I didn't set out to build civic technology. But once I started, I couldn't stop.
It began with frustration. I wanted to understand a proposed law in Peru, something that would directly affect housing policy. So I went to the official government portal to read the bill.
The experience was disorienting. PDFs buried in nested menus. Confusing legal language. No context, no explanation, no way to track changes over time. Just raw text and the assumption that you already knew how to navigate it.
And I thought: if this is hard for me, someone with internet access, education, and technical literacy, what is it like for everyone else?
That question led to LEGALIZE-PE.
What civic technology actually means
Civic tech is often framed as "government technology" or "tools for voting." But I think it's broader than that.
Civic technology is about creating the conditions for democratic participation.
It's about making information accessible, not just available. It's about giving people the tools to understand, engage with, and influence the systems that shape their lives.
It's not enough for a law to be "publicly available" if no one can actually find or understand it. Accessibility is not a checkbox. It's a design challenge.
And that's where I saw an opportunity. Not to replace government systems, but to make them usable.
Designing for trust, not just usability
Building LEGALIZE-PE taught me that civic tech has unique constraints. You're not designing for delight. You're designing for trust.
People come to civic platforms with skepticism. They've been let down by institutions. They've seen systems that don't work for them. They expect technology to be extractive, surveillance-driven, or partisan.
So every design decision had to signal integrity:
- Transparent sourcing: Every bill linked back to the official government PDF
- No tracking or advertising: No cookies, no third-party scripts, no monetization
- Plain language explanations: Summaries written in clear Spanish, avoiding legal jargon
- Open data access: API available for journalists, researchers, and activists
These weren't features. They were prerequisites for legitimacy.
The challenge of neutrality
One of the hardest parts of building civic tech is navigating neutrality.
People often assume that making information accessible is itself a political act. And in some ways, it is. Transparency benefits accountability. Access benefits participation. But that doesn't mean the platform takes sides.
We made deliberate choices to stay neutral:
- No opinion pieces or commentary on bills
- No ranking of legislators or partisan framing
- No calls to action beyond "read, understand, engage"
The tool's value was in making the process visible, not in steering it.
But neutrality is fragile. The moment someone perceives bias, trust collapses. And trust is the only currency civic tech has.
What success looks like
Civic tech is different from consumer tech. You're not optimizing for engagement or retention. You're optimizing for impact.
For LEGALIZE-PE, success looked like:
- Teachers using it in classrooms to explain how laws are made
- Journalists citing it in articles about legislative transparency
- Activists referencing it in advocacy campaigns
- Students discovering it while researching civic participation
None of those are measurable in traditional product metrics. There's no MAU (Monthly Active Users) goal that captures whether someone feels more informed about their government.
But those outcomes are what matter. Because the goal isn't growth. It's enabling participation.
Why this work is hard
Civic tech is not glamorous. It's not venture-backed. It's not optimized for virality.
It's hard to maintain. Hard to fund. Hard to scale. And the people who benefit most are often the least visible.
But it's also some of the most meaningful work I've done.
Because every time I hear about someone understanding a law for the first time, or a community using public data to advocate for change, I'm reminded why this matters.
Democracy doesn't function without informed participation. And informed participation doesn't happen without accessible information.
Technology can be extractive. It can be manipulative. But it can also be a tool for empowerment.
What I learned
Building LEGALIZE-PE taught me a few things:
1. Civic tech is about lowering barriers, not adding features. The best intervention is often the simplest one. A search bar. A plain-language summary. A link to the original source. Don't overcomplicate it.
2. Trust is designed, not declared. You can't just say your platform is trustworthy. You have to show it through transparency, consistency, and restraint.
3. Impact is not always measurable. You won't always see the moment someone becomes more informed or more engaged. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
4. Civic tech is a long game. It's not about going viral or hitting growth targets. It's about building something durable, reliable, and useful over time.
Why I'll keep building this
I don't know if LEGALIZE-PE will still be around in five years. I don't know if it will scale or get funding or become widely adopted.
But I know it matters. And I know there's more work to do.
Because as long as there are systems that are opaque, inaccessible, or exclusionary, there's a role for people who care about making them better.
Civic technology is not a silver bullet. But it's a lever. And when you pull the right lever, you can move something that felt unmovable.
That's why I'll keep building this. Not because it's easy. But because it's necessary.