Comments on: The rise of Open Governance pioneers: part one

By: Wim van Beek

Wim van Beek — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 14:26:32 +0000

Dear Nikki.
My first (why English ?) 2 and 3 point come a bit together. English is a barrier and a lot of people will interpret these term wrongly. Not only me, but also others (listed in other forums ) did not understand the meaning as you meant it to be. My advice: Make a chapter “Governance” and use the definitions as you found on the wiki as part of the document. That will clear things a bit.

My point 4. you state “I agree with you that this process is irreversible and thus a neccessity, not a challenge…” It is a bit of a wordplay I think.
A challenge is for me something what needs to be done and what will require a lot of non-standard thinking of all people involved.

By: Nikki Timmermans

Nikki Timmermans — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:29:30 +0000

Thank you for your comments Wim!

If I may summerize your third point, in your opinion the term Open Government is too limited, because a) open governance is about the government, whereas a lot of initiatives in the NL are not concerned with the government, and b) it has no referance to the participation of citizens… According to Wikipedia, governance means the activity to govern and is derived from the Greek verb κυβερνάω [kubernáo] which means to steer. There are different types of governance (corporate, NGO, participatory or political to which you are referring). So governance doesn’t necessarily has to be about the government (the instrument we created to administer these processes and systems). I think the term Open Governance reflects nicely on the fact that we are going beyond the government as subject and citizen as object relation, to a more equal one where they can be both subject. It already takes for granted that citizens participate in the process…

Summerizing your fourth point, you pint out that we have to observe that governments have to economize and will appeal on citizens to self organize. To put this as a challenge might sound a bit as if we have a choice in meeting this or not. I agree with you that this process is irreversible and thus a neccessity, not a challenge…

By: Wim van Beek

Wim van Beek — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 16:27:48 +0000

Eerder verschenen via email, hier nogmaals mijn stellingen. De taal-discussie heb ik hier maar even buiten gehouden. De nummering is wel hetzelfde. Het belangrijkste punt is de stelling 3.

2. Ik moet me even verplaatsen naar de persoon die dit moet lezen, wie is dat? Zijn wij dat als een soort van geloofsovertuiging of -neuzen dezelfde kant op- beweging of gaan we er ook mee naar buiten.

3. eParticipatie is m.i. breder dan open Governance. Participatie is meedoen, Governance is overheid. Mijn initiatief (en dat van anderen) zijn juist niet met de overheid bezig. eParticipatie is (te) breed, Governance is voor mij te beperkt. Een andere begrip? Wie denkt mee?

4. Ik hoor in het hele verhaal telkens van de relatie tussen overheid en burgers. Juist ook in het veld van de overheid die moet bezuinigen (en dus een beroep gaat doen op zelfredzaamheid van burgers. en een efficiënt opererende overheid met meer open data). Het gaat dus mi. niet alleen om de uitdagingen maar ook over komende noodzaken waar we een plekje in moeten gaan vinden.

Aanzet voor discussie !