The government of the Republic of Moldova embarked on its e-Transformation agenda in 2010. This agenda involves a commitment to implementing Information Communication Technologies (ICT) with the aim of transforming the economy and governance. This will be achieved by driving sustainable economic growth based on strengthened competitiveness, by building strong human capital, by facilitating social inclusion and by improving public sector governance. Following eight years of communist rule, the new pro-European government prioritised civil society participation and the promotion of democracy and human rights in its broader development agenda. Moldova joined the Open Government Partnership in 2011 in order to enhance collaboration between citizens, civil society, the private sector and government with a view to promoting and ensuring open and innovative government through the use of ICT. The Open Government Initiative is embedded in the Governance e-Transformation agenda.

Download the pdf with additional data here.

The e-Government Centre, an institution of State Chancellery responsible for the e-Transformation and Open Government Agendas, presented the draft Action Plan at the first round of public consultations. ‘We decided to present the first draft in order to start from something rather than nothing. During the consultations we were open to completely revising the draft in response to the wishes of civil society,’ reflects Irina Tisacova, Open Government Coordinator at the e-Government Centre. The consultation process with civil society organisations was intense, involving round-table and tête-à-tête meetings. ‘The issues related to open government were still emerging in Moldova, and the level of understanding, awareness and capacity of civil society organisations in this field was low. Civil society considers the approach taken by the e-Government Centre to have been appropriate to the context,’ says Veronica Cretu, coordinator of the working group on e-Government/Open Government within the National Participation Council, a group set up soon after Moldova approved its Action Plan in April 2012.

Stringent timelines was another constraint. Veronica Cretu highlights that, ‘Ideally, the consultation process should have had several phases – a pre-elaboration stage to raise general awareness, consultation phase and finally a decision-making stage in which all feedback is considered and stakeholders have an opportunity to “vote” on the final version of the proposed Action Plan.’ The consultation process stretched from the end of January to mid-March 2012, during which time civil society was invited to participate in all online and offline consultations. These included round-table meetings, the sharing of documents via emails, interviews and the use of social media networks. The OGP draft action plan was published on the government’s participation platform and comments and suggestions were invited. National and local organisations in the fields of access to information, public transparency, government accountability, the Youth Council, education, health and justice commented. The government analysed the comments and suggestions and included most of them in the final draft of the action plan. Around 130 representatives of civil society took part in the consultation meetings and between 50–75% of civil society inputs were included in the final Action Plan. ‘The government did not meet the participants’ expectations that a summary of the feedback received would be provided, a document itemising the comments reflected in the last draft of the action plan and stating why other comments were not included. The government will take this into consideration in the next round of consultations”, says Irina.

The Moldovan government collaborated with international development partners in order to raise awareness of the Open Government Partnership and to involve as many participants in the consultations as possible. The Soros Foundation – Moldova, the World Bank and FHI 360 contributed to the promotion of OGP by helping to organise consultative meetings, conferences and awareness sessions. They built local capacity through training workshops, undertook research and provided technical support and guidance to both government and CSOs.

The government raised awareness of the initiative by employing a number of online and offline strategies. It disseminated information at national and local level through the international development partners, through a coalition of local authorities, radio and TV spots, social media and special events. Youth aged 16-30 years, which make up 30% of the country’s population of 3.5 million, were specifically targeted at the Open Innovation Week in May 2012 – a series of events that brought local stakeholders from both the public and private sectors together with civil society and international experts. They participated in skills-building activities and awareness-raising events around open data, leveraging it to achieve social and commercial value. ‘We learnt that not only does the government have to be open, but civil society has to build its capacity to analyse all the information and data that’s being released,’ says Victoria Vlad, an economic researcher with the Expert Grup.

To date, most active NGOs involved in open government processes are concentrated in the capital city. ‘Most decisions, strategies and consultations stop at the border of Chisinau,’ says Victoria. The mechanisms to reach out to NGOs in the rural areas remain limited and the links between central and local authorities could be improved. Various citizen engagement methods are needed to increase participation and levels of trust. ‘We need to explore new and innovative ways of improving the collaboration between local authorities and CSOs in local development committees,’ Irina suggests.

Efforts to monitor the implementation of the Action Plan are continuing through the e-Government/Open Government Working Group, which has ten CSO representatives. One of the key tasks of the group, in addition to monitoring the implementation of the Action Plan, is to identify opportunities to promote, build capacity for, disseminate and integrate open government values and principles in different sectors of development. In December 2012, the group organised an Open Education event with key relevant stakeholders, addressing education from the perspective of the core values and principles of open government. During 2013, the working group plans to elaborate capacity-building modules on open government, integrating them into on-going programmes with local public authorities, youth, and other civil society organisations.

Key lessons that have emerged from the OGP processes to date include: the need to increase awareness and collaboration with citizens; the need to improve communication with national and local stakeholders; and the need to infuse all sectors with the principles of open government. Ultimately, the delivery of the commitments remains key to building and fostering the citizen’s trust in the government. People are more willing to cooperate when they can see results, however small these may be. The Open Government Partnership in the Republic of Moldova is not a stand-alone initiative; it is closely connected to the broader national e-Transformation agenda. Veronica Cretu concludes that, ‘it is important to respect and adhere to the OECD recommendations for citizen engagement, so that the elaboration, consultation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the Action Plan are conducted in an open, transparent and inclusive manner.’

* – This article is part of a series focusing on the experiences of OGP in different countries.  This article has been cross-posted from the OGP Hub (www.ogphub.org) on 14 June 2013.

Infusing Moldova’s development agenda with the principles of open government by Open Government Partnership

In my previous post on the Open Government Partnership website, I posed the question:

‘Is Ireland closing the door on Open Government?’ At that time I expressed the view that Ireland’s government was uninterested in the benefits of open government.

Now, eight months later, I am delighted to report that Ireland’s position on OGP has changed considerably.  On May 20, 2013, our Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Mr Brendan Howlin, announced that Ireland has sent its Letter of Intent to join the Open Government Partnership.

“I look forward to working with citizens, civil society interests and business on the development of Ireland’s first National Action Plan of commitment required for full OGP participation”, Mr Howlin said.

“I hope that civil society and citizens at large will use the OGP as an opportunity not only to encourage greater transparency and to open the doors of government to greater scrutiny but to increase citizen engagement in the reform effort overall.”

Our initial difficulties in attracting interest from the State were overcome through perseverance. In the interim between my previous blog post and this one, ActiveCitizen and other civil society participants continued to raise awareness of OGP with the government – meeting advisors, ministers and civil servants. We also initiated an on-going series of Open Data Ireland meet-ups: creating bottom-up demand for and awareness of Open Data and building communities of interested people from diverse sectors.  It has been a challenging process but one that delivered some valuable lessons on identifying and engaging with key networks.

Once the government was fully informed about the economic and social benefits of OGP, they engaged with us positively and openly. This constructive and receptive engagement makes us hopeful of a meaningful and effective OGP process.

OGP Process in Ireland

As the government’s attitude towards OGP became more favourable, a diverse group of civil society agencies and interested citizens coalesced and, working with state officials, we devised a plan for implementation of OGP in Ireland.  As in other countries, Ireland’s implementation will be tailored to specific local factors.

An unusual aspect of Ireland’s OGP process is that the government is selecting and funding an OGP Civil Society co-ordinator. We were uneasy that this role was to be filled by a state-paid appointee however we could see no other route to funding this position which is essential to kick-start the process. The state will appoint Ireland’s civil society coordinator for an initial three-month period and we congratulate Transparency International Ireland which has been contracted by Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to act in this role.

It has been agreed between civil society stakeholders who participated in the process thus far that Ireland’s first Action Plan will be submitted at The Open Government Partnership Annual Conference on October 31, 2013 in London.

The current working plan is to build an open government network with a voluntary steering committee; the OGP co-ordinator liaising between the network and government departments. We have worked hard to ensure that the process will be open for all citizens’ participation.  We have taken into account the lessons learned from experiences of other OGP participating countries: we will expect feedback and reasons regarding all unimplemented proposals and we are compiling a long-list of items which will not be included in the initial Action Plan so we may address them in the next.  (See Dolar Vasani’s excellent “Formative Experiences” report for the OGP Civil Society Hub.)

It is our aim that the OGP process will connect people who share common goals and objectives so that they may develop policy initiatives in partnership with government. The process must support members of society who, if enthusiastic and effective, will attract more people in their communities to engage in active citizenry through OGP participation.

Our vision is that multi-disciplinary/multi-stakeholder and topic-specific working groups will be formed to address certain action plan items, and these groups will meet with relevant government officials – this model is similar to that employed in the US. The working groups will utilise data to inform and mobilise popular constituencies which will contribute to government policy in health, energy, education, public safety, global development, corporate accountability and finance.

We see joining OGP as an historic step towards a more open, inclusive and participatory Ireland. We look forward to an ambitious action plan which will stretch government practice beyond the current baseline. And in the longer term, we anticipate that the OGP process will act as an agent for change, effecting substantial cultural reform and mutual trust in and between government and citizenry.

Image Credit: Ireland by NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre via Flickr

I worry that civil society advocates working on Open Government Partnership are making a tactical mistake.

There has been a lot of activity – rightly – around which OGP countries should be ‘in or out’. There were discussions in the past year around South Africa’s media bill (the so called ‘secrecy bill’) and whether it might impact the country’s OGP eligibility. Most recently the discussion has centered on Russia’s decision to ‘postpone’ its entry into OGP. Many had informally questioned whether Russia should have been eligible in the first place.

Whilst important, such a strong focus on eligibility misunderstands the nature of the Partnership. The Open Government Partnership is not a ‘good performers’ club’. If it was, it would entail setting a high bar for entry and focusing civil society attention on getting new countries in to meet the entry standard and monitoring those that fall behind with a view to expelling them. OGP is different. It purposefully sets a low bar for entry and then seeks to encourage countries in a ‘race to the top’ by rewarding excellence and penalizing backsliding or inaction. Here is where as a community we could do a lot more to ensure OGP succeeds in these precious formative years.

There are currently three basic rules of the game for OGP – we should refine and strengthen these and I would suggest to also add a ‘relevance check’.

(1) Civil society participation: this is the defining factor of the Open Government Partnership. Civil society sit on the OGP steering committee, are represented at co-chair level, are involved in the drafting, co-creation and implementation of OGP national action plans. Yet the OGP guidance on participation of civil society (which the Independent Reporting Mechanism uses as the standard to measure countries against) is far too broad, weak and focuses only on the drafting of a country’s initial action plan.There are just five basic steps that focus on ‘consultation’: we could and should do better. There is so much more we could be doing here, from using platforms like OpenIdeo to co-create action plans, to setting up innovative civil society/government/private sector collaborations to make them happen. More on this in a future post.

(2) The OGP ‘stretch’: no country action plan should merely coast on past successes, or bottle prior commitments under the pretense of new. The only reason to be part of OGP is  to ‘stretch’, to innovate and try something new, different, possibly uncomfortable at first. This idea was present from the very genesis of the Partnership – countries should make ‘stretch commitments’ in their action plans that take them beyond their comfort zone into new territory. It is then that OGP really starts to makes sense: countries then need support from their peers to make it happen, the networking mechanism matches idea/innovator/implementer etc. We need to be much much clearer on defining what ‘stretch’ means. More on this shortly.

(3) A ‘relevance check’: even if we get the above two right, there will always be countries where the finished product – the country action plan – may be completely off the mark and perhaps not even have much to do with open government at all (e.g. ‘faster marriages for pregnant women’, ‘cleaner beaches’, ‘tweets about drug traffickers‘) ! This could happen for a number of reasons (we failed to connect with open government reformers, civil society was not engaged etc.). At present, there is no safeguard: an action plan is finalised and is put into the system, no questions asked. We need a better relevance check.

(4) The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM): this is where the heart of the action has taken place so far. OGP watchers will have a view on this, but regardless of how well we do on the IRM and how much it incentivises government and civil society to implement better open government commitments, it will always be post-hoc. By definition, the IRM comes after the action plans have been designed, implemented etc.  So we need to worry about the totality of the process described above as well as engage with the reporting mechanism.

This won’t be enough – these are necessary but not sufficient rules. But if we can at least get these right, we will I hope have helped towards building and iterating towards an even better Open Government Partnership that delivers meaningful change.

Comments are valued, please let me know your views.

Graphics: Merijn Bram Rutgers

The Centre for Budget Monitoring and Citizen Participation (www.budgetmonitoring.nl) is a Dutch organization founded in December 2011. The foundation is the result of a co-operation between active citizens and social workers from the Netherlands and INESC from Brazil (www.inesc.org.br), the expert on budget monitoring. The collaboration is supported by Oxfam Novib through E-Motive.The Centre is rooted in the Dutch social movement and implements budget monitoring as a tool to enable citizen’s access to financial information, to promote social participation in public policy making and to monitor the spending of determined budgets of various governmental organizations. The main aim of the Centre is to strengthen civil society and enhance social participation.

In 2012 we started the pilot project on budget monitoring in one of the neighborhoods in Amsterdam called the Indische Buurt. Many active citizen groups, called communities, are active within the Indische Buurt. They aim to improve the livability of their neighbourhood and develop participation tools to foster the citizen’s right on ambition. It has been convenient to experiment with budget monitoring in collaboration with these active groups because budget monitoring cannot be implemented as an instrument on its own. It has to be rooted in social movement and implemented by citizens.

To start the experiment on budget monitoring, it was necessary to translate the methodology of INESC into a roadmap that would fit the context of the Netherlands. The roadmap was created by the University of Applied Sciences of Amsterdam, after discussions with the communities in the Indische Buurt on necessary adjustments. In comparison to the methodology of INESC, the roadmap places the emphasis on social justice and civic participation and less on human rights. The roadmap of budget monitoring comprises of steps, which were implemented during the experiment in the Indische Buurt.

First we tried to localize public budgets. This was not easy because budgets and information about spending are not (yet) transparent in the Netherlands. We had to search for information on the website of the municipality and local city district. Once found the annual reports, budgets and other financial documents, we were confronted with another difficulty: information on budgets was presented in complicated PDF files, thousands of pages full of jargon, which made them practically inaccessible for citizens.

After a lot of research, we built a simple database with information on the budget of 2009, 2010, and 2011. This database also included projects of various kinds in the city of Amsterdam, concentrating on neighborhoods.

In the next step we analyzed the database to understand the budget for the Indische Buurt. We were unable to find all the budgets that were spent in the neighborhood. This turned out to be a common problem that we shared with civil servants. As a civil servant working at the local city district told us in January 2012: “even we don’t know exactly the total budget of the Indische Buurt. Civil servants only know the budget that they are responsible for.”

Photo credit: This picture was taken by Mellouki Cadat during the training on budget monitoring

During the next step we organized, together with INESC, a training. The participants of the training were spokespersons of communities and other community members. The subject matters were: budget cycle, annual report, annual budget, neighborhood agenda, and strategies of influencing politics. Part of the training was the practice and theory of budget monitoring in Brazil, by trainers of INESC who showed the group the emphasis on political influence and advocacy. During the training we started to analyze the data available on budgets. For example, we compared the budget of the local district 2011 with the budget of 2013. We also studied a list of subsidies  for the Indische Buurt from the municipality of Amsterdam and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

In the meantime, we asked the local district to give us more information. The district, also began to conduct research. The first result of our request was a short version of the annual report 2011. This report was innovative because the budget was portrayed with info graphics, which provided a clear overview of the budget in comparison to the long and complicated PDF files. It made the report accessible for citizens with a non-economic background.

To make a proper agenda for the neighborhood the group decided that they had to know the priorities of the citizens. What do citizens want for their neighborhood? A questionnaire was made based on the results of several participation events in the Indische Buurt. After detecting the priorities of the citizens, we re-monitored the budget of the local district and re-analyzed the annual report of 2011. We did this by comparing the figures, the local district published. We noticed, for example, that in 2011, there was a big difference between the allocated budget and the spending of this budget on education, youth, and welfare.

On the basis of the findings during the training and questionnaire, the community members decided to write a perspective paper, with a long-term policy, instead of making an agenda for the neighborhood. The training group used the financial data and went to the political board of the local district to ask questions about the budget and its allocation.

The report of this experiment and the questions the communities asked can be seen at: http://www.budgetmonitoring.nl/english/downloads/Brochure%20Budgetmonitoring%20(ENG).pdf.

The experiment in the Indische Buurt ended in December 2012. But, the communities and the Centre for Budget monitoring will keep working with budget monitoring. In the past 3 months things changed a lot. For example, the local district made a website containing facts and figures per neighborhood. And the communities really influenced the spending of money in their neighborhood.

Next months the perspective-paper of the citizens, also containing the budgets according to the communities, will be presented at the local district. This paper will also be the base for budget monitoring by the communities.

You joined the Cabinet Office as director of open data and transparency in January. What will be your biggest challenge?
Promoting open data on the international stage. The UK is president of the G8 summit this year, and forming a collective, international agreement on open data is one of our central aims. We are also lead co-chair of the Open Government Partnership [committed governments to curbing corruption and promoting human rights]. Looking worldwide has been a learning curve – not all countries have a central authority on open data, so everyone starts on a different page.

And your biggest achievement so far?
Month by month, we are releasing more data sets. I think the UK has a legitimate claim to being the world leader on open data. Gavin Starks of the Open Data Institute says that 2013 is to open data as 1993 was for the internet – people are experimenting with what is possible.

What’s your next priority?
The Shakespeare report [the review of public sector information] has given us fire in our belly to face the next challenge – opening up more data to domestic businesses so that British companies can really succeed. To do this, we need to get the core data out from each government department in an organised form. We will also be announcing more of our plans at this year’s G8 summit.

Other than economic growth, what are the biggest benefits of open data?
Helping citizens access services and interact with the state in different ways, and increasing government accountability. Over the next decade, data will change the way we live, work and think. Then there are fledgling public services apps such as GP Ratings which let people get a sense of how their GP is performing. Things like travel apps which let you know which train to catch before you’ve even decided to catch still seem futuristic to me.

Your background isn’t in tech or data – how did you find yourself in the role?
My background is as a public service reformer. I worked in the Cabinet Office’s Strategy Unit from 2006-7 at the time of the Power of Information Review. It was exciting, cutting-edge stuff – this was essentially year zero for the open data movement taking off. I’m not a tech person by background, but I have forced myself to put down Candy Crush Saga in the evening and start using Codecademy, a series of logical puzzles which teach you how to write code. I do recommend it; it’s better than playing those pointless but addictive iPad games.

Research has shown that many civil servants don’t fully understand the benefits of open data. Do you still have to ‘sell’ open data within government?
There are 440,000 civil servants, and many won’t touch the open data agenda day-to-day, so I think it’s actually quite encouraging that around half of those are aware of the benefits. We do need to spread the word, though. This is a big cultural challenge. We are trying to make sure that this isn’t just a Cabinet Office push, so there are transparency boards in each department. The difficulty is making sure that we get core data out of all these departments.

You use social media. Many civil servants don’t, or have their accounts managed by PR. Should more government employees be socially active?
It’s difficult. I must admit I’ve had to unfollow some civil servants who just use their accounts to say “Today, I’m going to have a meeting with some other civil servants”. But I don’t think it would have been credible to take on this role and remain silent on social media. It’s easy to overstate the extent to which technology can influence democracy, but I do think that social media has changed the way I think about my role; I feel much more accountable to those outside of the system. I do get butterflies before most tweets I send, so I can understand why some civil servants choose not to engage. But as long as you follow the same rules as other professionals on Twitter, I think the benefits outweigh the downsides. It’s nice to think that I’m not just a faceless bureaucrat.

You worked on secondment at Leicestershire county council in 2010. What did you learn there?
It opened my eyes to the other end of the telescope. I would really recommend swapping between roles. Working in central government, I have often been frustrated with the length of the process before reforms get brought to life. But at Leicestershire I was given the space to get on with making practical reforms happen, with none of that semi-colon-altering or policy writing by committee. It’s a top-class local authority and definitely leaner than most central government departments.

What has been the best moment of your career to date?
A decade ago I worked in the early stages of developing personal budgets for elderly people’s social care, then, years later, my family was able to make use of the scheme. My grandma was able to receive care from a person she trusted outside of the contract with the council. I think it was part of a quiet re-balancing of power towards the citizen, and a default policy of choice for adult social care. I had a small role, but I am proud to have been involved.

What is your leadership style?
Clear, passionate about the direction of travel and as transparent as I can be. I try to offer praise and encouragement, both inside and outside my immediate team, and give space for people to find their own solutions. I also think it’s important to keep in touch with the wider world, pulling in ideas from other bits of government and the wider world.

What do you do to relax in your spare time?
I live 100 miles from work and tend to work long hours, but when I can I like to have an early breakfast with my two young children. I also spend more money than I should on classic cars – I’ve recently restored an old 1970s Mercedes.

What three things would you take to a desert island?
My iPhone, laptop and a strong Wi-Fi connection

Para promover la rendición de cuentas entre los gobiernos miembros y los ciudadanos, el IRM está trabajando en el desarrollo y difusión de informes anuales de evaluación independiente para cada gobierno participante del OGP.

En esta etapa inicial, el trabajo de investigación se está desarrollando activamente en los 8 países que en 2011 dieron inicio a OGP (Brasil, Estados Unidos, Filipinas, Indonesia, México, Noruega, Reino Unido y Sudáfrica).

Para el segundo grupo de países participantes -aquellos que se incorporaron durante 2012- ya se inició el proceso de convocatoria y selección de investigadores locales. El equipo del IRM está trabajando intensamente para atraer la postulación de los expertos más talentosos del ámbito y así poder elegir a los mejores profesionales de estos 39 países.

El equipo de asesores técnicos del Panel Internacional de Expertos (International Experts’ Panel, IEP) ya está completamente formado y en pleno funcionamiento. Estos expertos son académicos de connotada reputación en los temas de transparencia, participación, y rendición de cuentas. Sus labores principales son diseñar el método de evaluación, elegir a los investigadores en cada país y orientar el proceso de investigación. Actualmente, los asesores están trabajando en la revisión de los borradores de los informes de los países fundadores de OGP.

En otras noticias, el panel de asesores principales del IEP -que trabaja en promover los resultados del IRM- está cambiando su composición. Mary Robinson está dejando el panel para servir como enviada especial de las Naciones Unidas en la Región de los Grandes Lagos de África. Si bien el IRM lamenta su partida, es una oportunidad para pensar en los roles de los asesores principales, lo cual será discutido en julio de 2013 por el Comité Directivo de OGP.

En lo que respecta a dotación de personal y apoyo, en este momento el IRM cuenta con 3 empleados permanentes, lo que nos ayudará a llevar adelante la gran tarea de investigación que debemos realizar. Como señalamos al principio, tenemos ocho investigadores locales trabajando en los países que iniciaron el OGP, y estamos reclutando investigadores en los 39 países que corresponden al segundo grupo en incorporarse al organismo.

Con personal fortalecido y destacados investigadores trabajando a nivel nacional, durante este segundo semestre de 2013, el IRM contará con más apoyo para la gran tarea logística e intelectual que significará la gestión de la investigación en 47 países.

Para preguntas específicas o si requiere mayor información, por favor escriba a irm@opengovpartnership.org.

The first round of reports is well underway. Researchers, independent experts based in each of the countries, are active in the 8 OGP founding countries: Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom, United States. For the second cohort of country members–those that joined in 2012– recruitment of local researchers has begun. At the time of writing, the IRM staff has been working intently to ensure that we have a strong talent pool to choose from in each of these 39 countries.

At this time, the Technical Advisory team of the International Experts’ Panel (IEP) is fully formed and functional. These experts have established reputation in the areas of transparency, participation, and accountability. The Panel’s main tasks are to design the evaluation method, to choose the researchers in each country, and to guide the research process. Currently, the International Experts’ Panel is working on reviewing the draft reports of the OGP 8 founding countries.

The IEP is also served by a group of senior advisors responsible for promoting the results of the IRM process. This aspect of the IEP is changing its composition with the recent departure of Mary Robinson to serve as a United Nations Special Envoy to the Great Lakes of Africa region. Because of this, there is an opportunity for thinking about the role of senior advisors, which is going to be discuss by the Steering Committee in July.

Any questions or specific requirements, please contact us through this email irm@opengovpartnership.org.

With the vast progress made in the sectors like food production, medicine, and communications in the postwar years, it is surprising to note that there has been much less improvement in the openness of government. This is a problem that is often lamented in public discourse, but it is rarely dissected.

Open education tools offer a unique chance to change this.

It is generally agreed that open government requires three major components: an open media, accountable politicians and an open education system catering for all levels of society. Open education bolsters open governance in two key ways: it provides an example of an open institution for students, parents and teachers to learn from; and produces informed individuals who are more likely to hold their governments to account.

The value of education is not merely theoretical: in its 2012 report on corruption, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development highlighted the importance of four dimensions of societal integrity: access to education, quality of education, sound management of staff and resources, and capacity for corruption detection and prosecution. The paper clearly emphasizes education, stating that an education system that incentivizes corruption, will go on to incentivize teachers, parents and pupils elsewhere in society leading to a spreading culture of corruption.

An accessible and open education system teaches beneficiaries that institutions can be trusted, and thus, will reinforce existing open governmental institutions. Educated individuals are also more likely to make informed judgments about their politicians. Educating the youth of today means developing a critical, informed public that can later force deliverable solutions at the local and national levels.

In a recent speech, European Union Commissioner, Neelie Kroes said “I think that openness is a core European value, and one of our strengths, and I do see it as contributing to our ability to innovate.” Kroes went on to discuss how information can “empower citizens” and allow people to “hold their governments to account”.

The recent popularity of massive open online courses (MOOCs) has paved the way for a revolution in education, and opens the door for a huge leap forward in government openness.

It is now more possible than ever to access quality learning materials about a wide range of subjects, a flexibility that allows for greater creativity, and a greater chance to promote openness. This expanding and exciting field is capturing the imagination of organisations across the spectrum. The creative community promoting ‘open society’ has a new tool in for the form of open platforms, such as Allversity, that they should use to their advantage. Such organisations can thereby lead the way towards universally accessible quality learning materials that promote open and accountable governments, informed citizens, and a better world.

Image source: Bookshelf Spectrum: mission accomplished, by Pietro Bellini, via Flickr

On 29th May 2013, an African Conference on Open Government Partnership (OGP) took place at Serena Beach Hotel in Mombasa Kenya, under the theme of “Taking OGP Forward in Africa”. The OGP Initiative was started in September 2011, seeking to increase openness in government practices or operations. It calls for open, transparent, accountable, participatory and inclusive governance.  Expected outcomes includes  efficiency, citizen engagement in governance of their societies, increased public trust in government operations and above all effective use of public resources for poverty eradication, economic transformation, peace and harmony among many others. To date Africa can boast of only the original five (5) countries – South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya, Liberia and Ghana being members of OGP. Several others are eligible but seem not to be in a hurry to be counted.

The Pearl of Africa, Uganda, has not joined the OGP. Our Finance Minister, Hon. Maria Kiwanuka attended the launch of initiative in United States, but did not commit her government. May be government is still studying the initiative or is not interested, we are just guessing because it has not made any public pronouncement regarding OGP. But for how long can government remain quiet? The two original East African Community member states have joined but we have not; yet  we are very keen to push for a monetary union and political federation. The integration process would make a lot of sense to citizens in these countries if there are common and harmonised government commitments to promote practices such as openness, transparency and accountability.

Government of Uganda attendance at the Mombasa meeting is uncertain, especially with the recent cabinet reshuffle. Hon Mary Karooro Okurut, former Minister for Information was listed among the key speakers, though she has moved to Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development. Hopefully the incoming minister Hon. Rose Namayanja can find time to attend or delegate. If it is not to express our readiness to join, at least it will demonstrate our interest to learn from others and “may be” promise to join by September/October 2013 annual OGP conference.

In April 2013, at the OGP meeting in London, several countries including Philippines, Argentina, Costa Rica, Finland, Hungary, Australia, Ireland, Trinidad and Tobago are reported to have expressed their interest to join. Besides Ghana, Kenya and Liberia, there were no additional aspiring countries from Africa. While it is not difficult to guess the reasons behind the lukewarm interest of Africa governments in the open government partnership, their inaction should be an issue to worry the citizens in these countries. The leaders cannot be promising to transform their countries, regions and the continent from peasant societies to middle-income and first class nations in the coming 30-50 years, when they are not opening up governance practices. Let the OGP conference in Mombasa register some more names of African countries promising to join OGP, and one of them should be the “Pearl of Africa”.

This blog originally appeared on the Uganda Open Government Platform

Photo credit: “Uganda View +  Butterfly” by Neil Palmer via Flickr.

The first Open Government Partnership (OGP) Africa regional meeting was hosted by the Government of Kenya from May 29-30, 2013 at the Coastal City of Mombasa. The meeting aimed at outlining an Africa agenda for open governance, promoting OGP in Africa and sharing and learning from experiences in open governance from different parts of the continent and beyond. Another key objective was to mobilize non OGP member Governments to consider joining OGP.

A civil society meeting organized by the Africa Freedom of Information Centre, International Commission of Jurists-Kenya, the World Bank Institute and OGP Independent CSO Coordinator preceded the main conference. It reviewed progress of OGP on the continent from the civil society perspective and outlined key expectations from the OGP regional meeting. Key among expectations was why Uganda had not joined the OGP despite meeting eligibility criteria. Civil society also wanted to know the OGP eligibility status of countries like Namibia, Zambia, Nigeria, Botswana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Senegal and Ethiopia. Civil society also wanted to know how OGP relates with African processes like the African Peer Review Mechanism as well as the place of regional Economic Communities like ECOWAS, SADAC and EAC.

The meeting attracted over 100 government and civil society leaders from Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana, Liberia, South Africa, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Uganda, Mozambique, Tunisia, among other countries. There was also representation from other agencies such as the OGP Support Unit, the Independent OGP Civil Society Coordinator, the World Bank Institute, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, UNESCO, APRM Support Unit and The World Bank.

The most fundamental outcome of the meeting was a visible and trustful relationship between Government and civil society representatives. Other specific outcomes include:

1.    Dr Fred Matiang’i, Kenya’s Minister of ICT promised that he will ensure that the long awaited Freedom of Information Bill is tabled to Parliament for consideration and adoption.

2.    Hon. Alhaji Alpha Kanu, Sierra Leone Minister of Information and Communications promised that his Government will in the near future get the draft Freedom of information Bill adopted. He also indicated the country’s eagerness to join OGP.

3.    South Africa Deputy Minister of Public Service and Administration, Ayanda Dlodlo called upon African governments to learn from Africa civil society who are networked and keep sharing and supporting each other on OGP in Africa.

4.    Minister Richard Twodong and Director of Information Simon Mayende promised that consultations would be expedited and Uganda’s OGP membership would be confirmed sooner than later.

5.    It was agreed that OGP is an essential platform to strengthen existing mechanisms such as the African peer Review Mechanism through its emphasis on dialogue, inclusiveness and timely action on grand challenges.

6.    The meeting further agreed that OGP should be practically tailored towards socio-economic justice and building an inclusive partnership that African citizens can relate with and truly be a part of.

7.    Civil society from Ghana promised to engage with Government on the basis of the country action plan to ensure that Government commitment in respect of the Freedom of Information Bill is expedited.

8.    Africa civil society agreed that it would be useful to hold a separate regional OGP meeting to discuss OGP and civil society engagement in Africa

9.    The tool http://africafoicentre.org/ogp/developed by AFIC to help civil society monitor implementation of OGP commitments was welcomed. Civil society agreed that following the meeting they would meet at country level to deliberate on the status of implementation and share with the rest of the community through the Africa OGP CSO listserve.

10.    Civil society agreed to support each other in campaigning for eligible but non OGP member countries to expedite joining of OGP. In the same vein they committed to deepen engagement on OGP issues by mobilising other civil society “missing voices” at national level from different sectors.

11.    Civil society participants agreed to facilitate media and public debates about the OGP in their respective countries so that the issue is put firmly on the public agenda, improve public awareness and understanding of it and thereby make it a real issue that citizens in different African countries are engaging, and through this process, contribute to the broadening and deepening of the OGP in Africa.

12. Participants appreciated AFIC for facilitating OGP knowledge-sharing across the continent through webinars, video conferences, listserves and country support missions. They encouraged that these should be continued.

The Africa Regional Meeting has provided an important opportunity for the region to reflect on progress at country and regional level, mobilise other governments and plan for the future ahead of the London 2013 meeting as well as second generation of country action plans.

At the end of the outreach meeting, civil society again reconvened to take stock of the two days of deliberations and charted a way forward on how to consolidate the outcomes of the outreach meeting.

This post first appeared here.

Photo credit: John Smith via Flickr.