Les petitions electroniques en France le cas de Change.org, la plate-forme numerique non-gouvernementale de petitions

Cet article présente les résultats de la recherche empirique consacrée aux pétitions électroniques publiées dans le segment francophone de Change.org lié territorialement à la France. L’actualité du sujet est déterminée par l’intervention des technologies modernes de l’information et de la communication dans la réalité moderne aussi que par la nécessité d’une réflexion sur les conséquences des changements numériques des processus politiques. Les auteurs analysent les spécificités regionals de l’activité des Français en se basant sur 15 887 pétitions électroniques (janvier 2015 – octobre 2017) dont 570 pétitions étaient marquées par «victoire» (4 %). Les auteurs mettent l’accent sur le fait que les territoires européens de la France constituent trois groupes de l’activité de pétitions en ligne (l’activité faible, moyenne et élevée). Ce sont les problèmes sociaux qui forcent les Français à déposer le plus souvent les pétitions électroniques (la sécurité sociale, la santé publique et l’éducation). En plus, on inscrit aussi sur Change.org d’une manière active les petitions électroniques sur les problèmes liés à la criminalité et au terrorisme aussi qu’à la discrimination, à l’écologie, à l’économie et à la protection des animaux. Les pétitions électroniques sur les problèmes de la culture, du sport et des confessions sont rarement enregistrées. Les pétitions concernant la sécurité sociale, la santé publique et l’éducation rencontrent un écho très vif auprès les destinataires. La société française à travers le prisme de l’activité sur la ressource non-gouvernementale Change. org représente une communauté aux valeurs post-industrielles préoccupée par les questions de sécurité qui est en train d’un dialogue actif et relativement productif avec son élite politique aussi que commerciale.

1. Andreev A. V. & Meshcheryagina V. A. (2015), “Collective appeal as a constitutional element of the mechanism of interaction between civil society and the state”, Yuridicheskiy vestnik DGU, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 22–26.

2. Aragón P., Sáez-Trumper D., Redi M., Hale S.A., Gómez V. & Kaltenbrunner A. (2019), “Online petitioning through data exploration and what we found there: a dataset of petitions from Avaaz.org”, International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2018), available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.08282.pdf (accessed 20.06.2022).

3. Asher M., Leston C. & Spaiser B. V. (2017), “Assessing the effectiveness of e-petitioning through Twitter conversations”, PSA annual conference, Glasgow, April 2017, available at: https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2017/Twitter_discussions_on_e-petitions_MA_CLB_VS_PSA_April2007.pdf (accessed 20.06.2022).

4. Bannikov K. V., Belyashova D. S., Kozlova A. V., Krasnova K. V., Krupnaya D. A., Lyachina K. G., Porshnev A. V., Radina N. K., Shavarova D. V. & Yagubova K. D. (2019), In: Radina N. K. Digital political participation: the effectiveness of electronic petitions on the Change.org and ROI Internet platforms: Russian and cross-cultural perspectives: coll. monograph, Nestor-Istoriya, Saint Petersburg, Russia (in Russian).

5. Barats C., Dister A., Gambette P., Leblanc J.-M. & Peres-Leblanc M. (2019), “Ce que les données textuelles disent du pétitionnement en ligne: entre contraintes et appropriations du dispositif”, Questions de communication, no. 36, https://doi.org/10.4000/questionsdecommunication.21042

6. Barats C., Dister A., Gambette Ph., Leblanc J.-M. & Peres M. (2016), “Analyser des pétitions en ligne: potentialités et limites d’un dispositif d’études pluridisciplinaires”, Journées d’analyse des données textuelles (Université de Nice, du 07/06/2016 au 10/06/2016), available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2078.3/237925 (accessed 20.06.2022).

7. Berg J. (2015), “The dark side of e-petitions? Exploring anonymous signatures”, First Monday, vol. 22, no. 2, https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i2.6001

8. Boure R. & Bousquet F. (2010), “Enjeux, jeux et usages d’une pétition politique en ligne: “La pétition Vauzelle”” = ”Implications and uses of a political petition online “The Vauzelle Petition””, Réseaux, vol. 164, no. 6, pp. 127–159, https://doi.org/10.3917/res.164.0127

9. Boure R., Bousquet F. & Marchand P. (2012), “Mediators and signers of online petitions. The example of three petitions on national identity”, Les Enjeux de l’information et de la communication, vol. 13/1, no. 1, pp. 99–119.

10. Boyadjian J., Olivesi A. & Velcin J. (2017), “Le web politique au prisme de la science des données: Des croisements disciplinaires aux renouvellements épistémologiques” = ”Studying the political web through data science from overlaps between disciplines to epistemological renewals”, Réseaux, vol. 204, no. 4, pp. 9–31, https://doi.org/10.3917/res.204.0009

11. Chugunov A. V. (2014), “E-democracy and e-participation in Russia: preliminary results of Russian e-petition portal monitoring”, Proceedings of the Third International Scientific and Practical Conference “Social computing: fundamentals, development technologies, social-humanitarian effects (ISC- 14)”, Moscow, 18–19 September 2014, M. A. Sholokhov Moscow State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia, pp. 295–298 (in Russian).

12. Davydova M. L. & Goncharova A. A. (2015), “Problems and prospects of the Russian Public Initiative project”, Vestnik Volgogradskogo gos. universiteta. Seriya 5. Yurisprudentsiya, no. 2 (27), pp. 58–67.

13. Diaz C., Kosta E., Dekeyser H., Kohlweiss M. & Nigusse G. (2008), “Privacy preserving electronic petitions”, Identity in the Information Society, no. 1 (1), https://doi.org/10.1007/s12394-009-0012-8

14. Elnoshokaty A. S., Deng S. & Kwak D. H. (2016), “Success factors of online petitions: Evidence from change.org”, 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1979–1985, https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2016.249

15. Golbraikh V. B. (2016), “Environmental public initiative in the internet as a new public participation practice”, Tomsk State University journal of philosophy, sociology and political science, no. 4 (36), pp. 340–450, https://doi.org/10.17223/1998863X/36/34

16. Hagen L. et al. (2016), “E-petition popularity: Do linguistic and semantic factors matter?”, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 783–795, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.006

17. Halpin D., Vromen A., Vaughan M. & Raissi M. (2018), “Online petitioning and politics: the development of Change.org in Australia”, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 428–445, https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2018.1499010

18. Jho W. & Song K. J. (2015), “Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet?”, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 488–495, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003

19. Kneuer M. (2016), “E-democracy: A new challenge for measuring democracy”, International Political Science Review, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 666–678, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512116657677

20. Leston-Bandeira C. (2019), “Parliamentary petitions and public engagement: an empirical analysis of the role of e-petitions”, Policy & Politics, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 415–436, https://doi.org/10.1332/030557319X15579230420117

21. Lips S., Ahmed R. K., Zulfigarzada K., Krimmer R. & Draheim D. (2021), “Digital sovereignty and participation in an autocratic state: designing an e-petition system for developing countries”, In: DG.O2021. The 22nd Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (DG.O’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, pp. 123–131, https://doi.org/10.1145/3463677.3463706

22. Luchenko D. (2019), “The electronic petition as a way to influence the power available to every citizen: The role and prospects in Ukraine”, Int. Conf. Society. Health. Welfare. 2018. SHS Web of Conferences, no. 68, article 01019, https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196801019

23. Lyskova E. I. (2009), “The right of citizens to apply to public authorities: theory and practice”, State and law, no. 9, pp. 105–111.

24. Mccullagh K. (2003), “E-democracy: potential for Political Revolution?”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 149–151, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/11.2.149

25. Mironov M. A. (2014), “Russia Needs a Law on Petitions”, Konstitutsionnoye i munitsipal’noye parvo, no. 6, pp. 15–19.

26. Palmieri S. A. (2008), “Petition Effectiveness: Improving Citizens’ Direct Access to Parliament”, Australasian Parliamentary Review, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 121–135.

27. Radina N. K. & Krupnaya D. A. (2019), “Digital policy participation: efficiency of e-petitions of non-state digital platforms (based on the material of Change.org)”, Polis. Political Studies, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 113–127, https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2019.06.09

28. Radina N. K. (2020), “On the biopolitics of power and society: petitions for animal protection in Russia, Germany and France (based on Change.org petitions)”, Moscow State University bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and political science, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 70–93, https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2020-26-2-70-93

29. Radina N. K. & Belyashova D. S. (2021), “Digital political participation of Western and Eastern parts of Germany residents (based on Change.org online petitions)”, Changing Societies & Personalities, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 63–82, https://doi.org/10.15826/csp.2021.5.1.122

30. Ranchordás S. (2017), “Digital agoras: democratic legitimacy, online participation and the case of Uber-petitions”, Theory and Practice of Legislation, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 31–54, https://doi.org/10.1080/20508840.2017.1279431

31. Rastorguev S. V. & Tyan Yu. S. (2021), “Protest eco-activism in the digital environment (on the example of the “Krasnoyarsk case”)”, Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes, no. 6 (166), pp. 53–75, https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2021.6.2017

32. Riehm R., Böhle K. & Lindner R. (2014), Electronic petitioning and modernization of petitioning systems in Europe, TAB, Berlin.

33. Subramanian S., Baldwin T. & Cohn T. (2018), “Content-based popularity prediction of online petitions using a deep regression model”, In: Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pp. 182–188, Melbourne, Australia, Association for Computational Linguistics, https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P18-2030

34. Suh J. H., Park Ch. H. & Jeon S. H. (2010), “Applying text and data mining techniques to forecasting the trend of petitions filed to e-People”, Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 7255–7268, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.04.002

35. Vidgen B. & Yasseri T. (2019), “What, when and where of petitions submitted to the UK government during a time of chaos”, Policy Sciences, vol. 53, pp. 535–557, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-020-09395-y