Strasbourg, 8 February 2010                                                                CDLR(2010)11

                                                                                         Item 10.5 of the agenda

EUROPEAN COMMITTEE ON LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

(CDLR)

OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE FIELD OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL DEMOCRACY

Forum for the Future of Democracy

and Good Governance in the Information Society

Secretariat Memorandum

prepared by the Directorate General of

Democracy and Political Affairs

Directorate of Democratic Institutions


This document is public. It will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy.

Ce document est public. Il ne sera pas distribué en réunion. Prière de vous munir de cet exemplaire.


Introduction

This document, in line with previous documents prepared for the CDLR, provides an update on the activities of the Forum for the Future of Democracy (FFD) and the Good Governance in the Information Society project (GGIS) that have a bearing on the work of this Committee.

Forum for the Future of Democracy 2009

The Conclusions to the Forum for the Future of Democracy 2009 on ‘Electoral systems: strengthening democracy in the 21st century’ (21-23 October, Kyiv, Ukraine) can be found in Appendix 1.  An information report on this event by Mr Paul-Henri Philips, member of the CDLR Bureau is provided in Appendix 2.

Forum for the Future of Democracy 2010

The next session of the Forum for the Future of Democracy will address "The Council of Europe Consensus on the Principles of Democracy”. It will take place in Yerevan, Armenia from 19-20 October 2010. Having regard to importance of the theme for the work of the CDLR, it is suggested that the Committee be represented at the Forum as it was at previous sessions.

Evaluation of the Forum for the Future of Democracy

Following its first five years of operation, an external evaluation of the Forum for the Future of Democracy has been carried out in order to review its functioning. Appendix 3 provides the Executive Summary of this report (the full report can be obtained from the CDLR Secretariat). Appendix 4 presents a non-paper on the reform of the Forum which was used to guide the debate on this issue at the 17th meeting of the Advisory Board of the Forum on 29 January 2010.

 

CDLR Follow-up to the Forum for the Future of Democracy 2007-2009

Follow-up to the Forum within the Council of Europe and in member states is a fixed item on the agenda at the meetings of the Forum Advisory Board. Appendix 5 lists the follow-up undertaken by the CDLR in response to the 2007 - 2009 editions of the Forum.

On this matter, the CDLR Preliminary draft programme of activities 2010 (CDLR-Bu(2010)2 Addendum I) proposes activities to encourage e-participation in line with the conclusions of the 2008 Forum.


Good Governance in the Information Society

The CDLR was represented by Mr Paul-Henri Philips (Belgium) at the Workshop on the certification of e-voting systems (Strasbourg, 9-10 November 2009). A report of this event can be found in Appendix 6.

The GGIS project is organising a joint seminar with the Congress and the Conference of INGOs on ‘bottom-up’ e-democracy, planned for June 2010. The aim of the seminar is to consider the implications for e-democracy initiatives by civil society actors at the local level of the existing recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and the Congress as well as the Conference of INGOs’ Code of good practice for civil participation in the decision-making process. Further information on this event will be provided orally by the Secretariat. The CDLR is invited to consider its participation in this activity.

Action required

The CDLR is invited:

-              to take note of the information provided in this document;

-              to designate a representative to the next session of the Forum (Yerevan, 19-20 October 2010);

-              to decide on its participation in the seminar on “bottom-up” e-democracy planned for June 2010.


Government of Ukraine

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Gouvernement de l’Ukraine

Ministère des Affaires étrangères

APPENDIX 1

FFD(2009)13 E                                                                                Kyiv, 23 October 2009

Council of Europe

Forum for the Future of Democracy

Kyiv, Ukraine

21-23 October 2009

Electoral Systems: strengthening

democracy in the 21st century

CONCLUSIONS

by

THE GENERAL RAPPORTEURS


“In a genuine democracy, the citizen is sovereign and the voter decides”

1.         This was the main message of the 2009 Forum for the Future of Democracy, held in Kyiv (Ukraine) from 21 to 23 October under the general theme “Electoral Systems: strengthening democracy in the 21st century”. The Forum addressed the linkages between electoral systems and democratic governance as a whole. When examining practices and their impact at the local, regional and national levels, it considered ways to strengthen the democratic character of electoral processes, identifying the respective roles of public authorities, civil society and the media. It also broached issues such as means to combat disenfranchisement and disengagement, enhance representativity, increase inclusiveness for disadvantaged groups and promote equal opportunities for women and men.

2.         The objective of the Forum was to share experiences and identify measures to improve electoral legislation and processes, to ensure equitable, efficient, transparent and accountable electoral administration, to reverse the trend of declining electoral participation and confidence in the institutions of representative democracy, and to reinvigorate democratic practices by credible and inclusive decision-making processes that strengthen political culture.

3.         Democratic elections are decisive for ensuring that the will of the people is respected in the shaping of the legislature and government at all levels. The process of translating the outcome of elections into political mandates should take place in a fair, impartial and trustworthy manner. Citizens must be sure that their collective will has been respected and, in turn, they will accept the verdict from the ballot box.

4.         There is no unique type of electoral system which could be recommended as the best model for every country. Each type carries advantages and disadvantages and the choice depends on a number of factors such as historical context, party and political system. The Council of Europe’s objective is to establish a common understanding about all the principles which qualify elections as being “free and fair” in compliance with democratic standards. Those standards must be fully implemented in all elections throughout the Council of Europe space and in those states aspiring to join the Organisation or engage in a privileged relationship with it. In this way, the Council of Europe space would become the world’s largest “free and fair” election zone. This is the target it should fix for the coming years.

5.         The five fundamental principles of democratic elections are set out in the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters, adopted by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and endorsed by the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Congress), namely that suffrage must be universal, equal, free, secret and direct. This must be accompanied inter alia by respect for fundamental rights, the organisation of the election by an impartial body, the effective monitoring by election observers and the availability of an effective appeals system, including access to the courts.


6.         Since participatory democracy is complementary to representative democracy, civil society organisations can stimulate transparent and inclusive elections. They can contribute to good electoral practices in the fields of financing, campaigning and open dialogue, candidate and voter education, representing and defending the electoral rights of persons belonging to minorities, vulnerable or disadvantaged groups of the population, electoral observation, as well as in the drafting and assessment of electoral legislation.

7.         In this context, the Forum welcomes the Code of Good Practice on Civil Participation in the decision-making process, prepared by the Council of Europe Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) on the basis of the recommendations of previous Forum sessions. The Code is a valuable tool for all stakeholders as it aims to underpin the general principles, guidelines and mechanisms for the active participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in political decision-making processes.  The Council of Europe is invited to promote the Code.

*          *

*

In the light of the context outlined above, the Forum concluded the following:

a.        as regards principles and regulatory framework

8.         There is a need for stable and predictable electoral legislation as indicated in the Venice Commission Declaration on Stability of Electoral Law. However, electoral systems, in their broad sense, are not static and should be able to respond to societal changes such as increased citizen engagement in public life and sense of responsibility, trends towards lowering the voting age, women’s increasing demand for more equal participation and rapid developments in Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Nonetheless, changing electoral legislation or rules in the period running up to elections should be avoided, except in order to correct democratic deficiencies.

9.         It is only through their impartiality, independence and a high degree of professional competences within their membership that electoral commissions at all levels of governance can achieve transparency, accountability and command the confidence of the public in their work. Therefore, coherent rules governing electoral commissions, the method of appointing their members and their balanced composition, are required and need to be implemented, as well as relevant training of electoral commission officials.

10.       Thresholds, both legal and other, as well as barriers for independent candidates, have a significant impact on access to Parliament. The Venice Commission has adopted a report on this subject and is encouraged to continue this work. Similarly, the PACE is encouraged to finalise its report on thresholds and other features of electoral systems which have an impact on representativity.  These include natural and other thresholds such as disproportionate deposits required to register as a candidate.


11.       Women should be fairly represented at all stages of the electoral process. Built-in bias should be eliminated and member states and political parties should take measures to improve the conditions for women’s participation and representation throughout the electoral process. This should include gender-sensitive civic education and possible adaptation of electoral systems to make them more open to women’s representation in politics, including by introducing gender quotas for candidates.

12.       Persons belonging to national minorities should be adequately represented in elections. It is therefore important that legal and practical measures are taken to avoid any disenfranchisement and to ensure their participation in elected bodies.

13.       Many countries allow their citizens residing abroad to participate in elections. The conditions for enabling these persons to cast their vote should be facilitated as much as possible, by all appropriate methods. 

14.       The Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level aims to ensure that foreign residents are able to participate in their locality, including in its electoral processes. Member states are invited to ratify and fully implement this Convention.

15.       All people need to have equal access to information through the traditional media as well as through new electronic media and communication channels (political blogs, social networks, etc.), notwithstanding the current risk of a digital divide.

16.       Equitable access by all competing political forces to the media is a prerequisite for balanced coverage of elections and hence for free and fair elections. Regulatory frameworks should be guided by the principles of equal access, non-interference by public authorities in the activities of journalists and other media personnel, and their access to information, and editorial independence.

17.       The rights of the media are accompanied by responsibilities, in particular as regards high professional standards.  This is particularly important when it comes to opinion polling, as well as the obligation for public service broadcasters and, in principle, private broadcasters to cover election campaigns and outcomes in a fair and balanced manner. These responsibilities and obligations need to be clearly expressed through regulatory or self-regulatory measures and complied with by the media.

b.        as regards practice

18.       Political parties are confronted with a series of challenges and their role in modern society is evolving.  However, today, they remain an important vector for the expression of political choices.  Therefore, the participation of political parties in electoral processes should be ensured in conformity with the recommendations of the PACE and the Venice Commission, in particular by addressing the following issues according to common standards:


-                      intra-party democracy and transparency;

-                      selection and nomination of candidates;

-                      clear and fair rules for campaign financing;

-                      equal access to mass media;

-                      a complaints and appeals system which provides a speedy procedure to resolve disputes;

-                      replacement of vacant seats.

19.       The Code of Good Practice in the Field of Political Parties, proposed by the 2006 session of the Forum and by the PACE, and adopted by the Venice Commission in December 2008, should be observed by all political parties throughout the electoral process. The PACE and all Forum stakeholders should promote political parties’ endorsement of the Code in Council of Europe member states.

20.       Abuse of administrative resources by the ruling forces for campaign purposes is a particularly widespread and recurrent problem in many elections observed. This ranges from covert “advertising”, use of official resources for rallies and meetings, to rewards in cash or kind.

21.       Lack of, or inadequate, financial disclosure by parties and candidates is also a persistent problem. This needs to be addressed in order to overcome the growing distrust of citizens in political elites, which often translates into a decreasing membership of political parties and involvement in political life. 

22.       More generally, the question of funding of electoral campaigns needs to be dealt with and clear benchmarks developed to prevent the exponential escalation in levels of campaign funding and to establish full transparency and accountability. The Council of Europe would be particularly well-placed to pursue these issues further, inter alia on the basis of the aforementioned Codes.

23.       Measures should be taken to increase voter turnout, for example by providing sufficient time between the announcement of candidates and the actual election day. This would ensure that voters are able to inform themselves properly about their voting options. Furthermore, voting procedures should be facilitated for all people, in particular for disadvantaged groups such as disabled persons and persons deprived of their liberty. Public authorities may also consider organising neutral information campaigns to mobilise the electorate and fight against abstentionism. 

24.       There is a constant need to improve voting procedures in all member states. The latter should take effective and comprehensive measures to ensure the accuracy of voter registration systems. They should also consider the use of ICT in this field.


25.       The introduction of different forms of e-voting, including remote e-voting via the Internet, was discussed extensively at the 2008 Forum in Madrid, and its conclusions remain fully relevant.  Electronic voting, including for citizens abroad, will not develop without a high degree of trustworthiness of the electoral administration.  One important element for building such trust is an independent certification of e-voting systems. The Council of Europe would be well placed to examine this question from a comparative perspective. Moreover, the Forum observes that an increasing number of member states support the introduction of Internet e-voting for many non-political electoral processes, such as on social, enterprise and health issues. 

c.         as regards control and follow-up

26.       Election observation is a key element to inspire trust in an electoral system and the institutions responsible for administering elections. The role of international observation missions for nation-wide elections (IEOMs) by institutions such as PACE, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE-PA), the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE/ODIHR) and the European Parliament (EP) is of crucial importance.  For its part, the Congress assumes a similar role in respect of local and regional elections, in partnership with the EU Committee of Regions and OSCE/ODIHR.  In this context, the role of international NGO observers is also acknowledged.

27.       In member states, relevant regulations should ensure the rights of both domestic and international observers and define their responsibilities. They should also offer simple and transparent procedures for the accreditation of observers, for speedy remedies before national and local authorities and for effective appeals procedures. In this context, the Forum welcomes the preparation of a PACE report on an internationally recognised status of election observers.  Furthermore, the Declaration of Principles for international election observation and of the Code of conduct for international observers, approved on 27 October 2005 in New York, and endorsed by more than 20 organisations and institutions, should be fully promoted and implemented.

28.       Domestic - including non-partisan - election observers play a fundamental role in ensuring the electoral process is conducted in a free and fair manner. They can play a particularly crucial role in monitoring media coverage in the run up to and during the electoral campaign and its immediate aftermath.  The Forum encourages relevant NGOs to intensify their mutual exchange of experience on election observation. International and national institutions, including the Council of Europe, are invited to develop awareness-raising and training programmes for domestic observers.

29.       Confidence in vote counting and tabulation of the results is essential. This implies transparency, i.e. observers, candidates’ representatives and the media must be allowed to be present and have access to the records. The Forum urges prompt transmission and wide publication of the results, at all levels, including on the Internet whenever possible.


30.       The immediate post-electoral period is an integral part of the electoral cycle. It is essential that all stakeholders are committed to ensuring a peaceful confirmation and implementation of the election results through a transparent and fair process, including an effective appeals system.

31.       The experience of the Council of Europe’s Programme on pre-electoral assistance has shown that the deficiencies of the electoral system and electoral legislation in certain member states require a systematic follow-up and monitoring, including media monitoring, throughout the different stages of the electoral process. The Council of Europe, including PACE and the Congress through their respective monitoring procedures, is invited to develop or consolidate processes that enable it to take on such a role, in close co-operation with other international actors in this field.

*          *

*

32.       All stakeholders involved in the Forum are invited to combine their efforts to define the most efficient ways of translating the conclusions of this Forum’s session into specific action within their respective institutions at European and national level.

33.       The Forum expresses its appreciation and gratitude to the President of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Government for the excellent organisation of the 2009 Session and the generous hospitality.

34.       At the invitation of the Armenian authorities, the 2010 session of the Forum will take place in Yerevan, on the theme of “The Council of Europe Consensus on the Principles of Democracy”.


Appendix 2

I. Forum for the future of democracy

Kiev (Ukraine)

21-23 October 2009

Conclusions with regard to the European Committee on local and regional democracy (CDLR)

"In a genuine democracy, the citizen is sovereign and the voter decides."

The Forum dealt with the links between electoral systems and democratic governance in a broad sense. When examining practices and their impact at the local, regional and national levels, it considered ways to strengthen the democratic character of electoral processes, identifying the respective roles of public authorities, civil society and the media. It also broached issues such as means to combat disenfranchisement and disengagement, enhance representativity, increase inclusiveness for disadvantaged groups and promote equal opportunities for women and men.

The objective of the Forum was to share experiences and identify measures to improve electoral legislation and processes, to ensure equitable, efficient, transparent and accountable electoral administration, to reverse the trend of declining electoral participation and confidence in the institutions of representative democracy, and to reinvigorate democratic practices by credible and inclusive decision-making processes that strengthen political culture.

Since participatory democracy is complementary to representative democracy, civil society organisations can stimulate transparent and inclusive elections. They can contribute to good electoral practices in the fields of financing, campaigning and open dialogue, candidate and voter education, representing and defending the electoral rights of persons belonging to minorities, vulnerable or disadvantaged groups of the population, electoral observation, as well as in the drafting and assessment of electoral legislation.

In this context, the Forum welcomes the Code of Good Practice on Civil Participation in the decision-making process, prepared by the Council of Europe Conference of International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) on the basis of the recommendations of previous Forum sessions. The Code is a valuable tool for all stakeholders as it aims to underpin the general principles, guidelines and mechanisms for the active participation of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in political decision-making processes.


In the light of the context outlined above, the Forum concluded the following:

a.         as regards principles and regulatory framework

In addition to the principles and rules of which the Venice Commission ensures the formulation and application, the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) could address the following aspects (more specifically within the framework of the Committee of Experts on good democratic governance at local and regional level (LR-GG) and in accordance with the Utrecht Declaration) :

Ø  Equal access to information through the traditional media as well as through new electronic media and communication channels (political blogs, social networks, etc.), notwithstanding the current risk of a digital divide, in coordination with the work of the Ad hoc Commit­tee on e-democracy (CADE) and in conformity with Recommend­ation (2009) 1. It is, in some way, an extension of the additional protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government (ECLSG).

Ø  Relaunching promotion of adhesion to the Convention on the Parti­cipation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level.

b.         as regards practice

In connection with the (ongoing) revision of the Code of Good Practice and additional work by the Committee of Experts on good democratic governance at local and regional level (LR-GG), it would be interesting to examine the following issues :

Ø  Sanctioning of abuse of administrative resources by the ruling forces for campaign purposes (covert “advertising”, use of official resources for rallies and meetings, rewards in cash or kind, …).

Ø  Lack of, or inadequate, financial disclosure by parties and candidates, resulting in growing distrust of citizens in political elites, which often translates into a decreasing membership of political parties and involvement in political life. More generally, the question of funding of electoral campaigns needs to be dealt with and clear benchmarks developed to prevent the exponential escalation in levels of campaign funding and to establish full transparency and accountability.

Ø  Proposal and examination of measures which should be taken to increase voter turnout, for example by providing sufficient time between the announcement of candidates and the actual election day. This would ensure that voters are able to inform themselves properly about their voting options. Furthermore, voting procedures should be facilitated for all people, in particular for disadvantaged groups such as disabled persons and persons deprived of their liberty. Public authorities may also consider organising neutral information campaigns to mobilise the electorate and fight against abstentionism.


Appendix 3

Evaluation of the Forum for the Future of Democracy – The First Five Years

prepared by Ms Kristie D Evenson

Executive Summary

The Forum for the Future of Democracy has a grand and potentially crippling name.  The Forum’s mandate has been both broad and ambitious, but in practice the Forum’s first five years have resulted in only a modest set of outputs and impacts that could be said to contribute to the Council of Europe’s work on democracy issues.

By definition democracy-related impacts are difficult to assess. What is apparent, however, when evaluating the Forum, is that the Forum’s structural and procedural incongruities have greatly hampered the Forum’s ability to carry out its mandate.

The Forum has made progress in its functioning and its level of programming since the 2005 Launch Conference in Warsaw. Lessons learned about the development and implementation of the annual conference event, the preparation and consultation process, and the follow-up processes have all contributed to improving the Forum’s annual conference.  The efforts that these improvements have required should be noted; the Secretariat and members of the Quadrilogue have done much for the Forum’s development to reach this point.

But the Forum is at a crossroads where additional minor changes will only provide minor impacts.   Such a Forum is not one that most stakeholders would support or one that would significantly improve its contribution to Council of Europe democracy efforts.

The Forum requires structural changes that can provide it a clearer mandate, structural support for its efforts, and an opportunity to design an innovative set of programming that allows coherence and rigor in its democracy focus.  This requires both a (re)defining of its key mandate and objectives and a willingness to bring outside expertise into a smaller and (re)focused consultation and decision-making process.

The Forum as an event, or series of events such as a ‘Democracy Forum Series,’ accordingly, should match these objectives. Smaller, focused, less formal, and multi-year thematic programming workshops and conferences should be the baseline upon which analytical discussions and policy considerations are built.  These should be Strasbourg-led by a core advisory team of Quadrilogue key actors, outside experts, and the Secretariat.


Calibrating this programming to have an appropriate level of academic rigor, policy usefulness, and input from the Council and other stakeholders could provide the Council a component of its envisioned ‘internal think tank’ and serve the Council’s interest in increasing its profile on democracy core issues.

In short, the recommendations encourage the Council to:

v  Re-articulate concrete objectives for the Forum; 

v  Modify the structures of the Forum decision making, consultation, and administrative processes, and

v  Sharpen and match the thematic focus and design of the Forum to its objectives.


Appendix 4

NON-PAPER

Strasbourg, 25 January 2010

Discussion points for the consideration of the evaluation report on the Forum for the Future of Democracy at the 17th meeting of the FFD Advisory Board (29 January 2010)

The intention of this non-paper is to facilitate and provide structure for the discussion during the Advisory Board.

A.         Key questions for the reform of the Forum for the Future of Democracy

Aims of the Forum

-                      Does the Forum aim to address internal CoE bodies (“Forum for Democracy in the CoE”) or a broader audience involving external stakeholders (“Forum for Democracy in Europe”)? Can and should these two approaches be combined, and how?

-                      What should be the (measurable, tangible) outcomes of the Forum: laboratory of ideas and innovation, agenda setting, policy guidelines, action programmes, networking exercise,…?

-                      How can the Forum be given a stronger political profile, enabling it to attract high-level personalities as speakers in Forum sessions?

Organisation/configuration of the Forum support structures

-                      Could the Advisory Board function more as a Steering Board which prepares the strategic decisions and plays a central role in the selection of themes for FFD sessions ? If so, how should it be structured?

-                      Should a small advisory group (3-5 external experts) be created to informally advise the AB, thus providing an expert backbone and reinforcing continuity?

-                      Could a small group of “Friends of the Forum” provide high-profile legitimacy?

-                      How can best use be made of in-house knowledge and expertise in all stages of the Forum process?

-                      In what ways can better use be made of the Internet to pursue the Forum’s aims?

Frequency/continuity and size of Forum session

-                      Should the current annual rhythm of the Forum be maintained? Does it make for the most efficient use of in-house and external resources? Could a biennial Forum interspersed with a series of smaller thematic meetings, which could provide in-depth analysis of topics resulting from and feeding into the biennial event, be more effective?

-                      How can the thematic continuity of the topics addressed be sharpened so as to ensure that they focus on the aims of the Forum?

-                      Should the sequence of the Forum and its thematic orientation be synchronised with other important CoE events, e.g. PACE biennial debate on the state of democracy; Summer University of Democracy? (If so, this would require a clear multi-year planning cycle);

-                      Can a reduction in the number of participants in FFD sessions help to improve the quality of reflection and ownership?

Location

-                      In what ways can the role of host countries in the process be clarified?

-                      Should Strasbourg be the centre of gravity of the Forum?


B.         Implementation of the reform process

-                      Elaboration of a mission statement required to clarify the aims of the Forum in addition to a revision of the Forum guidelines;

-                      Decisions on the reform of the Forum should be finalised by Spring 2010 with a view to full implementation in 2011;

-                      Some aspects of the new methodology may already be implemented in the organisation of the 2010 Forum.


Appendix 5

Follow-up undertaken or envisaged by the CDLR in response to the conclusions of the Forum for the Future of Democracy

Follow-up to the conclusions of the 2007 Session of

the Forum for the Future of Democracy on

Power and empowerment – the interdependence

of democracy and human rights’

17.          Decentralisation processes and the transfer of competences from central governments are making local and regional authorities increasingly important actors for the defence of human rights… It is important to mainstream a human rights perspective into governance at the local and regional level. In addition, local and regional authorities are urged to engage in action plans for human rights and to consider elaborating indicators for their implementation.

Ongoing follow-up by the CDLR

To engage in action plans for human rights and to consider elaborating indicators for their implementation.

Depending on the level of interest of member States, the CDLR could develop a recommendation on the topic. 

Possible elaboration of guidelines by CDLR.

22.          The Council of Europe’s proposed new strategy for innovation and good governance at local level holds promise.  It aims to place the individual at the heart of democratic institutions and processes and to incite local authorities constantly to improve their governance in accordance with twelve principles…. In each member state an action plan for good governance at the local level should be drawn up. A quality label of good governance certifying respect of standards will recognise the efforts made by local authorities. The Forum, which involves all partners, could offer a useful platform for examining the progress achieved in the implementation of the strategy.

Ongoing follow-up by CM/CDLR

To incite local authorities to improve their governance in accordance with the principles enshrined in a proposed new strategy for innovation and good governance at local level.

To examine the progress achieved in the implementation of the Strategy.

The Strategy on Innovation and Good Governance at Local Level was adopted by the Committee of Ministers at the 1022nd meeting of the Deputies (26 March 2008). A Stakeholders’ Platform has been set up with the task of developing the Strategy and facilitating its implementation in member states.

A conference on “Innovation for good local and regional governance, a European challenge” took place 2- 3 April, 2009 in Enschede, the Netherlands.

The Utrecht Declaration of 16th session of the Council of Europe Conference of ministers responsible for local and regional government  on ‘Good governance at local and regional level in turbulent times: the challenge of change’ (Utrecht, Netherlands 16-17 November, 2009) promotes the Strategy as a tool to create synergies among all stakeholders in the pursuit of improving the quality of local governance.


23.          The sovereignty of the people should not be limited to the election day. Elements of direct democracy should therefore be integrated into the democratic process. At the same time, participation should not be limited to nationals as excluding a large number of people from democratic citizenship is highly detrimental to the representative character of democracy and thus to the democratic process as a whole.

Ongoing follow-up by CDLR

To integrate elements of direct democracy into the democratic process and to promote democratic citizenship among nationals and non-nationals alike.

The CDLR takes stock on an annual basis of the intentions of member States to sign and ratify the Convention on the participation of foreigners in public life at local level.

In November 2009 the CM adopted the Additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on the right to participate in the affairs of a local authority.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the 2008 Session of

the Forum for the Future of Democracy on:

“e-democracy: who dares ?”

22. As experience in several cities shows, participatory budgeting can be a way of empowering people. The Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) is called upon to examine the potential of participatory budgeting and use of ICT in this context.

Follow-up by CDLR

To examine the potential of participatory budgeting and the use of ICT in this context.

The CDLR is considering an examination of the issue of participatory budgeting.

Follow-up to the conclusions of the 2009 Session of

the Forum for the Future of Democracy on :

“Electoral Systems: strengthening

democracy in the 21st century”

Paragraph 12:

Persons belonging to national minorities should be adequately represented in elections. It is therefore important that legal and practical measures are taken to avoid any disenfranchisement and to ensure their participation in elected bodies.

Follow-up by CDLR

Ongoing and completed action:

The CDLR is considering an analysis of the low democratic participation by certain groups in society


Paragraph 14:

The Convention on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level aims to ensure that foreign residents are able to participate in their locality, including in its electoral processes. Member states are invited to ratify and fully implement this Convention.

Follow-up by CDLR

Ongoing and completed action: 

See item 23 of 2007 follow-up above


Appendix 6

II. Workshop on the certification of e-voting systems

26-27 November 2009

The workshop was organised within the framework of the proceedings on e-voting and dealt with the specific processes involved in the e-voting procedure.

« Certification » is intended to ensure that an e-voting platform is reliable and sure. It may be extended to the whole of the voting procedure (ranging from the call for candidates tot the validation of results).

We can devise either a specific certification procedure or one which is integrated into an existing procedure, for instance using the ISO system.

Transparency of certification procedures is also important.

It would therefore be appropriate to address the following issues in the middle-long run :

o      Certification procedures (guidance of election or referendum procedures in the broadest possible sense, with a view to improving citizen participation)

o      Improving participation (motivation, incentives, active or passive participation, citizen’s control procedure, …)

o      Causes of disaffection towards the political world and public affairs amongst « citizens » in a broad sense.