This article originally appeared on Global Voices, and was written by Alexei Sidorenko.

For the past two years, we have witnessed the Russian blogosphere becoming more and more empowered by technology. Although the bloggers’ abilities are quite limited, they have already attracted attention of both the Russian and international media.

Until recently, the technological level of online transparency initiatives remained quite low. The majority of IT professionals were not eager to join civil society activists and their initiatives. The evidence of this can be seen on technology blogs (e.g., habrahabr.ru), where numerous “technocrats” fall for the traditionally cynical explanation of civic activity (the bottom line of the discourse can be described as “conspiracy of the West”).

In 2010, this seems to have changed. As technology is getting more and more accessible and easy to develop, more online initiatives appear and are planned to be launched in late 2010 and 2011.

Russian transparency projects can be divided into five main groups:

> Official and semi-official transparency websites (e.g., zakupki.gov.ru, rosspending.ru),

> Chaotic transparency communities (individual investigative bloggers and LJ communities),

> Online representation of civil activist NGOs (e.g., golos.org, publicverdict.ru),

> Next-generation social networks dedicated to transparency and civil rights activism (e.g., democrator.ru, taktaktak.ru), and a growing number of Ushahidi-based projects.

1. Official and semi-official transparency websites

Work on putting public procurement data online started in 2006 with the launch of zakupki.gov.ru, a catalog of major public expenses. Since then, a number of other official and semi-official websites have appeared (e.g., statetenders.ru, igz.hse.ru). All these websites have poor interface and a low level of data accessibility. These flaws and the lack of interactive functions lead to the emergence of LiveJournal communities dedicated to the analysis of the most bizarre deals.

In July 2010, Rosspending.ru was launched to solve the visualization issue. Ivan Begtin, the creator of the project and one of the Russian Gov 2.0 evangelists, took the data and presented it in a more user-friendly and understandable way. Despite the lack of social networking as well as Semantic Web functionality, the portal has been inspired by data.gov.uk and data.gov and is the best example of the Russian government data visualization so far.

2. Chaotic transparency communities and individual investigative bloggers

A number of non-institutionalized LiveJournal communities have taken up the watchdog functions that traditional Russian NGOs simply fear to conduct. GV has been covering their activity recently.

Individual investigative bloggers have probably had more impact than the LJ communities. The New Times called [RUS] eight most prominent investigative bloggers (Alexey Navalny, Alexey Dymovski, Alexander Malyutin and others) employees of a “self-made Ministry of the Interior”:

[…] общество провело черту между собой и милицией. В интернете обнаружились диссиденты в погонах, подменяющие собой Департамент собственной безопасности МВД, рассказывающие властям и согражданам о коррупции в органах и деградации службы. А блогеры стали искать и находить виновных в преступлениях, взяв на себя роль и уголовного розыска, и департамента экономической безопасности, и милиции общественного порядка. Пока власти рассуждают о реформе МВД, народ начал свою.

[…] the society has drawn a line between itself and the police. Dissidents [in uniform] turned up on the Internet, filling in for the internal affairs division of the police, telling the authorities and the citizens about corruption and degradation of service. And bloggers started to look for and find those guilty of the crimes, assuming the role of the criminal investigations department, and the department of economic security, and public order units. While the government is discussing the police reform, the people have started their own [reform].

3. Online representation of offline NGOs

“Traditional NGOs” still struggle with new tools. This happens for several reasons: the lack of vision, resources, and external conditions. There is an exception, though – golos.org, which has introduced two online transparency tools – The Election Hotline [RUS] and the Fact Bank [RUS]. (GV wrote about Golos’ Election Hotline project here.)

4. Next-Generation Transparency Tools

So far there are only two projects in this category – democrator.ru and taktaktak.ru. Both were launched in 2010 and share social networking functionality (everyone can register, comment and take part in the site’s activity) and issue-based structure.

Democrator.ru helps citizens to discuss and prepare petitions and official appeals to the authorities, and monitors the issues by publishing official responses from the authorities. Taktaktak.ru connects citizens and lawyers, facilitating discussion of various issues and search for possible solutions. Both projects are of a very high technological level and represent unique transparency solutions.

5. Ushahidi platforms

The first Ushahidi in the Russian language was installed in Kyrgyzstan and was initially called “aikol.kg.” Later the project transformed into save.kg. Altynbek Ismailov, a Bishkek-based IT specialist, wanted to start Ushahidi for reporting the “Osh massacre” events, but didn’t have enough time so he implemented it for the Kyrgyz Constitution Referendum that followed the tragic events. After the success of the referendum monitoring, Ismailov with his team is planning not only to monitor the upcoming election but also to use Ushahidi for reporting all kinds of problems.

A month ago, Russian-Fires.ru (”Help Map”) was launched. The project’s success brought to life numerous initiatives that are expected to start within the next few months. The topics of the planned projects include: observation of the upcoming Belarus election, reporting on the state of the highways, monitoring and fast response to civil rights violations (the so-called “Help Map 2.0″), monitoring in the city of Ufa, etc.

More technology = more transparency?

So, is Russia becoming a more transparent place then?

Blogger and journalist Igor Bogatyrev (aka LJ user Allan999), said in an interview to GV that in today’s Russia, the progress of technology in transparency is accompanied by the progress in perfecting various techniques of surpassing the transparency measures. Not to mention the “grey” money, which is not registered in any public account (according to some estimates, the “grey area” accounts for half of the country’s GDP). Grigoriy Melkonyants, deputy director of “Golos” Association, said that in the election field, corruption and fraud techniques have evolved so far that the transparency technology has a lot to catch up with.

More transparency initiatives that have appeared within the past year will neither eliminate corruption nor introduce the rule of law in the country. What they can do is to create an environment where information is efficiently verified, anti-corruption signals are distributed fast, and people from remote areas are united by transparency platforms and helping each other with no other mediator than a website.

Illustration CC FlickR by cabbit

—

The Technology for Transparency Network focuses largely on countries outside of North America and Western Europe. However, many of the trends in the use of technology to promote transparency and accountability, particularly with respect to open government movements, are piloted in western countries before being adapted in developing countries. We are not formally documenting these cases as part of our research, but we hope that by sharing several examples we can highlight the “state of the art” work in the technology for transparency space. Let’s start with a tour of Western Europe:

UK: A successful example of open government

Our first stop is the United Kingdom, where They Work for You is enabling citizens to access data about their representatives to the UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. They Work for You was originally developed by a group of volunteers. With the support of UK Citizens Online Democracy and MySociety it has expanded to allow others to use its data via an open API. Based on a simple post code search, I was able to find my local MP and read his bio, recent speeches and appearances, and also — more importantly — his expenses, sponsorships, and additional income.

Another site supported by MySociety, FixMyStreet, is a model of active civic engagement at the local level. The site allows anyone to report local problems — graffiti, potholes, broken street lights — to be addressed by local councils. By providing statistical information on how many reported issues have been resolved, the site administrators make it possible to judge the effectiveness of local authorities. If we add WriteToThem and HearFromThem to the mix (sites providing direct communication with representatives), we create an impressive picture of technological solutions for transparency in this country.

France: Citizens as watchers

Traveling south to France, we come across Regards Citoyens. This site, which is accessible on Facebook, Twitter and Identi.ca, is an umbrella of several transparency solutions. NosDéputés.fr is an online monitoring system of parliamentary activities. It presents 642 parliament members, profiling their activities from last 12 months (here is an example). I personally like the usage of tag cloud featuring words currently used by the National Assembly and graphs of current parliamentary activities on their main site. A separate part of the site is dedicated to site users and their activities related to monitoring the representatives. Another project, originally called Simplifions la loi 2.0, is currently a subpage of Nosdeputes.fr. It documents current parliamentary work. Étude sur le redécoupage électoral is a site providing great insights into the proposed changes of the constituency limits, looking also at the impact of those on future elections.

Italy: Civil society’s struggle against corruption

In Italy, Openpolis is the site to check out. With a community of more than 13,000 members and various content management options (tagging, graphing, etc.), it allows users to find their local representatives, ‘adopt’ them, follow their activities and contribute to an online database by uploading updates on the chosen representative. Openpolis’ sub-site Open Parlamento is a great real-time monitor of parliament activities, including this impressive visualisation on voting sessions and this profile of Silvio Berlusconi.

Openpolis is a product of Depp and Memefarmers. Depp is an association dedicated to e-democracy and open civic participation with an impressive range of experiences in the field of transparency. Depp developed a technology called politicaldesk, which enables the real-time tracking of parliament activities. They were also the authors of Voi Siete Qui, a platform that publishes the results of a questionnaire conducted with representatives of most of the participating parties in Italy’s 2008 elections. The questionnaire consisted of questions related to 25 major issues chosen by Depp’s community of users. It was sent to all parties, most of which responded (the parties that did not cooperate are clearly identified). The results are available as visualization of distances between various parties on different topics prepared based on a multidimentional scaling algorithm. The site also allows new users to find out their own score on the chosen issues by filling out the questionnaire online.

Another Depp project, Eworkshop Senato Ragazzi, targets students at secondary schools, who are given a chance to actively learn about work of parliament by suggesting, rating and commenting on bills proposed by others. This e-learning community consists of students, teachers, and parliament representatives and is incorporated into larger platform, Senato Ragazzi. Economia Partecipata is a showcase of how local authorities (in this case in the Lazio region) can provide their citizens with channels for increasing both transparency and active dialogue and civic engagement.

Switzerland: Exploring e-democracy

Navigating over to Switzerland, I was advised to check out the activities of Politools – Political Research Network, which brings together specialists from social sciences, political sciences, geography, history, information technology and art history to work on various project dedicated to transparency. The first of these is Smartvote, established in 2002 and still running today. The website allows citizens to find the candidates whose views most closely align with theirs based on a publicly available analysis of responses candidates have provided on 30-70 questions. The site was used for the first time during the 2003 elections. Another platform, ParlaRating (active since 1997), is using a multidimentional scaling method to rate political positions of various representatives on a scale from -10 to 10.

Convergence and differences

While studying the projects above I was trying to compare various aspects of their approach to what I have seen so far in Central and Eastern Europe. Recently I was conducting interview with a representative of Polish website Mam Prawo Wiedziec (“I have the right to know”). Their work is very similar to projects I have found in Western Europe from many points of view. They also use questionnaires to gain information about candidates in local, regional and national elections. They post profiles of politicians on their website and educate citizens on their rights. They focus on raising awareness around elections, aiming to convince citizens to vote for people who actually represent their views. They also mention a lack of proper political education (for which the Italian e-learning solution is a perfect answer). Other projects we have looked at in our first phase of research were also very close to those goals. I am more confident today in stating that most of the transparency projects throughout Europe might have a lot in common.

Now, if the goals and ways of work are more or less similar, I wonder where they differ? It would be interesting to see how projects in Western Europe are funded, for example. I have seen MySociety mentioned as a sponsor in the UK, and I know their work in Central and Eastern Europe is tremendous. I have seen Transparency International mentioned in connection with the French platform, and I know this organization is heavily involved in work in Hungary and in Poland. It is good to see those international organizations having impact in various regions of Europe and helping to keep many of those valuable projects sustainable.

Grassroots transparency movements as a regional (and global) trend

As the final question to the readers and hopefully something to initiate further discussion I would like to mention the civic engagement itself. During a recent conversation with Polish transparency organization Watchdog, I heard something interesting – it seems that elections are what generate increased activity of various groups in Poland that are interested in transparency issues. It is also noticeable that the number of those short-term, spontaneous groups and projects is increasing. Organizations like Watchdog and Stowarzyszenie 61 (the organization managing Mam Prawo Wiedziec) find it fascinating and comforting that more and more civic actions are born during the times of elections, as this proves that the society’s involvement in public matters grows from one year to another. Despite my assumption that this might not be the case in Western Europe in seemingly more developed democracies, I see now clearly that grassroots transparency movements are present and growing all across Europe.

Amen.

In the UK, the crowdsourcing experiment was meant to take place on this website: Programme for Government.

The British coalition government (also known as ConDem, for those of you that are misinformed, its Conservatives + LibDem) were elected on a mandate to introduce ‘a new era in politics‘, which was to begin by austerity measures and cuts aimed at reducing the astronomical public debt.

The coalition pledged to ‘crowdsource’ their policies via the named website so that citizens (more like netizens) could have an impact on the issues that affected them, especially the cuts which were (and still are) to affect the welfare system, and which laws should be abolished. The website covers issue from A to Z, from banking and civil liberties to transport and Universities.

This measure could have provided the answer to the 21st century post-ideological world. It could’ve empowered the people to precisely have a say, a greater say, in their government’s doings.

What instead happened is what many had predicted: the status quo prevailed. Though 9500 comments were posted on the Programme for Government website, none of them were deigned with an answer. All of them have been binned an ignored.

This is not the first episode of its kind. The US government has been experimenting with crowdsourced urban planning for a while. This experiment being less ambitious and bold than the one proposed by the UK government, it is still ongoing.

Websites like mySociety have introduced similar participation-enhancing tools, but they are independent.

Information-sharing technologies allow for a new institution that can break the barrier between the individual and the government. This vision can be taken even further, by publishing government data and promoting transparency, openness and collaboration.

Let’s at least hope this first #FAIL will be followed by a few more #WIN.

__

For more information, we recommend you read Simone Novek’s “Wiki Government”.

Flickr CC Photo Credits : Djeucalyptus, Seanbonner.