Finland is about to change what we mean by “law-making”

From October onwards, Finland will use a “citizen’s initiative” that requires the Eduskunta (Parliament) to vote on any citizen-drafted law that garners 50,000 votes of support through the Open Ministry platform – which is open-source and available on GitHub. The initiative is the latest effort to incorporate more popular participation into the the law making process through crowdsouring – allowing for the widest range of input, viewpoints and ideas.  It provides yet another example of what Steven Johnson calls “Peer Progressive” in his latest book.

Most efforts start from the assumption that the quality of the laws we create and presumably the legitimacy of their eventual implementation would benefit from more diverse participation from a wider array of non-professionals. In his recent TED talk, Clay Shirky called for creating such a “Git Hub” for lawmaking to transform the legislative process and enable ordinary citizens to have direct input.

Till date, the “crowdsourcing law” experiments have focused on more bottom up approaches to the work of lawmaking, including: 1) proposing topics for new laws; 2) writing drafts of law; 3) commenting on drafts; 4) expressing support or dislike of proposed laws.

Consider for instance these example :

Unlike Latvia’s Mana Balss, which only requires lawmakers to debate widely supported issues, or the United Kingdom’s Direct Democracy program, which could lead to the discussion of an issue in Parliament, Finland’s program forces representatives to officially take a stand for or against proposals demonstrated to be important to a large portion of the population.

As such, Open Ministry could lead to not only more immediate direct democracy, but greater accountability for government representatives.  Despite the promise of crowdsourcing towards more participation, transparency and accountability of the law-making processes several challenges remain. More importantly, broader questions exist on whether these efforts aim to fix a process designed for a previous era or should go beyond what we currently mean by legislation.
Matthew Ingram at GigaOm  concludes  that “the laborious process of putting together a comprehensive piece of legislation — which would require hundreds of pages, legal footnotes and cross-checking with existing laws if it is to succeed in any real way — may simply not be compatible with existing crowdsourcing methods”.  Much more experimentation and research is needed to turn crowdsourcing into a tool that can improve or even transform the legislative process. New interfaces are needed. The development of tools such as IBM’s Many Bills which focuses on offering an easy way to reading legislation could provide for improve the public’s understanding of key components of a bill and and subsequently have them weigh in on the issues they care about most.  Stay tuned.

The Tags . . .


  1. How do legislators find experts? Crowdsourcing vs Curation - March 28, 2013

    […] “Iceland in 2010 opened its constitutional rewrite to mass participation, offering citizens the chance to use technology to update and modernize their founding document.  This process exemplifies effectively managed crowdsourcing. […]

Leave a Reply