Citizen Law Making vs. Legal Illiteracy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenlaw/23Keywords:
e-democracy, public participation, civic engagement, illiteracy, citizen law makingAbstract
Law-making should not exclude citizens. The following paper analyses how citizens‟ engagement in policymaking fails because of citizens‟ illiteracy in law and administration knowledge and provides an updated scenario for building common knowledge through discourse production along policy drafting. In a context of a huge appetite for active participation in the decision-making processes, it is of vital importance to collect people‟s views and gain their confidence and support. Creating a constant habit from citizen participation is not only bringing added value in law making, but it is also a guarantee that they will meet the needs of citizens and therefore generate public commitment. Although citizens can contribute with their input, they have limited understanding and control over the data they provide and the results, often remaining detached from the very mission and scope of such involvement.References
Aitamurto, T. (2016). Collective intelligence in law reforms: When the logic of the crowds and the logic of policymaking collide. In 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) (pp. 2780-2789). Retrieved from http://thefinnishexperiment.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/CollectiveIntelligenceInLawReforms.pdf
Aitamurto, T., & Landemore, H. E. (2015). Five design principles for crowdsourced policymaking: Assessing the case of crowdsourced off-road traffic law in Finland. Journal of Social Media for Organizations, 2(1), 1-19.
Alavi, M., & Tiwana, A. (2002). Knowledge integration in virtual teams: The potential role of KMS. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 53(12), 1029-1037. doi:10.1002/asi.10107
Behrens, J., Kistner, A., Nitsche, A., & Swierczek, B. (2014). The principles of liquid feedback. Retrieved from https://principles.liquidfeedback.org/
Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase‟s penguin, or, Linux and the nature of the firm. The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369. doi:10.2307/1562247
Cindio, F., & Stortone, S. (2013). A two-dimensional space to frame participatory initiatives and platforms. In Crowdsourcing the Mexico City Constitution. Retrieved from https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/crowdsourcing-themexico-city-constitution/
Crowdsourcing the Mexico City Constitution. (2018). Retrieved from https://oecdopsi.org/innovations/crowdsourcing-the-mexico-city-constitution/
Faria, C. F. S. de. (2013). The open Parliament in the age of the internet: Can the people now collaborate with legislatures in law-making? [E-book]. Madrid, Spain: Câmara dos Deputados, Edições Câmara. Retrieved from http://bd.camara.gov.br/bd/handle/bdcamara/12756.
Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014), Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Washington, DC, USA: American Political Science Association.
Goldkuhl, G., & Braf, E. (2001). Contextual knowledge analysis-understanding knowledge and its relations to action and communication. In Second European Conference on Knowledge Management Proceedings (pp. 197-208). Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/acc3/a056842823ab129b8bb5c5b8241fd a3e2051.pdf
Herrera-Viedma, E., Martinez, L., Mata, F., & Chiclana, F. (2005). A consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multigranular linguistic preference relations. IEEE Transactions on fuzzy Systems, 13(5), 644-658. doi:10.1109/tfuzz.2005.856561
Nelimarkka, M., Nonnecke, B., Krishnan, S. Aitamurto, T., Catterson, D., Crittenden, C., & Goldberg, K. (2014). Comparing Three Online Civic Engagement Platforms using the „Spectrum of Public Participation‟ Framework. In Internet, Policy, and Politics Conference on Crowdsourcing for Politics and Policy (pp. 1-22).
Nwogwugwu, N., & Ajayi, F. (2015). Educated elites participation in law making and adherence to rule of law in Ogun State (2003-2011). Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(4), 55-69. doi:10.12816/0019025
Pérez, I. J., Cabrerizo, F. J., Alonso, S., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2013). A new consensus model for group decision making problems with nonhomogeneous experts. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, 44(4), 494-498. doi:10.1109/tsmc.2013.2259155
Pérez, I. J., Cabrerizo, F. J., Alonso, S., Dong, Y. C., Chiclana, F., & HerreraViedma, E. (2018). On dynamic consensus processes in group decision making problems. Information Sciences, 459, 20-35. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2018.05.017
Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Contextual knowledge management in discourse production. A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis, 71-100. doi:10.1075/dapsac.13.07dij
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
LUMEN Law Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
