Iceland could have been innovative: Participatory democracy
CC Attribution - ShareAlike 3.0 Germany:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor and the work or content is shared also in adapted form only under the conditions of this
Jónsdóttir, Birgitta
Iceland could have been innovative: With the first truly crowdsourced constitution. Nearly a thousand randomly selected Icelanders initiatively expressed wishes and contributed ideas. In November 2010, a citizen panel of 25 people was selected from 523 candidates. Although the Supreme Court entered caveat at the request of the "old conservative elites' opposition", it bypassed the parliament, because the court declared the 25 persons a Constitutional Council. Within only four months the men and women - accompanied by the citizens via Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and other sites - enrolled a jointly draft.
 This is a quick break. Thank you. Thank you.. Brigitte Janstottier has been just re-elected into the Icelandic parliament as a member of the pirate party. Maybe some of you already saw her speak yesterday where she was in an event talking about Vicky Leeks. Today she's going to speak to us about the new policy of the country. She's been working on the idea of outsourcing a constitution and really taking new steps with participatory democracy. So she will share the lessons learned, made in Iceland, at the attempts of building a new country and a new approach in the attempt of transforming politics. We're going to start off with a short video and then please give a warm...................................................................................................... there is no political understanding on the need to create, for example, a online privacy act. Most of our stuff that is hogged and gathered online is in such quantities and it's so sacred and sensitive that if normal legislators would understand the level of surveillance that is possible, they wouldn't hurry up to make laws but they just don't understand it. I spent four years in the Icelandic parliament. I helped create a political movement, just called the movement in 2009 in the wake of the financial collapse and it was a hit and run movement with one of the chief aims to create a constitution by and for the people of Iceland because very many people understood that most people don't understand the constitution at all because they haven't read it and our current constitution is a 70 year old piece of paper that the Danish king gave us when we got our independence and it was always meant to be just a temporary constitution. But most politicians are let politics get in their way and in particular power and that's why we haven't had a constitution yet and that's why our new beautiful constitution that I'm going to tell you a little bit about is in a coma and it went into a coma just in the last days of this parliamentary session. We just had elections on the 27th of April and just before that the people that were supposed to make sure that our new constitution would get through caved in and that's why we now have a central right government because the voters of the left people, left politics they punish them for being cowards. Anyway so maybe it's a good situation that we have the new conspire in power in Iceland because that means that we might get another revolution because we didn't really use that opportunity nearly enough, we weren't quick enough when we were pushing for these really fundamental changes. Many people, I've heard that you don't have a constitution in Germany, I really think it's high time that you think about it, that what a constitution is. A constitution in my opinion is a social agreement of what sort of society you want to be and that's why politicians shouldn't make it, that's why the people should make it and discuss it, what they want to be the spirit of the constitution and that is why it's and every generation has the right for a constitutional review and there are many countries that don't have this process yet there are many now awakening to the fact that even in the United States where the constitution there is like a prayer that you know you can't change and it's even the people that originally created that constitution set that it should be reviewed by its generation. So we're always dealing with people in power being very very much afraid of letting go and then we're dealing with us. The people that have usually been on the outside now more than ever after we got the new realities based on the internet we have come to realize that our systems are not only dysfunctioning in our own countries but everywhere. There is this huge understanding and growing understanding that our democracies feel like dictatorship with many heads where we get to change heads every four years and then what? And there is also a really growing sense that the systems that were originally created when we were much fewer and we had a lot less complex world and we didn't live in a world that was completely borderless like it feels to me today that there are no information borders or there shouldn't be there are no financial borders there are no borders when it comes to trading and even to some degree there is some free flow of peoples. And so one people has started to realize that the system doesn't work for them anymore. They know what's wrong but I sometimes feel that nobody knows what to do instead and I often post this question what do we want instead? What sort of societies what sort of world do we want to be in in 20 years? In 30 years? In 40 years? And what is the hardware that we are going to build our new software into the new system? And this is my new passion. I really want to work with people from all over the world to really put down the blueprint for what the future should be for all of us and locally as well. And I've managed together lots of really cool people that have managed to think outside the box for a long time to be a part of this global think tank for the new hardware. So in the constitutional process my speech wasn't actually going to evolve primarily around the constitution in Iceland. I'll just tell you really quickly how it was. And then during Q&A session you can ask me more in detail what you want if you want to know anymore. But primarily we had a really juicy good collapse in Iceland. So we felt that everything we trusted be it the media, the financial system, the regulatory system for the financial sector, the government and academia had failed us. And we had the world's third largest financial collapse in the history of the world actually. It's a pretty good achievement for a country with 320,000 people. And in the wake of it we had this sort of soft revolution where we had four demands. And I was one of these people revolting outside the parliament. And we wanted to get rid of the central bank manager, we wanted to get rid of the head of the financial regulatory institution and we wanted to get rid of the government. And finally we wanted a new constitution by and for the people of Iceland. We got the three demands pretty quickly. But the birth of the new constitution has been slightly more complex. But the process of it was quite beautiful because we really wanted the people to be a part of this process. And so the first thing the new government did and my party as a minority party supported them every step of the way with the constitutional development was to call together a national assembly where 1,000 people were randomly selected from our national registry to do sort of a World Café scenario where they would actually have a discussion about what does a human rights charter in the constitution mean? What does it need to include? How is three division of power best achieved? And all these different pillars of what needs to be in a constitution. And after two days of debates, all that stuff was put into a database. People would write on my little pieces of paper what was the most important element of each chapter or its segment of the constitution. And then it was all pulled together and processed. As that was processed, the constitutional committee also pulled together all the stuff that had been processed in the parliament in the last 70 years to get the legal fact checking. And then we had a national referendum where anybody who wanted to be a part of a constitutional parliament could make themselves available to run. And we were in a bit of a problem in Iceland because we had never done this and we didn't expect so many people to want to run. So they were like 500 or something people that needed to be introduced because everybody was on equal platform. And it was sort of the spirit in Iceland at the time that they didn't really want politicians to be in this process, which was good. So we got, we elected 23. And there were some forces in Iceland that tried to stop this. In particular, it's been a very difficult and painful process for the right wing party that sort of ruled Iceland ever since we got our independence with a few exemptions. And they managed to, on their behalf, put it to a court that the process, the technical process of the national referendum wasn't correct because the votes were not high enough. But still it didn't mean that the people that were elected were not rightfully elected. So they managed to actually have the referendum nullified. So the parliament was in a very difficult position I was in a committee trying to figure out what to do about this because it was a really rare case, not only in Iceland but in Europe, that the referendum was deemed illegal. So we eventually just hired them as a council, the people that were elected for the constitution of parliament. And they did so many great things. And we as parliamentarians have so much to learn from them because they managed to actually work together. They were like from all different walks of life. And they managed still to work together in really incredibly powerful, modern 21st century constitution with all the foundations of democracy at its core. And they also, they did not only do this as sort of a close group, they completely had the process open. So all their meetings were open. They invited people to bring forward suggestions via email or on their website where you could actually just do it through your Facebook account if you wanted to do it openly. Or they could come visit them or whatever. And lots of these suggestions were actually taken into account into the new constitution. I know a little bit about three articles that are very important to me. One is about whistleblowing and storage protection. One article is about that as a constitution right, everybody should have access to the internet. And one is about third generation freedom of information act. And many of my colleagues helped draft that, not colleagues in the parliament, but colleagues in the grassroots helped draft that text in the constitution. So, and it's been actually really nice to see people that feel that they have so much ownership in it. Like all these different parts of it, there are people in society that feel that they have ownership in the constitution. And that's exactly how a constitution should be made. Unfortunately, things started to go downhill after the constitution of council gave this to the parliament because the parliament needed to check if there were any technical errors in it, like legal technical errors. And in that process, the parliament took way too long to do it. It didn't really start to do its work until it was too late. And that is sad because even if we wrapped it up before the parliament was supposed to be wrapped up before elections now, few months ago, they were so afraid of filibustering that they caved in. And it was an exceptionally sad day for the Icelandic society and our democracy. Very depressing. And I actually did a speech, my final speech was that night about exactly that issue. And I started weeping a little bit because I was reading the intro to the new constitution. It's very nice. You can find it in English as well. If you just Google Icelandic new constitution, I'm sure you'll find it. And it's the only speech, like so many people felt like this. I've never gotten such a response to anything I've ever done as a parliamentarian, as this last speech. I think it was watched nearly 6,000 times on YouTube. And I don't think any other speech ever in the history of the Icelandic parliament has been watched so many times. But during the elections, and this is the weird part, so we had elections like three weeks later or four, and nobody talked about the new constitution. And for me, this is so important, like, how the media sometimes works because they only allow us to discuss the promise of the progressive party about taking down mortgages 20% for everybody, which is of course impossible. So and whenever I would say I want to talk about the constitution, they would just basically steer me out of it and try to get me to speak about that relief. So I think one of the main lessons to learn from this is that, and I don't know if we can bring it out of the coma. I am feeling very embarrassed about my nation actually right now because of the way people voted for lottery tickets instead of voting for the fundamental basics of our society. So I think the lesson is that whenever there is crisis, be prepared before. Be prepared. If you want any sort of changes in your society, don't wait until the crisis. Be prepared. Start to write laws. There are lots of people that like to hack into laws. I mean, laws are really the texture of our reality and the laws should really reflect and function for all of us. And one of the reasons I am not a lawmaker, I am really a politician, I am not a politician. I entered into parliament by sheer freak of, it was a complete accident. I never had the intention of being a parliamentarian. But I spent four years there and I have learned so much. I have always been an activist and knocking on the doors from outside and trying to get people to let me in and hear my voice using little microphones when I protest. But now I have a massive, massive microphone. It is so huge. Whenever I sent the press release, they were actually, the media actually prints it. Before I was in there, they wouldn't or sometimes. Whenever I want to get a hold of a minister at this corner, I am often in the cafeteria. Usually you would have to wait for a couple of months before you could get a minister to listen to your concerns. And I can actually put forward, I can ask for information from within the system directly. And what I have done is I made myself into a plugin. I am a plugin for the general public. So whenever somebody needs some information out of the system, I am their freedom of information act. And I am trying to inspire more people to work like this. Because I as a parliamentarian, I am not there to govern. I am there to serve. And I am only going to be there like I got reelected now for another party, for the pirate party. And I am only going in now in order to teach the new pirates how it works. So they don't have to learn for two years until they have figured out that the others are trying to trick them. And so I will share my knowledge. And then I am done. After four years I am done with my duties. But it is an incredible privilege. Because we are in this incredible time where we are actually in a state of transforming politics as we know them. Because like I said earlier, many of us feel that our democracies are just like dictatorship with many heads. That we don't have a voice. That we can't change things. But we can. We really can. And I am, in my work, is a testament of that. And why I say it is a testament is that I have actually managed from the smallest party in the parliament to have an impact on where Iceland is going in the future. By a set of laws which were a little bit touched on in this documentary in the making. Where I worked on an idea that originally came from John Perry Barlow and that was to create a reverse tax haven in Iceland. Have a transparency haven. And I have already managed to have an influence on having the best possible freedom of information act. We have the best possible source protection laws in Iceland now based on the Belgium laws. And a lot of this work is really inspired by how I work on the internet. Because I started to work on the internet in 1995. I was the first Icelandic woman to go into web development. And completely self educated. I never learn more than I need to. And I never do more than I need to. And just to be able to put forward and task the government with such a task to make Iceland into a safe haven for freedom of information, expression and speech is a testament that anybody can do it. Because I was not an expert. I am not an expert. I'm just like you all. I have something that I am sure that everybody in here has a passion about something. I just found out what is it in my life that gets me up in the morning. And I really want to make my world better. I understand that we are running out of planet and that there is not a lot of future for my 12 year old that is there in the game room somewhere. If I don't do something as an individual, this is my individual determination that I have a responsibility. I have a responsibility as an individual to help co-create my own society. And the reason why I am saying it is because people seem to forget that living in a democracy isn't work. Democracy, living in a free democracy is work and it requires your attention every day. You can't just vote for somebody or maybe you just don't even bother to show up to vote for somebody. It's your responsibility to co-create your own reality in collaboration with others. It is so important. And I am a testament, the poet, the web developer that went into parliament and opened the windows to let people know how they can participate. And so the next creation that I'm really excited about in this participatory process is we have been developing something that many of you in Germany are aware of which is called liquid feedback or liquid democracy. Now we created an addition to it where people can actually have on a top layer of it where they can have discussions and debates about amendments or what is good or bad about the proposed laws. And the pirates in Iceland, they tried to only put forward legislative suggestions after a lot of research and we published the research and then we copied it into a law text because in the end it always needs to be made into law even if and in as understandable language as possible. Now if we are successful with this better test in Iceland, with the Icelandic pirates, the next step and I've been already getting other parties to be interested in it, the next step would be to have a direct plug-in into influencing any parliamentarian on how he casts his vote. And that would be a perfect plug-in to having an influence without having to be in a party because I feel that a lot of the party structures have become like the church of Scientology. And if you leave, you are an outcast and it shouldn't be like that. We should all have the right to assemble with any group. It doesn't matter what it's called, church of Scientology, the Democratic Party or the pirates or whatever. So my dream is and I'm working on this as much as I can, is that we don't have these clusters of power, that we decentralize the power much more and that we make people aware of that laws are nothing else than an agreement of what sort of society we want to be in. It doesn't matter if it's the constitutional law or if it's the laws that we have in relation to, let's say, sharing. We need to be a part of the process. Alrighty. So I decided that I wanted to have a good time for Q&A. I just want to tell you a little bit more about one more thing. And then I'll do Q&A and I really hope that you ask me lots of questions. So I want to encourage you to go to the IME website, I-M-M-I.is to have a look at all the different aspects of the safe haven in Iceland. We're nearly, we've got about 50% of the legal shield up. We're getting a report later this month from the Ministry of Culture and Education, they put a steering group together to, and they actually, they are putting the laws together so that we can process them in the parliament with this new parliament whenever that comes together. And I want you also, if you have time, to look into the status of freedom of information, expression and speech, wherever you come from, and encourage your lawmakers to start to make 21st century laws because there is a very serious breach. Like when we look at the sharing laws, like if you look at the copyright laws, patents, we are dealing with massive, massive, breach of understanding on how the internet works. And most of the lawmakers and most of the policymakers have absolutely no understanding about the world that most people here are very acutely aware of how it works. And instead of being at war, I really want us to share knowledge about how it works. Because I found that often when you go inside the system and you start to talk to people without these walls that we have between us, that you can actually get them to do sensible things. Not always, but it's more likely if you are not in this war mode against each other. And I really also want to encourage people to work more together on certain things. Like, you know, we can all agree on that there are certain things that are important to do. And the biggest problem with anybody, any groups that want to change stuff is that they just get into too much trolling. So I encourage less trolling and more collaborations. Thank you very much. Excellent. Thank you so much. And like was said, please use this opportunity to ask questions and give me a sign of hand. I'm coming. I've seen the three of you. Hello, Eda. How are you doing? I'm good. Hi. Last week I was in Mumbai at an impact investment conference. And at this conference there were members of the business task force of the American defence. There were impact investors from around the Asia area and also coming in from America, lots of philanthropists and everything else. I asked a question there that was very out of place, but perhaps shouldn't have been. And I want to ask it again now in a place where people will understand it in general. And the question I asked was if the people in that context were aware of the fork, modify, merge aspect of GitHub and open source software development in general. And if they were aware of efforts to turn this into a way to make collaborative policy documents, everybody at that impact investment conference were concerned that with different nationalities you have to deal with different financial legislations. And of course this is a massive problem. So I know that Tom Behet from the pirate party in Belgium is interested in this development and I would just like a comment from you on it. Thank you. Yeah, that's a good question. I haven't really thought a lot about this specific problem. I think that in general there are lots of stuff that we can be inspired and work on with open source legislative processes. Like I've said to people whenever I've spoken about the in me is that it's completely CC. Anybody that wants to use it can use it. And we actually worked on that particular law together with people from five countries that were looking at laws that actually work because it's not enough to base your laws on laws that only look good on paper. Like Georgia has a very good freedom of information act but they just it doesn't work there. So but there is another aspect in this regard and I'm sorry I'm not clear but there is another aspect that I find to be very important when I'm looking at modern laws is that we need to have laws in such a way that they can be easily modified or updated. And thus we need to use the resources and all the brains that are available to us to make laws upgradable and also you know transnational laws should not only be about trade. We need to be much more we I'm so excited about seeing actually how we can have red flags and laws or how we can learn from Buran for example. No not the butan they're doing beautiful think tanks there on environmental law constitutional law and they have the index of happiness and all these elements that it's very difficult to get some information about. So I think crowdsourcing laws in a way from different countries and having them upgradable would be the modern legislative process that would be very nice. And actually not only nice but actually what do you call it predictable. So thanks for the question. Next question over here. Hello David Berry from Swansea University. In retrospect in hindsight the right the independence party and progressive party weren't proportionally represented on the constitutional council. Do you now think that that was a major flaw in the kind of strategy of getting constitutional change. Not at all. I think that they did have actually people that represented those different parties but it wasn't about representing parties. It was about representing what people want and people often want something different than the parties want and everybody had an opportunity to run and there was no push in society for any particular kind of thinking to run. So if they didn't get people to represent their parties that's because people didn't want people to represent parties but values. It was just used as a propaganda to kill the process. That's my opinion at least. Hello. I was wondering you were mentioning that it was difficult to get people to see the importance of this act and participating and really taking it serious. And I was wondering how do you think you could motivate people to do that. Would you have changed something about the design of the process or what ideas you have about that. Thank you. Yeah. That's a really good question. And one of the things is that we are a very young democracy. We were of course under the Danish rule for a long time until 1944. So our infrastructure is quite immature in many ways. And that's our understanding of our role in democracy. I think that there are actually two really important projects that are happening in Iceland right now. One is better. Which is a platform that the city of Reykjavik the majority there uses to inspire people to put forward ideas and what they want to be improved in the city. And the council has actually agreed to take the five top ideas and process them every month. We the pirates promised the captains that had an opportunity to get seats in the parliament promised before election to use a very similar platform developed by citizens. Which is called better Iceland where we invite all Icelanders to come and use this platform to bring us suggestions on what needs to be improved. We have the same threshold as you have the five percent threshold and like I think between 14 and 16 percent of Icelandic voters didn't have anybody to represent their values and views. So that's a hot thing. So we are urging people to use this platform because everybody's aware of it right now and give us a task us with something that they feel is important. So we have like two percent of the nation needs to put an idea forward and then we'll process it in the parliament. And that is the reason why I say these are important platforms is that people are very used to instant gratification in our society. So if you immediately or in a relatively short period of time see a result of your work then it's more likely that you come again and use that platform. And we're also the pirates are also using this same model for the discussion before people go or the pirates go into liquid voting. And so I'm hoping because we're relatively few then we can be a good prototype and use Iceland as a sort of democracy laboratory and make sure that it's scalable so that others can't say you're so few that you can do it but we can't. So in the constitutional process people were not very interested maybe when it became so complex with the people running. But in the discussions and debates they have been increasingly more interested. But I think that we need to to make it actually more accessible and easier for them to be a part of the process even further. So we will eventually something get the new constitution. Are there more questions. You mentioned in one of your answers that Georgia has very good freedom of information a lot but they don't work there. Why don't they why don't they work very well there. I think it's because the government doesn't honor the the requests the freedom of information requests or that is what I was been told when we were doing this in 2008. I don't know maybe it's changed since I don't have any specific examples from it. It was just the people that were researching the laws that told me. But there is like there are lots of laws around the world that look good on paper. Even in my own society there are lots of laws that could look good on paper. But if people are not aware of how the laws function and if you only use laws in the sense that it's the written letter instead of the spirit of the law then it's very typical that people get away with abusing the laws for their own benefit. And it is usually the people that have a participate in making the law. The so called one percent like you get with lobbyists you get the banking sector to write laws about protecting the general public for fraud. So obviously they will always have a lead way if we don't make sure that the process of lawmaking is transparent and you know who is responsible for what bit of the law. And that's another way of and they've been doing it starting a project in the United States the Sunlight Foundation were trying to shed some light on how the lobbyists write with spits of the laws. So I think many people feel intimidated by laws and constitutions and stuff like that because it's written in a language and nobody understands or it's very difficult to understand it. So maybe the first step is actually to have laws written in a language that we all understand and feel comfortable that we are within the boundaries of the laws that we agreed to have in society. But there is another thing I noticed about laws which is very interesting because I completely after I became a lawmaker I completely lost respectful laws even more than I used to before. And that is the fact that you will never be able to write laws that will prevent people from trying to find glitches in it. It's just impossible. And so we have to address the problems in our societies with something else and always trying to write a new batch. Like I often feel that you know if you have a tapestry of something and there are lots of holes in it and you're always trying to put a sort of a batch over the hole instead of discussing what's wrong. Why are people feeling that they need to break the law or they have to have like in many societies you have the block market versus the you know ordinary taxpaying market like in Greece for example. So I really think we just need to zero our systems. And that's why I'm interested in creating a new hardware as well. Because it's not enough just to zero it. Thank you. There was the lady at the back please. Yeah I had actually two sorry two quick questions. The first was how were you able to bring people who were not so technologically savvy into this process. Sorry I'm over here. If there was people who didn't feel literate with using a computer were they able to be a part of the process. And then the second question is what is the next step now. Are you still going to try to get the new constitution into place or is there still a way to do that. Yeah that's a very good question. People could also just meet the constitutional council or they could send regular regular emails or give them a call. So but there's one thing about Iceland we're sort of like high tech originals like everybody has on the gadgets. And I think around 90 something percent of Icelanders are on Facebook. So I guess the rest are the ones that are below 12. So I think in general people are just very keen to be a part of the online community. You have lots of projects we're also make sure that people that are blind and deaf and so forth can participate in the online community. And the other one in relation to the constitution itself if it's going to come out of the coma it's sort of like you know with coma patients you never know when you get them out of the coma. So I will do everything in my power and there are lots of people in Iceland that will do everything in their power to make sure that when it comes out of the coma we'll be ready. Any more questions? Am I done with my time? We have time for about two more questions if there are. So now's your chance. I'm just taking a moment to see if there is any more hands going up. Come on one more. Okay one more. Thank you. Hang on I'll be right with you. Okay. Yes hello my name is Rafael Porto Carrero. I'm a Belgian journalist. A question how do you see this possible Icelandic EU membership evolving? Is there enough support? Is this idea completely dead? There are very many majority of Icelanders who want to finish the application process. There is one slight problem with this entire process and that is that when Iceland applied most of the Icelanders were not aware of that we were saying hey we want to join the EU. Most Icelanders were told that we're just going to have a look at a contract. And so I think that there is still a majority for people to finish it but then I've heard that the EU isn't really keen on continuing with like because the EU hasn't actually finished their fishery new fishery policy and for us to be able to finish our application that needs to be ready. Most countries that are in the same category as Iceland because like 80% of our loss are already EU loss would have had their process done like two years ago. So I think it really depends both on the EU and Iceland if it's going to be finished. I think the longer it's been drawn it will be drawn out. The less chances are that it's ever going to get into voting in Iceland or there's going to be any resolution. So I think the new government will actually put a deadline for the EU to do their part of the application process and I would suggest or I have the feeling it's going to be maybe a year or something like that. But the government that's leaving that was very like one of these parties were very keen to join the social democrats. The left greens were completely against it. So you had like a government the majority that wasn't even in unison if they wanted to join or not. So it's been I've been a part of the EU the joint EU Icelandic parliamentarian committee and been following this very closely and reporting as much as I can on it to people in Iceland. And it's been a huge failure. But you know we've learned and we got a lot of good stuff out of it and the EU has got the Icelandic modern media initiative as a platform to transform their laws which they've already said that they want to have a look at it to use that as a basis for changing laws in the EU. So maybe something good will come out of it. But one of these parties that are like the the right wing party they're completely against joining the EU. So it's it's going to be tricky again. Okay so thank you so much also for taking the time not just for giving your talk but taking time to answer our questions. Let's have another big round of applause for you. Thank you.
 This is a quick break.  Thank you.  Thank you. .  Brigitte Janstottier has been just re-elected into the Icelandic  parliament as a member of the pirate party. Maybe some of you  already saw her speak yesterday where she was in an event  talking about Vicky Leeks. Today she's going to speak to us  about the new policy of the country.  She's been working on the idea of  outsourcing a constitution and really taking new steps with  participatory democracy. So she will share the lessons learned,  made in Iceland, at the attempts of building a new country and a  new approach in the attempt of transforming politics. We're going  to start off with a short video and then please give a warm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  there is no political understanding on the need to create, for example, a online privacy  act. Most of our stuff that is hogged and gathered online is in such quantities and  it's so sacred and sensitive that if normal legislators would understand the level of  surveillance that is possible, they wouldn't hurry up to make laws but they just don't  understand it. I spent four years in the Icelandic parliament. I helped create a political  movement, just called the movement in 2009 in the wake of the financial collapse and  it was a hit and run movement with one of the chief aims to create a constitution by  and for the people of Iceland because very many people understood that most people don't  understand the constitution at all because they haven't read it and our current constitution  is a 70 year old piece of paper that the Danish king gave us when we got our independence  and it was always meant to be just a temporary constitution. But most politicians are let  politics get in their way and in particular power and that's why we haven't had a constitution  yet and that's why our new beautiful constitution that I'm going to tell you a little bit about  is in a coma and it went into a coma just in the last days of this parliamentary session.  We just had elections on the 27th of April and just before that the people that were  supposed to make sure that our new constitution would get through caved in and that's why  we now have a central right government because the voters of the left people, left politics  they punish them for being cowards. Anyway so maybe it's a good situation that we have  the new conspire in power in Iceland because that means that we might get another revolution  because we didn't really use that opportunity nearly enough, we weren't quick enough when  we were pushing for these really fundamental changes. Many people, I've heard that you  don't have a constitution in Germany, I really think it's high time that you think about  it, that what a constitution is. A constitution in my opinion is a social agreement of what  sort of society you want to be and that's why politicians shouldn't make it, that's  why the people should make it and discuss it, what they want to be the spirit of the  constitution and that is why it's and every generation has the right for a constitutional  review and there are many countries that don't have this process yet there are many now awakening  to the fact that even in the United States where the constitution there is like a prayer  that you know you can't change and it's even the people that originally created that constitution  set that it should be reviewed by its generation. So we're always dealing with people in power  being very very much afraid of letting go and then we're dealing with us. The people  that have usually been on the outside now more than ever after we got the new realities  based on the internet we have come to realize that our systems are not only dysfunctioning  in our own countries but everywhere. There is this huge understanding and growing understanding  that our democracies feel like dictatorship with many heads where we get to change heads  every four years and then what? And there is also a really growing sense that the systems  that were originally created when we were much fewer and we had a lot less complex  world and we didn't live in a world that was completely borderless like it feels to me  today that there are no information borders or there shouldn't be there are no financial  borders there are no borders when it comes to trading and even to some degree there is  some free flow of peoples. And so one people has started to realize that the system doesn't  work for them anymore. They know what's wrong but I sometimes feel that nobody knows what  to do instead and I often post this question what do we want instead? What sort of societies  what sort of world do we want to be in in 20 years? In 30 years? In 40 years? And what  is the hardware that we are going to build our new software into the new system? And  this is my new passion. I really want to work with people from all over the world to really  put down the blueprint for what the future should be for all of us and locally as well.  And I've managed together lots of really cool people that have managed to think outside  the box for a long time to be a part of this global think tank for the new hardware. So  in the constitutional process my speech wasn't actually going to evolve primarily around  the constitution in Iceland. I'll just tell you really quickly how it was. And then during  Q&A session you can ask me more in detail what you want if you want to know anymore.  But primarily we had a really juicy good collapse in Iceland. So we felt that everything we  trusted be it the media, the financial system, the regulatory system for the financial sector,  the government and academia had failed us. And we had the world's third largest financial  collapse in the history of the world actually. It's a pretty good achievement for a country  with 320,000 people. And in the wake of it we had this sort of soft revolution where  we had four demands. And I was one of these people revolting outside the parliament. And  we wanted to get rid of the central bank manager, we wanted to get rid of the head of the financial  regulatory institution and we wanted to get rid of the government. And finally we wanted  a new constitution by and for the people of Iceland. We got the three demands pretty quickly.  But the birth of the new constitution has been slightly more complex. But the process  of it was quite beautiful because we really wanted the people to be a part of this process.  And so the first thing the new government did and my party as a minority party supported  them every step of the way with the constitutional development was to call together a national  assembly where 1,000 people were randomly selected from our national registry to do sort of a  World Café scenario where they would actually have a discussion about what does a human  rights charter in the constitution mean? What does it need to include? How is three division  of power best achieved? And all these different pillars of what needs to be in a constitution.  And after two days of debates, all that stuff was put into a database. People would write  on my little pieces of paper what was the most important element of each chapter or its  segment of the constitution. And then it was all pulled together and processed. As that  was processed, the constitutional committee also pulled together all the stuff that had  been processed in the parliament in the last 70 years to get the legal fact checking. And  then we had a national referendum where anybody who wanted to be a part of a constitutional  parliament could make themselves available to run. And we were in a bit of a problem  in Iceland because we had never done this and we didn't expect so many people to want  to run. So they were like 500 or something people that needed to be introduced because  everybody was on equal platform. And it was sort of the spirit in Iceland at the time  that they didn't really want politicians to be in this process, which was good. So we  got, we elected 23. And there were some forces in Iceland that tried to stop this. In particular,  it's been a very difficult and painful process for the right wing party that sort of ruled  Iceland ever since we got our independence with a few exemptions. And they managed to,  on their behalf, put it to a court that the process, the technical process of the national  referendum wasn't correct because the votes were not high enough. But still it didn't  mean that the people that were elected were not rightfully elected. So they managed to  actually have the referendum nullified. So the parliament was in a very difficult position  I was in a committee trying to figure out what to do about this because it was a really  rare case, not only in Iceland but in Europe, that the referendum was deemed illegal. So  we eventually just hired them as a council, the people that were elected for the constitution  of parliament. And they did so many great things. And we as parliamentarians have so  much to learn from them because they managed to actually work together. They were like  from all different walks of life. And they managed still to work together in really  incredibly powerful, modern 21st century constitution with all the foundations of democracy at its  core. And they also, they did not only do this as sort of a close group, they completely  had the process open. So all their meetings were open. They invited people to bring forward  suggestions via email or on their website where you could actually just do it through  your Facebook account if you wanted to do it openly. Or they could come visit them or  whatever. And lots of these suggestions were actually taken into account into the new constitution.  I know a little bit about three articles that are very important to me. One is about whistleblowing  and storage protection. One article is about that as a constitution right, everybody should  have access to the internet. And one is about third generation freedom of information act.  And many of my colleagues helped draft that, not colleagues in the parliament, but colleagues  in the grassroots helped draft that text in the constitution. So, and it's been actually  really nice to see people that feel that they have so much ownership in it. Like all these  different parts of it, there are people in society that feel that they have ownership  in the constitution. And that's exactly how a constitution should be made. Unfortunately,  things started to go downhill after the constitution of council gave this to the parliament because  the parliament needed to check if there were any technical errors in it, like legal technical  errors. And in that process, the parliament took way too long to do it. It didn't really  start to do its work until it was too late. And that is sad because even if we wrapped  it up before the parliament was supposed to be wrapped up before elections now, few months  ago, they were so afraid of filibustering that they caved in. And it was an exceptionally  sad day for the Icelandic society and our democracy. Very depressing. And I actually  did a speech, my final speech was that night about exactly that issue. And I started weeping  a little bit because I was reading the intro to the new constitution. It's very nice. You  can find it in English as well. If you just Google Icelandic new constitution, I'm sure  you'll find it. And it's the only speech, like so many people felt like this. I've never  gotten such a response to anything I've ever done as a parliamentarian, as this last speech.  I think it was watched nearly 6,000 times on YouTube. And I don't think any other speech  ever in the history of the Icelandic parliament has been watched so many times. But during  the elections, and this is the weird part, so we had elections like three weeks later  or four, and nobody talked about the new constitution. And for me, this is so important, like,  how the media sometimes works because they only allow us to discuss the promise of the  progressive party about taking down mortgages 20% for everybody, which is of course impossible.  So and whenever I would say I want to talk about the constitution, they would just basically  steer me out of it and try to get me to speak about that relief. So I think one of the main  lessons to learn from this is that, and I don't know if we can bring it out of the coma.  I am feeling very embarrassed about my nation actually right now because of the way people  voted for lottery tickets instead of voting for the fundamental basics of our society.  So I think the lesson is that whenever there is crisis, be prepared before. Be prepared.  If you want any sort of changes in your society, don't wait until the crisis. Be prepared.  Start to write laws. There are lots of people that like to hack into laws. I mean, laws  are really the texture of our reality and the laws should really reflect and function  for all of us. And one of the reasons I am not a lawmaker, I am really a politician,  I am not a politician. I entered into parliament by sheer freak of, it was a complete accident.  I never had the intention of being a parliamentarian. But I spent four years there and I have learned  so much. I have always been an activist and knocking on the doors from outside and trying  to get people to let me in and hear my voice using little microphones when I protest. But  now I have a massive, massive microphone. It is so huge. Whenever I sent the press release,  they were actually, the media actually prints it. Before I was in there, they wouldn't or  sometimes. Whenever I want to get a hold of a minister at this corner, I am often in the  cafeteria. Usually you would have to wait for a couple of months before you could get  a minister to listen to your concerns. And I can actually put forward, I can ask for information  from within the system directly. And what I have done is I made myself into a plugin.  I am a plugin for the general public. So whenever somebody needs some information out of the  system, I am their freedom of information act. And I am trying to inspire more people to  work like this. Because I as a parliamentarian, I am not there to govern. I am there to serve.  And I am only going to be there like I got reelected now for another party, for the pirate  party. And I am only going in now in order to teach the new pirates how it works. So  they don't have to learn for two years until they have figured out that the others are  trying to trick them. And so I will share my knowledge. And then I am done. After four  years I am done with my duties. But it is an incredible privilege. Because we are in  this incredible time where we are actually in a state of transforming politics as we  know them. Because like I said earlier, many of us feel that our democracies are just like  dictatorship with many heads. That we don't have a voice. That we can't change things.  But we can. We really can. And I am, in my work, is a testament of that. And why I say  it is a testament is that I have actually managed from the smallest party in the parliament  to have an impact on where Iceland is going in the future. By a set of laws which were  a little bit touched on in this documentary in the making. Where I worked on an idea that  originally came from John Perry Barlow and that was to create a reverse tax haven in  Iceland. Have a transparency haven. And I have already managed to have an influence on  having the best possible freedom of information act. We have the best possible source protection  laws in Iceland now based on the Belgium laws. And a lot of this work is really inspired  by how I work on the internet. Because I started to work on the internet in 1995. I was the  first Icelandic woman to go into web development. And completely self educated. I never learn  more than I need to. And I never do more than I need to. And just to be able to put forward  and task the government with such a task to make Iceland into a safe haven for freedom  of information, expression and speech is a testament that anybody can do it. Because  I was not an expert. I am not an expert. I'm just like you all. I have something that I  am sure that everybody in here has a passion about something. I just found out what is  it in my life that gets me up in the morning. And I really want to make my world better.  I understand that we are running out of planet and that there is not a lot of future for  my 12 year old that is there in the game room somewhere. If I don't do something as an individual,  this is my individual determination that I have a responsibility. I have a responsibility  as an individual to help co-create my own society. And the reason why I am saying it is because  people seem to forget that living in a democracy isn't work. Democracy, living in a free democracy  is work and it requires your attention every day. You can't just vote for somebody or maybe  you just don't even bother to show up to vote for somebody. It's your responsibility to  co-create your own reality in collaboration with others. It is so important. And I am  a testament, the poet, the web developer that went into parliament and opened the windows  to let people know how they can participate. And so the next creation that I'm really excited  about in this participatory process is we have been developing something that many of  you in Germany are aware of which is called liquid feedback or liquid democracy. Now we  created an addition to it where people can actually have on a top layer of it where they  can have discussions and debates about amendments or what is good or bad about the proposed  laws. And the pirates in Iceland, they tried to only put forward legislative suggestions  after a lot of research and we published the research and then we copied it into a law text  because in the end it always needs to be made into law even if and in as understandable  language as possible. Now if we are successful with this better test in Iceland, with the  Icelandic pirates, the next step and I've been already getting other parties to be interested  in it, the next step would be to have a direct plug-in into influencing any parliamentarian  on how he casts his vote. And that would be a perfect plug-in to having an influence without  having to be in a party because I feel that a lot of the party structures have become  like the church of Scientology. And if you leave, you are an outcast and it shouldn't  be like that. We should all have the right to assemble with any group. It doesn't matter  what it's called, church of Scientology, the Democratic Party or the pirates or whatever.  So my dream is and I'm working on this as much as I can, is that we don't have these  clusters of power, that we decentralize the power much more and that we make people aware  of that laws are nothing else than an agreement of what sort of society we want to be in.  It doesn't matter if it's the constitutional law or if it's the laws that we have in relation  to, let's say, sharing. We need to be a part of the process. Alrighty. So I decided that  I wanted to have a good time for Q&A. I just want to tell you a little bit more about one  more thing. And then I'll do Q&A and I really hope that you ask me lots of questions. So  I want to encourage you to go to the IME website, I-M-M-I.is to have a look at all the different  aspects of the safe haven in Iceland. We're nearly, we've got about 50% of the legal shield  up. We're getting a report later this month from the Ministry of Culture and Education,  they put a steering group together to, and they actually, they are putting the laws together  so that we can process them in the parliament with this new parliament whenever that comes  together. And I want you also, if you have time, to look into the status of freedom of  information, expression and speech, wherever you come from, and encourage your lawmakers  to start to make 21st century laws because there is a very serious breach. Like when we  look at the sharing laws, like if you look at the copyright laws, patents, we are dealing  with massive, massive, breach of understanding on how the internet works. And most of the  lawmakers and most of the policymakers have absolutely no understanding about the world  that most people here are very acutely aware of how it works. And instead of being at war,  I really want us to share knowledge about how it works. Because I found that often when  you go inside the system and you start to talk to people without these walls that we  have between us, that you can actually get them to do sensible things. Not always, but  it's more likely if you are not in this war mode against each other. And I really also  want to encourage people to work more together on certain things. Like, you know, we can all  agree on that there are certain things that are important to do. And the biggest problem  with anybody, any groups that want to change stuff is that they just get into too much  trolling. So I encourage less trolling and more collaborations. Thank you very much.  Excellent. Thank you so much. And like was said, please use this opportunity to ask questions  and give me a sign of hand. I'm coming. I've seen the three of you. Hello, Eda. How are  you doing? I'm good. Hi. Last week I was in Mumbai at an impact investment conference.  And at this conference there were members of the business task force of the American  defence. There were impact investors from around the Asia area and also coming in from  America, lots of philanthropists and everything else. I asked a question there that was very  out of place, but perhaps shouldn't have been. And I want to ask it again now in a place  where people will understand it in general. And the question I asked was if the people  in that context were aware of the fork, modify, merge aspect of GitHub and open source software  development in general. And if they were aware of efforts to turn this into a way to make  collaborative policy documents, everybody at that impact investment conference were  concerned that with different nationalities you have to deal with different financial  legislations. And of course this is a massive problem. So I know that Tom Behet from the  pirate party in Belgium is interested in this development and I would just like a comment  from you on it. Thank you. Yeah, that's a good question. I haven't really thought a  lot about this specific problem. I think that in general there are lots of stuff that we  can be inspired and work on with open source legislative processes. Like I've said to people  whenever I've spoken about the in me is that it's completely CC. Anybody that wants to  use it can use it. And we actually worked on that particular law together with people  from five countries that were looking at laws that actually work because it's not enough  to base your laws on laws that only look good on paper. Like Georgia has a very good freedom  of information act but they just it doesn't work there. So but there is another aspect  in this regard and I'm sorry I'm not clear but there is another aspect that I find to  be very important when I'm looking at modern laws is that we need to have laws in such  a way that they can be easily modified or updated. And thus we need to use the resources  and all the brains that are available to us to make laws upgradable and also you know  transnational laws should not only be about trade. We need to be much more we I'm so excited  about seeing actually how we can have red flags and laws or how we can learn from Buran  for example. No not the butan they're doing beautiful think tanks there on environmental  law constitutional law and they have the index of happiness and all these elements that it's  very difficult to get some information about. So I think crowdsourcing laws in a way from  different countries and having them upgradable would be the modern legislative process that  would be very nice. And actually not only nice but actually what do you call it predictable.  So thanks for the question. Next question over here. Hello David Berry from Swansea  University. In retrospect in hindsight the right the independence party and progressive  party weren't proportionally represented on the constitutional council. Do you now think  that that was a major flaw in the kind of strategy of getting constitutional change.  Not at all. I think that they did have actually people that represented those different parties  but it wasn't about representing parties. It was about representing what people want  and people often want something different than the parties want and everybody had an  opportunity to run and there was no push in society for any particular kind of thinking  to run. So if they didn't get people to represent their parties that's because people didn't  want people to represent parties but values. It was just used as a propaganda to kill the  process. That's my opinion at least. Hello. I was wondering you were mentioning that it  was difficult to get people to see the importance of this act and participating and really  taking it serious. And I was wondering how do you think you could motivate people to  do that. Would you have changed something about the design of the process or what ideas  you have about that. Thank you. Yeah. That's a really good question. And one of the things  is that we are a very young democracy. We were of course under the Danish rule for a  long time until 1944. So our infrastructure is quite immature in many ways. And that's  our understanding of our role in democracy. I think that there are actually two really  important projects that are happening in Iceland right now. One is better. Which is a platform  that the city of Reykjavik the majority there uses to inspire people to put forward ideas  and what they want to be improved in the city. And the council has actually agreed to take  the five top ideas and process them every month. We the pirates promised the captains  that had an opportunity to get seats in the parliament promised before election to use  a very similar platform developed by citizens. Which is called better Iceland where we invite  all Icelanders to come and use this platform to bring us suggestions on what needs to be  improved. We have the same threshold as you have the five percent threshold and like I  think between 14 and 16 percent of Icelandic voters didn't have anybody to represent their  values and views. So that's a hot thing. So we are urging people to use this platform  because everybody's aware of it right now and give us a task us with something that  they feel is important. So we have like two percent of the nation needs to put an idea  forward and then we'll process it in the parliament. And that is the reason why I say these are  important platforms is that people are very used to instant gratification in our society.  So if you immediately or in a relatively short period of time see a result of your work then  it's more likely that you come again and use that platform. And we're also the pirates  are also using this same model for the discussion before people go or the pirates go into liquid  voting. And so I'm hoping because we're relatively few then we can be a good prototype and use  Iceland as a sort of democracy laboratory and make sure that it's scalable so that others  can't say you're so few that you can do it but we can't. So in the constitutional process  people were not very interested maybe when it became so complex with the people running.  But in the discussions and debates they have been increasingly more interested. But I think  that we need to to make it actually more accessible and easier for them to be a part of the process  even further. So we will eventually something get the new constitution. Are there more questions.  You mentioned in one of your answers that Georgia has very good freedom of information  a lot but they don't work there. Why don't they why don't they work very well there.  I think it's because the government doesn't honor the the requests the freedom of information  requests or that is what I was been told when we were doing this in 2008. I don't know maybe  it's changed since I don't have any specific examples from it. It was just the people that  were researching the laws that told me. But there is like there are lots of laws around the world  that look good on paper. Even in my own society there are lots of laws that could look good on  paper. But if people are not aware of how the laws function and if you only use laws in the  sense that it's the written letter instead of the spirit of the law then it's very typical that  people get away with abusing the laws for their own benefit. And it is usually the people that  have a participate in making the law. The so called one percent like you get with lobbyists  you get the banking sector to write laws about protecting the general public for fraud. So  obviously they will always have a lead way if we don't make sure that the process of lawmaking  is transparent and you know who is responsible for what bit of the law. And that's another way  of and they've been doing it starting a project in the United States the Sunlight Foundation  were trying to shed some light on how the lobbyists write with spits of the laws. So I think many  people feel intimidated by laws and constitutions and stuff like that because it's written in a  language and nobody understands or it's very difficult to understand it. So maybe the first  step is actually to have laws written in a language that we all understand and feel comfortable  that we are within the boundaries of the laws that we agreed to have in society. But there is  another thing I noticed about laws which is very interesting because I completely after I became  a lawmaker I completely lost respectful laws even more than I used to before. And that is the fact  that you will never be able to write laws that will prevent people from trying to find glitches  in it. It's just impossible. And so we have to address the problems in our societies with  something else and always trying to write a new batch. Like I often feel that you know if you have  a tapestry of something and there are lots of holes in it and you're always trying to put a sort  of a batch over the hole instead of discussing what's wrong. Why are people feeling that they need  to break the law or they have to have like in many societies you have the block market versus the  you know ordinary taxpaying market like in Greece for example. So I really think we just need to  zero our systems. And that's why I'm interested in creating a new hardware as well. Because it's  not enough just to zero it. Thank you. There was the lady at the back please. Yeah I had actually  two sorry two quick questions. The first was how were you able to bring people who were not so  technologically savvy into this process. Sorry I'm over here. If there was people who didn't feel  literate with using a computer were they able to be a part of the process. And then the second  question is what is the next step now. Are you still going to try to get the new constitution  into place or is there still a way to do that. Yeah that's a very good question. People could also  just meet the constitutional council or they could send regular regular emails or give them a  call. So but there's one thing about Iceland we're sort of like high tech originals like everybody  has on the gadgets. And I think around 90 something percent of Icelanders are on Facebook. So I guess  the rest are the ones that are below 12. So I think in general people are just very keen to be a  part of the online community. You have lots of projects we're also make sure that people that  are blind and deaf and so forth can participate in the online community. And the other one in  relation to the constitution itself if it's going to come out of the coma it's sort of like you know  with coma patients you never know when you get them out of the coma. So I will do everything in my  power and there are lots of people in Iceland that will do everything in their power to make sure that  when it comes out of the coma we'll be ready.  Any more questions? Am I done with my time? We have time for about two more questions if there are.  So now's your chance.  I'm just taking a moment to see if there is any more hands going up.  Come on one more. Okay one more. Thank you. Hang on I'll be right with you.  Okay.  Yes hello my name is Rafael Porto Carrero. I'm a Belgian journalist.  A question how do you see this possible Icelandic EU membership evolving? Is there enough support?  Is this idea completely dead?  There are very many majority of Icelanders who want to finish the  application process. There is one slight problem with this entire process and that is that  when Iceland applied most of the Icelanders were not aware of that we were saying hey we want to  join the EU. Most Icelanders were told that we're just going to have a look at a contract. And so  I think that there is still a majority for people to finish it but then I've heard that the EU isn't  really keen on continuing with like because the EU hasn't actually finished their fishery  new fishery policy and for us to be able to finish our application that needs to be ready.  Most countries that are in the same category as Iceland because like 80% of our loss are already  EU loss would have had their process done like two years ago. So I think it really depends both on  the EU and Iceland if it's going to be finished. I think the longer it's been drawn it will be drawn  out. The less chances are that it's ever going to get into voting in Iceland or there's going to  be any resolution. So I think the new government will actually put a deadline for the EU to do their  part of the application process and I would suggest or I have the feeling it's going to be  maybe a year or something like that. But the government that's leaving that was very like  one of these parties were very keen to join the social democrats. The left greens were completely  against it. So you had like a government the majority that wasn't even in unison if they  wanted to join or not. So it's been I've been a part of the EU the joint EU Icelandic parliamentarian  committee and been following this very closely and reporting as much as I can on it to people in  Iceland. And it's been a huge failure. But you know we've learned and we got a lot of good stuff  out of it and the EU has got the Icelandic modern media initiative as a platform to transform their  laws which they've already said that they want to have a look at it to use that as a basis for  changing laws in the EU. So maybe something good will come out of it. But one of these parties that  are like the the right wing party they're completely against joining the EU. So it's it's going to be  tricky again. Okay so thank you so much also for taking the time not just for giving your talk but  taking time to answer our questions. Let's have another big round of applause for you. Thank you.
re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___0_3743.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___3744_3995.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___3996_4151.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___4152_6935.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___6936_7499.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___7500_7931.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___7932_8339.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___8340_9083.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___9084_9407.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___9408_10619.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___10620_11591.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___11592_12707.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___12708_13055.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___13056_13103.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___13104_13679.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___13680_14243.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___14244_16223.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___16224_16727.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___16728_17111.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___17112_17171.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___17172_18071.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___18072_18143.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___18144_18611.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___18612_18791.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___18792_18971.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___18972_20363.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___20364_20783.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___20784_22727.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___22728_24599.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___24600_25571.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___25572_25871.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___25872_26615.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___26616_26807.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___26808_28463.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___28464_28655.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___28656_29999.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___30000_30119.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___30120_30863.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___30864_32243.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___32244_32327.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___32328_32591.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___32592_33623.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___33624_33863.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___33864_34151.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___34152_34607.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___34608_35207.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___35208_35399.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___35400_36035.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___36036_36827.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___36828_37151.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___37152_37931.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___37932_40967.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___40968_41483.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___41484_43907.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___43908_44891.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___44892_49079.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___49080_50555.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___50556_54371.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___54372_56027.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___56028_57311.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___57312_58271.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___58272_58787.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___58788_60059.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___60060_60887.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___60888_64007.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___64008_64139.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___64140_64235.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___64236_64319.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___64320_64391.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___64392_64463.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___64464_66227.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___66228_67235.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___67236_67379.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___67380_69611.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___69612_73967.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___73968_74051.png re_publica_2013_-_Birgitta_Jonsdottir__Iceland_could_have_been_innovative__Participatory_democracy___74052_75230.png