Collective law-making process

Global view of process

Citizen panel, in presence

• Oregon
• Massaschussets
• Eupen (Belgium)
• Sion/Sitten
  • 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

Legislative theater

Participatory theater for people to create laws → 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

Analysis

• legal paradigms
• benefit of random selection → get people that would usually not contribute