Innovating Government on a Global Stage - OGP Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) Supplement

7/28/2019 Innovating Government on a Global Stage - OGP Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) Supplement

1/16

Open Government Partnership

S P O N S O R E D S U P P L E M E N T T O S S I R

INNOVATING

GOVERNMENT ON AGLOBAL STAGE


2/16


Open Government Partnership2

Contents13 Transorming Multilateralism: Innovation on a Global Stage

By Jeremy M. WeinsteinThe Open Government Partnership seeks to build more transparent, eective, and accountable

governments that empower citizens and respond to their democratic aspirations.

18 Shattering Decades o US Diplomatic ProtocolBy Maria Otero & Caroline Mauldin

The US Under Secretary o State or Democracy and Global Aairs explains why OGP breaksthe mold o international engagementor the State Department, oreign ministries, and civil

society organizations.

19 Innovating Modern Democracy, in Brazil and GloballyBy Jorge HageBrazil was among the rst countries to join OGP. The partnership represents a global challenge

or government and civil society stakeholders to advance the concept o 21st-century democracy.

10 Advocacy rom the Inside: The Role o Civil SocietyBy Warren KrachikWhat does it mean or civil society to have a seatand an equal voiceat OGPs table?

1 1 The UKs Transparency AgendaBy Jane DudmanFrancis Maude, the UK minister responsible or public transparency, and Simon Burall, a British

civil society leader, discuss the potential impacts o OGP in the UK.

12 Tanzanias Transparency AgendaBy Elsie EyakuzeMatthias Chikawe, Justice Minister o Tanzania, and Rakesh Rajani, a Tanzanian civil society

leader, discuss the potential impacts o OGP in Tanzania.

13 Philanthropy Can Catalyze an Open Government MovementBy Martin TisnOGP is energizing the global open government discussion, while developing new norms and

standardssomething donors should support.

14 India in Open Government and Open Government in IndiaBy Nikhil Dey & Aruna RoyIndias absence rom OGP underscores the larger challenges o harnessing international net-

works to support domestic activism.

15 Building a Global Norm on Open GovernmentBy Aryeh NeierThe establishment o OGP suggests the emergence o a new norm or governance, based on

transparency and collaboration.

This sponsored supplement, Innovating

Government on a Global Stage, was produced

by theStanford Social Innovation Revieworthe Open Government Partnership. OGP is

a new eort to oster greater transparency

and accountability, improve governance, and

increase civic engagement worldwide.


3/16



I

nside the Dwight D. Eisenhower Execu-

tive Oce Building, across the driveway

rom the West Wing, hundreds o White

House staers work endless hours, gluedto their desks inside small cramped o-

ces, covering everything on the presidents

agenda, rom housing and education to non-

prolieration and terrorism. Amid the daily

routine o meetings, memos, and more meet-

ings, it can be easy to overlook the signicance

o the work and to ignore the historical gran-

deur o the physical surroundings. But there

are days that stand out rom the blur o time

on the White House stawhen the power o

whats possible at the highest levels o govern-

ment is visible in the kernel o a new idea.

I remember one o those days very clearly:

January 21, 2011. We were gathered in the Sec-

retary o War Room, seated around an ornate

mahogany table. We had cleared our sched-

ules or what seemed like an unprecedented

day and a hal o time, just to think. And we

were joined by an amazing cast o characters

rom across the developed and developing

worldgovernment ministers shorn o their

staers and talking points, leaders o interna-

tional movements with networks spanning

the continents, and grassroots activists car-

rying their experiences o pressing or social

change into the halls o power.

The rst ew hours o our time were ded-

icated to storytelling. The ocus was on gov-ernance, an opaque, sometimes uzzy topic

that could be boiled down to something

quite simple: how to build more transpar-

ent, eective, and accountable governments

that empower citizens and are responsive to

their aspirations.

Jorge Hage, the Comptroller General

o Brazil, shared the story o Brazils ght

against corruption. He told o the trans-

ormation o a government bureaucracy

known or patronage, bribe taking, and ine-

ciency into one that today is widely viewed

as a model o innovation and reorm. New

laws and bureaucratic institutions have

been central to the change, but

so have a set o unique Brazilian

innovations: random, public au-

dits o municipal expenditures;

participatory budgeting that en-

gages citizens in priority setting;

and the creative use o technol-

ogy to promote extraordinary

levels o openness.

Kuntoro Mangkusubruto,

head o the Presidents Delivery Unit in In-

donesia, provided a powerul example o

harnessing transparency and technology to

ensure that unds provided to Indonesia in

the atermath o the 2004 tsunami reached

those who most desperately needed support.

Every dollar received in aid could be tracked

to the individual recipient, the house that was

built, or the school or health clinic that was re-

storedand the act that people could access

this inormation on an online dashboard gen-

erated an unparalleled level o citizen over-sight and monitoring o the reconstruction.

Nikhil Dey, a leader o the right-to-

inormation movement in India, described

how even the simplest technologies could be

used to reduce corruption and ensure that so-

cial programs benet intended recipients. He

showed pictures o locally produced murals

that record the beneciaries o government

programs in each rural community, mak-

ing ully visible, or example, people who had

moved to urban areas but were still receiving

a guaranteed payment or rural employment.

Over several hours, we heard inspiring

stories rom around the globe: initiatives to

Transforming Multilateralism:

Innovation on aGlobal StageBY JEREMY M. WEINSTEIN

JEREMY M. WEINSTEIN is associate

proessor o political science, senior

ellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute or

International Studies, and Ford-Dorsey

Director o the Center or Arican Studies

at Stanord University. Between 2009 and

2011, he served as director or develop-

ment and democracy on the National

Security Council sta at the White House,

where he was a principal architect o th e

Open Government Partnership.

The Open Government Partnership seeks to build

more transparent, eective, and accountable

governments that empower citizens and respond

to their democratic aspirations.


4/16


rebuild a social compact and give citizens

a stake in government in the Philippines;

steps to end a culture o secrecy in Mexico;

policies to prevent corruption in the natu-

ral resources sector in Norway; eorts to in-

stitutionalize public participation in post-

apartheid South Arica; and reorms to open

up government in the United States and

United Kingdom. All contribute to reach-ing the goal o harnessing the ingenuity and

expertise that exists outside o the govern-

ment to solve shared problems.

In many ways, this was an atypical White

House meeting: high-level government o-

cials were swapping stories with civil society

activists at the same table; ocials rom de-

veloped countries were uriously taking notes

on the innovations deployed in emerging

economies and vice versa; and ocials and

activists whose ocus is primarily domestic

were talking about their reorms on an inter-

national stage, not through diplomatic chan-

nels but gathered as a community o practi-

tioners doing the real work on the ground.

We ound ourselves together in Wash-

ington, D.C., because President Barack

Obama had issued a simple challenge when

he addressed heads o state at the General

Assembly o the United Nations in 2010. The

president said, And when we gather back

here next year, we should bring specic com-

mitments to promote transparency, energize

civic engagement, ght corruption, and lever-

age new technologies so that we strengthenthe oundation o reedom in our own coun-

tries, while living up to ideals that can light the

world. Ater sharing stories, our task was to

gure out how, collectively, we could respond

to the presidents call to action.

Fast orward 18 months: the Open Gov-

ernment Partnership (OGP) is a robust and

growing global eort to make governments

better. Launched by eight governments and

nine civil society organizations in Septem-

ber 2011, OGP intends to secure concrete

commitments rom governments to pro-

mote transparency, empower citizens, ght

corruption, and harness new technologies

to strengthen governance. The ounding

governments announced national action

plans at the launch, and 38 new participat-

ing countries presented their commitments

in Brasilia in 2012. Political leaders repre-

senting 2 billion people have made more

than 300 commitments to reorm and have

pledged to be held accountable or their

progress by an independent body.

This supplement tells the story o OGP

how it came about, the impact it is having, and

the challenges it acesand speaks to the pos-

sibility o social innovation in the multilateral

space, as policy entrepreneurs actively seek

to redene and transorm how governments

and citizens relate to one another across bor-

ders. Multilateralism is not an arena that has

been known or experimentation, given the

cautious nature o governments. But this neworm o partnership demonstrates the kind

o transormative multilateral engagement

that is possible, at the same time exposing the

challenges o making multi-stakeholder ini-

tiatives work in practice.

Changing Models oMultilateral Engagement

For many people, international institutions,

such as the World Bank, IMF, United Nations,

and European Union, are the paradigmatic

examples o international cooperation. De-

signed to acilitate cooperation among states

on issues that transcend national boundaries,

these institutions establish rules and actions

that are considered binding on participatinggovernments. The legitimacy and authority

o these international institutions oten stem,

at least in part, rom their broad or near-uni-

versal membership. Yet to secure agreement

among a diverse set o countries, signicant

compromise is typically required. As a result,

the laws or rules promoted by these organi-

zations oten reect the preerences o the

least cooperative countrya lowest com-

mon denominator outcomepotentially

blunting their impact. In addition, as a model

o multilateral engagement, international

institutions are oten seen as opaque, highly

bureaucratic, and resistant to change. This is

not surprising, given how challenging it is to

establish these institutions in the rst place.

Contrast this approach with a totally di-

erent paradigm, what William Savedo o

the Center or Global Development has called

the mixed coalition and what Philanthro-

capitalism authors Matthew Bishop and Mi-

chael Green have termed the posse. This

approach involves gathering together a wide

variety o interested partiesgovernments,

civil society groups, the private sector, philan-

thropy, international organizationsaround

specic initiatives that may or may not lead to

the establishment o ormal organizations.

A ocused, achievable goal is at the cen-

ter o mixed coalitions, and the ambition

is to identiy governments, organizations,

and groups that are willing to take actions

that, collectively, will demonstrate successand make the case or broader international

engagement. This orm o international co-

operation prioritizes exibility and agility,

dispensing with universal, binding commit-

ments in avor o voluntary pledges that en-

able participants to lead by example. Recent

examples o initiatives that t this model in-

clude the Global Fund Against AIDS, Tuber-

culosis, and Malaria and the International

Campaign to End Landmines.

Traditional approaches to international

cooperation have delivered important suc-

cesses, especially in the period since the end

o World War II. The standards and rules con-

tained in the General Agreement on Trade

and Taris (GATT) and its successor organi-zation, the World Trade Organization (WTO),

have contributed to signiicant growth in

international trade. A set o interlocking in-

ternational treaties and monitoring bodies,

including the International Atomic Energy

Agency (IAEA), have enabled progress on

nonprolieration in nuclear, chemical, and

biological weapons. Important treaties and

international organizations have emerged to

manage climate change, promote global de-

velopment, ensure global nancial stability,

and advance basic human rights norms.

But the international environment is

changing in consequential ways, and with

it, the orm that international coopera-

tion is taking. Most international institu-

tions were constructed in a period in which

Western countri es had nearly unrivaled

power. They used their inluence to se-

cure near-universal participation and to

incentivize compliance. But with the Unit-

ed States now, in the words o New York

University politics proessor Bruce Jones,

the worlds largest minority shareholder,

We elt a need to reclaim the language o democracy

promotionto put the ocus on peoples aspiration

to have a say in how they are governed, and on the

challenge o political leaders response to that desire.



5/16


international institutions

are struggling to manage

a ar greater diversity o

preerences among their

members. Emerging pow-

ers, including Brazil, In-

dia, and China, are making

their views known and

seeking inluence consis-tent with their growing

economic clout. The chal-

lenge o seeking unanimity

or consensus on interna-

tional issues is becoming

all too apparent, as evi-

denced by the diculty o

advancing climate change

negotiations. And the di-

culties o securing com-

pliance with international

treaties and agreements

are hard to ignore in the ace o growing

trade disputes and other actions by national

governments that out international rules

and laws on prolieration and human rights.

O course, the old paradigm o interna-

tional cooperation is not deadit is being

modernized. The emergence o the G-20

is recognition that global cooperation on

economic issues cannot happen without

the major emerging economies at the table.

Commitments to shit the voting shares o

countries at the World Bank and IMF and

pressure to reorm the UN Security Councilprovide urther evidence that a redistribution

o inuence and power is under way.

At the same time, new orms o coop-

erationmixed coalitions or possesare

increasingly important. Tackling issues that

are not being adequately addressed by exist-

ing institutions, mixed coalitions are playing

by a new set o rules. Their membership is

not universal, but instead ocuses on gov-

ernments that need to be at the table to get

something started. They are oten able to set

higher standards because they are not uni-

versal. They rely on voluntary and collabora-

tive means o generating action, prioritizing

meaningul actions over binding commit-

ments that are routinely ignored. And they

incorporate the expertise and active partici-

pation o nongovernmental players.

As we gathered in Washington in Janu-

ary 2011, we knew o examples where these

mixed coalitions were orming to promote

cooperation in a wide variety o issue areas,

rom climate change to nonprolieration

and rom global development to counter-

terrorism. The question beore us was sim-

ple: Could we ashion a resh, dynamic, and

impact-oriented approach to strengthening

governance that would capture the atten-

tion and commitment o governments, civil

society, the private sector, and philanthropy

around the world?

Transorming the Promotiono Democracy and Governance

Around the table, our conversation shited

quickly rom stories o domestic progress to

the possibilities o working together to ad-vance a common agenda. Because we began

with concrete experiences o reorm rom

around the world, a number o conclusions

were already clear.

First, in the realm o governance, old di-

visions between East and West or North and

South were no longer relevant. Political lead-

ers around the world conront a similar set o

challenges: how to be responsive to citizens

whose expectations have been transormed

by the real-time, on-demand revolution in

inormation technology; how to open up the

workings o government to strengthen ac-

countability, but also to harness the expertise

o people on the outside; and how to build (or

rebuild) the sense among citizens that gov-

ernment exists to represent their interests

and meet their needs.

At the same time, one could not escape

the conclusion that the locus o innovation

had shited: reormers in new and emerging

democracies are at the oreront o eorts to

reimagine how government engages citizens,

and grassroots groups, especially in develop-

ing countries, are making

the case or even deeper

and more undamental

changes to the ways in

which government oper-

ates. Developed countries

have much to learn rom

developing countries, and

the most powerul advo-cates or change are those

working these issues every

day. These realities called

or a undamentally dier-

ent approach to promot-

ing democracy and gover-

nance in the 21st century.

Many around the table

welcomed the opportu-

nity to rethink the multi-

lateral approach to pro-

moting more eective and

accountable governance. In the atermath

o the US-led invasion o Iraq and the hu-

man rights abuses committed in the war on

terrorism, there had been an international

backlash against the very idea o democracy

promotion, not only in the United States but

also among international democracy sup-

porters who did not want to be associated

with a tarnished agenda. The prospects or

urther democratic progress were also grim:

analysts were speaking o a democratic re-

cession, with new democracies struggling to

perorm and authoritarian regimes promot-ing themselves as alternative, non-demo-

cratic models o development.

Together, we saw a dierent way orward,

a way o breaking the mold and diversiying

the coalition working to advance this agen-

da. We elt a need to reclaim the language o

democracy promotionto put the ocus on

peoples universal aspiration to have a say in

how they are governed, and on the common

challenges o political leaders in responding

to that desire. The emerging concept o open

government was loose and exible, not at-

tached to any particular ideology. It allowed

everyone to bring his own agenda to a com-

mon goal. It was essential to place innovation

at the ront and center o any new eort, mov-

ing away rom a ramework in which develop-

ing countries were under pressure to adopt

the best practices o the West, toward one in

which domestic reormers and activists were

empowered to share their stories, and coun-

tries were encouraged to learn rom one an-

other and take urther actions in a meaningul

race to the top. Last, it was crucial that we nd



6/16


ways to harness and support the momentum

or democratic change and improved gover-

nance within countries. Sustainable progress

was possible, in our view, only i governments

were making commitments at the highestlevel and being held accountable by their own

citizens, rather than by organizations, gov-

ernments, or groups on the outside.

Pivotal Decisions

We had agreement on the need or a new ap-

proach, but the real challenge lay in working

out the details. With a diverse group around

the tablegovernment and civil society,

North and Souththe debates were conten-

tious, but the ambition to achieve substan-

tive consensus around a new model was

shared by all.

Three central issues had to be resolved.

Would this initiative seek universal partici-

pation, or would it be selective in determin-

ing which countries could participate? There

were strong advocates or a universal initia-

tive, given the scope o the governance chal-

lenges globally and the need to establish inter-

national legitimacy. On the other hand, civil

society groups and governments spoke orce-

ully o the need or credibility. An initiative

on governance could be credible only i the

participating countries were truly committed

to making demonstrable progress. Second,

would participating countries be expected to

commit to an identical set o reorms, or would

the initiative provide space or countries tomake political commitments that relected

their own unique circumstances?

Participants recognized the value o

uniorm commitments, as then we would be

able to identiy high priority issues and set

high standards or participating countries.

On the other hand, the stories that we shared

suggested the value o encouraging countries

to develop reorm strategies consistent with

the aspirations o their citizens and the pri-

orities o their governments. And how would

we ensure that countries actually ollowed

through on their commitments? No one

was proposing the establishment o a legally

binding treaty, because such treaties already

existor example, the UN Convention

Against Corruptionand we shared a sense

that treaties alone are insucient to gener-

ate compliance. Others proposed the notion

o independent and objective evaluations o

country progress, challenging the standard

international practice in which governments

provide sel-assessments o their progress.

Over the course o two days, the idea took

shape, and we orged a hard-ought consensus

on the outlines o a truly novel multilateral ini-

tiative. Together, we would create the Open

Government Partnership as a orum in which

governments, working with their civil societypartners, could make ar-reaching political

commitments to promote transparency, en-

ergize citizen participation, increase public

integrity, and harness new technologies.

To become a participating country, gov-

ernments would need to meet a set o mini-

mum criteria, evaluated by objective third-

party organizationsdemonstrating their

basic commitment to open government and

a record o practice consistent with their

rhetoric. They would embrace collectively

a high-level declaration o principles and

deliver an individualized country action

plan, developed with broad public consulta-

tion and eedback, outlining how they plan

to put the principles into practice. And gov-

ernments would agree to have their prog-

ress monitored by an independent body,

which would report publicly and annually.

Our approach was designed to avoid the ate

o other governance initiatives that had set

loty goals yet ailed to deliver meaningul

change. In OGP, governments are expected

to make new and concrete political commit-

Members of Open Government PartnershipSince OGP launched in September 2011 with eight founding governmentsBrazil,

Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa, the United States, and the

United Kingdomit has been joined by 50 additional governments.



7/16


ments that will have a measurable impact on

people in real time.

The outcome did not meet everyones

needs and desires, and the concept had to be

sold to political leaders, oreign ministries,

civil society networks, and grassroots activ-

ists. But it was a new model: in the words o

Susan Craword, proessor at Yeshiva Uni-

versity s Benjamin N. Cardozo School oLaw, a orum not a court; a nudging engine,

not a ranking system; a mash-up o personal

initiative and entrepreneurship with the

stately dance o oreign relations. And the

idea reected the kind o creativity that is

possible when ocials and activists come

together, ree o the need to get clearances

and manage constituencies, to think collec-

tively about a new way o working together,

The timeline between idea and imple-

mentation was exceptionally short. We had

eight months beore the United Nations

General Assembly was to meet again in Sep-

tember, and we would need to deliver on

President Obamas challenge. The rst step

was determining the set o countries that

would be eligible to participatea process

that raised enormous diplomatic sensitivi-

ties or each o the ounding governments.

We ultimately selected a set o valid, widely

used third-party indicatorscapturing, or

each country, its degree o iscal transpar-

ency, access to inormation, public nancial

disclosures, and citizen engagementand

secured agreement among the ounders on aset o criteria or participation. Seventy-nine

countries cleared the minimum hurdle or

eligibility, decreasing the chances that the

initiative would attract governments that

were interested only in getting credit or open

government without taking any action. Our

decision signaled our commitment to ocus

attention on a set o governments that were

really committed to doing things dierently.

We were prepared to accept that the initia-

tive might not aect the behavior o the most

closed governments in the world, as long as

OGP provided a platorm or countries with

the political will to take ambitious new steps.

Second, the ounding governments

needed to demonstrate the seriousness o

their own commitments to OGP by prepar-

ing ar-reaching action plans that could be

announced at the launch. We understood

that the initial commitments by the ound-

ing governments would set the standard

that all other countries would ollow. But in-

stead o the yearlong process envisioned or

developing commitments in OGP countries,

the ounding governments would have only

hal that time. In the United States, we initi-

ated a White House-led interagency process

to develop and rene a set o crosscutting

initiatives that would build on and extend

the reach o President Obamas Open Gov-

ernment Initiative. As with ocials o other

ounding governments, President Obama,

too, would make a set o new political com-mitments to the American peopleunder-

scoring the point that improving gover-

nance is a priority or countries no matter

how wealthy or developed.

At last it was time to unveil the partner-

ship and secure the agreement o other eligi-

ble countries to announce their participation

at the ormal launch in September. US Secre-

tary o State Hillary Clinton, joined by Foreign

Minister Antonio Patriota o Brazil, invited

representatives o the eligible governments to

Washington or a jam-packed, day-long event

in July to introduce the partnership, begin

substantive conversations on important the-

matic areas such as service delivery and public

integrity, and showcase amazing innovations

rom civil society and the tech sector.

For government representatives, the

event transgressed all sorts o norms. We

reached out to important domestic ocials,

rather than to oreign ministries, because our

goal was to have people in the room who are

responsible or making their governments

work better at home. Foreign dignitaries

were seated next to civil society activists andnext to technologists. No ags demarcated

who would sit where, and no hierarchy de-

termined who would get the oor when. As

you might imagine, this was a bit o a shock

or some o the participants, but it was a true

test case o what it would be like to do busi-

ness dierently on the international stage.

Delivering Results

We now have a mixed coalitiona posse i

you willthat has mobilized the attention o

governments, civil society groups, the private

sector, and philanthropy on the challenge o

promoting open government. An initiative

that was launched with eight governments

and nine civil society groups now includes 58

governments and a network o hundreds o

grassroots activists around the world. This

new model is demonstrating the power o a

new multi-stakeholder approach: the ability

to move quickly and ocus attention on a con-

crete goal; the possibility o building a diverse

coalition that cuts across traditional divides;

the opportunity to harness the energies and

attention o domestic champions or reorm,

and to give them the high-level political back-

ing they need to get their work done; and the

prospect that a voluntary, collaborative ini-

tiative can generate a meaningul race to the

top on an issue as contentious, but as impor-

tant, as the quality o governance.

We also have reason to believe, even at

this early stage, that OGP commitments willhave a powerul impact. President Obama

committed the United States to implement a

signicant set o reorms to the management

o domestic extractive industries through

the Department o the Interior, pledging

to participate in the Extractive Industries

Transparency Initiative. The United States

is the irst developed country to embrace

these standards, which have been promoted

or developing countries or nearly a decade.

President Rousse o Brazil secured the pas-

sage o a Freedom o Inormation law that has

languished in the Brazilian Congress or years,

nally overcoming the resistance o ocials

o prior governments who eared the con-

sequences o shedding light on the internal

workings o government. And President Be-

nigno Aquino III o the Philippines embraced

a set o ambitious reorms throughout his gov-

ernment, designed to increase transparency,

enshrine public participation in budgeting,

and root out corruption in procurement.

At the same time, OGPas a new model

o international cooperationraises a num-

ber o challenging questions, many o whichthe contributors to this supplement consid-

er: How do governments benet rom their

participation in OGP, and what will keep

them engaged over time? How can civil so-

ciety balance its role as a critical ally, where

it must play the roles o both advocate and

monitor? Where does philanthropy it in

this new ramework o international coop-

eration? And how can we bridge the gap be-

tween countries that embrace participation

in these new, mixed coalitions, and those

that remain on the outside?

This is a make-or-break year or the

Open Government Partnership, as this new

model o international cooperation can no

longer be judged simply by its success in mo-

bilizing participation and ocusing attention

on the challenges o governance. The ambi-

tion o this new approach is impressive

bringing about a transormative change in

how governments relate to their citizens

but the measure o its achievement will be

quite simple: how many citizens experience

concrete improvements in their lives.



8/16



On September 20, 2011, 46 world

leaders, including US President

Barack Obama and Brazilian Pres-

ident Dilma Rousse, lined up or

a amily photo. Diplomats are ac-

customed to such thingsan awkward three-

minute shufe when the worlds most power-

ul stand shoulder-to-shoulder and smile or

the camera. But this photo op was dierent:

Standing together with leaders o nations

were leaders rom civil society organizations

rom around the world.

The moments symbolism was not lost

on those who had spent the previous 12

months working toward the launch o the

Open Government Partnership (OGP), an

initiative that has shattered decades o prec-

edent in diplomatic protocol.

When the idea o OGP rst made its

way through the corri dors o the US State

Department in the early days o 2011,

many were skeptical. Multilateral initia-

tives are ubiquitous and oten ineective.

Open government is a relatively new term

in the vocabulary o oreign policy. And

questions o corruption and accountabil-

ity are older than democracy itsel. The

possibility o creating an initiative that

would catalyze gover nment transparency

and accountability was, understandably,

a long shot.

For OGP, the stars aligned, and it went

rom an idea to an international headline

to a good governance roadmap in less than

a year. Today, 58 OGP countries have joined

OGP, making commitments that will aect

two billion people. A testament to US Secre-

tary o State Hillary Clintons vision o 21st-

Shattering Decades ofDiplomatic ProtocolBY MARIA OTERO & CAROLINE MAULDIN

century statecrat, OGP has broken the mold

o international engagement primarily in

two ways: rst, by creating a global platorm

or interaction among domestic reormers;

and second, by establishing an unprecedent-

ed principle o parity between government

and civil society in the management and di-

rection o a major policy agenda.

Everyone involved understood that

or OGP to succeed, it needed to go beyond

the US State Department and oreign min-

istries, to the agencies and reormers im-

mersed in the sticky challenges o battling

domestic corruption, enhancing transpar-

ency, and supporting citizen participation.

In early 2011, we at the State Department

had a skeleton list o our own reormers, but

not every government was able to identiy

a roster as quickly. Many reormers are ca-

reer public servants buried deep in bureau-

cracy. And their location varies greatly rom

one country to the next. In Brazil, Minister

Jorge Hage leads his governments battle

against corruption rom the Oice o the

Comptroller General, whereas in the Philip-

pines, Minister Florencio Butch Barsana

Abad is advancing government transparen-

cy rom the Ministry o Finance and Budget.

OGPs challenge, and its goal, is to iden-

tiy champions within government agencies

and elevate them to an international stage

through a network o like-minded reormers

committed to improving the transparency

and accountability o governments. OGP o-

ers a second pathway or international en-

gagement: It is a partnership not just among

nations, but also between governments and

civil society. From the governance o OGP

to the development, implementation, and

monitoring o country commitments, civil

society sits side-by-side with governments

at every stage o the initiative. This shit is a

break with the pastin which accountability

advocates had a critical, even antagonistic,

relationship with governments. OGP arms

through its structure and its work that sus-

tainable progress on critical issues can be

made only by working pragmatically across

sectors.

O course, we cannot expect this shit

to happen overnight, nor will it succeed in

every country. Even at the level o OGPs

18-member steering committeewhereyou will nd OGPs most committed cham-

pionschallenges persist. Governments

and civil society organizations operate

within distinct cultural norms. Bureaucrats

rotate to other jobs, making it dicult to re-

tain institutional memory and enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, civil society representatives

are more consistent and oten very well

inormed about critical issues. The result

is a delicate, ever-shiting dynamic among

representatives who together drive OGP

orward. But no matter the sensitivities, the

reward already has proven to be ar greater:

a thoughtul policy agenda ollowed by ac-

tion and accountability.

Although it remains to be seen whether

OGP will create long-term impact through

country action plans, the initiative has al-

ready succeeded in setting new, high expec-

tations or results-based collaboration. We

hope that its example o leveraging domes-

tic champions and including civil society

has set a new precedent or uture interna-

tional eorts.

CAROLINE MAULDIN

is a ellow at the Truman

National Security Project

and a ormer special

assistant to the Under

Secretary or Civilian

Security, Democracy &

Human Rights in the US

Department o State.

OGP has broken the mold o international

engagement by creating a global platorm ordomestic reormers and by establishing parity

between government and civil society.

MARIA OTERO is US

Under Secretary o State

or Civilian Security,

Democracy, and Human

Rights, which serves US

and global security by

assisting countries to

build more democratic,

secure, stable, and just

societies.


9/16



On April 17, 2012, Brazil hosted the

irst High-Level Conerence o

the Open Government Partner-

ship (OGP)a partnership that

grew in a mere six months rom

eight ounding countries to 55 participat-

ing governments. As I write, the number o

participants has grown to 58 countries, and

I am certain it will rise again by the time this

article is published.

Brazil was one o the ounding coun-

tries and the rst co-chair o the initiative,

side by side with the United States, because

OGPs rationale and its objectives con-

verged with the government directiv e o

transparency implemented at the very be-

ginning o the rst term o President Luiz

Incio Lula da Silvas government in 2003.

So in January 2011, when the White House

approached the Oce o the Comptroller

General, which I head, about the Brazilian

governments interest in this new idea, we

were immediately authorized by PresidentDilma Rousse to join the endeavor.

Since then, and with support rom the

Ministry o Foreign Aairs and other Bra-

zilian ministries, the participation and the

commitments to be adopted under OGP

have coincided with our governments aims.

OGP has augmented goals and projects al-

ready under way or in initial phases o de-

velopment.

I imagine that Brazils experience is not

so dierent rom other OGP member coun-

tries, because the partnership was created to

build on transparency and good governance

reorms being carried out domesticallyto

greater or lesser degreeby governments

around the world. The project has great ap-

peal: it is a global challenge or government

and civil society stakeholders to address, very

directly, the concept o democracymodern

democracy. It has provoked positive reactions

in many countries, even in nations where pre-

viously there had not been much engagement

with the issue o open government.

On the other hand, there is little doubt

that civil society pressure inuenced some

governments to join the project, and this is

one o the benets o civil society organiza-

tions participation in the initiative and on

OGPs steering committee. Another impor-

tant aspect o OGP is the way it highlights in-

novative projects in developing and devel-

oped countries. For example, Brazils online

Transparency Portal publishes expenses

incurred by the government on a daily basis

in easily understandable terms, enabling

anyone to monitor budget execution and

help prevent corruption. The portal also

publishes the paychecks o all public o-cials, rom President Rousse to the hum-

blest public employee. It shows that there

is no monopoly on cutting-edge solutions

or common governance issues. This type o

innovation has encouraged a wide range o

countries to join the partnership.

An equally important aspect o OGP is

that it is a voluntary government commit-

ment. The act that it is non-mandatory

makes it markedly dierent rom other in-

ternational initiatives, such as the United

Nations Convention against Corruption,

which requires governments to adopt mea-

sures to increase transparency in the public

sector and to engage society and the private

sector to prevent and ght corruption. At

the same time, OGP diers rom other inter-

national mechanisms in that no distinction

is made between developed or emerging

countries and underdeveloped or economi-

cally modest nations.

Brazils early and active participation in

the partnership has encouraged other coun-

triesboth emerging economies and more

economically modest nationsto join OGP.

The possibility o exchanging experiences

and sharing learning seems more easible in

this environment. And the leadership roles

o countries like Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia,

and South Arica, all o which are on OGPs

steering committee, sent an important sig-

nal to countries in the South that the playing

eld is changing.

Having said this, I would equally stress

that there is a wide distance among coun-

tries on the steering committee and in the

partnership: they are not, by any means, a

homogeneous group. Some o them, usuallyreerred to as emerging economies, such

as Brazil, South Arica, and Russia, are not

necessarily emerging democracies. Either

their democratic institutions are already

beyond the stage o emerging, or they

are not yet democratically robust, despite

their nations economic strength. For OGP,

promoting solid democratic institutions is

what counts most.

Fortunately, with the support o UNDP

and OECD, countries o the so-called Arab

Spring (Middle Eastern and North Arican

nations), such as Tunisia, seem to be willing

to prepare their institutions or uture ad-

herence to OGP.

OGP has barely completed its rst year.

It might be premature to make any thor-

ough evaluation o its results. It is, however,

clear that OGP has been able to generate

some concrete changes in attitudes in such

sensible government areas as transparency

and openness. And this accomplishment

surely deserves special attention, even out-

right celebration.

Innovating Modern Democracy,in Brazil and GloballyBY JORGE HAGE

JORGE HAGE has

served as Minister o

State and Head o the

Ofce o the Comptroller

General o Brazil since

June 2006.

The leadership roles o Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia,

and South Arica, which all are on OGPs steering

committee, sent an important signal to countries

in the South that the playing ield is changing.


10/16



Advocacy from the Inside:The Role of Civil SocietyBY WARREN KRAFCHIK

WARREN KRAFCHIK

is the director o the

International Budget

Partnership and is the

civil society co-chair o

the Open Government

Partnership.

The Open Government Partner-

ships (OGPs) commitment to

a partnership between govern-

ment and civil society at interna-

tional and national levelsand

its accent on domestic as opposed to inter-

national accountabilitydistinguishes it

rom many international initiatives pro-

moting open government.

As a September 2012 survey o civil so-

ciety organizations (CSOs) engaged in OGP

shows, there is widespread recognition that

OGP represents a great opportunity or le-

veraging transparency and accountability

in countries around the world. All the or-

ganizations are energized by the early vic-

tories that have been achieved, such as the

new Access to Inormation Law in Brazil

and greater transparency o military and

police budgets in the Philippines. Most also

acknowledge that OGP has helped to bring

together civil society advocates working

across multiple sectors, helping to breakthrough the silos that oten undermine civil

society eectiveness. But many CSOs are

still cautious about OGP, particularly about

how partnerships with governments will

play out at the country level.

What can we learn rom the experience

o the eight ounding countries about eec-

tive CSO -government collaboration?

At the international level, the partner-

ship between CSOs and governments on

the steering committee is working well.

The two parties candid and oten vigorous

discussionsas well as their willingness to

challenge one another (between and within

caucuses)has signiicantly reined the

overarching concept and policies driving

the initiative.

CSO participation in OGP at the inter-

national level, in turn, has supported stron-

ger country-level processes and outcomes

in many o the eight ounding countries. As

Juan Pardinas, CEO o the Mexican Insti-

tute or Competitiveness and a colleague

on the steering committee, argues, Mexican

civil society was initially disappointed by

the lack o consultation and weak commit-

ments in the initial Mexican action plan. But

having Mexican civil society and govern-

ment representatives on the steering com-

mitteetogether with strong CSOs on the

groundempowered reormers in the gov-

ernment. The result was a redrated, stron-

ger Mexican action plan, which included

exciting progress on consumer protection

and greatly expanded access to school bud-

get inormation.

Tom Blanton, director o the National

Security Archive at George Washington

University and a steering committee mem-

ber rom US civil society, tells a similar story.

OGPs design process oered an opportunity

to marshal pressure on the US government

to close the gap between strong open govern-

ment policy commitments and slow or weak

implementation o them. The US action plan

ultimately reected several CSO priorities,

such as US participation in the Extractive In-

dustries Transparency Initiative.

The key to these successes was a sophis-

ticated insider-outsider strategy adopted

by experienced activists rom countries

with robust civil societies. The test we aced

as CSOs on OGPs Steering Committee

was to help incubate a powerul idea while

staying connected to our civil society part-

ners. Pardinas and Blanton, among others,

avoided this potential problem by combin-

ing active engagement on the steering com-

mittee with building or maintaining strong

relationships to local civil society coalitions.

In Mexico, a new coalition was assembled;

in the United States an existing coalition

OpenTheGovernment.orgwas adapted

or this purpose.

How might these initial experiences

translate into eective civil society engage-

ment in the broader set o OGP countries?

First, our experiences to date show that

productive collaboration between govern-

ments and CSOs in OGP is certainly pos-

sible. Indonesia and the Philippines, or

example, have included civil society in the

action plan drating committee. Mexico and

the United States have multi-stakeholder

teams at both the national and sector levels

driving action plan development. Still, in

many countries government has yet to nd

the appropriate balance o roles and is more

hesitant about working with civil society.

This challenge is as great in several Europe-

an countries as in Arica and Latin America.

Second, a critical ally role is not an en-

tirely new concept, particularly or organi-

zations in countries with a vigorous civil so-

ciety. But in many parts o the world, where

strictly adversarial roles between govern-

ments and CSOs have been the norm, or

where civil society is less robust, such a dual

role or civil society will be quite new and

challenging.

Third, and perhaps the greatest chal-

lenge or both civil society and government

going orward, will be reaching out within

participating countries to involve those who

live outside urban areas, speak in local dia-

lects, and have little access to the Internet.

Both governments and CSOs will have to dig

deep to transorm open government into a

cause that will galvanize the participation

o the poorest and drive real development.

OGPs progress to date in piloting a new

approach to CSO-government collabora-

tion makes me optimistic that we will meet

these challenges at the country level.

Civil society organization participation in OGP atthe international level has supported stronger

processes and outcomes at the country level.


11/16



The UKs TransparencyAgendaBY JANE DUDMAN

O

n September 26, 2012, to mark the

rst anniversary o the Open Gov-

ernment Partnership (OGP), UK

Minister Francis Maude wrote on

the Guardian Public Leaders Net-

work: Data is the raw material o the 21st

century and a resource or a new generation

o entrepreneurs. But transparency is not

just about economics. Transparency shines

light on underperormance and inecien-

cies in public services. It allows citizens and

the media to hold governments to account,

strengthening civil society and building

more open societies.

The United Kingdom is a world leader

in open government. Since May 2010, it hasmade almost 9,000 datasets o government

inormation available at data.gov.uk, rom

school perormance tables to pricing in-

ormation about large government capital

projects.

Maude heads the Cabinet Oice, the

department at the heart o the UK gov-

ernments eciency and reorm program,

where he has set up a new, central ecien-

cy and reorm group to keep an eagle eye on

budgets and procurement. Transparency

and the release o government inormation

have been critical to Maudes reorm pro-

gram, and he has been particularly active in

developing the independent review mech-

anism o OGP members national action

plans. The next iteration o the UK action

plan will be released in 2013, and Maudes

department has been working closely with

civil society partners to ensure that they

take a vital part in the review process.

This message was exactly what Simon

Burall wanted to hear when he met with

the minister in November 2012 in Maudes

elegant oces in central London. Burall is

director o the think tank Involve, which

specializes in how new orms o public par-

ticipation can strengthen democracy in

Britain and elsewhere. Burall says the part-

nership between the government and civil

society in the United Kingdom is signicant

in enhancing local democracy.

OGP is a useul umbrella organization

to pull together whats happening here,

he says, adding that the loose network be-

tween government and civil society is both

a strength and a potential weakness. I the

collaboration is to have real teeth, says

Burall, it must involve civil society partners

in the peer review o the 2013 national ac-tion plan. Civil society organizations, he

adds, may want to go urther than the gov-

ernment in some cases, such as not just con-

sulting with citizens about existing policies

but getting them involved in policy making

and in the governments public services re-

orm program.

Maude agrees on the need or OGP to be

more than just talk. By the end o the UKs

time as co-chair, we want the OGP to have

real authority, resilience, and credibility,

he says. These are high aims, both interna-

tionally and domestically, and Maude ac-

knowledges the challenges in

the United Kingdom, where

the coalition government

has driven through a radical

reorm program o big cuts

to public sector budgets and

jobs since it came to power in

May 2010.

In a more diverse and dis-

persed world o public service

provision, it will be vital to

provide better inormation about public

services i citizens are to make inormed

choices, says Maude. Some in the United

Kingdom believe this ragmentation o

public services, particularly in health and

education, and the introduction o more

providers, will make it dicult to compare

services. But Maude insists that all provid-

ers will have to produce comparable data on

outcomes.

He acknowledges, however, that the

UKs transparency program, which includes

publishing all local authority spending over

500, has not been welcomed by everyone in

government. And there remains the wider

challenge, acknowledged by both Burall and

Maude, o getting all public service provid-

ersnot just those whose main ocus is han-

dling datainvolved with OGPs agenda. The

challenge, explains Burall, is how to make

the stu about datasets seem important to

organizations that are interested in out-

comes. He says the agenda is about orcingthe government to move rom talking in-

wards to turning outwards.

One o the UK governments grandest

aims is to make as much as possible o its

public sector data available or ree or priced

cheaply. I I compare the UK to the US, weve

made more useul datasets available than the

US, notes Maude. But the US has a more

liberal policy in terms o making datasets

available ree. It has taken public sector data

as a public good. The United Kingdom has

had a more restrictive approach, because

it has required government organizations

like Ordnance Survey and the

Met Oice to use their map-

ping, weather, and other data

as an asset, which they have

sold to companies, to cover

their costs. Now, though, the

government would preer to

make raw government data

reely available and let others

add value to it through services

and products.

Minister Francis Maude and Simon Burall, a British

civil society leader, discuss the potential impacts

o the Open Government Partnership in the UK.

FRANCIS MAUDE (let) servesas the UK Minister or the CabinetOfce and Paymaster General,and as a Member o Parliamentrepresenting the constituency oHorsham, West Sussex, England.

SIMON BURALL (right) is thedirector o Involve, and also servesas chair o Democratic Audit o theUnited Kingdom, an ambassadoror WWF UK, and head o dialogue

at the UKs ScienceWiseExpert Resource Centre.

JANE DUDMAN is editor o

the GuardianPublic Leaders

Network.


12/16



Tanzanias TransparencyAgendaBY ELSIE EYAKUZE

RAKESH RAJANI(let) is the ounder and head oTwaweza East Arica. He has been involved with setting upOpen Government Partnership rom the outset. His workand research interests include basic education reorm andthe role o inormation in citizen-driven change and publicaccountability.

MATTHIAS CHIKAWE (right) is a member o the Parlia-ment in the National Assembly o Tanzania and has servedas Minister o Justice and Constitutional Aairs sinceFebruary 2008.

M

atthias Chikawe, Tanzanian

Minister or Justice and Con-

stitutional Aairs, does not

mince words when he talks

about his countrys participa-

tion in the Open Government Partnership

(OGP). Its something that is not in our cul-

ture, says Chikawe. Our government has

always been run on condentiality, so this is

a big change. You need a big change o atti-

tude by civil servants.

Its one thing to say, Lets do it and make

a plan. But its quite another to change a cul-

ture, adds Rakesh Rajani, head o Twaweza, a

government accountability NGO in East Ari-ca. Rajani goes on to stress that the Tanzanian

government, known or its lack o transpar-

ency, is not monolithic: there are those who

support change, and those who might need

coaxing into it.

Chikawe and Rajani are sitting in ad-

jacen t chai rs at the Twaweza oic es in

Dar es Salaam in a rarely seen instance o

government and civil society collabora-

tion. It is a hopeul sight, considering the

checkered history o Rajanis relationship

with his govern ment. In 2005, while he

was executive director o Haki Elimu, an

education advocacy NGO, the government

banned the organization rom undertak-

ing and publishing any studies on Tanza-

nia schools. The situation was resolved in

2007. Chikawe admits that there are still

many in government who are suspicious o

civil society. Yet both men are members o

the steering committee o OGP.

Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete

is keen on OGP, says Chikawe. The presi-

dent said to me: Go out there and see i we

Minister Matthias Chikawe and Rakesh Rajani,

a Tanzanian civil society leader, discuss the

potential impacts o OGP in Tanzania.

can use the Open Government Partner-

ship or our own development. This is not

about oreign policy. OGP, says Chikawe,

is about using transparency or Tanzanian

democracy building and economic growth.

Rajani points out that these state-

ments signal a new way o governingone

in which government doesnt just rule, it

actually seeks to solve problems collab-

oratively. It recognizes that it doesnt have

all the answers. In that sense, it can also be

very liberating or government, to not have

to eel it has to shoulder all the responsibil-

ity and x all the problems.

Tanzanias OGP plan ocuses on health,water, and educationservices through

which citizens and government interact ev-

ery day, and where the impact o improved

governance would be elt most immediately.

Rajani and Chikawe emphasize that citizen

participation begins with access to inorma-

tion. Yet according to 2010 World Bank data,

only 11 percent o Tanzanians are Internet us-

ers (although 20 million use mobile phones).

OGP-Tanzania is drating a communications

strategy to use modern inormation technol-

ogy, and the anticipated Freedom o Inor-

mation Act will be used to support OGP-Tan-

zanias transparency agenda.

When the two men are

asked i the social media com-

munity has been approached

to assist with OGP-Tanzanias

agenda, uncertainty creeps

into the conversation, be-

cause social media are still

new, and public institutions

are in the initial phases o

trying to harness them or

their work. For several years now, however,

young Tanzanians have been using various

social media with some success to push or

increased transparency. Plus, says Rajani,

the issue o communication goes beyond

new technologies. What OGP-Tanzania

must gure out is how to spread the culture

o open government throughout the public

sector, right down to service providers on

the ground.

Chikawe says that citizen participation

is being sought through two main approach-

es: public meetings, with a ocus on where

local government projects are planned and

how they are monitored; and access to theInternet, to make inormation available.

Twaweza is interested in creating opportu-

nities or citizens to engage more eectively

in their day-to-day interactions with the

government, such as at public schools and

clinics.

Practical accountability on the ground

is important, says Rajani. Citizens have to

have some level o condence that there will

be consequences.

Rajani points out that government ac-

countability and condence are also ben-

ecial or the public sector. I government

employees are rewarded or

disciplined according to how

they perormas veried by

their clients, citizensit

could motivate an overall im-

provement in services.

Open Government Part-

nership is about helping gov-

ernment to create an environ-

ment in which citizens can get

things done, says Rajani.

ELSIE EYAKUZE is a columnist

orThe East Africanwho blogs at

The Mikocheni Report.


13/16



Philanthropy Can Catalyze anOpen Government MovementBY MARTIN TIS N

MARTIN TISN is director,

policy at Omidyar Network.

Previously, he was ounding

director o the Transparency

and Accountability Initiative,

where he helped ound the

Open Government Partnership.

The initial phase o Open Govern-

ment Partnership (OGP) illus-

trates how philanthropic unding

can catalyze and help build sec-

tors. In September 2010, a small

group o private organizationsunder the

aegis o the Transparency and Accountabil-

ity Initiative, a donor collaborative includ-

ing unders such as Omidyar Network, Open

Society Foundations, the William and Flora

Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation,

and Hivos (as well as two leading interna-

tional NGOs, International Budget Partner-

ship and Revenue Watch Institute)recog-

nized the opportunity OGP presented. They

backed the government and civil society

reormers with unding, connections, and

intellectual support.

This under engagement was vital in giv-

ing OGP instigators the external validation

and condence they needed to take the idea

ull steam ahead. OGP was initiated by the

United States, Brazil, and six other interna-

tional governments, and early and exible

philanthropic support helped ensure the

ull participation o civil societyat a global

leveland its eventual representation in

OGPs governance structure.

The myriad constellations and com-

munities o practice that make up the global

open government sector are ascinating

and the object o very little study. There are

well over a dozen distinct open-government

related communities o practice: reedom-

o-inormation activists, open-data geeks,

scal-transparency zealots, service-deliv-

ery monitors, nancial-sector reorm advo-

cates, and many more. (A good overview is

available on the Transparency and Account-

ability Initiative website.) Manythough

not allo these communities o practice

have developed their own, somewhat siloed,

international standard-setting initiatives.

The net result is a veritable alphabet soup o

international initiatives: EITI, IATI, GIFT,

META, COST, ODC. All are dedicated to in-

creasing transparency, participation, and

accountability in their specic sub-sectors

(oil, gas, mining, budgets, medicine, con-

struction, open data).

OGP itsel is not a standard-setting

body. It provides a orum or the standard-

setters to use as a policy hook or their

work. It has providedin the words o John

Wonderlich, policy director o the Sunlight

Foundationa sotball to the civil society

community, to develop new open govern-

ment norms and standards and energize ex-

isting ones. Civil society groups that seek to

build, or are on the verge o developing, in-

ternational norms can do so and then work

with governments to include these norms in

their open government partnership action

plans. As o late 2012, OGP is contributing

to international standard setting on open

government in our ways.

First, governments are using OGP to

adhere to existing standards. For example,

the United States, Ukraine, and Colombia

became signatories to the Extractive Indus-

tries Transparency Initiative (EITI) as part

o their OGP action plans. The United States

also became a signatory to the International

Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) as part

o its action plan. In act, EITI has received

signiicant interest rom OGP countries,

whose governments are signing up as well as

pledging progress on EITI implementation

as part o their country action plans.

Second, OGP is energizing the global

open government discussion, leading to the

creation and development o new norms and

standards. The Global Initiative or Fiscal

Transparency (GIFT), which aims to devel-

op standards related to budget transparency

and participation o citizens in the budget

process, was directly inspired by OGP and

includes two prominent OGP government

members (Brazil and the Philippines) in its

ounding stewards group. The Open Data

Charter (ODC) aims to provide a tool or civil

society to benchmark the many open data

commitments coming out o OGP as well as

or government reormers developingat a

renetic pacenew open data initiatives.

Third, OGP is beginning to inluence

large-scale standard-setting bodies and

groups. The High Level Panel on the post-2015

development agenda (the rethink o the Mil-

lennium Development Goals) is co-chaired

by three prominent OGP governments: Indo-

nesia, the United Kingdom, and Liberia. Civil

society and governments have spoken o anOpen Development Goals approach to open

up the UN-led process. Within the G8, G20,

and OECD, OGP governments are caucusing

and engaging with civil society in new ways to

push orward the power o open.

Last and ascinatingly, standards are be-

ing developed by OGP rom the bottom up in

ways that we cannot yet imagine. As 58 gov-

ernments make hundreds o commitments,

norms will bubble up to the surace. I 25

governments start instituting citizen bud-

gets, as the government o the Philippines

recently did, a new way or governments to

engage with citizens will emerge.

We are witnessing an incredibly exciting

array o international initiatives, and OGP is

energizing them and putting them into prac-

tice. At its heart, OGP holds the promise o

bringing together these myriad communities

and building a truly global open government

movement. The philanthropic communitys

challenge now is to catalyze this innovation

while building a joined-up sector, and resist

the temptation to und in silos.

OGP is energizing the global open government

discussion, while developing new norms and

standardssomething donors should support.


14/16



India in Open Governmentand Open Government in IndiaBY NIKHIL DEY & ARUNA ROY

NIKHIL DEY (let) and ARUNA ROY are ounding

members o Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathana (Asso-

ciation or the Empowerment o Workers and Peasants)

and leading right-to-inormation activists in India.

US President Lyndon Johnson and

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair

were not the only ones with strong

regrets about the reedom o in-

ormation legislation enacted

when they were leaders o their democracies.

The landmark Right to Inormation (RTI)

law, enacted in 2005 in India, has been the

cause o similar distress or the ruling class.

Beyond the rhetoric o transparency,

accountability, and participation lies an un-

comortable adjustment to redrawing the

ault lines o power. This discomort per-

haps explains why the Indian government

passed a powerul RTI law and then made

repeated attempts to amend and dilute it.

It also may explain why the government

o India withdrew rom the Open Govern-

ment Partnership (OGP) ater being part o

its ormative discussions. Indian bureau-

crats raised valid concerns about the uncon-

ventional nature o OGP as a multilateral or-

ganization. They argued that it went beyondthe norms o a voluntary partnership. It is

equally probable that the Indian experience

with RTI laws, and the subsequent anti-

corruption movement, made the political

establishment wary o any new open gov-

ernment commitments abroad or which it

would be held accountable at home.

Ironically, just as India was withdraw-

ing rom the ledgling OGP, the Indian

government and Parliament were actively

considering a slew o new transparency and

accountability legislation. The LokPal Bill

(Anti-corruption Commission), the Griev-

ance Redress Bill, the Whistle-blower Pro-

tection Bill, the Judicial Accountability Bill,

the Public Procurement Billall have been

tabled in Parliament in the last year and are

in various stages o enactment.

India owes many o these systemic re-

orms to a vibrant, bottom-up demand or

opening up government. The RTI movement

in India has changed the discourse o trans-

parency and accountability by connecting

these seemingly esoteric issues to basic en-

titlements, empowerment, and meaningul

participation by ordinary citizens in the plan-

ning, monitoring, and decision-making pro-

cesses o government. The Delhi High Court

remarked in a recent landmark order that

the Indian RTI movement has demonstrated

that the Right to Inormation is not only part

o Freedom o Expression under Article 19

o the undamental rights enshrined in the

Indian Constitution, but also a part o Article

21 (the Right to Lie) and Article 14 (the Right

to Equality). In countries where poverty and

marginalization are important concerns, In-

dias experience with the practical applica-tion o transparency and participatory em-

powerment has undamental value.

Nevertheless, Indias absence under-

scores the larger challenges OGP may ace

in the months and years ahead. This tension

is endemic to the OGP process. OGP denes

itsel as a voluntary partnership that at-

tempts to push the envelope every year.

It seeks to evaluate governments against

their own standards, with equal participa-

tion rom an increasingly demanding civil

society. Opening up governments at home

and abroad will oten result in redistribut-

ing power. Hostility rom the establishment

is logical. How creatively can this tension be

nurtured and sustained?

Enorcing OGP standards will remain

a big challenge. Even i there are gross and

repeated ailures by some countries, OGP

can only name and shame, or threaten sus-

pension. The threat o suspension is seen

by many in civil society as an essential pro-

vision to enorce accountability. Yet as an

enorcement mechanism it is at best a pa-

per tiger. Suspending a country rom a vol-

untary partnership like OGP is impractical

and counterproductive.

There is also the tension o a suddenly

powerul and increasingly inuential inter-

national civil society. As civil society organi-

zations become active within OGP to ensure

compliance with commitments by govern-

ments, questions will arise about their own

transparency and how they determine towhom and how they are accountable.

It remains to be seen whether a treaty-

like approach to enorcement will work.

The moral pressure o practicing what you

preach might in act prove to be OGPs most

useul aspect. Domestic groups can and will

use their leaders OGP commitments to de-

mand more openness at home. Even civil so-

ciety organizations, including donors, will

have to live up to the rhetoric and become

more transparent, accountable, and demo-

cratic. The complexities o doing so should

not be a deterrent.

Nevertheless, OGP leadership could con-

centrate more on ostering participation and

consultation and leave enorcement o OGP

commitments largely to domestic groups.

The platorm o mutual support oered by

OGP or institutionalizing domestically

driven transparency aspirations is itsel o

immense utility. The dialogue, debate, and

interactions that OGP is generating are ar

too important to lose at the altar o impracti-

cal and unenorceable standards.

Ironically, just as India was withdrawing rom

the fedgling OGP, the Indian government and

Parliament were actively considering a slew o

new transparency and accountability legislation.


15/16



Building a Global Normon Open GovernmentBY ARYEH NEIER

ARYEH NEIER is president

emeritus o the Open Society

Foundations, where he

served as president rom

1993 to 2012. Previously, he

was executive director o

Human Rights Watch, which

he co-ounded in 1978.

The Open Government Partner-

ship (OGP) is a partnership in

two respects. First, it is a partner-

ship between governments that

have committed themselves to

practice and to promote the transparency o

government operations. Second, it is a part-

nership between substantial components

o global civil society, to collaborate with

governments that are willing to bring about

the enhanced transparency o government

operations.

Such a partnership is not entirely with-

out precedent. At least two worldwide in-

stitutions that were established about a de-

cade earlier, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,

Tuberculosis, and Malaria and the Extrac-

tive Industries Transparency Initiative

pioneered bringing together governments

and civil society in pursuit o shared goals.

Most observers o these institutions would

agree that their eectiveness is in substan-

tial measure a consequence o these col-laborations.

OGP builds on the examples o these pre-

decessors and more explicitly asserts that

its mission can best be advanced through

the ongoing interaction o governments and

civil society. It seems tting that such a col-

laboration should be constructed around the

question o open government. In the past

two decades, issues relating to governmen-

tal transparency have risen to the top o the

agenda o civil society in all parts o the world.

A number o new civil society institutions

operating globallyamong them Transpar-

ency International, Global Witness, and the

International Budget Partnershipwere

established in the 1990s to campaign in di-

erent ways or enhanced transparency and

against corruption. They were ollowed in

the rst decade o this century by the orma-

tion o a host o additional civil society insti-

tutions that have identied and ocused on

particular aspects o government transpar-

ency. The rapidly growing identication o

civil society with the cause o open govern-

ment during this period has been backed by a

signicant number o leading philanthropic

institutions, which have recognized that

transparency is the key to advances in other

areas o concern. The philanthropies also

have become important constituents or the

engagement o civil society in OGP.

In the same era, generally in response

to strong pressure rom civil society, a large

number o governments have adopted new

laws to urther government transparency.

The great majority o the approximately

90 countries that now have reedom o in-

ormation laws, or example, have adoptedthem since 1990. Although the movement

or open government had its roots much

earlier, it acquired the characteristics o a

global movement in the 1990sin much the

way that other global movements, such as

the womens movement, the environmental

movement, and the international human

rights movement, developed two decades

earlier. Just as those earlier movements

have taken hold in all parts o the world

except in a handul o the most repressive

countries, the same is now true o the open

government movement. In the short space

o about two decades, it has become a global

movement. The establishment o OGP

shows how ar it has come.

O course, each o those earlier global

movements has suered signiicant set-

backs rom time to time, even as they con-

tinue to try to make progress in achieving

their goals. No doubt the same will be true o

OGP. Even governments that join OGP are

likely to resist some proposals or height-

ened transparency, citing other govern-

mental interests that may be compromised.

In some cases, working out how ar it is ap-

propriate to go in the direction o transpar-

ency, while saeguarding national security,

law enorcement condentiality, trade se-

crecy, and individual privacy, will raise di-

cult issues. Some variation in the way that

such questions are resolved at various times

and places may be appropriate because o

diering circumstances.

Yet the establishment o OGP suggests

the emergence o a new norm or gover-

nance. It presumes that government op-

erations should take place transparentlyand should be vigorously promoted both by

the governmental members o OGP and by

their civil society collaborators. That pre-

sumption can be achieved, but only i de-

viations rom transparency are individually

justied. That norm is the reverse o what

had previously been the prevailing global

practice. Although concealment was not o-

ten specically articulated, in much o the

world, government operations were previ-

ously expected to be hidden rom view. The

burden rested on the proponents o trans-

parency to demonstrate that government

operations should be visible. OGP repre-

sents the shit o that burden.

One o the early champions o trans-

parent government in the United States,

Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis,

once wrote, Sunlight is the best disinec-

tant. Today, Justice Brandeiss words could

be a slogan that epitomizes the emerging

norm o open government and its embrace

by a global partnership o governments and

o civil society.

The great majority o the approximately 90

countries that now have reedom o inormation

laws have adopted them since 1990.... Open

government has become a global movement.


16/16

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a global eort to make

governments better. We all want more transparent, eective, and

accountable governmentswith institutions that empower citizens and

are responsive to their aspirations. But this work is never easy.

It takes political leadership. It takes technical knowledge. It takes

sustained eort and investment. It takes collaboration betweengovernments and civil society.

The Open Government Partnership is a multilateral initiative that

aims to secure concrete commitments rom governments to promote

transparency, empower citizens, fght corruption, and harness new

technologies to strengthen governance. In the spirit o multi-stakeholder

collaboration, OGP is overseen by a steering committee o governments

and civil society organizations.

To become a member o OGP, participating countries must embrace

a high-level Open Government Declaration, deliver a country action

plan developed with public consultation, and commit to independent

reporting on their progress going orward.

The Open Government Partnership ormally launched on September 20,

2011, when the eight ounding governmentsBrazil, Indonesia, Mexico,

Norway, the Philippines, South Arica, the United Kingdom, and the

United Statesendorsed an Open Government Declaration and announced

their country action plans. Since September 2011, OGP has welcomed

the commitment o 50 additional governments to join the partnership.

We invite you to stand with us, commit to the principles o open

government, and deliver your action plans beore the world.

www.opengovpartnership.org

This sponsored supplement was produced by theStanford Social Innovation Reviewor

the Open Government Partnership. The supplement was underwritten by Omidyar Network.

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	open-government-partnership
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Innovating Government on a Global Stage - OGP Stanford Social Innovation Review (SSIR) Supplement

Documents