Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Artigos

V. 15 N. 39 Set./Dez. 2022

ANALYSIS OF BEST PRACTICES IN OPEN E-PARLIAMENT: CASES, SYSTEMS AND MODELS

DOI
https://doi.org/10.51206/elegis.v15i39.776
Submitted
October 25, 2021
Published
2022-12-21

Abstract

This article shows the main research results on diverse innovations in social engagement with the e-parliament. Our purpose was to map the best practices through Information and Communication Technology (ICT), which promotes the relationship between society and parliament, improving the parliament’s transparency, accountability, and responsiveness to citizens. For that, we used four analytical dimensions: political, technological, organizational, and social. According to these four dimensions, we have identified four types of Open e-Parliament engagement: 1) communication with citizens; 2) e-participation; 3) e-deliberation/e-consultation; and 4) collaboration. For each type, we described and explored some practices in order to generate insights for parliamentary institutional development, considering the Open E-Parliament dimensions.

References

  1. ALMEIDA, Helga do Nascimento de. et al. “Tamo junto?” Parlamentares e mídias sociais: uma tipologia dos padrões de atuação de deputados federais no Facebook. Sociedade e Cultura, Goiânia, v. 23, p. 1-47, 2020. Disponível em: .
  2. ALMOND, Gabriel Abraham; VERBA, Sidney. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. 574 p.
  3. ALSINA, Victória; MARTÍ, José Luis. The Birth of the CrowdLaw Movement: Tech-Based Citizen Participation, Legitimacy and the Quality of Lawmaking. Analyse & Kritik, Berlin, v. 40, n. 2, p. 337-358, 2018. Disponível em: .
  4. ANASTÁCIO, Susana Mariano. A comunicação política na era digital estudo de caso: o parlamento europeu no Facebook. 2017. 147 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Comunicação e Media) - Escola Superior de Educação e Ciências Sociais, Instituto Politécnico de Leiria, Leiria, 2017.
  5. BARBER, B. Strong Democracy: participatory politics for new age. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 356 p.
  6. BOHMAN, James. O que é deliberação pública? Uma abordagem dialógica. In: MARQUES, Ângela Cristina Salgueiro (org.). A Deliberação Pública e suas dimensões sociais, políticas e comunicativas: textos fundamentais. Belo Horizonte: Editora Autêntica,2009, p. 31-84.
  7. CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES OF BRAZIL. Hacker Lab. 2021. Disponível em: <https://labhackercd.leg.br/>. Acesso em: 25 abr. 2021.
  8. CROWDLAW CATALOG. New York: NYU Tandon School of Engineering. GovLab. 2021. Disponível em: <https://catalog.crowd.law/>. Acesso em: 15 abr. 2021.
  9. DELIBERA. Deliberação Cidadã e Sorteio Cívico como aliados da Atividade Legislativa. São Paulo: Delibera Brasil. Relatório de Pesquisa, 2021.
  10. ESCOBAR, Oliver; ELSTUB, Stephen. Forms of Mini-publics: An Introduction to deliberative innovations in democratic practice. New Democracy, 15 p., may 2017. Disponível em: <https://newdemocracy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/docs_researchnotes_2017_May_nDF_RN_20170508_FormsOfMiniPublics.pdf>.
  11. FARIA, Cláudia Feres. Democracia Deliberativa: Habermas, Cohen e Bohman. Lua Nova: Revista de Cultura e Política, São Paulo, n. 49, p. 47-68, 2000.
  12. FARIA, Cristiano Ferri Soares. O Parlamento aberto na Era da Internet: pode o povo colaborar com o Legislativo na elaboração das leis?. Brasília: Edições Câmara. 2012. 334 p.
  13. FARIA, Cristiano Ferri Soares. Participação popular na elaboração de leis: análise do Projeto e-Democracia da Câmara dos Deputados. In: CUNHA, Eleonora; SCHETTINI. Martins; THEODORO, Hildelano. Delanusse (orgs.). Desenho Institucional, Democracia e Participação: Conexões Teóricas e Possibilidades Analíticas. Belo Horizonte: D’Plácido, 2014. p. 155-176.
  14. FARIA, Cristiano Ferri Soares. Political Bots: How Artificial Intelligence may facilitate the interaction between citizens and Legislative Representatives. In: PAULSON, Lex; BOUCHER, Stephen (orgs). The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intelligence for Democracy and Governance. London and New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, 2021 (no prelo).
  15. FARIA, Cristiano; REHBEIN, Malena. Open parliament policy applied to the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. The Journal of Legislative Studies, Londres, v. 22, n. 4, p. 559-578, 2016. DOI: 10.1080/13572334.2016.1235333.
  16. FEDERAL SENATE OF BRAZIL. Legislative Idea. 2021. Disponível em: <https://www12.senado.leg.br/ecidadania/principalideia>. Acesso em: 06 abr. 2021.
  17. FEDERAL SENATE OF BRAZIL REPORT. e-Cidadania Portal. 2021. Disponível em: <https://www.senado.gov.br/bi-arqs/Arquimedes/ecidadania/relatorio-simplificado-ingles-pdf.pdf>. Acesso em: 30 mar. 2021.
  18. FUNG, Archon. Survey Article: Recipes for Public Sphere: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences. The Journal of Political Philosophy, Nova Jersey, v. 11, n. 3, p. 338-367, 2003.
  19. FUNG, Archon. Democratizing the Policy Process. In: MORIN, Michael; REIN, Martin; GOODIN, Robert (orgs.). Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. New York: New York University Press, p. 669-685, 2006.
  20. FUNG, Archon. Continuous Institutional Innovation and the Pragmatic Conception of Democracy. Polity, Chicago, v. 4, n. 4, p. 609-624, 2012.
  21. GUTMANN, Amy; THOMPSON, Dennis. O que significa democracia deliberativa. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Constitucionais, Belo Horizonte, v. 1, n. 1, p. 17-78, 2007.
  22. HEALTHY DEMOCRACY. Oregon Assembly on Covid Recovery. 2020. Disponível em: <https://healthydemocracy.org/what-we-do/local-government-work/oregon-assembly-on-covid-recovery/>. Acesso em: 02 maio 2021.
  23. LANGLAMET, Helene. Can Digital Technologies Create a Stronger Model for Democratic Participation? The Case of CrowdLaw. In: HAWAII INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEM SCIENCES, 51., 2018, Proceedings: International Conference on System Sciences, 2018, p. 2309-2319. Disponível em: https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/50177. Acesso em: 05 jan. 2022.
  24. LEMOS, Claudia Regina F.; BARROS, Antonio Teixeira; BERNARDES, Cristiane Brum. Public Communication in the Brazilian Congress: The News Agency and TV Station of the Chamber of Deputies. Latin American Research Review, Baltimore, v. 51, n. 4, p. 202-224, 2016.
  25. LESTON-BANDEIRA, Cristina. The Impact of the Internet on Parliaments: a Legislative Studies Framework. Parliamentary Affairs, Oxônia, v. 60, n. 4, p.655-674, 2007. DOI: /doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsm040.
  26. LESTON-BANDEIRA, Cristina. Seven reasons why parliaments struggle with digital. Political Studies Association (PSA) Blog. 2014. Disponível em: psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/blog/seven-reasons-why-parliaments-struggle-digital.
  27. LESTON-BANDEIRA, Cristina; BENDER, David. How deeply are parliaments engaging on social media? Information Polity, Amsterdam, v. 18, n. 4, p. 281-297, 2013. DOI: 10.3233/IP-130316.
  28. NATIONAL CONGRESS OF CHILE. Virtual Congress. 2021. Disponível em: <https://congresovirtual.cl/>. Acesso em: 26 abr. 2021.
  29. NIESSEN, Christoph; REUCHAMPS, Min. Institutionalising Citizen Deliberation in Parliament: The Permanent Citizens Dialogue in the German-speaking Community of Belgium. Parliamentary Affairs, Oxônia, v. 75, n. 01, p. 135-153, jan. 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsaa056.
  30. NOVECK, Beth Simone. Crowdlaw: Collective Intelligence and Lawing. Analyse & Kritik, Alemanha, v. 40, n. 2, p. 359-380, 2018. Disponível em: /doi.org/10.1515/auk-2018-0020:>.
  31. OPEN GOVERNMENT PARTNERSHIP (OGP). How about defining Open Government principles? 2016. Disponível em: <https://www.opengovpartnership.org/stories/how-about-defining-open-government-principles/>. Acesso em: 10 maio. 2021.
  32. PATEMAN, Carole. Participatory Democracy Revisited. Perspectives on Politics, Washington, v. 10, n.1, p. 7-19, 2012.
  33. QUINTÃO, Thales Torres. Democracia participativa e deliberativa: congruências ou modelos em disputa? Cadernos da Escola do Legislativo, Belo Horizonte, v. 16, n. 26, p. 51-90, 2014.
  34. QUINTÃO, Thales Torres; FARIA, Claudia Feres. Parlamento e Inovações Participativas: potencialidades e limites para a inclusão política. Teoria & Sociedade, Belo Horizonte, v. 26, n.1, p. 60-92, 2018.
  35. REPORT ON THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT. Edinburgh: Commission on Parliamentary Reform, jun. 2017.
  36. ROCHA, Maria Neblina Orrico. Mecanismos de Participação Política Online: O E-Cidadania. 2015. 79 f. Monografia (Especialização em Comunicação Legislativa) - Instituto Legislativo Brasileiro, Senado Federal, Brasília, 2015.
  37. SANTOS, Boaventura de Souza; AVRITZER, Leonardo. Introdução: Para ampliar o cânone democrático. In: SANTOS, Boaventura de Souza. (org.). Democratizar a democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira, p. 39-82, 2002.
  38. SANTOS, Pierre Triboli; FARIA, Cristiano Ferri Soares. Como Hackear um Legislativo: o caso Labhacker da Câmara Brasileira. In: CAVALCANTE, Pedro (org.). Inovação e Políticas Públicas: superando o mito da ideia. Brasília: Ipea, p. 243-258, 2019.
  39. THE GOVLAB. CrowLaw Agenda. New York: NYU Tandon School of Engineering. 2021. Disponível em: https://crowd.law/crowdlaw-af1a9e1c9455. Acesso em: 10 abr. 2021.
  40. UK GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT. Petitions. 2021. Disponível em: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/check. Acesso em: 02 abril. 2021.
  41. WORLD E-PARLIAMENT REPORT 2016. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2016
  42. WORLD E-PARLIAMENT REPORT 2018. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2018.
  43. WORLD E-PARLIAMENT REPORT 2020. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2021.