Protests as a response to systemic corruption erupted in Romania following the aftermath of a nightclub fire which resulted in the deaths of 64 people.
OVERVIEW
1. Title of Case
#Colectiv Romania - 2015 protest
2. General Issues
1. Human Rights & Civil Rights
2. Governance & Political Institutions (ex: constitutions, legal systems, electoral systems)
3. Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice & Corrections
3. Specific Topics
1. Medical Liability
2. Quality of Health Care
3. Transparency
4. Narrative
Brief Description
Protests as a response to systemic corruption erupted in Romania following the aftermath of a nightclub fire which resulted in the deaths of 64 people.
Problems and Purpose
A national tragedy struck Romania on October 30, 2015, after a fire broke out at the ‘Colectiv’ nightclub in Bucharest, in the middle of a rock band concert. The fire started out as a result of using exterior fireworks inside the club, which ultimately ignited a flammable sponge used on the front stage pillars and the ceiling for soundproofing.[1] The flames spread quickly from one pillar, engulfing the entire ceiling of the building in a matter of seconds. The toxic gas released by the foam poisoned and made some of the participants unconscious while parts of the ceiling, including burning sponge, collapsed over the audience trapped inside the building which had only one exit available.[2] [3] The only exit available was opened halfway, making the attempt of escaping the flames almost impossible while everyone was jumping over one another creating even more injures. As a result of these tragic circumstances, 27 people died on site and 186 of the participants were injured, all in under three minutes. (Reference number 3)
Over the course of two months another 37 people that managed to exit the building but required special medical care, died in the Romanian hospitals as a result of poor medical conditions and possible negligence of medical members. [4]
Grief and anger determined a mass mobilisation within different areas of Romania after journalist investigations revealed that the authorities failed the citizens and lied to them while promoting systemic corruption even within the medical and health care system. According to these investigations, the club was functioning without authorisation on safety measures from the Fire Department, allowing an audience of 400 participants while the club had a limit capacity of 200 and provided only one fire extinguisher. The health care system was faced with an emergency, however the hospitals responsible for the treatment of the burn victims were using diluted disinfecting solutions which enabled the spread of infections and germs amongst patients, this ultimately resulting in their death. Following this last statement, even if the country had the possibility to transfer the patients in proper hospitals across Europe, the patients were already infected by the time the authorities decided to consider that option. The only option left for the families of the victims was to cover the costs of a treatment conducted abroad since the authorities decided in a media hoax that the Romanian hospitals are ‘well equipped’ for this situation. [5]
The purpose of the protests was the Government's resignation and the instauration of a technocratic Government as well as deepening the solidarity amongst fighting corruption within the political system and reinforcing a sense of justice and responsibility amongst authorities over a tragedy that pointed out the fragility of the country’s national integrity. (Reference number 3)
Background History and Context
Romania has a long history of corruption in the form of stolen elections, structural injustices, bribes, nepotism, state repression, induced economic crisis or misleading amongst the rights of the citizens within a democratic state. Due to the repetitive nature of such catalytic events taking place as a result of sustained indifference over poor governance and politicised public administration, as well as a lack of participatory approach amongst ‘democratic’ decisions, the new generations of this country desired a change within the complex irregularities built over the years. (See reference number 1)
It is no surprise that protests emerged as a response towards the abusive democratic political structure. The protests that took place in 2015 represent a form of participation that was already used amongst citizens in this country and gaining momentum with the use of social media in the past years. (Reference number 2)
After the protests that marked the end of the communist era in 1989, there was a sense of freedom of expression and hope towards a better Romania. However, the word ‘democratic’ had little to no meaning in the minds of the citizens, making it difficult to embrace the full potential of democratic innovations as part of the decision-making process.
In 2012, a change in the use of social media seemed to provide common ground for a succession of protests. Researches highlight that the number of Romanians willing to protest in 2012 already reached similar levels to those existing at the end of the 1990.[6] In 2013, an environmental campaign addressing the mining issue in ‘Roșia Montană’ hit the headlines and brought to light the differences addressing political expectations between earlier generations and the current one, however it also generated a sense of unity amongst the citizens willing to change the course of events and take the matter into their own hands.[7] This campaign involved protests that took place over the course of 5 months and it involved 50 cities across Romania and 30 international cities of Romanian diaspora in an attempt to prevent exploitation of one of the biggest gold mines in Europe as well as prevention of environmental malpractice.[8]
Following the successful outcome of this initiative, the group of citizens involved in the social movement created a pathway towards a new form of taking individual responsibility and addressing concerning matters through a collective identity. [9]
As a result of these events, a protest culture was already on the rise before the tragic event that took place in 2015, through the means of using social networking services. The use of modern forms of communication represented one of the crucial factors that enabled the citizens to stay connected and united in their actions against adversity. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter or even YouTube already represented main sources of information for protests participants since the press was mainly enabling corruption and misleading the protestants.
Organising, Supporting, and Funding Entities
In terms of organising the ‘Colectiv’ protests it is certain that the social media platforms allowed quicks access to social or political information. The citizens were firstly informed about the fire through Facebook users posting images and videos of the tragic scene rather than through journalist media. These aspects provided favorable circumstances towards mobilisation through the use public communication platforms. (Reference number 3)
There is little to no information regarding the funding entities or even the leaders of the protests since the social movement was rather a spontaneous and collective response generated by sympathy, solidarity, anger and grief throughout propagated attitudes, specific messages and states of mind expressed on the social networking platforms. (Reference number 4)
According to certain articles, Florin Badita was the one to create a Facebook page named ‘Corupția Ucide’ (Translation: Corruption Kills) in order to provide a social space meant to share opinions, details about the event or even to stabilise, organise and reinforce protests under a unified approach and common goal. The Facebook page rapidly gained popularity reaching 137,000 users interested in its activity. (Reference number 4)
Participant Recruitment and Selection
The initiative did not require participant selection, the protest was open to all, mainly due to the range of people who found their death or suffered injuries in the ‘Colectiv’ nightclub. A lot of people identified and sympathised either with the affected families who lost children or close relatives or with young people, even teenagers, who lost friends or even their lives.[10]
On the other hand, a lot of people sympathised with the desire to change the prospects of a reckless Government that is focused on shifting the blame rather than identifying with the citizens, taking responsibility or providing better solutions when faced with adversity. (Reference number 10)
There were no specific requirements in order to participate, the only important aspect was to show solidarity and a disapproval of indifference and lack of authorities taking responsibility for the poor choices that lead to a national tragedy.
In order to gather protestors in one place, each city that participated in the movement, decided through social media platforms the location of where the initiative will take place mentioning that anybody who wants to show solidarity is free to join. Facebook was one of the main platforms which generated a revolution in University Square, in Bucharest, due to the massive amounts of posts leaking information on the aftermath of the event and how the authorities did not prevent or react towards it, leading to a crowd of 25,000 Romanians protesting in the street. (Reference number 2)
Solidarity, mobilisation and information came from Twitter users as well, through the hashtag Colectiv, which received 10.860 mentions throughout the days of the protests. Many of the users took to Twitter the emotional turmoil created by this event in an attempt to motivate and unify the protestors and to set a focus on helping the victims and bringing justice. (Reference number 4)
Another important aspect which contributed to the level of participation is represented by the solidarity showed by the president Klaus Johannis, which had televised appearances to encourage on a number of occasions the manifestations, claiming that a social movement of this proportion cannot be ignored by the political class. (Reference number 2)
Following the last mentions, Romania as a ‘machinery’ of mass demonstrations seems to offer an example of individual mobilisation based on two main aspects. The first aspect highlights the possibility of transforming grievances into willingness to protest, followed by the second aspect of converting willingness into actual participation in demonstrations. [11]
Methods and Tools Used
The main method used in this participation process was represented by peaceful protests, followed by demonstrations, social media, and informal participation.
The protests are classified as an action of public expression having various outcomes or various reasons to militate for a common goal. General goals of protests usually include influencing public opinion or Government policy, drawing attention or spreading information about the cause, creating an audience, making room for others to connect within a shared perspective, speaking one truth and bear witness. Protests are usually aimed at expressing a formal objection and demanding change. [12]
The social media space is often seen as a tool rather than a method for the purpose of only contributing to engagement within social movements. The general use of social media is attributed towards scheduling and informing participants in a various number of methods that stimulate democratic innovation.[13]
Demonstrations represent a collective action made by a mass group or collection of groups which is in opposition with a certain regime, policy, or perceived injustice. The action represents a collective expression aimed at explaining or showing the purpose of this action. [14]
What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation
In the aspects of process, interaction and participation, the protests following the ‘Colectiv’ fire tragedy represent a sustained movement that followed significant structural changes. The process of drawing attention towards systemic corruption, loose rules and state administration flaws over how venues operate without authorised safety measures remains relevant, consistent and active, until this day, towards the consequences that await Romania and the citizens if the tragedy will be forgotten and negligence and corruption will take over health administration again. (Reference number 3)
The starting point of the social movement was set in November, first with a silent march meant to show national solidarity for the victims and gratitude for the rescuers. This initiative was mobilised throughout Facebook, people took to the platform the national mourning and planned the march starting from Piața Unirii (Union Square) to the ‘Colectiv’ nightclub. The silent march gathered 4000 participants, while other 8000 were reported throughout different cities of the country. The next two days were also indicative of a period focused on national mourning and silence throughout protest initiatives as a tribute to the victims’ memory. (Reference number 3)
On November 3’rd, Facebook users call for the need of a new march, aimed at the resignation of Mr. Piedone, the mayor of the capital’s Sector (district) 4, in which the nightclub ‘Colectiv’ was functioning without authorisation. The march quickly changed the initial goal and aimed at the Government’ s lack of responsibility or solidarity towards the victims. Initially, the march took place in Piața Victoriei (Victory Square), but the crowd moved towards Interior Ministry where participants held a moment of silence and knelt before chanting: ‘Resignation!’; ‘Assassins!’; ‘Yesterday mourners, today outraged!’; ‘Ponta, resign!’ (Mr. Ponta, the former Prime Minister of Romania). [15]
On the morning of November 4’th, the Prime Minister resigns. Despite the resignation of Ponta’s government, a demonstration took place at the same location, under similar circumstances, the protestants would now show up with more banners and the aim was set to demand early elections to implement a total change of the political class. Media would estimate the participation of 100,000 protestants not only across the country but also in London and Paris. (Reference number 15)
On November 5’th, 12,000 participants protested in Bucharest and other 10,000 throughout the country. On the same day, for the first time in the history of Romanian protests, the president of Romania, Klaus Johannis, decides to invite representatives of the street people for a round of consultation, in order to hear their demands. (Reference number 15)
The following days the attendance at the demonstrations seemed to be lower, however the participation only stopped on the 9’th of November. Moving the attention towards creating media platforms that will further sustain the demand of change and to provide knowledge on the events and information. (Reference number 15)
Influence, Outcomes, and Effects
Not only after the protests took place there were significant changes, but even during the spontaneous mass mobilisation certain changes were demanded to avoid the anger and disappointment of the protestants. The almost immediate response towards ensuring accountability onto the main people who allowed such a tragedy to happen, was followed by introducing main concerns over life threatening circumstances caused by poor public administration and systemic corruption. [16]
As per the main news lines, the owners of the clubs were taken into custody on suspicion of manslaughter, the Government and Prime Minister resigned, the Interior Minister resigned as well, while the Sector (district) 4 mayor took moral accountability for the ‘Colectiv’ fire, he resigned on November 4’th too, and insisted that justice needs to determine if he was legally responsible, multiple venues were closed temporarily or even permanently after the parliament adopted new safety regulations. [17] (Reference number 1)
After the protests, there were regular numerous inspections that monitored and checked the activity of the venues as well as new regulations which demanded 23 different approvals from various institutions to get a license or authorisation. Every authorisation was verified, and the controls reinforced after the fire were mainly ensuring safety measures in the event of a similar situation. [18]
In the aftermath of the protests, besides legislative changes, the parliament decides to appoint Dacian Cioloș to head a technocrat government for a year, being responsive towards the requests of the protestants, however the health care systems seem to undergo little to no changes, besides providing more transparency. State institutions are forced to release spending data monthly, in an attempt to minimise corruption and bribes for certain projects within the institutions that only end up in money laundering. Healthcare data and information on EU-funded projects is now public to discourage possible fraud attempts.[19]
Overall, the protests seemed to achieve the initial goals, at least for a period of time. Many of the requests seemed to go unnoticed after ‘fixing’ the main issues. Certain demands of the protestants included a budget raise for health, higher pay for the medical staff to discourage bribes and systemic corruption within the healthcare system, simplifying and clarifying a legislative framework for companies and tougher penalties for giving or receiving bribes, regardless of the field. The protests fueled the change; however activism needs to be preserved and encouraged in order to transform the change into the new normal. (Reference number 18 and 19)
Analysis and Lesson Learned
According to Porta and Felicetti, contemporary aspects of the political world are faced with new challenges towards liberal democracy and new prospects of citizen participation. In addition to this, the influence of social movements was often represented as an actor of democratic innovation. Over the course of years, mass mobilisation created pathways towards civil rights, approved forms of political participation and public spheres for debating, sharing and experimenting opinions. [20]
In the case of the social movement that took place in Romania in November 2015, the solidarity that generated mobilisation against the power holders who bred inequality, injustice corruption and indifference, represented one of the greatest form of participation implemented since the fall of Nicolae Ceausescu's regime. The social movement engaged activities such as protests and demonstrations that managed to quickly change the face of how the Government might be required to be attentive towards the needs of the citizens. (Reference number 9)
Whilst most of the demands coming from the protestants were met, there was a general question lingering amongst all the citizens of Romania: ‘How long until we need to demand change in the streets again?’ The question follows as a result of acknowledging the lack of democratic structures that would allow the public opinion to be centralised and heard in order to maintain the set standards promoted within democracy.
According to Maria Bakardjieva, digital democracy can be seen within this case as an essential practice in order to maintain a successful strategy amid manifestations.
Social media played an important role in maintaining the audience and protests engaged. Besides the benefits of informing and sharing the consequences of the tragedy that occurred without a filtered perception created by mass-media, one of the main attributes was to conduct the marches, demonstrations and protests over the course of several days, therefore keeping a unified approach with the main goal set on not giving up until certain changes can be seen. (Reference number 4)
Overall, in terms of effective response towards a national tragedy, the protests seem to remain the best approach for Romania, as the citizens desire to be heard. It precedes a lack of activism, a decrease of desire to militate against a corrupt state and high rate of compliance due to misinformation through the media. [21]
The reality faced on October 30, 2015, brought to light the differences between the living conditions perceived so far by the general public and the loss of life that proved to Romanians how indifference and corruption can kill innocent citizens. Giving the circumstances, people draw attention that it could have been any of the citizens at risk to face death in the hospitals or within venues that were functioning based on bribes or lack of approved safety majors and none of the authorities would seem to feel regretful towards a tragedy, rather preoccupied by passing the responsibility. (Reference number 5)
Future prospects of the protest culture strengthened by the ‘Colectiv’ movement seem to motivate future generations to establish a collective identity which is informed, educated and willing to actively participate against political malpractices of any kind at any level of institutionalisation without the cost of losing lives to determine solidarity and mass mobilisation amongst citizens. The citizens are now afraid of the consequences of corruption rather than the consequences of activism.[22] (Reference 21)
See Also
- N/A
References
- Footnoted
- Full list of references:
Androniciuc, A. and Ichim, D., 2017. [online] Stec.univ-ovidius.ro. Available at: <https://stec.univ-ovidius.ro/html/anale/ENG/2017/Section-IV/2.pdf> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Anti-Defamation League. n.d. The Purpose and Power of Protest. [online] Available at: <https://www.adl.org/education/resources/tools-and-strategies/the-purpose-and-power-of-protest> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Cretan, R. and O'Brien, T., 2019. Corruption and conflagration: (in)justice and protest in Bucharest after the Colectiv fire. [online] Taylor & Francis. Available at: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02723638.2019.1664252> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Cmeciu, C. and Coman, I., 2018. [online] Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331122652_Twitter_as_a_Means_of_Emotional_Coping_and_Collective_ReFraming_of_Crises_Case_Study_The_Colectiv_Crisis_in_Romania/citations> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Dogaru-Tulica, A., 2019. [online] Cis01.ucv.ro. Available at: <http://cis01.ucv.ro/revistadestiintepolitice/files/numarul61_2019/10.pdf> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Donatella della Porta & Andrea Felicetti (2022) Innovating Democracy Against Democratic Stress in Europe: Social Movements and Democratic Experiments, Representation, 58:1, 67-84. DOI: 10.1080/00344893.2019.1624600
En.wikipedia.org. n.d. 2013 Romanian protests against the Roșia Montană Project - Wikipedia. [online] Available at: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Romanian_protests_against_the_Roșia_Montană_Project> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Gubernat, R. and Rammelt, H., 2018. [online] Halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr. Available at: <https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01689629/document> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Ilie, L., 2016. [online] Available at: <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-romania-fire-march-idUSKBN12U0R7> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Ionas, C., 2020. [online] Cis01.ucv.ro. Available at: <http://cis01.ucv.ro/revistadestiintepolitice/files/numarul66_2020/5.pdf> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Matiuta, C., 2015. New Ways for Active Citizenship: The Role of Social Networks in Shaping Public Space and Electoral Behavior in Romania. [online] Papers.ssrn.com. Available at: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2920495> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Olteanu, T. and Beyerle, S., 2017. The Romanian People Versus Corruption. The Paradoxical Nexus of Protest and Adaptation. [online] Siba-ese.unisalento.it. Available at: <http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/paco/article/view/18551> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Patrut, M., 2017. [online] Available at: <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328841955_A_Collective_Romanian_Tragedy_A_Case_Study_on_Social_Media_Fighting_Corruption> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Participedia.net. n.d. Demonstration – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/method/4601> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Participedia.net. n.d. Social Media – Participedia. [online] Available at: <https://participedia.net/method/4939> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Pisleag, T. and Tanase Popa, D., 2018. Collective Mass Behaviour and Spontaneous Protests. [online] Journals.univ-danubius.ro. Available at: <https://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/research/article/view/5558/4975> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Pop, I., 2016. The Political Communication Crises in Romania - A Case Study - Club Collective of October 30, 2015. [online] Papers.ssrn.com. Available at: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794263> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Tatar, M., 2020. [online] Ssoar.info. Available at: <https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/70802/ssoar-jims-2020-2-tatar-What_Drives_Individual_Participation_in.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-jims-2020-2-tatar-What_Drives_Individual_Participation_in.pdf> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Telekom Electronic Beats. 2016. After The Fire: How The Colectiv Tragedy Changed Bucharest | Telekom Electronic Beats. [online] Available at: <https://www.electronicbeats.net/after-the-fire-how-the-colectiv-tragedy-changed-bucharest/> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
The Reader Wiki, Reader View of Wikipedia. n.d. 2015 Romanian protests. [online] Available at: <https://thereaderwiki.com/en/2015_Romanian_protests> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
Tran, M., 2015. Bucharest nightclub fire: PM and government resign after protests. [online] the Guardian. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/romanian-government-resigns-nightclub-fire-victor-ponta> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
(www.dw.com), D., 2015. Bucharest fire: protests continue despite Ponta's resignation | DW | 05.11.2015. [online] DW.COM. Available at: <https://www.dw.com/en/bucharest-fire-protests-continue-despite-pontas-resignation/a-18829260> [Accessed 5 May 2022].
External Links
- https://www.euronews.com/2020/10/30/colectiv-fire-romania-s-deadly-nightclub-blaze-is-still-an-open-wound-five-years-on
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/anger-over-bucharest-nightclub-fire-spirals-into-demands-for-pm-to-resign
Notes
- N/A
5. Tags
- Accessibility
- Civil Infrastructure
- Human Rights
- Public Services
- Social Welfare
LOCATION
1. Primary Location
Victoria Square, Bucharest, Romania
University Square, Bucharest, Romania
Other Cities where mass protests took place: Cluj-Napoca, Timisoara, Iasi, Oradea, Arad
2. Scope of Influence
Values:
- National
- International (Romanian diaspora in London, Madrid, Paris, North America)
MEDIA
1. Files
2. Links
3. Images
Source Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:"Corruption_Kills"_(22909992136).jpg
Attribution: J Stimp
Title or Description: Demonstrations at University Square, Bucharest, 2015
4. Video
Attribution: Alexander Nanau
Title or Description: The ‘Collective’ documentary
5. Audio
N/A
DATE & DURATION
1. Start Date
Values: November 3rd, 2015
2. End Date
Values: November 9th, 2015
3. Ongoing
Values: Not ongoing
4. Time Limited or Repeated?
Values:
- Repeated over time
PURPOSE & APPROACH
1. Purpose
Values:
1.Make, influence, or challenge decisions of government and public bodies
2.Make, influence, or challenge decisions of private organizations (e.g., civil society organizations; corporations)
3.Deliver goods and services (e.g., co-production of public safety by police and community)
2. Approach
Values:
1.Protest (ex: demonstrations; marches; pickets)
2.Social mobilisation (ex: community organising; consciousness raising; political consumerism)
3. Independent action (without the participation of government or private bodies)
3. Spectrum of Public Participation
Values:
- Involve (work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns are understood & considered)
PARTICIPANTS
1. Total Number of Participants
Values: 100,000
2. Open to All or Limited to Some?
Values:
- Open to All
3. Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Values:
- Not Applicable
4. Targeted Demographics
Values:
- Appointed Public Servants (ex: Bureaucrats)
- Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender (ex: LGBT)
- Elderly
- Elected Public Officials
- Experts (ex: Scientists)
- Indigenous people
- Immigrants
- Low-Income Earners
- Men
- People with Disabilities
- Racial/Ethnic Group(s)
- Religious Groups
- Stakeholder Organizations (ex: NGOs, Business Interests)
- Students
- Women
- Youth
PROCESS
1. General Types of Methods
Values:
1.Protest (ex: direct confrontation with public and/or private institutions)
2.Informal participation (ex: extra-institutional attempts to secure access to resources, rights, and political representation without using formal governmental channels)
3.Informal conversation spaces (ex: spaces where deliberation and discussion may take place in an informal or unstructured way)
2. General Types of Tools/Techniques Used
Values:
1.Recruit or select participants (ex: community outreach; random selection)
2.Propose and/or develop policies, ideas, and recommendations (ex: brainstorming; nominal group technique)
3. Specific Methods, Tools & Techniques
Values: social media, protests, informal participation, demonstrations
4. Legality
Values:
- Yes
5. Facilitators
Values:
- Yes
5a. Facilitator Training
Values:
- Professional Facilitators
- Trained, Nonprofessional Facilitators
- Untrained, Nonprofessional Facilitators
6. Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Values:
- Both
7. Types of Interaction Among Participants
Values:
- Acting, Drama, or Roleplay
1.Express Opinions/Preferences Only
2.Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
3.Informal Social Activities
8. Information & Learning Resources
Values:
- Participant Presentations
- Site Visits
- Video Presentations (online or in-person)
- Written Briefing Materials (online or as handouts)
9. Decision Methods
Values:
- Idea Generation (ex: potential solutions were generated, but no priorities were decided)
- General Agreement/Consensus (ex: broad acceptance of decisions; unanimous agreement desired but not necessary)
9a. If Voting
Values:
- Preferential Voting (ex: ranked preferences)
- Plurality (ex: highest percentage wins, even if the proposal receives fewer than 50.1% votes)
- Majoritarian Voting (ex: 50% +1)
- Super-Majoritarian (ex: threshold more than 50% +1)
- Unanimous Decision (ex: full agreement by all participants)
- Don’t Know
10. Communication of Insights and Outcomes
Values:
- Traditional Media (ex: television, radio, newspapers)
- New Media (ex: social media, blogging, texting)
- Public Report
- Minority Report (ex: a dissenting opinion)
- Protests/Public Demonstrations
- Public Hearings/Meetings
- Word of Mouth
ORGANIZERS & SUPPORTERS
1. Primary Organiser/Manager
Values:
N/A
2. Type of Organiser/Manager
Values:
- Activist Network
- Individual
- Social Movement
RESOURCES
1. Funder
N/A
2. Type of Funder
Values:
- Not Applicable
3. Staff
Values:
- No
4. Volunteers
Values:
- Yes
EVIDENCE OF IMPACT
1. Evidence of Impact
Values:
- Yes
2. Types of Change
Values:
1.Changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour
2.Changes in how institutions operate (ex: improved decision making)
3.Changes in public policy (ex: new laws or regulations)
3. Implementers of Change
Values:
- Elected Public Officials
- Appointed Public Servants (ex: bureaucrats)
4. Formal Evaluation
Values:
- Don’t Know
4a. Evaluation Report Link
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02723638.2019.1664252
[2] https://stec.univ-ovidius.ro/html/anale/ENG/2017/Section-IV/2.pdf
[3] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794263
[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331122652_Twitter_as_a_Means_of_Emotional_Coping_and_Collective_ReFraming_of_Crises_Case_Study_The_Colectiv_Crisis_in_Romania/citations
[5] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328841955_A_Collective_Romanian_Tragedy_A_Case_Study_on_Social_Media_Fighting_Corruption
[6] https://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/bitstream/handle/document/70802/ssoar-jims-2020-2-tatar-What_Drives_Individual_Participation_in.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&lnkname=ssoar-jims-2020-2-tatar-What_Drives_Individual_Participation_in.pdf
[7] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2920495
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Romanian_protests_against_the_Roșia_Montană_Project
[9] http://cis01.ucv.ro/revistadestiintepolitice/files/numarul66_2020/5.pdf
[10] https://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/research/article/view/5558/4975
[11] http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/index.php/paco/article/view/18551
[12] https://www.adl.org/education/resources/tools-and-strategies/the-purpose-and-power-of-protest
[13] https://participedia.net/method/4939
[14] https://participedia.net/method/4601
[15] https://thereaderwiki.com/en/2015_Romanian_protests
[16] https://www.dw.com/en/bucharest-fire-protests-continue-despite-pontas-resignation/a-18829260
[17] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/04/romanian-government-resigns-nightclub-fire-victor-ponta
[18] https://www.electronicbeats.net/after-the-fire-how-the-colectiv-tragedy-changed-bucharest/
[19] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-romania-fire-march-idUSKBN12U0R7
[20] Donatella della Porta & Andrea Felicetti (2022) Innovating Democracy Against Democratic Stress in Europe: Social Movements and Democratic Experiments, Representation, 58:1, 67-84. DOI: 10.1080/00344893.2019.1624600
[21] https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-01689629/document
