WORKSHOP REPORTS: Transparency and Accountability

• Regarding advocacy, civil society can proactively present information to the legislature without having to be asked. This can include petitions, requests for regular meetings, preparation of documentary information for submission to parliament, and the development of effective advocacy, including popular education campaigns on issues and use of the media. Civil society should also be prepared to follow up and remain focused on the issues raised.
• The legislature should know that there is an active civil society seeking to provide information and input. This may not necessarily be instinctual on the part of parliamentarians. Attitudes may not change in a short period of time, but sustained engagement and activity by civil society organizations can help to open channels of communication. How civil society undertakes this is very important. To what extent, for example, can NGOs join forces to present their views on issues of common interest? Should they present their views to the legislature as a whole or should they try to identify members of parliament with whom they can work and who would be most likely to support their views?
• Legislators do not always have sufficient information about issues and proposed solutions. NGOs can provide analysis and serve as “bridges” between policy making and knowledge.
• It is important for NGOs to know and understand legislative rules and how to draft proposals for better solutions. It is also important to understand legislators’ perspectives and the forces that shape their positions.
• To play this role, however, NGOs must develop “carrot-and-stick” incentives, since legislators may instinctively not want to give NGOs this space or may feel that they are too busy to engage in this necessary dialogue. One common method of gaining legislative attention is to mobilize constituents; in other contexts, however, legislators respond more to their party and the executive branch and NGO advocacy strategies should take this into account.
• The particular theme or themes on which NGOs should focus depends on the particular context. In an authoritarian country, they can focus on the institutions needed for a transition. For instance, in the development of an electoral law, civil society must watch over the process or legislators may follow their own self-interest and elections will consequently be compromised.
• At what stage of the process is advocacy most helpful, and how can NGOs protect their reputation for non-partisanship?

• Just as legislative oversight of the executive is a central function in democracies, so too is civil society’s oversight of the legislative branch. This role includes assessing its performance and providing recommendations on improvement.
• The ability of civil society to exercising an independent and analytic oversight function is related to the history of relations between the government and civil society more generally. In South Africa, for example, civil society and the African National Congress (ANC) participated together in the struggle against apartheid. Once in power, however, both civil society and the ANC had to recognize that their relationship had subtly changed because civil society by definition is independent of government.
• NGOs can also monitor voting records and rate parties or individuals on their participation in legislative activities, including votes, or on the policy positions they take. They can also focus on the relationship between financial contributions and positions taken by deputies.
• By exercising an oversight role civil society is demonstrating that it is not subservient to the legislature. However, this need not take place in an adversarial context or such a context can at least be minimized.
• There is a complexity and potential conflicts of interest when NGOs that pursue specific policy and advocacy agendas also serve as neutral evaluators of the legislature’s functioning. One way in which this potential problem can be addressed is through the establishment of non-partisan organizations whose sole or main function is to promote democratic governance and well-functioning institutions.
• One theme often pursued by NGOs is governmental transparency, including freedom of information legislation, and NGOs can advocate for “sunshine” laws requiring transparency in legislative functioning.
• Civil society coalitions are important because they can help legitimate legislative actions, dispel suspicions of legislators’ motives, and create credibility in the legislative branch. NGOs have the capacity to produce change with tools that legislators do not have; they can serve as effective mediators by creating ground for common understanding; and NGO coalitions can develop information and briefing materials for Parliament. Much input can also come from universities, and networks can be formed with civil society groups in other countries. Ad hoc coalitions are often most useful because creating permanent coalitions may prove to be difficult and even counterproductive.
• NGOs can help publicize laws that have been passed and encourage legislatures to function as openly and transparently as possible. They should be proactive and positive in their relations with the legislature, but they should also demonstrate that they are prepared to be a critical and independent voice.
• Whether to work with all parties in the legislature or only those parties that meet “democratic” criteria is also an important question.
• NGOs should find ways to interact effectively with political parties, not to supplant them. Depending on the political context, however, it may be appropriate for NGO leaders to seek political office.
• It should also be noted that the constitutional function of legislatures is to legislate; therefore, not every interest that is brought to the legislature can or will be accommodated.

• Prepare strategies for dealing with legislatures for different possible political contexts;
• Use advocacy means including committees and public hearings, comments on draft legislation, meetings and informal contact, public access to the legislature, the media, site visits outside the capital, and constituency relations;
• Create legislative directories so people have information about who their legislators are and how to contact them;
• Propose public ethics laws to heighten popular confidence in the legislature;
• Perform informal legislative research and budget advisory functions;
• Develop positive relationships with key legislators;
• Emphasize the non-partisan nature of their activities, the transparency and good governance in their own functioning, the long-term capacity-building nature of their work, their use of international networks, and their ability to provide credible information to the public;
• Consider establishing non-partisan organizations whose sole or main purpose is to promote democratic governance and well-functioning democratic institutions;
• Consider ways to make working with them in the legislators’ own interest, such as creating popular demand through information sessions in different regions of the country;
• Promote civic education so people are aware of how NGOs can carry their voice to legislators.

• Participants agreed that accountability should not be viewed in a narrow sense, but should be interpreted to include all of those with a legitimate interest in the work of the NGO concerned. Moreover, the responsibilities of accountability cannot be discharged purely through a reporting framework, but should also encompass concrete mechanisms by which NGO decision makers can be held responsible for shortcomings.
• It is important to address accountability as a means to preserve the trust invested in NGOs. Participants also reflected on the need to reconcile the strengths of the NGO system (namely, the ability to innovate and respond flexibly and rapidly) with accountability mechanisms that tend to slow down their work. At the very least, it was noted, NGOs should endeavor to operate as transparently as possible, bearing in mind that transparency is often limited by the contexts within which NGOs are working. Participants reflected on the particular challenges they encounter in their own national contexts:
• the difficulty of preserving independence in the context of a civil war situation and during a period of political transition;
• problems of flawed national registration requirements for NGOs;
• proliferating numbers of NGOs, many of which are shells formed in response to either donor interest or are NGOs created by government or business interests; and
• the need to define just what constitutes an NGO.
• Lack of legitimacy is a charge often leveled at NGOs, particularly where their work touches on sensitive issues of religion or culture; how can NGOs counter such charges?
• How can NGOs consult, and take into account, the wishes of victims, clients, and beneficiaries, and who has the right to represent their points of view? This dynamic exists between northern and southern NGOs, at times leading to tensions.

• The media is a potential supporter of NGOs in this area.
• Reinforcing relationships with the grassroots helps strengthen the legitimacy of NGOs.
• International and national NGO coalitions can support national NGOs that are embattled and challenged within their national contexts.
• NGOs should engage more systematically with donors to set accountability targets and frameworks more effectively and to make donors more aware of the repercussions of their funding strategies.
• Consideration should be given to self-regulation and codes of conduct, drawing upon the experiences of South Africa and Taiwan.
• Competence, consistency, and fairness are important in reinforcing the accountability of NGOs, even where public opinion is not necessarily behind the NGO’s work.
• Finally, the participants acknowledged that it is unlikely that one approach would be sufficient to meet the needs of all NGOs. Rather, NGOs should develop approaches that suit them either nationally or regionally. However, NGOs should not be defensive about tackling the subject of accountability; this is an issue on which NGOs should take the lead and they should define their own standards before others do it for them.

• The right of access to information has finally come into its own after having been kept under the shadow over freedom of expression for a long time.
• This right has over the years been brought into the discourse on transparency, accountability, governance, participatory democracy and anti-corruption strategies.
• More than 50 countries have recognized the need to pass legislation to allow access to information that is withheld by government. No less than 20 countries passed these laws in the last decade, most of them in South America, Eastern & Central Europe, Asia, and Africa. Unfortunately, South Africa still remains the only African country with a proper right to information law (the Promotion of Access to Information Act of 2000). Some African countries have constitutional guarantees on the right of access to information (for example, Mozambique). Efforts are currently underway to lobby more African governments to enact such laws, and the Declaration on Freedom of Information of the African Charter on Human & People’s Rights is seen as an important advocacy tool.
• The case of Singapore was presented as a very interesting case because the efficacy of access to information in combating corruption is being tested. The country still doesn’t have an official RTI law and yet it is constantly perceived and rated as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. The picture isn’t as rosy when one considers the following:
• There is an oligopoly of control of the media where only two companies dominate the media industry.
• Information on government expenditures is not released freely to the public.
• Foreign media is intimidated from publishing reports of corruption through draconian defamation laws.
• A recent report by Reporters Without Borders ranked Zimbabwe above Singapore on respect for press freedom. These incongruous perceptions of Singapore have led to calls for future corruption perception indices to be qualified.

• Civil society and businesses need to address access to information accountability to the wider community.
• In countries where information blackouts exist, making it possible for corrupt governments to thrive, civil society should build sustainable solidarity networks to support campaigns endorsing RTI.
• Civil society organizations should continue to lobby and campaign for the enactment of RTI laws, instilling cooperation and solidarity among social partners.