its delivery and legacy. Some Social Movements Organisations (SMOs) have acted as indefatigable monitors of the Sustainable Development (SD) dimension of sporting events in general and, in some of the most recent sport mega-events, in particular the Olympics, they have served as important advisors and facilitators. Nevertheless, in many cases we see enthusiastic supporters turning to vehemently challenging whatever positives have been associated with hosting the event. In addition, there is opposition to sport Mega-events in their entirety. That type of opposition tends to employ a holistic prism that manages to identify multiple interconnected negative aspects of hosting a sport mega-event and incorporate them into an anti-systemic discourse. It is important to bear in mind that irrespective of many proclamations to the opposite as far as megas are concerned (projects and/or events), a number of studies have demonstrated that citizen participation and democratic accountability in decision-making have been notoriously absent. After all, the idea of citizen participation in the planning of sport mega-event is essentially the public response to a plan conceived by others. There were, of course, some notable cases of democratic consultation at the early stages of bidding to host a sport mega-event but these more democratic approaches resulted in the failure of the bid (for e.g. Toronto 1996). The knowledge of this by the groups that initiated the hosting idea and the bidding process has led to discouraging in depth public consultation that may fit perfectly to the democratic process but not to the tight schedules of associated projects completion. That produces ‘autocracy against which opposition may arise’ (Hiller, 2000, p. 198). It is this democratic deficit that has led to important instances of social contestation and protest mobilizations by citizen groups as well as the more regular corps of social activists. From a perspective borrowed from the sociology of protest and social movements, sport mega-events hosting can operate as an issue that stimulates protest activities by an existing protest milieu and new actors as well as an important mobilizing resource. In fact, some scholars have also argued that the Olympic Games were an important frame for the transnational activism that was marked by anti-globalization protest in Seattle in 1999 (Cottrell & Nelson, 201; Lenskyj, 2008). In addition, it’s important not to lose sight of other acts dissent that take place in relatively close proximity, about a year before the event when most infrastructural and societal changes brought by hosting the event and impact start to become apparent by the host communities, like the rioting of August 2011 in the London Olympic Boroughs and the 2012 riots of June 2013 in Sao Paulo and other Brazilian cities. This paper starts by outlining the SD claims made in the bidding to host the summer Olympic Games by five prospective hosts (Sydney; Athens; Beijing; London and Rio) proceeds towards examining the opposition and challenges that was manifested in relation to these claims. In Particular it provides an assessment of protest-events over the aforementioned different phases of sport mega-events hosting. A different picture emerges for each of the host nation that is partly explained by local, national and global configuration of protest politics. Whereas the post-event legacy of the first two hosts of the Games can be assessed and that way see the validity of claims made by challengers in the other phases, in the other three cases, the implementation of Olympic Games Impact (OGI) studies offers the tool for discussing the post-event phase for Beijing and London and engage in a speculative exercise for the case of Rio. Judging by available findings, the paper concludes that the SD aspiration made in the bid documents are unlikely to be met and social contestation based on the same issues is likely to increase due to the current global economic crisis and BRICS, like China and Brazil, having entered the process of becoming global economic hegemons.

The rise of the digital citizen-stakeholder: rebalancing multistakeholder governance

The principle feature in the evolution of the internet has been its ever growing reach to include old and young, rich and poor. The internet’s ever encroaching presence has transported it from our desktop to our pocket and into our glasses. This is illustrated in the Internet Society Questionnaire on Multistakeholder Governance, which found the main factors affecting change in the Internet governance landscape were more users online from more countries and the influence of the internet over daily life. The omnipresence of the internet is self- perpetuating; its usefulness grows with every new user and every new piece of data uploaded. The advent of social media and the creation of a virtual presence for each of us, even when we are not physically present or ‘logged on’, means we are fast approaching the point where we are all connected, to everyone else, all the time. We have moved far beyond the point where governments can claim to represent our views which evolve constantly rather than being measured in electoral cycles.
The shift, which has seen citizens as creators of content rather than consumers of it, has undermined the centralist view of democracy and created an environment of wiki democracy or crowd sourced democracy. This is at the heart of what is generally known as Web 2.0, and widely considered to be a positive, democratising force. However, we argue, there are worrying elements here too. Government does not always deliver on the promise of the networked society as it involves citizens and others in the process of government. Also a number of key internet companies have emerged as powerful intermediaries harnessing the efforts of the many, and re- using and re-selling the products and data of content providers in the Web 2.0 environment. A discourse about openness and transparency has been offered as a democratising rationale but much of this masks an uneven relationship where the value of online activity flows not to the creators of content but to those who own the channels of communication and the metadata that they produce.
In this context the state is just one stakeholder in the mix of influencers and opinion formers impacting on our behaviours, and indeed our ideas of what is public. The question of what it means to create or own something, and how all these new relationships to be ordered and governed are subject to fundamental change. While government can often appear slow, unwieldy and even irrelevant in much of this context, there remains a need for some sort of political control to deal with the challenges that technology creates but cannot by itself control. In order for the internet to continue to evolve successfully both technically and socially it is critical that the multistakeholder nature of internet governance be understood and acknowledged, and perhaps to an extent, re- balanced. Stakeholders can no longer be classified in the broad headings of government, private sector and civil society, and their roles seen as some sort of benign and open co-production. Each user of the internet has a stake in its efficacy and each by their presence and participation is contributing to the experience, positive or negative of other users as well as to the commercial success or otherwise of various online service providers. However stakeholders have neither an equal role nor an equal share. The unequal relationship between the providers of content and those who simple package up and transmit that content - while harvesting the valuable data thus produced - needs to be addressed. Arguably this suggests a role for government that involves it moving beyond simply celebrating and facilitating the on- going technological revolution. This paper reviews the shifting landscape of stakeholders and their contribution to the efficacy of the internet. It will look to critically evaluate the primacy of the individual as the key stakeholder and their supposed developing empowerment within the ever growing sea of data. It also looks at the role of individuals in wider governance roles. Governments in a number of jurisdictions have sought to engage, consult or empower citizens through technology but in general these attempts have had little appeal. Citizens have been too busy engaging, consulting and empowering each other to pay much attention to what their governments are up to. George Orwell’s view of the future has not come to pass; in fact the internet has insured the opposite scenario has come to pass. There is no big brother but we are all looking over each other’s shoulder all the time, while at the same time a number of big corporations are capturing and selling all this collective endeavour back to us.