Difference between revisions of "Collective law-making process"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "== Global view of process == === Citizen panel, in presence === * Oregon * Massaschussets * Sion ** Methodology ** 20-50 citizens randomly selected with municipality from an official electors list *** 2000 letters of invitation sent, 200 positive answers, random selection of 20 participants using a software to ensure representativity (age, political view, sex, income level) + 20 reserve (180 left) *** 2 x 2 days *** 500.– fees reimbursed * Support: facilitators, tec...") |
m |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
=== Plebean republic === | === Plebean republic === | ||
=== | === Legislative theater === | ||
Participatory theater for people to create laws<ref>Boal A. Legislative Theatre. Using performance to make politics. Routledge 1999. https://www.routledge.com/Legislative-Theatre-Using-Performance-to-Make-Politics/Boal/p/book/9780415182416</ref> → [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xx-CHhzR2s video] | |||
* the joker asks: if you had the ability to create a law, what would it be? | |||
* a scene of oppression is played (theater-forum) | |||
* the audience writes down proposals which are passed on to a metabolic cell composed of an activist, a parliamentarian and a lawyer specialised in the theme | |||
* the metabolic cell synthesises the notes and describes the laws that already exist, and makes 3-4 proposals for amendments or new laws | |||
* at the end of the stage, the metabolic cell presents its results to the audience | |||
* the audience debates the results and votes | |||
* the metabolic cell transmits the voted proposal to a parliamentary group | |||
=== HOC === | === HOC === | ||
== Analysis == | == Analysis == | ||
* legal paradigms | |||
* benefit of random selection → get people that would usually not contribute | |||
== Dissemination == | == Dissemination == | ||
Revision as of 14:45, 27 March 2022
Global view of process
Citizen panel, in presence
- Oregon
- Massaschussets
- Sion
- Methodology
- 20-50 citizens randomly selected with municipality from an official electors list
- 2000 letters of invitation sent, 200 positive answers, random selection of 20 participants using a software to ensure representativity (age, political view, sex, income level) + 20 reserve (180 left)
- 2 x 2 days
- 500.– fees reimbursed
- Support: facilitators, technique (microphones, ...), copies (proposals documentation, ...) legal experts (terminologies, ...), catering, ...
Liquid democracy, online
- selection of 2000 citizens
- give access to a platform where they can make proposals and vote
- list of important topics selected by a public authority
- then a citizen panel is organized for each topic
Plebean republic
Legislative theater
Participatory theater for people to create laws[1] → video
- the joker asks: if you had the ability to create a law, what would it be?
- a scene of oppression is played (theater-forum)
- the audience writes down proposals which are passed on to a metabolic cell composed of an activist, a parliamentarian and a lawyer specialised in the theme
- the metabolic cell synthesises the notes and describes the laws that already exist, and makes 3-4 proposals for amendments or new laws
- at the end of the stage, the metabolic cell presents its results to the audience
- the audience debates the results and votes
- the metabolic cell transmits the voted proposal to a parliamentary group
HOC
Analysis
- legal paradigms
- benefit of random selection → get people that would usually not contribute
Dissemination
- ↑ Boal A. Legislative Theatre. Using performance to make politics. Routledge 1999. https://www.routledge.com/Legislative-Theatre-Using-Performance-to-Make-Politics/Boal/p/book/9780415182416