About the Report

Constitution making has become increasingly open and 

participatory. Yet the core tools of participation are just 

beginning to evolve. New technologies can help drafters 

increase participation and provide conduits for civil society, 

vulnerable groups, and the population at large to mobilize and 

express their views. These tools can improve public education 

on the constitution and the drafting process, inject meaningful 

expert guidance into the national dialogue, and may help 

societies craft more inclusive, useful, and durable compacts. 

This report explains how. 

About the Authors

Jason Gluck is a senior program officer with USIP’s Rule of 

Law Center. He focuses on the design and implementation 

of constitution-making processes in postconflict and 

transitional states. Gluck is currently on leave to the United 

Nations Department of Political Affairs, where he serves as 

Constitutional Focal Point. Brendan Ballou is a former 

associate at Google Ideas and is currently studying 

law at Stanford University. 

2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 343 May 2014

© 2014 by the United States Institute of Peace. 

All rights reserved.

Contents

Introduction 2

Participation 2

Education 4

Expert Guidance 5

What’s Next? 6

Conclusion 9

Appendix 10

Jason Gluck and Brendan Ballou

New Technologies in 

Constitution Making

Summary

•	 Public participation has become an integral part of constitution making, particularly 

since the end of the Cold War. It has strengthened national unity, built trust between 

governments and citizens, promoted reconciliation, and helped produce national consensus.

•	 Constitution drafters in the past were mostly limited to using official statements and 

press releases, workshops, meetings, radio and television programs, and printed materials to engage with citizens. These methods were often costly and time-consuming, and 

failed to reach significant segments of the public.

•	 New technologies can increase participation in and the perceived legitimacy of constitutional processes. 

•	 Constitution drafters have recently begun using the web and mobile phones to educate 

citizens on the constitution-writing process and engage them on issues of concern. 

Increasingly constitution writers are also using the web to consult international experts 

on specific technical issues.

•	 Given the rapid growth of the Internet and mobile phone penetration in the developing world, the increased use of new technologies in constitution writing is nearly 

inevitable.

•	 People and organizations considering using these tools should bear four things in mind. 

New technologies will affect different groups differently. The people who use these tools 

should respect social and cultural norms. They should keep control of the process in the 

hands of national actors. Last, they should fit their work within the larger context of the 

conflict or postconflict environment in which they work. 

•	 Constitution making is a difficult field, however, and new technologies are tools, not 

panaceas.

United States Institute of Peace www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT
2 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343

Introduction

Constitution making has become increasingly open and participatory. Whereas once 

constitutional reform processes were dictated by a coterie of elite politicians, today 

such processes are likely to include national dialogues, public engagement efforts, 

and expert consultations. These new platforms seek to allow all members of a nation 

to collectively make new social and political compacts on such issues as the identity, 

organization, and nature of their nation, the relationship between citizen and state, 

and the peaceful coexistence of citizens and groups.

From Nicaragua in the 1980s to South Africa in the 1990s and from East Timor in the 

2000s to Iceland in the early 2010s, constitution makers have reached out to millions of 

citizens in an effort to draft national charters that enjoy maximum legitimacy and national 

ownership and that genuinely reflect the needs and aspirations of the people.

Yet, while this trend toward greater inclusiveness has evolved over the past several 

decades, the core tools of constitution making, particularly participatory constitution making, have barely changed. Citizens are still educated about constitutional 

matters mainly through community meetings, brochures, and announcements in the 

press and on television and radio. Their views and preferences are solicited—if and 

when they are—through public forums, focus group meetings, and questionnaires. 

International assistance, when provided, arrives via flown-in expert consultants or 

costly study tours.

These traditional tools are often cumbersome, costly, and logistically difficult to 

use. Of greater concern, they can be exclusionary, particularly in cultures that discourage public political participation by women and minority groups. They can also be 

underinclusive if time and money are limited, the operating environment is insecure, 

or geography or weather makes portions of countries inaccessible.

New technologies can augment traditional approaches. Tools such as the web and 

mobile phones can help drafters increase participation and provide conduits for civil 

society, vulnerable groups, and the population at large to mobilize and express their 

views. They can improve public education on both the constitution and the drafting 

process. And they can inject meaningful expert guidance into the national dialogue. 

Collectively, these tools can boost the integrity and legitimacy of the constitutionmaking process as a whole.

This said, new technologies will not radically transform the fundamental nature of 

constitution making. That has always been and will continue to be a political exercise. 

But as the politics of constitutional reform widen to include more and more people, 

new tools may help societies craft more inclusive, useful, and durable compacts. This 

report explains how.

Participation

Public participation has become an integral part of constitution making, particularly since 

the end of the Cold War. In nations as diverse as Afghanistan, Albania, Kenya, Nicaragua, 

and South Africa, governments have conducted civic education programs and solicited 

public opinion to turn constitution-making processes into national dialogues. In the best of 

these processes, public participation has strengthened national unity, built trust between 

governments and citizens, promoted reconciliation within divided societies, helped produce 

consensus on divisive constitutional matters, and educated citizens on the principles and 

practices of a democratic society.1

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. 

Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, 

promote postconflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict 

management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital 

worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others 

with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

Stephen J. Hadley, (Chair), Principal, RiceHadleyGates, 

LLC, Washington, DC • George E. Moose (Vice Chair), 

Adjunct Professor of Practice, The George Washington University, Washington, DC • Judy Ansley, Former Assistant to 

the President and Deputy National Security Advisor under 

George W. Bush, Washington, DC • Eric Edelman, Hertog 

Distinguished Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins 

School of Advanced International Studies, Washington, DC 

• Joseph Eldridge, University Chaplain and Senior Adjunct 

Professorial Lecturer, School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC • Kerry Kennedy, President, 

Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, 

Washington, DC • Ikram U. Khan, President, Quality Care 

Consultants, LLC., Las Vegas, NV • Stephen D. Krasner, 

Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at 

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA • John A. Lancaster, 

Former Executive Director, International Council on

Independent Living, Potsdam, NY • Jeremy A. Rabkin, 

Professor of Law, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

• J. Robinson West, Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, 

DC • Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC 

Members Ex Officio

John Kerry, Secretary of State • Chuck Hagel, Secretary of 

Defense • Gregg F. Martin, Major General, U.S. Army; 

President, National Defense University • Kristin Lord, 

Acting President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 
USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343	 3

Countries that have engaged their citizenries in constitution making have traditionally done so through a variety of public forums and written submissions.2 For example, in 

the mid-1990s, Eritrea’s government engaged the public through debates in each of the 

country’s four regions and in diaspora communities. Over a two-year period, members of 

the country’s constitutional commission teamed with more than four hundred specially 

trained instructors to conduct public seminars. South Africa’s government between 1994 

and 1996 received more than two million comments on its constitution, mostly through 

public forums organized according to geography, theme, and target group (such as 

women, human rights groups, and business and tribal leaders). In 1995, Ugandan constitutional commission members toured the country, soliciting more than twenty-five thousand comments from individuals and groups through local councils, essay competitions, 

seminars, and op-eds.3

Social media and web technology offer new modalities to augment these traditional 

tools. If embraced, these technologies can help constitution makers engage with the public and civil society and help the population at large mobilize, network, and advocate for 

specific constitutional issues. In Iceland in 2011, for example, constitutional committee 

members posted draft provisions for comment online. After a period of public debate, the 

committee posted revised versions of the articles. The engagement reportedly resulted in 

several changes to the proposed constitution.4 Even more important, the effort “nationalized” the debate and the process, increasing the public ownership and legitimacy of the 

proposed amendments.5 A post on the Facebook page of the Iceland Drafting Committee 

sums up the spirit that animated the process: “Never again can the world be told by the 

custodians of the old that the people cannot be relied upon to write the contract between 

citizens and government, and write it well.”6

Constitution drafters in other countries have similarly used the web to solicit public 

opinion. In Ghana in 2010 and 2011, the Constitutional Review Committee received public 

submissions via e-mail, Facebook, and Twitter.7 In Kenya in 2010, the Committee of Experts 

set up a Facebook page and chat rooms to generate public discourse and elicit feedback.8

And in Libya in 2012, the prime minister-elect used Facebook to poll citizens on whether 

they preferred the constitution-making body to be appointed by the parliament or directly 

elected by the people.9

Web-based technologies are not the only new tools available to participants in constitution-making processes. Mobile technologies also offer opportunities to connect citizens 

more directly with drafters—and, unlike the web, mobile phones are already ubiquitous in 

the developing world. Projects using mobile technology therefore can in theory overcome 

the logistical, political, climatic, and geographical difficulties frequently encountered 

when using traditional outreach methods. In Somalia, for example, where a lack of security 

impeded access to citizens, Google Ideas and Voice of America (VOA) used mobile phones 

to organize a national public opinion poll on the proposed constitution. The results of the 

survey were broadcast on VOA radio into Somalia and shared via printed handouts with constitution drafters. Al-Jazeera and a regional NGO led a similar polling effort through the SMS 

and web program Somalia Speaks. Their program, unlike VOA’s, was opt-in, allowing people 

to text their opinion on the draft constitution free of charge. The results were displayed 

on an interactive map published on the Al-Jazeera website. In Ghana, after receiving more 

than sixty thousand public submissions (many through e-mail, Facebook, and Twitter), the 

Constitutional Review Commission identified twenty-five issues that merited additional 

consultation and scrutiny. It then launched a mobile phone project that sent text messages 

with questions about those issues. To answer the questions, mobile phone users texted their 

responses to a designated number at a nominal cost.10

In Iceland in 2011, 

constitutional committee 

members posted draft provisions 

for comment online. ...the effort 

“nationalized” the debate and 

the process, increasing the public 

ownership and legitimacy of the 

proposed amendments.
4 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343

Civil society groups and individual citizens are also using social media to insert themselves into the constitutional debate. In Egypt, commentators and activists published 

leaked copies of the draft constitution on Twitter, literally photographing and sharing 

individual pages as they were released, prompting a lively exchange of views.11 In Libya, 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) such as Lawyers for Justice in Libya (LFJL), the 

Voice of Libyan Women (VLW), and H20LY have used Facebook and their own websites to 

advocate for a fair and inclusive consultative process.12 An Egyptian civil society group 

prepared a “parallel constitution” to the one written by the Egyptian Committee of Fifty, 

the official body charged with drafting the 2013 constitution, using social media and

the Internet to create an open-sourced constitutional text accessible and editable by the 

general public.13

In addition to providing a conduit for expression of popular views, these tools are playing a critical role in grassroots mobilization. Facebook and Twitter have in many places 

replaced meeting rooms and coffee shops as the preferred platforms for NGOs and individuals to identify and mobilize like-minded supporters, build networks, and force multiple 

education and advocacy efforts. As one Tunisian civil society activist put it, “Facebook has 

become the new café for women who cannot easily meet in public spaces” due to societal 

norms against female activism.14 Activists are also using videoconferencing tools such as 

Google Hangouts and WebEx, because they “mak[e] networking more personal, leading to 

stronger alliances.” 15

Education

Education on a constitutional reform process has—or should have—two goals. The 

first is to educate the public on the process and specific constitutional issues. Doing so 

prepares and empowers citizens to participate knowledgeably during the consultation 

phase. The second goal is to increase the transparency, and by extension the legitimacy, 

of the constitution-making process as a whole by giving the public access to the rules 

governing the process and the actors managing it, as well as by providing updates as the 

process unfolds. This transparency encourages leaders and drafters to obey the rules of 

the constitution-making process and enables the public to hold them accountable when 

they do not. At the same time, such transparency helps constitution-making officials 

manage the expectations of the public, protect the legitimacy of the process, and defend 

officials against unjustified accusations of behaving in a biased or self-serving fashion.

Before the advent of the Internet, constitution drafters were mostly limited to educating the public through official statements and press releases, as well as through workshops, 

meetings, and a host of media ranging from radio and television programs to pamphlets, 

books, comic books, posters, and newsletters. In doing so, the drafters were limited by the 

same logistical, political, and geographic factors that made public consultation so difficult.

The web and social media give officials new outlets to educate citizens and increase 

transparency. Interpeace reported in late 2011 that countries as diverse as Bolivia, Ecuador, 

Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, Somalia, and Zambia had all established websites for their 

constitution-drafting committees.16 Since then, Tunisia, Egypt, Fiji, and Yemen, among 

others, have followed suit.17 These platforms introduce constitution-making officials to 

the world, describe the constitution-making process, enumerate opportunities for input, 

and broadcast drafts and deliberations along the way. The Tunisian National Constituent 

Assembly’s website (in Arabic, French, and English) was updated daily during particularly 

busy periods of drafting, with reports from all of the six working committees, and allowed 

the public to comment on drafts.18 In Egypt in 2012, the Constituent Assembly and, sepaInterpeace reported in late 

2011 that countries as diverse 

as Bolivia, Ecuador, Ghana, 

Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, Somalia, 

and Zambia had all established 

websites for their constitutiondrafting committees.
USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343	 5

rately, individual members of parliament communicated via Twitter accounts, allowing them 

to share constitutional drafts, weigh in on constitutional matters, and engage directly with 

constituents.19 Mobile technology is also being used in less web-connected countries; in 

Kenya, for example, the Committee of Experts used SMS texting to reach the people, often 

to correct rumors and misinformation about the constitution-making process.20

In some countries, social media is replacing print, radio, and television as the authoritative source of news on constitutional processes. In Tunisia, for example, Facebook has been 

described as “the main source of information in [the country],” 21 in no small part because 

more than 30 percent of citizens have accounts on the social network.22 Given a legacy of 

government-controlled television, radio, and newspapers, Tunisians may trust what they 

read on Facebook more than what they find on traditional forms of media. These trends 

are almost certainly being replicated in other countries with less reliable traditional media.

Social media and technology are also increasing the transparency of constitution making by recording and archiving key constitutional documents and events in virtual libraries. 

The historical legacy of these events, once confined to dusty storage rooms, is now widely 

available. This access is important not only for symbolic and educational reasons but also for 

later generations, who will be able to draw upon the constitutional record when interpreting 

the constitutional text.

Expert Guidance

International constitutional experts can offer invaluable advice to national counterparts 

on a diverse range of issues and questions. Organizations such as the United Nations have 

traditionally augmented their in-house assistance capacity by engaging academics and 

practitioners on short-term consultancies. Workshops, in-country or abroad, have often 

been used to bring experts and national counterparts together, as have “study tours” to 

foreign countries for constitution drafters. Workshops and study tours have their merits, 

but they also have significant drawbacks, including the cost of organizing conferences 

and covering travel expenses, and the demands placed on the already hectic schedules 

of experts and constitution-making officials. The latter especially can ill afford to spend 

days or even weeks on study tours while the constitution-making process unfolds (or 

unravels) at home.

Web technology offers alternatives to these expensive and time-consuming approaches. In an effort to assist Iraqis with their 2005 constitution-making process, the United 

States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the International Network to Promote the Rule of 

Law created a discussion forum to help constitutional experts from around the world 

address specific issues arising in Iraq’s constitutional debates. For very little cost, USIP 

was able to collect the advice and opinions of numerous international experts and convey those views to the UN Assistance Mission in Iraq as well as to Iraqi counterparts.23

More recently, several projects have demonstrated the potential of the web to connect 

experts to constitution drafters. AGORA, a global knowledge platform on parliamentary 

development, provides reports and other constitution-related resources on its portal, and 

has organized an e-discussion, “The Role of Representative Assemblies in ConstitutionBuilding,” for the Tunisian National Constituent Assembly.24 The LEND Network, organized 

by the Community of Democracies, is attempting something similar by setting up a regular 

video chat service between drafters of the Tunisian constitution and international experts 

and constitution drafters who might not be able to consult in the country personally.25 

The United Nations has also begun to use video teleconferencing to connect constitutional experts with their national counterparts. Although no substitute for long-term, 

Given a legacy of governmentcontrolled television, radio, 

and newspapers, Tunisians 

may trust what they read 

on Facebook more than what 

they find on traditional 

forms of media.
6 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343

sustained assistance, these videoconferences provide an outlet for immediate consultation on time-sensitive issues or when an expert simply cannot be on the ground.

Web technology is also starting to be used to assist in constitution drafting itself. 

Constitute, a new online resource developed by the Comparative Constitutions Project and 

Google Ideas, is a repository of the world’s constitutions, searchable by country, year, and 

topic.26 Such a tool, along with resources produced by organizations such as Interpeace, 

International IDEA, and USIP, can be invaluable to both practitioners and drafters in identifying key constitutional matters and deriving constitutional formulations and text. At the 

same time, the easy accessibility of these resources puts cutting-edge tools directly in the 

hands of national actors, increasing national ownership and control over the constitutionmaking process.

What’s Next?

The increased use of technology in constitution writing seems to have been inevitable. 

In the regions in which new constitutions are most likely to be written, Internet access is 

exploding: Between 2000 and 2012, Internet penetration grew 3,600 percent in the Middle

East and 2,400 percent in Africa.27 Looking forward, four areas—in addition to participation, education, and expert guidance—are especially promising for leaders to take advantage of these trends to improve how constitutions are drafted and discussed: processing 

feedback, engaging voters, negotiating key constitutional provisions, and sharing citizen 

“snapshots” with constitution drafters.

First, new technologies may soon assist with one of the core challenges: processing and 

analyzing public feedback. This problem is hardly unique to constitution drafters. Private 

companies work to process massive amounts of unstructured consumer feedback to improve 

their products. These companies use “sentiment analysis” software such as Clarabridge to 

“scrape” public comments from the web and evaluate their attitudes toward the companies’ 

products. Interestingly, companies need not solicit consumers’ feedback to perform this 

analysis: As long as the information is online in a public format, chances are good that 

sentiment analysis software can find it. Such software therefore offers constitution makers a 

valuable opportunity to watch public sentiment on the constitution-drafting process evolve 

in real time and to respond to it appropriately.

Second, new technologies also offer an opportunity to improve public voting in constitutional referenda. In some parts of the United States, polling places now offer disabled 

citizens an option to “vote by phone.”28 In Estonia, a leading country in e-governance 

programs, citizens can now cast their votes online.29 (The program is aided by the country’s national ID system, an advantage that many less technically developed countries do 

not currently enjoy.) These advances may soon be applied to constitutional referenda, 

enabling disabled or distant citizens to participate in constitutional processes in ways 

they otherwise could not.

Third, to the extent constitutional dialogue is used to promote intercommunal trust 

building and reconciliation (as it has in several contexts and countries, South Africa 

included), videoconferencing technologies may soon broaden the dialogue and facilitate 

conversations between divided or previously hostile communities. Video chat programs 

such as Skype and Google Hangouts can enable intercommunal exchanges in environments 

in which in-person meetings might be politically or logistically difficult to arrange. This is 

already occurring with participants in entrenched political conflicts.30 The same tools may 

be applied in constitutional processes where geographic division is significant.

Video chat programs such as 

Skype and Google Hangouts 

can enable intercommunal 

exchanges in environments in 

which in-person meetings might 

be politically or logistically 

difficult to arrange. 
USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343	 7

Fourth, mobile phones are being used to share information in ways that may have direct 

applications for constitution making. A project sponsored by the UN Population Fund and 

the UN Environment Programme allows people from around the world to use mobile phones 

to send text messages that offer “a snapshot of their daily life and highlight the development issues that matter to them.” 31 A similar campaign in the context of constitutional 

reform could let citizens tell constitution drafters about the challenges they face in daily 

life and their aspirations for change.

Finally, in addition to these wholly new applications, countries may continue to experiment with new technologies and find increasingly innovative modalities for consultation, 

education, and expert guidance as well. Outside the constitution-making context, governments are already experimenting with new tools for consultation, with projects such as the 

U.S. White House’s “We the People” program. There, for any online petition that receives 

more than a threshold number of signatures, a White House expert must offer a public comment.32 On a smaller scale, cities such as Chicago and Calgary are setting up websites for 

people to offer suggestions on their municipal budgets. At times through these programs, 

officials can comment on the public’s proposals.33 These tools help bring government and 

people together to jointly set goals through semistructured online conversations, simultaneously allowing people to hold government officials more accountable. Something like this 

could soon happen for constitution writers, because online polls and discussion forums will 

help them understand citizens’ priorities and preferences.

A Tool, Not a Panacea

New technologies can help constitution makers and assistance providers make constitutional reform more inclusive, participatory, and transparent even as they ensure that 

negotiators and drafters can get the resources and assistance they need. Constitution making, however, is a difficult business, involving formidable challenges and often ending in 

failure. Even success tends to be short-lived: The average life span of a constitution is just 

seventeen years.34 New technologies do not and cannot provide an easy fix to most of the 

social and political challenges confronting constitutional negotiators. New technologies are 

tools, not panaceas.

Practitioners who want to use these tools should bear this in mind, together with four 

other key considerations. First, these technologies will affect different groups in different 

ways and to different degrees. Some may privilege urban over rural populations; some may 

be more advantageous to the rich than the poor; some may benefit the literate but not the 

illiterate. Practitioners who want to use technology to broaden the constitutional dialogue 

should select their tools with great care and be careful not to needlessly discard traditional 

mechanisms; the goal is to reach more people, not simply different ones. Second, the use 

of new technology should respect social and cultural norms. A project that employs robocalling (calls from recorded messages), for example, may be entirely appropriate in some 

countries, where such calls are familiar if not welcome, but wholly alien in others. Third, each 

project that uses new technologies should keep control of the constitution-making process 

in the hands of national actors; they, not international actors, should decide the content, 

tone, and platform of every effort. Finally, each project should fit within the larger context 

of the conflict or postconflict environment in which it is organized. The primary principle 

with any intervention must be to do no harm.

These considerations, however, are again not unique to the use of technology for constitutional reform. Any intervention using any mechanism or tool will suffer if the considerations described are not respected and applied. No one approach will reach everyone. That 

Each project that uses new 

technologies should keep control 

of the constitution-making 

process in the hands of national 

actors; they, not international 

actors, should decide the 

content, tone, and platform of 

every effort.
8 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343

is why the constitution makers most committed to public participation and transparency 

have used multiple different tools and approaches. New technologies are simply another tool 

to reach a wider audience, potentially at lower cost and in less time than other traditional 

methods.

Security is an inherent risk with new technologies. Governments and malicious actors 

can surveil or censor users and break or ban sites. For some constitutional projects, these 

risks are small: In online public engagement projects, for example, where the aim is to foster 

national discussion or users are expected to use their own identities, privacy is of little 

importance. For other projects, however, privacy is essential. When projects purport to let 

citizens submit their feedback anonymously, or when activists need to coordinate under 

cover, censorship or surveillance can be both destructive and dangerous. Governments and 

nonprofits that manage such projects should be clear about what privacy their users need, 

and what privacy they can reliably offer.

Another problem posed by the Internet is that monitoring the accuracy of information 

on the web can be more difficult than in more traditional media, which in turn makes it 

more difficult to hold individuals accountable for spreading misinformation. Social media 

also open the door to new forms of fraud, harassment, and intimidation that may be more 

difficult to monitor and police. In Tunisia, for example, women running for the country’s 

National Constitutional Assembly were targeted and harassed on Facebook. Some women 

found offensive pictures of them posted online. Others had their accounts hacked.35 These 

risks demand serious consideration and planning, as well as a strategy to mitigate them, to 

maximize the benefits of the technologies themselves.

Another challenge is how to interpret and weigh social media data. Does an opinion from 

someone with a thousand “likes” on Facebook count for more than the opinion of a person 

who provides a single written submission? How about the view of someone with thousands 

of Twitter followers? The issue of quantity versus quality arises in traditional forms of public 

participation, but it may become more acute in the context of social media and related 

technologies. Here again, constitution drafters would be wise to remember that these technologies are tools and not answers. Any public input must be weighed against considerations 

of minority rights, international norms, and good governance, among other factors. Constitution making has never been and cannot be a public opinion poll—a reality that could be 

easily forgotten when technology creates the illusion that an intensely political dialogue in 

a deeply divided society is actually an exercise in direct democracy.

A final challenge is that technology for constitutional support is just that: support. It cannot make a dysfunctional process functional or an unfair process fair. Many of the examples 

cited in this report are from Egypt. That country’s constitutional processes—three in as 

many years—were troubled by exclusion and insider power plays, however. Civil society and 

the general public used a myriad of traditional and online tools to increase the transparency 

and discourse, but to a very limited extent in an environment where political leaders were 

resistant to the opportunities and benefits a more open process might have afforded.

All of that said, these new technologies will almost certainly become both more common 

and more important in constitutional processes. The reason is simple and straightforward: 

Constitutional projects on the web and mobile phones are less cumbersome, less costly, and 

less logistically difficult to implement than many of their offline alternatives. For programs 

that rely on platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, the only cost involved may be time, 

making it both quicker and less expensive than organizing and conducting a public meeting. 

For programs that rely on simple websites, the cost may be in design and hosting the site. 

Though perhaps less personally effective than in-person outreach, online outreach methods’ 

low cost, relative ease, and ability to reach different actors (until the day comes when they 

Any public input must be 

weighed against considerations 

of minority rights, international 

norms, and good governance, 

among other factors. 

Constitution making has never 

been and cannot be a 

public opinion poll.
USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343	 9

can reach more actors) should be a significant draw to governments and nonprofits considering how best to engage populations on constitutions.

Opportunities for Engagement

These new technologies present opportunities for governments and INGOs involved 

in constitutional processes. Some of these opportunities are just now developing, 

and some carry risks. But more than a few are “easy wins” that organizations could 

prioritize.

First, governments leading constitutional process might consider the systematic strategic use of new technologies, including official websites, Facebook pages, and Twitter 

accounts. These platforms are low cost to organize and maintain, and they have significant 

(and growing) reach around the world. Governments might also consider creating Facebook 

or Twitter profiles for officials involved in these processes. Doing so humanizes the constitution-making process for citizens and gives them access to more candid opinions than might 

be available through traditional official channels.

NGOs involved in constitutional processes can seize on the web and mobile platforms to 

mobilize supporters, build networks, and educate and solicit input from citizens, thereby 

empowering citizens and nonstate groups. The calculated and strategic use of these 

platforms can also assist civil society to engage directly with constitutional drafters—all 

of which can improve civil society advocacy efforts. The use of new technologies might 

include video conferencing to provide expert guidance to constitution drafters, or setting 

up websites where citizens could share with government officials writing, video and photo 

“snapshots” of their lives, illustrating the need for specific constitutional reforms.

International assistance providers can also make better use of technology in their support to national counterparts. In cases where the international community plays a larger 

assistance role, web technologies can connect a larger and more diverse set of experts to 

national 7counterparts. Also, using sentiment analysis software to classify citizen input 

into more readily analyzable categories could vastly improve the way constitution drafters use and benefit from public participation. Some of these technologies are still proving 

themselves. In addition, they are expensive and require substantial technical expertise, but 

they could provide significant benefit.

Conclusion

Until the 2000s, the tools with which constitutions were shared, negotiated, and written 

had barely changed for a generation or more. With the advent of the Internet and the intensifying of the communications revolution, however, the range of tools available to officials 

and activists began to broaden significantly. As this report has made clear, governments, 

civil society, and international actors are beginning to use new technologies for constitutional reform. Given the large reach and low cost of these technologies, they should be used 

more. Undoubtedly, risks are involved, but if national and international actors are aware of 

the dangers, the dangers are likely to be outweighed by the advantages. The Internet, social 

media, mobile phones, and related technologies will not transform the nature of constitution writing, which is a quintessentially political activity. They are only tools, but they are 

potentially very powerful tools.
10 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343

Appendix: Related Projects

More information about the projects discussed in this report is available online. 

•	 Budget Ideas. City of Chicago. www.cityofchicago.org

•	 Clarabridge Intelligence Platform. Clarabridge. www.clarabridge.com

•	 Constitute. Google Ideas. www.google.com/ideas

•	 The Constitutional Council. Constitutional Assembly at Stjórnlagará. www.stjornlagarad.is/english

•	 Dostour. Egyptian Commission to Amend the Constitution. www.dostour.eg

•	 Hanging out for Peace. Peres Center for Peace. www.peres-center.org 

•	 International Network to Promote the Rule of Law. United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq. 

www.inprol.org

•	 Internet Voting in Estonia. Government of Estonia. www.vvk.ee/voting-methods-in-estonia/

engindex

•	 LEND Network. Community of Democracies. www.community-democracies.org 

•	 National Dialogue Conference. Government of Yemen. www.ndc.ye

•	 Our Future. City of Calgary. www.calgary.ca/ourfuture

•	 Portal for Parliamentary Development. AGORA. www.agora-parl.org

•	 Reboot Somalia. Voice of America, Google Ideas. www.voanews.com, www.google.com/ideas

•	 Somalia Speaks. Souktel. www.souktel.org

•	 Vermont’s Vote by Phone Voting System. Vermont Secretary of State. www.vermont-elections.org

•	 We the People. The White House. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov
USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 343	 11

Notes

1. “Guidance Note of the Secretary-General: United Nations Assistance to Constitution-Making Processes,” 2009, www.

unrol.org/doc.aspx?n=Guidance_Note_United_Nations_Assistance_to_Constitution-making_Processes_FINAL.pdf. 

“A genuinely inclusive and participatory constitution-making process can be a transformational exercise. It can 

provide a means for the population to experience the basics of democratic governance and learn about relevant 

international principles and standards, thus raising expectations for future popular engagement and transparency 

in governance. Inclusive and participatory processes are more likely to engender consensus around a constitutional 

framework agreeable to all” (4). 

2. For numerous examples of public engagement through these media, see, generally, Michele Brandt et al., 

Constitution-Making and Reform: Options for the Process (Geneva: Interpeace, 2011), 80–149.

3.	 Laurel Miller, ed., with Louis Aucoin, Framing the State in Times of Transition: Case Studies in Constitution Making 

(Washington, DC: USIP Press, 2010). 

4. Finnur Magnusson, interview by Iveta Kazoka, “Crowdsourcing Icelandic Constitution: A Myth or Reality?,” 

Re:Imagining Democracy, March 11, 2013, www.democracyoneday.com/2013/03/11/crowdsourcing-icelandicconstitution-a-myth-or-reality.

5. “The World’s First Facebook Constitution,” United Nations Regional Information Centre, www.unric.org/en/right-toparticipation/28101-the-worldas-first-facebook-constitution. 

6. Richard Bater, “Hope from Below: Composing the Commons of Iceland,” Open Democracy, December 11, 2011, 

www.opendemocracy.net/richard-bater/hope-from-below-composing-commons-in-iceland.

7. “Constitution Review Commission Receives over 60,000 Submissions,” Ghanaweb, November 12, 2010, www.

ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/artikel.php?ID=197312.

8.	 C. Murray, interview by author, December 10, 2013.

9. Of almost nine thousand people who responded, 80 percent favored a direct election. The Libyan parliament 

in 2013 amended the interim constitution to allow for a direct election. George Grant, “Four-Fifths of Libyans

Support Electing Constitution-Drafting Committee: Poll,” Libya Herald, November 24, 2012, www.libyaherald.

com/2012/11/24/four-fifths-of-libyans-support-electing-constitution-drafting-committee-poll/#axzz2yD2T500N

10. “CRC Enlists Opinions via Text on Constitution Ammendments [sic],” Modern Ghana, December 24, 2010, www.

modernghana.com/news/309880/1/crc-enlists-opinions-via-text-on-constitution-amme.html.

11.	 Zaid al-Ali, interview by author, October 24, 2013.

12. Among the many other NGOs in Libya assisting the constitution-drafting process are the International Libyan 

Women’s NGO, the Tripoli Women’s Union, the Together We Build It Movement, The Committee to Support 

Women, and the Forum for Democracy Libya. See Sami Zaptia, “Magarief Strongly Supports Women’s Inclusion 

in the Constitution Drafting Committee,” Libya Herald, December 27, 2012, www.libyaherald.com/2012/12/27/

magarief-strongly-supports-womens-inclusion-in-the-constitution-drafting-committee/#axzz2iJV8iyqZ; Michael 

Cousins, “Don’t Repeat the Egyptian Constitution ‘Disaster’ Says Libyan NGO,” Libya Herald, January 24, 2013, www.

libyaherald.com/2013/01/24/dont-repeat-the-egyptian-constitution-disaster-says-libyan-ngo/#axzz2iJV8iyqZ.

13.	 See, for example, “Launch: Final Egypt Parallel Constitution Draft,” Egypt Parallel Constitution, October 5, 2013,

www.facebook.com/events/528922027185995.

14	 Besma Soudani Belhadj, interview by author, October 29, 2013.

15. Sawsan Gad (cofounder and coordinator of the Egypt Parallel Constitution Project), interview by author, August 22, 

2013.

16. Brandt et al., Constitution-Making and Reform, 99. 

17. The Tunisian website has been shut down, though a description and screen shot are available at the Espace blog: 

www.espace.com.eg/blog/179-tunisia-s-mejlis-exporting-governmental-internet-sources. For Dostour and the 

National Dialogue Conference, see the appendix.

18. Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Center of the Study of Islam & Democracy, interview by author, November 22, 

2013.

19.	 See, for example, Amr Darrag, “Amr Darrag,” November 3, 2013, https://twitter.com/amr_darrag; Amr Hamzawy,

“Amr Hamzawy,” November 4, 2013, https://twitter.com/HamzawyAmr. Darrag was secretary general of the

constitutional assembly. Hamzawy was a member of parliament. 

20.	 Christina Murray, interview by author, December 10, 2013.

21. Radwan Masmoudi (president of the Center of the Study of Islam and Democracy), interview by author, November 

22, 2013.

22. “Internet Usage Statistics for Africa,” Internet World Stats, www.internetworldstats.com/stats1.htm.

23	 See International Network to Promote the Rule of Law website, www.agora-parl.org.

24. See “Portal for Parliamentary Development,” Agora, www.agora-parl.org. 

25.	 Kristine Luoma-Overstreet, interview by author, December 3, 2013.

26. See the Constitute Project website, www.constituteproject.org.

27. Sheldon Himelfarb, “The Real eHarmony,” Foreign Policy, January 2, 2014, www.foreignpolicy.com/

articles/2014/01/02/real_eharmony_virtual_exchanges_peace

28. “Vermont’s Vote-By-Phone Voting System,” Vermont Secretary of State, www.vermont-elections.org/elections1/

VoteByPhone.html.

29. “Internet Voting in Estonia,” Estonian National Electoral Committee, www.vvk.ee/public/dok/Internet_Voting_in_

Estonia.pdf. 

30.	 Doron Avni, “Hanging Out for Jewish-Arab Dialogue in Israel,” Google Official Blog, September 21, 2012, www.

googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/hanging-out-for-jewish-arab-dialogue-in.html.

31.	 For this and other applications of mobile technology, see UN Development Programme, “Mobile Technologies and

Empowerment: Enhancing Human Development through Participation and Innovation,” 2012, www.undpegov.org/

sites/undpegov.org/files/undp_mobile_technology_primer.pdf. 
32.	 Tanja Aitamurto, “Crowdsourcing for Democracy: A New Era in Policy-Making.” Parliament of Finland, January 2012, 27.

33.	 Ibid., 23–24.

34.	 Thomas Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins, and James Melton, “The Lifespan of Written Constitutions,” The Record Online

(Spring 2009), www.law.uchicago.edu/alumni/magazine/lifespan. 

35.	 Besma Soudani Belhadj, interview by authors, October 29, 2013.

Of Related Interest

•	 Social Media Reporting and the Syrian Civil War by Anand Varghese (Peace Brief, June 2013)

•	 Blogs and Bullets III: Syria’s Socially Mediated Civil War by Marc Lynch, Deen Freelon, and Sean 

Aday (Peaceworks, January 2014) 

•	 Blogs and Bullets II: New Media and Conflict after the Arab Spring by Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, 

Marc Lynch, John Sides, and Deen Freelon (Peaceworks, July 2012)

•	 Evaluating Media Interventions in Conflict Countries by Amelia Arsenault, Sheldon Himelfarb, and 

Susan Abbott (Peaceworks, October 2011)

•	 Media in Fragile Environments by Andrew Robertson, Eran Fraenkel, Emrys Schoemaker, and 

Sheldon Himelfarb (USIP Press, 2011)

•	 Can You Help Me Now? by Sheldon Himelfarb with contributions from Cecilia Paradi-Guilford 

(Special Report, November 2010)

•	 Advancing New Media Research by Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, and John Sides (Special 

Report, September 2010)

•	 Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics by Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, 

John Sides, John Kelly, and Ethan Zuckerman (Peaceworks, September 2010)

United States 

Institute of Peace

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037

www.usip.org

ISBN: 978-1-60127-219-5

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.