Comments on: Co-creation over the top? Dutch political party engages online communities to write their party manifesto

By: Daan Jansonius

Daan Jansonius — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:38:05 +0000

Hmmm….interesting concept from the stranges source. She’s got the loudest mouth and is most opinionated of all Dutch politicians (especially now Wilders has decided to stay quiet), yet she wants her ‘fans’to vote on issues?! Seems like another ‘popular’thing to do to try and please disgruntled fans who feel disconnected with current politics, but I can’t see this be a sustainable effort.

Will she ask people to vote on every topic? Maybe she could twitter from parliament to poll certain topics?

A bit off topic, but she was already getting paid for not showing up at parliament because she is too busy ‘connecting’ with the people and now she is also expecting her fanbase to write her campaign manifesto for her? Those network parties and money begging sessions must be really taking a toll on her! ;)

By: Rebecca Rijnders

Rebecca Rijnders — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:09:17 +0000

Good to see her ideas at least generate discussion. Verdonk will talk about her Politics 2.0 experience on e.day 2008. (http://www.emerceeday.nl)

By: Maarten

Maarten — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:20:14 +0000

I share you doubts. But political communication through internetpolls and wiki’s might help the communication an policy creation within political parties. But only between members of the same political group.
Some political parties e.g. The Chistian Union in The Netherlands use internal polls as a form of feedback from the members.

http://www.vvd-west.nl

By: Jorn Wemmenhove

Jorn Wemmenhove — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:55:44 +0000

Interesting article and I think especially #4 is important to keep in mind. I don’t believe the mass has the vision to be able to co-create the political agenda in all cases. Politicians should be the real leaders again showing the crowd the road to take. It’s the decision and responsibility of the voter to follow that direction. In my opinion there is enough space for personal choices in this model.

The rise (and fall) of Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands has shown that it’s important for politicians to listen to the people. But that’s not the same as writing a party program based on the wishes of the masses, like Wilders’ PVV and Verdonk’s TON are doing. The fact that those parties are popular at the moment are in my opinion an extra argument making clear that the opinion of people is not always the way to go.

By: Eric Bun

Eric Bun — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:30:36 +0000

Nice response Mads, thank you. Interesting to hear that other countries have tried similar settings which finally resulted in nothing. I do agree with your statement ‘no one really knew what they were about’, because I think that’s the crux. You are able to involve your consumers – or in this case the society – but you have be aware on which topic you engage them and have to ask youself critical do they want to be engaged on this topics or decisions on the long run. I don’t think so.

By: Mads Kristensen

Mads Kristensen — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:21:09 +0000

We had this sort of thing in Denmark. It is called ‘Ny Alliance’ (‘New Alliance’) and its a party in the middle of everything. They tried this out, when they first came to existence. People were extatic. But it quickly become apparent that when people try to work together on something like this, it still gets messed up in special interests, and the result is – well, not very much.

The party started out looking at 20 seats in the Parliament. When the election came they got 5 seats because no one really knew what they were about, and not they’re polling at around 0,2 % of the popular vote and is thus fast approaching oblivion.

Crowd sourcing may be clever. But are real people there yet? I doubt it very much.