In the original concept, the Resilience Councils were to be safeguarded against dependence on fluctuating political will or governmental budgetary changes through their independence of funding by the government. As was mentioned in the second blog post, two potential sources were foreseen: the European Union and self-financing. Although this is a good first step, in itself it is not enough to guarantee RC independence.
Statute
A good next step is to have RCs adopt a statute to safeguard its independence, like an editorial statute adopted by media organisations. The Dutch Association of Journalists for instance explains: “The editorial statute guarantees the freedom of action for an editorial team, even if it appears to go against the interests of a corporation or the commercial department. Criticism of the organization's own advertisers or publishers must be possible, after all.”
Just like its media pendant, the RC statute should encompass more than a mere declaration of independence. It should also describe the RC’s purpose, its axioms, its internal structure and procedures, and, its participation in the decision-making process.
Participation in the decision-making process
In 1969, Sherry Arnstein published the default typology of citizen participation in governmental decision-making. It ranges from nonparticipation (rung 1: manipulation; rung 2: therapy), through tokenism (rung 3: informing; rung 4: consultation; rung 5: placation) to citizen power (rung 6: partnership; rung 7: delegated power; rung 8: citizen control).
The original concept for RCs in the SAUFEX project foresaw two levels of participation. On the decision-making level, regarding FIMI threats RCs are to advise Digital Services Coordinators and legislative and executive bodies on information strategies, communication, policies, and decisions. On the implementation level, RCs were to coordinate tactical, strategic, and political responses, both on a national and an EU level.
Comparing this to Arnstein’s ladder, this would mean that the influence of the RCs is on the level of tokenism, while the responsibility of the RCs is on the level of citizen power. This strikes me as a fundamental imbalance.
Creating a balance
The fundamental imbalance can be resolved in either of two ways. Either the level of responsibility is reduced from ‘coordinating’ (rung 7 or 8) to a lower rung or the level of influence is upgraded from ‘advising’ (rung 4 to 6) to a higher rung.
If, as I wrote in the fourth blog post, the concept of ‘resilience’ in the Resilience Council is to be taken as both the defense of society against FIMI and the active support for people’s positive experiences of belonging, autonomy, achievement, and safety, then it would be wrong to leave the responsibility for this resilience in the hands of the government. This would leave the door to ‘undemocratic liberalism’ wide open, a state in which people’s experiences of belonging, autonomy, and achievement are sacrificed for a possible enlargement of their experience of safety. Society should be at least co-responsible for its self-defense and the level of psychosocial integration of its citizens.
Level of influence
This means that in my opinion, the RCs’ level of influence is to be upgraded from tokenism to citizen power. A minimalist way of going from informing, consultation, and placation to real power is by including in the RC statute the stipulation that a governmental actor cannot just ignore the advice of an RC. If a governmental actor does not agree with RC recommendations a mediation process is to be initiated during which no decisions can be taken. Only after a satisfactory outcome of the mediation process information strategies, communication, policies, and decisions can be implemented per this outcome.
Naturally, especially in the beginning, the process of mediation will be seen as a paralyzing factor playing into the hands of those who initiate and spread FIMI. But, this is a temporary short-term disadvantage only that outweighs the long-term advantage of an ever more resilient society.
