Nathaniel
Thanks to our friends at the Center for International Private Enterprise for the plug in their recently published paper, "Changing perspectives: how donors can work with the private sector to reduce corruption."
Showing posts with label citations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label citations. Show all posts
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Gap Between Elections and Democracy
Global Integrity's managing director Nathaniel Heller discusses the work required to move beyond democracies-in-name-only to truly accountable governments, in an op-ed published in the Washington Times.
The Gap Between Elections and Democracy
By Nathaniel Heller
Published in the Washington Times March 5, 2008
Troubling headlines in recent months from places as disparate as Pakistan, Kenya and Russia all share a common theme: the flaws in those countries' elections. Underlying this trend is the opinion that elections are one of the most visible and credible indicators of a country's level of democracy.
Evidence abounds of democracy's fragility or erosion in each nation — from the question of President Pervez Musharraf's commitment to holding free and fair elections in Pakistan, to the bloodshed in Kenya following Mwai Kibaki's apparently fraudulent re-election, to the Vladimir Putin regime's cynical stage-managing of the Russian presidential election.
To state the obvious, there can be no democracy without elections. But what about the reverse: Can elections occur in the absence of democracy? Putting aside the "elections" charade practiced by the likes of Cuba or Iran, the answer is still, unfortunately, yes. As a provocative new study demonstrates, when a country successfully holds a free, fair and open election that conforms to international standards, democracy is by no means ensured.
Global Integrity, an international group we work with that monitors governance and accountability mechanisms assessed 55 countries on 23 indicators and performance categories, examining the strength of civil society and governing institutions, anti-corruption mechanisms, and government accountability. The report confirmed that elections are but one part of a complex recipe for stability and good governance.
In some cases, countries with weak, ineffective or corrupt democratic institutions can still pull off plausible elections. Twenty of the 27 countries receiving "weak" or "very weak" ratings for executive, legislative and judicial accountability — from Argentina to Sri Lanka to Kazakhstan — still received "very strong" or "strong" ratings for election practices.
No country better illustrates the dangers of allowing the elections-to-democracy gap to remain wide than Kenya. In hindsight, the 2007 assessment of Kenya flashes like an eerie warning sign in history's rearview mirror. The ratings revealed dangerous fragility in Kenya's democratic institutions despite the prevailing conventional wisdom at the time that the country was on an upward trajectory.
In 8 of the 21 categories unrelated to elections, Kenya was rated "weak" or "very weak," including the rule of law, police performance and three categories of government accountability. The stage was set. Once the country's election results failed the legitimacy test, its institutional weaknesses helped fuel — rather than cool — the ensuing conflagration.
Nor are these problems confined to developing nations. Last week, Italy's president dissolved parliament and called for new elections after the governing coalition lost a vote of confidence. This will be Italy's 61st government since World War II.
Critics argue that Italy's electoral system gives too much power to fringe parties and too little attention to basic governing. Soon enough, Italy may have more "former prime ministers" than vineyards. Yet the new vote will proceed without the necessary institutional reforms.
Nonetheless, elections matter. After all, dictatorships such as North Korea, Burma, Saudi Arabia and Eritrea, which don't even hold elections, are so tightly controlled we could not gain access to local experts to do our research. And China, the world's largest autocracy, scored in the bottom 15 percent overall and didn't achieve a "strong" or "very strong" score in a single one of the 23 ratings categories.
Every country that the study rated in the bottom third in election practices also had "weak" or "very weak" ratings for the combined 23 categories. In other words, the absence of fair elections and widespread voter participation is almost always accompanied by weaknesses in the institutions on which a real democracy depends.
But this does not mean democratic progress is neither impossible nor destined to be slow. The study indicates that where dedicated leadership is present, positive change can happen quickly. Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania, three former Soviet Bloc nations, captured 3 of the top 7 overall ratings. These success stories suggest that a key link between elections and genuine democracy is the political will at the top to build and nurture democratic institutions that are independent from political personalities. Kenya's political leaders should take note.
Elections can be viewed as a celebration of democracy. Yet too often, as in countries like Kazakhstan, Egypt, Russia and Cameroon, they've been used as an excuse for prematurely declaring the democratic experiment a success. Focusing on the tougher, lower-profile institutional reforms may offer better leverage for cementing long-term reforms.
Nathaniel Heller is the managing director of Global Integrity, an independent nonprofit organization tracking governance and corruption trends around the world.
Uganda: Laws Alone Will Not Help
Ugandan analyst Jasper Mpiriirwe notes that legal implementations, not legal codes, are the trouble spots in Uganda. Uganda has the largest gap between law and practice of any country Global Integrity studied in 2007.
Laws Alone Will Not Help
By Jasper Mpiriirwe
Reprinted from The Monitor (Kampala), 8 March 2008
I have heard many times the hullabaloo of enacting more laws especially against corruption. Uganda has made a lot of strides in the legal framework as far as corruption in Africa is concerned. In fact on comparative terms, the legal framework in our country ranks among the best in Africa with the Global Integrity Report putting it at 90%.
Government has now tabled the Whistle Blowers Bill and the Witness Protection Bill in parliament which are supposed to protect a person who discloses information against a public official on misconduct, corruption.
These bills, if passed, will further reinforce the Inspectorate of Government Act 2002, the Leadership Code Act 2003, the Access to Information Act 2005, Public Procurement and Disposal Of Assets Act 2003 etc on the fight against corruption.
However, for some reason, whistleblowers have remained more endangered than suspected fraudsters! Clear previous recommendations to protect whistleblowers have just been ignored by corrupt management. It seems therefore that although on one hand there will be a law to protect a whistleblower, on the other hand the enforcement of any legislation depends on the mood of the implementer rather than the legal provisions!
A whistleblower is a person who on his own free will makes a disclosure on corruption, misconduct or criminal offence by a public official or agency to a person or agency capable of investigating the complaint. Ask Athanasias Kakwemire, formerly of NDA if you want to know the cost of whistle blowing in Uganda.
Uganda is a signatory to the UN Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption 2003 and Article 33 provides that each state/party shall consider incorporating into its domestic system measures to provide protection against any unjustified treatment for any person who reports in good faith and reasonable grounds to competent authorities any facts or acts of corruption.
The 1995 Constitution as amended provides that "all public offices shall be held in trust for the people, all persons placed in positions of leadership and responsibility shall, in their work, be answerable to the people, and all lawful measures shall be taken to expose, combat and eradicate corruption and abuse or misuse of power by those holding political or other public offices."
The Access to Information Act is in force and one of its purposes is to protect persons disclosing evidence of contravention of the law, corruption etc. The regulatory and institutional framework of this Act as provided is still 'hot air' to date.
Whistleblower legislation indeed will be another tool to expose and combat corruption in Uganda. But all that government needs is a mechanism that would ensure enforcement of the law. The Bill will seek to protect whistleblowers and witnesses in corruption cases from reprisals, dismissal, victimisation by the accused persons or institutions but our history shows the opposite.
What we need therefore is more of the will than just words!
The writer is a policy analyst and coordinator, Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda
Monday, February 25, 2008
Global Integrity on NPR All Things Considered
Global Integrity's recent work on freedom of speech online (featured on this blog) is cited on NPR's All Things Considered, in a story on online censorship and Wikileaks.
NPR.org: Ruling to Shut Down Leak Site Called Censorship
Friday, February 8, 2008
Tanzania: Procurement Scandal Takes Down Prime Minister
Prime Minister Edward Lowassa has resigned Friday, following the completion Wednesday of a Parliamentary investigation into his dealings with the supposedly U.S.-based Richmond Development Company (RDC). The company turned out to be non-existent, with assets barely more than a post-office box. The government's ill-fated hiring of RDC to provide badly needed electrical power plants was covered at length in the Global Integrity Report: Tanzania, published last week.
Energy Minister Nazir Karamagi and East African Cooperation Minister Idrissa Msabaha have also resigned. The president of Tanzania has dissolved the Cabinet. Tanzanian media appears quite happy with the resignations. Mizengo Pinda has been named the new prime minister.
Global Integrity's analysis of anti-corruption in Tanzania identified systemic weaknesses in the oversight of public expenditure, noting that "the Public Accounts Committee is chaired by the opposition, but the committee still has very limited influence, and the chair frequently makes public comments defending the status quo."
In related news, the ongoing scandal has prompted some enthusiastic local coverage of the Global Integrity Report: Tanzania.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Global Integrity on EthicsWorld
Global Integrity Managing Director Nathaniel Heller has a commentary published at EthicsWorld, discussing the Global Integrity Report: 2007.
Monday, January 21, 2008
National Center for Policy Analysis
The NCPA becomes the latest organization to use the Global Integrity Report as source material for an independent analysis. Read it here: Economic Freedom and Economic Growth in Mexico
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)