T5.5: Lab Spain, March 2021 - WP5 - Dissemination and engagement - Populism and ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
T5.5: Local Democracy Lab Spain, March 2021 WP5 – Dissemination and engagement
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 2
Local Democracy Labs
Trust in public administration, in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic
The aim of this report is to present the outcomes of the PaCE Local Democracy Lab in Spain, a contribution of
26 participants to the qualitative research on “Trust in public administration, in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic”.
Acknowledgments
The organisation and implementation of the PaCE Local Democracy Lab in Spain would not be possible
without the financial contribution of the PaCE – Populism and Civic Engagement project financed by the
European Union´s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No 822337.
We acknowledge the active presence of 26 participants for bringing their insights, knowledge, experience and
contribution to the research on populism movement and for engaging in such fruitful, constructive and open
exchange of perceptions, opinions and ideas about democracy and trust in administration/public authority in
Spain in the time of Covid-19 pandemic.
We would like to acknowledge the generous and professional support of Rosa Jiménez Pereda, Founder of La
Escalera, Pascual Pérez, Co-Founder of Oficina de Innovacion Civica S. Coop. and Sirivan Prak, as facilitators
team that contributed along the organisation, implementation, selection of participants and carrying out the lo cal
democracy lab.
Organizing team consisted of Roxana Cziker, project manager at the Municipality of Reykjavík, Sophie Kiesouw,
Project lead, the Netherlands and Aleksandra Zietek, Local connector Krakow, Poland, both from Democratic
Society in Brussels. We would like to acknowledge Róbert Bjarnason, manager of Citizens Foundation in
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 3
Iceland for the design and development of the online platform for deliberation– Your Priorities available for
participants of the democracy lab.
We are thankful for all the help from organisations that supported us in reaching out to participants:
• Grigri Projects
• Caminando Fronteras
• Fundación Tomillo
• Nave Nodriza
• Medialab Prado
• Impact Hub Madrid
• Fundación Matia
• Grandes Amigos
And all others that helped.
We would like to address a special thanks and gratitude to all participants to the PaCE Local Democracy Lab in
Spain, for their time, contribution, ideas and inspiration.
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 4
About this document
Task Lead: RVK
Contributors: DS and CF
Date: 21st of March 2021
This document outlines the outcomes and lessons learned from the PaCE Local Democracy Lab organised in
Spain by the La Escalera and Oficina de Innovacion Civica S. Coop on the 12th of March 2021. The outcomes
and lessons learned are relevant for the development of future Democracy Labs and serve as guidance for other
consortia and organisations engaging citizens in their research. This document is feeding into the official
academic research of the PaCE project.
Dissemination Level
PU Public on the www.popance.eu and on the website of the PaCE Local Democracy in Spain
https://sites.google.com/laescalera.org/democracy-lab-spain/sobre-los-laboratorios X
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
A brief summary of revisions will be recorded in the table below.
HISTORY OF CHANGES
VERSION PUBLICATION DATE KEY CHANGES AUTHOR
V0.1 Initial version Rosa Jiménez Pered
Pascual Pérez
Sirivan Prak
The working language of this document is English (EN), as required for reporting purposes by article 20.7 of
the Grant Agreement. A Spanish version is provided in order to enable the access to outcomes by participants
to the local democracy lab in Spain.
Disclaimer
The project PaCE has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under the grant agreement No 822337. The opinions expressed in this document reflect only the
authors´ view and reflect in no way the European Commission’s opinions.
The PaCE project consortium respects the protection of personal information and data and adheres strictly to
the rules set down by data protection legislation, how we handle the data and the rights of participants to the
research.
The outcomes of the PaCE Local Democracy Lab in Spain represent strictly the conclusions formulated on the
opinions and perception of the twenty-six participants to the lab and cannot be extrapolated as representing the general
opinion of citizens in Spain because no standardized inclusion and exclusion criteria have been used for the
participants´ selection. The general strategy of participation selection applied to the local democracy labs is to
encourage participation across genders and from under-represented groups of people, and to enable the free will
of members of the community to participate in the debate.
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 5
Table of Content
Local Democracy Labs………………………………………………………………………………………..…... 2
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………………………………….... 2
About this document……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
Disclaimer………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
1. Executive summary………………………………………………………………………………......................... 6
1.1. Key findings…………………………………………………………………………………………….... 6
1.2. Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………... 6
2. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 7
2.1. Context of Local Democracy Labs………………………………………………………………………... 7
2.2. Purpose of the Local Democracy Lab…………………………………………………………………….. 8
2.3. Objectives of the Local Democracy Lab………………………………………………………………….. 8
2.4. Structure of the Local Democracy Lab…………………………………………………………………… 8
3. Main outcomes of the online event…………………………………………………………….............................. 10
3.1. Description of participants and selection criteria………………………………………………………….. 10
3.2. Outcomes & Insights……………………………………………………………………………………... 14
4. Participants feedback………………………………………………………………………………...................... 19
4.1 Participants feedback……………………………………………………………………………………… 19
4.2 Event learnings…………………………………………………………………………………………..... 20
List of Tables
Table 1. Discussion points emerged from the Round 1 of the democracy lab….………………………………………………. 14
Table 2. Discussion points emerged from the Round 2 of the democracy lab……………………………...……………..….… 16
Table 3. Discussion points emerged from the Round 3 of the democracy lab……………………………...……………...…… 17
List of Figures
Figure 1. How did you know about Democracy Lab?……………………………………………………………………. 10
Figure 2. Announcement of the event on the PaCE Facebook……………………………………………………………... 11
Figure 3. Dissemination on Twitter of the PaCE Local Democracy Lab in Spain…………………………………………... 11
Figure 4. Representation of participants registered and attended……………………………………………………………. 14
Figure 5. Representation of gender of participants registered……………………………………………………………….. 12
Figure 6. Representation of gender of participants attended………………………………………………………………... 12
Figure 7. Representation of age of participants registered………………………………………………………………….. 12
Figure 8. Representation of age of participants attended…………………………………………………………... 12
Figure 9. Representation of education of participants registered…………………………………………………………….. 13
Figure 10. Representation of education of participants attended……………………………………………………………. 13
Figure 11. Representation of demographic of participants registered………………………………………………………… 13
Figure 12. Representation of demographic of participants attended…………………………………………………………. 13
Figure 13. Representation of the participants´ feedback after attending the online event……………………………………….. 19
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 6
1. Executive Summary
1.1. Key Findings
Participant’s recruitment lasted approximately a month and most of them were reached through word of mouth
even when we have made a campaign on social media. This is probably related to the need of trusting organizers
when participating in a social debate. Gender and age were balanced but there was an over representation of highly
educated and urban profiles.
On the other hand, most vulnerable groups directly affected by the pandemic were a minority mainly due to the
lack of time and the need to work during these hours.
The Spanish Democracy Lab has facilitated the opportunity for citizens to talk about their opinion and feelings
regarding the management of the pandemic. This event was one of the first places where they could share
their feedback about a situation that has impacted the whole society at every level. Participants talked
about the poor presence of public debate and the need to involve citizenry in decision making.
Regarding their concerns, they did not feel the government was taking them into account. Besides, they mentioned
a lack of empathy by institutions that showed their weakness due to a deficit of resources and problems of
coordination between national, regional and local levels. They also felt that decisions were based more on the
political agenda and partisan interest than on citizens' needs. Participants shared their concerns about the loss of
rights and freedoms.
Regarding the restrictions, they agreed on the fact that they were needed in order to face the pandemic. However,
group’ specificities and vulnerability have been ignored, and many decisions were improvised without giving
adequate support to the most affected people.
Restrictions were not adapted to the local context and were based on an urban centrist approach. An important
part of the debate was about the local governance and the need to find a balance in the decision making between
national and regional levels.
One of the biggest challenges mentioned was to find a collective solution in a context of polarization and political
confrontation.
1.2. Recommendations
As recommendations, participants suggested, on the one hand the development of collective agreements and
common vision at the national level and on the other hand the decision making of measures at the municipal level
to consider local realities and to encourage social fabric feedback.
They also mentioned the need to develop social policies that guarantee support for the most vulnerable groups
affected by the pandemic, like the Universal Basic Income.
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 7
In addition, measures should be holistic and should integrate not only scientific or technical aspects, but also the
social perspective.
Finally, the government should pay special attention to mental health issues related to restrictions and adapt
measures considering their possible consequences on population’s mental health.
2. Introduction
2.1. Context of Local Democracy Labs
Across Europe there is a rise of political movements that claim to challenge liberal elites and speak for the 'ordinary
person' - movements that can be loosely categorised as 'populist'. Many of these movements have undesirable
tendencies.
The Populism and Civic engagement project (PaCE) aims to understand and address negative
tendencies associated with populist politics, to build upon the lessons of positive examples, and
hence play a part in constructing a firmer democratic and institutional foundation for citizens of
Europe.
The PaCE project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme under the grant agreement No 822337.
The PaCE research addresses the civic engagement approach by enabling active participation of people from
different European countries to the PaCE´s qualitative research. Thus, one of the participatory researches aims
the carrying out of Local Democracy Labs in different European countries. The purpose of Local Democracy
Lab is to assess the public´s attitudes to and aspirations for democracy and to identify ways of democratic
involvement and to understand the way in which traditional and social media influence political and social
opinion. The City of Reykjavik, in collaboration with the Democratic Society , Brussels and Citizens
Foundation, Iceland are the leaders in organising and carrying out, in different locations in Europe, a total of
six Democracy Labs across Europe.
The Local Democracy Labs are in line with Objective 5 of the PaCE project:
Engage with stakeholders, especially groups under-represented in public affairs, particularly
younger citizens, schools and local communities, in new forms of democratic engagement
appropriate in our digital age.
Local democracy lab is a ‘deliberative’ event which gathers people to discuss the condition of democracy in
different European countries through the lens of present challenges. To this end, we are planning a new type of
democracy Lab, turning the pandemic into an asset and propose an innovative online forum to allow people o f
different backgrounds across Europe to participate independent of their geographic location.
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 8
2.2. Purpose of the Local Democracy Lab
The goal of the 3-hours-long local Democracy Labs held across the European focus member states is to ensure
the widest democratic engagement throughout all stages of the PaCE project. A subsidiary goal (given the
emergence of COVID-19) is to learn how to make online Democracy Labs work, so we can package the
experiences into guidelines in order to help others how to run them.
The selection criteria of European countries where the local democracy labs are carried out is in line with one of
the tasks of the work package WP1 of the project, case studies of populist and nativist parties and social
movements in different European countries. Thus, the inclusion criteria are to cover Nordic, Eastern,
Southern and Central European countries and Western European countries: Iceland, Spain, Scotland,
Poland, Bulgaria and Hungary.
2.3. Objectives of the Local Democracy Lab
Democracy Labs aim at reaching the following key objectives:
• To keep the research programme continuously connected to the lived experiences of participants;
• To think through, with participants, the ways in which they might want to be involved in making and
shaping decisions that affect their lives;
Subsidiary aims:
• To produce rich qualitative data around the perceptions of power, trust, and democratic processes;
• To better understand the way in which traditional and social media influence and shape political and
social opinions;
• To better understand the way in which community interactions influence and shape political decisions;
2.4. Structure of the Local Democracy Lab
The design of the Democracy Lab is based on the idea of the World Café qualitative method, adapted for the
online version. The World Café format fits the Positive Psychology frame and creates a welcoming and
conductive environment and a respectful relationship that promotes an equal partnership. The World Café
operates on the principle that people are at their most creative when they are relaxed. This time the “café” has
been taken in an online format, everyone in his/her own space and settings, promoting a diversity of space and
coffee.
The World Café process is a simple method for bringing people together to focus on answering key questions. It
is founded on the assumption that people have the will and capacity to work together. The process uses
connected conversations to share knowledge, ignite innovation, and tap into the intelligence of the group. The
key elements of the process include:
• Small groups around table
• Informal conversations focus on key questions.
• Sharing ideas and knowledge as participants move among small groups.
• Opportunities to record ideas in words and images.
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 9
• Weaving of emerging themes and insights
• Awareness of social nature of learning
• Noticing that individual conversations are part of and contribute to a larger web through which
collective intelligence can become aware of itself. (Löhr K., Weinhardt M. amd Sieber S, 2020; Guide to
the World Café method)
Stages of the Local Democracy Lab
1. Starting up. Pre-event ideas generation on a dialogue platform. Online participation and ideas exchange
on democracy and trust in government through Your Priorities platform for 10 days prior the event.
2. Online deliberation event. Via Zoom communication platform, a 3-hour-long online deliberation
event with about 30 participants. This is held in a World Cafe format and run by professional facilitators,
ensuring everyone can have a say on democracy and trust in government in pandemic times.
3. Follow up. Post-event ideas gathering on Your Priorities platform. Post-event ideas exchange, informed
by findings from deliberation, enabling participants to engage further and express your options.
The online event started with a plenary session where participants have been introduced to the structure of the
democracy lab. After the plenary session, the participants were divided in smaller groups, where participants
changed their group for each round. Each facilitator supported one group of participants and kept leading the
same breakout group. The breakout and plenary session have been audio recorded, with the fully agreement of
participants. The facilitators were using a ‘Miro’ online note board where they collected all discussion points
carried out by participants.
The participants were engaged in three ‘rounds’ of conversation during the Democracy Labs, the discussion in
each round being based on a question in order to create a ‘flow’ in the conversations:
1. Explorative question - about democracy and the pandemic in general (round 1)
How your feelings and concerns regarding Covid-19 are heard and addressed by your government?
2. Deepening question - starting to get into the topic of how government is dealing with the pandemic
(round 2)
How do you feel/experience the covid-19 restrictions that your government has imposed?
3. Reflective or activating question - linking people's thoughts on the pandemic into some ideas,
suggestions and recommendations (round 3)
In a future wave of this (/a) pandemic, what would be your recommendation to the government? If you were in charge, what
would you do?
822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 10
3. Main Outcomes of the Online Event
3.1. Description of Participants and the Selection Criteria
Recruitment process
The main focus was to activate the network of organizations or associations already known by the members of
the facilitation team and to try to reach through them specific collectives or social sectors. We wanted to find a
balance in terms of gender or age, and also to recruit professionals or people from social sectors particularly
affected by the pandemic situation and the resulting economic crisis (educators and teachers, health personnel,
self-employed, migrants, etc.)
Social media used to attract participants were Linkedin, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. The message
communicated was friendly and informal (we invited people to take a coffee with us to talk about the pandemic
management). By retweeting or sharing our posts, organizations or known people acted as “trusty community
ambassadors” for recruiting possible participants.
In addition to our campaign in social media, we have sent
messages on Whatsapp groups and we have directly called
possible participants and organizations to get to know the
Local Democracy Lab. This has generated a bigger impact
than social media as most of the people registered declared
to have known about the event through "someone I knew"
and only 1/3 through social media.
Figure 1. How did you know about Democracy Lab?822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 11
Figure 2. Announcement of the event on the PaCE Facebook Figure 3. Dissemination on Twitter of the PaCE Local
Democracy Lab in Spain822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 12
Description of participants
A total number of 39 participants have registered to the PaCE Local Democracy Lab. Among the total
number of participants, 26 participated (66.7%) in the online event.
Figure 4. Representation of participants
registered and attended
Figure 5. Representation of gender of participants registered Figure 6. Representation of gender of participants attended
Figure 7. Representation of age of participants registered Figure 8. Representation of age of participants attended822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 13
Figure 9. Representation of education of participants registered Figure 10. Representation of education of participants attended
Figure 11. Representation of demographic of participants registered Figure 12. Representation of demographic of participants attended
Characteristics of our sample:
Gender balance is respected and the age range is between 21 to 71 years old, with 76.9% over 30 years old.
Regarding education level, it is clear that there is an overrepresentation of participants with higher education
(92.3% of the sample). Also, more than a half is living in Madrid (57.7%), probably because our social networks
are particularly developed in the capital of the country. However, people from 10 different regions of the
country registered, and finally had people from 7 different regions during the meeting.
One of our main issues in the recruitment was the access to other profiles, people from different backgrounds,
especially sectors that are generally underrepresented. The lack of time was the main reason for them to not
participate. People usually told us that they needed to work or to be very flexible in case they could find casual
work at the last moment. This is relevant when we focus on sectors of the population that are more affected by
restrictions, that are not necessarily receiving public subsidies and that are in a vulnerable situation (illegal work,
migrants, workers from the hospitality sector, etc.). Besides, we also met difficulties to recruit people that have
children or that have to care of elderly or disabled persons for the same reason. We think this is a bias in our
sample to take into consideration at the moment to analyze the content of the session.822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 14
3.2. Outcomes & Insights
The qualitative analysis of the participants´ statements emerged from the local democracy lab (breakout session
for each question), has highlighted four categories of themes:
1. Positive insights
2. Critical views
3. Suggestions
4. Challenges
Round 1. Q1: How do you feel your concerns regarding Covid-19 are being heard and
addressed by your government?
The main discussion points for the Q1 for each of the four categories of themes are presented in Table 1.
View full-size image
Table 1. Discussion points emerged from the Round 1 of the democracy lab
Positive insights Critical views Suggestions Challenges
The entire conversation was critical in Lack of empathy Integrate Developing networks
tone and no one spoke positively. The role of the public administration, collaborative work and alliances between
Concerns are not only perceived as not when not improvised, is perceived with a and a participatory different sectors.
being addressed but seem not to be scientific or technocratic bias that has left vision within the Improving the
known or understood due, among aside the social view of the pandemic. institution. coordination at the822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 15
other things, to the lack of empathy Political agenda and partisan Using lessons international level and
and grounding of the institution in the interests. learned to be developing solidarity
reality of day-to-day life. Citizens' concerns are overlapped by a better prepared in with countries that are
political debate that has either accelerated the future. more vulnerable.
the development of a political agenda Building a new social
already underway (e.g., development and culture based on
role of technology companies in solidarity.
education) or has been contaminated by
partisan interests and the polarization of
public debate.
Weakness of institutions.
The pandemic has uncovered the
incapacity of the public administration.
The causes of this incapacity were
addressed as derived from a lack of
resources along the last decade and the
lack of contact of institutions at a local
scale.
Round 2. Q2: How do you feel about covid-19 restrictions your government has imposed?
The main discussion points for the Q2 for each of the four categories are presented in Table 2.
View full-size image822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 16
Table 2. Discussion points emerged from the Round 2 of the democracy lab
Positive insights Critical views Suggestions Challenges
The generalized view of the Improvisation The importance of taking Building collective
restrictions is that of "a necessary No time has been given to check into account the solutions in a scenario of
evil" due to the exceptional whether the measures worked or exacerbation of racism polarization and social
situation and despite the awareness not, abrupt and incoherent and discriminations: conflict.
of what they imply in terms of loss changes. controls were more The context of
of individual freedoms and rights focused on the migrant polarization, already
for the most vulnerable (those most Federalism in pandemic times population. present in the public
affected by the pandemic). The administrative system in debate before the
Spain based on autonomous Attending the process of pandemic, makes it more
The restrictions are considered to regions with certain democratic degradation in difficult to face a situation
be useful in lowering the mortality competencies independent from recent years. such as this that requires
rate of the disease. the state is perceived as one of collective solutions.
the elements that has made it
The role of the institutions at the difficult to transmit information How can we build new
beginning of the pandemic, which is to the public in a clear way. collective rights from this
seen as erratic and improvised to a Urban Centrist approach situation?
large extent, is accepted due to the The restrictions have not taken
unexpectedness of the situation. into account the particularities of
each region and have been based
Some people are happy that they on an urban perspective, without
have been able to improve their considering suburban or rural
technological skills because of the realities.
situation.822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 17
Round 3. Q3: In a future wave pandemic, what would be your recommendations to the
government? If you were in charge, what would you do?
The main discussion points for the Q3 for each of the four categories are presented in Table 3.
View full-size image
Table 3. Discussion points emerged from the Round 3 of the democracy lab
Suggestions Collective agreements at the national level. Municipal measures and in relation to the different local realities.
This makes it easier for citizens and social fabric to participate in the implementation of these measures.
Social policies that guarantee support to people and groups in the most emergency and vulnerable situations:
electricity, water, housing and minimum economic level (Universal Basic Income).822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 18
Measures with a holistic view, not only taking into account scientific or technical aspects, but also including
social aspects.
Pay special attention to mental health situations prior to the pandemic situation and those caused by the
emergency.822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 19
4. Participants´ Feedback
4.1 Participants´ Feedback
After the event, we have sent participants a survey to receive their feedback. Eighteen people have replied (66%
of participants) to help us to improve the next events.
Regarding the first question, on a scale of 1 to 5, to what extent has your participation in the session changed
your mind about topics discussed? The half of participants has chosen a score of 2, and a third has chosen a
score of 3.
Figure 13. Representation of the participants´ feedback after attending the online event
As positive points, participants have highlighted, among others:
• the respect between all the participants
• the fact to listen to other points of view from people with different reality
• the possibility to debate about the management of the pandemic and to share opinion
• the organisation, coordination and facilitation of the event
• the format of the session
As suggestions, they have proposed:
• to organise the session with smaller groups
• to improve the diversity including more elderly people and people from different backgrounds
• to organise two sessions or to dedicate more time for each question
• to use open and free digital tools ( Jitsi)822337 – PaCE – Local Democracy Lab, Spain
12th of March 2021 20
4.2. Learning from Event
• The experience surrounding the pandemic is one that affects all of us. It is easier to address any perso n if
the focus of the event remains at that point. The statements and communications that made direct
mention of the topic of the research (populisms or democracy) only appealed to those with an academic
background or interest.
• The online session could be long; however, the debates do not allow for in-depth discussions and one
person can end up speaking very few minutes in relation to the whole event. In our case, it worked very
well to try to keep the conversation active in other ways (promoting the debate through the zoom chat
while other people are talking) and to carry out simple exercises at the beginning of each round that
allowed us to get into the topic and then go deeper with the questions posed.You can also read
