Democracy Building 2.0: The Open Government Partnership, Game Changer or Symbolic Slogan?

Tomorrow morning representatives from more than 55 national governments meet in Washington DC to kick off what might be a multilateral, 21st century reboot of good old democracy-building, a term tainted by eight years of George W. Bush. Activists and international media soon associated “democracy promotion” with dropping bombs, shuttling suspects to covert CIA prisons, and selectively fostering regime change when it benefits US economic interests. Bush’s second inaugural address laid out his “ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” But not really. While soldiers were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq, the administration kept cozy relationships with the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Obama entered the White House all too willing to leave behind the democracy-building rhetoric. In early 2009 Peter Baker wrote:

Idealists, for lack of a better word, agree that democracy-building should be a core American value but pursued with more modesty, less volume and better understanding of the societies in question … The essential tension for the Obama team is whether to let Bush’s strong association discredit the very idea of spreading democracy.

With only 18 months left in the term, the Obama White House and the State Department seem to have finally crafted a frame through which to pursue a softer, more humble form of democracy-building: open government. Once a grassroots movement that emerged out of meetings between activists and geeks, open government is now being adopted by some of the world’s biggest NGOs and transformed into a tool of diplomacy.

Why this might be good news

Nearly all municipal governments in Argentina use the same accounting software, which includes a handy feature to export the latest government purchases to the municipal website. In theory, citizens could see in real time how their local government spends taxpayer money and which government service providers receive the largest contracts. In practice, any concerned citizen would need to perform a separate search on the website for each government payment, then copy and paste the information into a spreadsheet, and finally analyze it with filters and graphs. The obstacle to greater transparency wasn’t a lack of information, but rather the burden of time. Fortunately a young programmer from Bahía Blanca in southern Argentina used free, open source tools to automate this process and share real-time visualizations of the city’s spending patterns at an independent website called Gasto Público Bahiense, or “Bahia Blanca’s Public Spending.” Citizens were able to see the relationships between the various city agencies and the companies that benefited from service contracts. For the first time residents were able to compare — in real time — the percentage of public spending that went to education, infrastructure, public transportation, etc.

Last week the website stopped working. The city government re-designed their own website and implemented a “captcha” restriction to enter the transparency section. Humans can still access the same information as before, but computer scripts are now prevented from collecting and analyzing the data, a major step backward for open government in Argentina.

Argentine civic hackers were already aware that their platforms depended on the whims of government agencies. Last month I solicited the opinions of several leading Argentine programmers about a workshop on the use of technology in budget transparency. They had contemplated rolling out versions of Gasto Público Bahiense for each of Argentina’s municipal governments, but with extraordinary foresight, they decided that the platform was too dependent on factors they could not control. Instead their plan is to work with the city governments to convince them of the virtues and advantages of open government and budget transparency.

Noam Hoffstater and Alon Padon, two transparency activists in Tel Aviv, would likely support their strategy. In 2009 they recruited volunteers who spent months converting the Tel Aviv city budget from its public PDF format to Excel so that they could analyze and visualize it online. The sad irony is that the city government creates the budget using Excel, but then exports it to PDF so that citizens have more difficulty analyzing spending patterns. The following year Hoffstater and Padon decided that it was a waste of time to develop custom software that automates the process of converting the budget from PDF to Excel. Instead they sued the city, demanding that it publish the budget in a more accessible format. A day before the Tel Aviv District Court was scheduled to hear the case, the city announced that it would publish the 2011 budget in an open format. A few months later and the Israeli federal government also decided to publish its annual budget in an open format online.

I offer these two anecdotes as illustrations of why the grassroots, civic hacker movement must work with government if it wants to make sustainable progress toward greater civic participation and political accountability. In some cases we must offer carrots — in the form of incentives to government officials that provide access to public information — while in other cases we must use sticks — such as lawsuits and critical media coverage.

What to expect from the Open Government Partnership

The International Open Government Partnership (OGP) has been in the works for a long time now, but for a movement focused on openness, it has hardly been transparent in its conception. My impression is that it began as the US-India Partnership on Open Government, which was announced by Samantha Power in November 2010. According to the original press release, the initiative offered “a commitment to work together to advance open government globally.” Something must have gone wrong as the original initiative didn’t advance anything anywhere. A few months later a new international steering committee of eight governments was formed, with India notably absent from the list. Eventually it was announced that Brazil and the United States would co-chair the International Steering Committee, and that the initiative would officially launch at the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York in early September 2011.

What can we expect from the OGP? According to the press release, it’s a “multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance.”

The PR-talk is promising, but there are plenty of reasons to not get one’s hopes up just yet. Tomorrow’s meeting will take place at the US Department of State, an institution that has proven itself incompetent at responding to FOIA requests despite the Obama administration’s pledge to improve responsiveness. As Josh Israel reports:

Last October a package of 43 documents was delivered to the Center in response to an April 30, 2007 FOIA — more than three years after the initial submission. By that point, both the ambassador in question (Ambassador to Jamaica Sue McCourt Cobb ) and the president who appointed her had both departed their posts. Just last month, on June 15, a second, smaller package from State arrived at the Center, this one via registered mail, containing a letter referencing another one of Varsalona’s 2007 case filings.

The letter said the State Department was “undertaking a comprehensive effort” to clear its backlog of requests and was thus writing to “inquire whether you are still interested in pursuing this case.”

The article goes on to point out that the State Department is one of the few federal agencies that has yet to respond to Obama’s open government memo, and that the “median response for complex FOIA requests is 228 days.” In other words, this is not an institution that is accustomed to transparency and openness. (Let’s not even bring up its reaction to Wikileaks.) But it’s not just the State Department; Vivek Wadhwa of the Washington Post recently declared “the death of open government” in the United States following the resignation of the country’s Chief Information Officer and the slashed budget of Data.gov. The United States is hardly in a position to preach to others about the virtues of opening up government.

The same is true of Brazil, the other co-chair of the OGP. As Greg Michener has reported, realpolitik led Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to reverse her support for the expedited passage of a freedom of information law. (Oddly, Toby McIntosh was told that a FOI law was an eligibility criteria for participating countries, which would exclude the co-chair of the entire partnership.)

It is crucial that we judge the Open Government Partnership not by its rhetoric, but by its achievements. Participants of tomorrow’s meeting, which is closed to the press, have been given a 60-page report prepared by 16 organizations that offers general (and at times exceedingly vague) recommendations on achieving greater transparency in particular areas, such as asset disclosures, extractive industries, and procurement. According to the agenda, country delegations meet tomorrow afternoon to “identify concrete steps toward developing and implementing an Action Plan.” That’s right, Action Plan in capital letters. Those countries are then supposed to come back to the UN General Assembly meeting in September with their Action Plan in hand, a clearly outlined list of promises that will lead to greater government openness.

Who will judge the progress made by each country? Sadly, the very same governments themselves. The only mechanism to measure and enforce progress in the OGP is self-assessment, a reflection of the greatest recurring failure of the transparency movement: fake accountability. (Update: I have been told that there will also be an “an independent reporting mechanism.”)

Tomorrow’s meeting should give transparency activists a better idea as to whether the OGP offers a mechanism to put greater international pressure on federal governments — including the United States and Brazil — to become more transparent, or if this is just one more venue for politicians to be politicians. The responsibility is also in our hands. We must use both carrots and sticks to advocate for government openness grounded in reality, not symbolism.

6 Comments

  1. David, great points, especially the one on the conception of the initiative.

    In principle, any further initiative to increase transparency and reduce corruption is welcome. I like the focus on increasing the collaboration with citizens and some focus on open government, issues that are not at all present in more narrow international conventions, such as the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

    But quarterly reports as a measurement of progress is just not enough. Civil society has fought hard to have mechanisms through which they can be part in regional and international anti-corruption convention mechanisms.

    Having closed meetings with very selected invitees seems not a good start in a new transparency partnership.

    Reply
  2. Hi David,

    Congratulations on this post, my friend. Your writing is amazing as usual! :)

    I have some things to comment about this post, though. The first being that I really like the idea of open government as a way to promote democracy and diplomacy.

    On the other hand, there is something that really annoys me: Brazil has still not passed a legislation on access to information, and that may reconfigure its position in this partnership, don’t you think? Would other countries that have passed their FOIAs support Brazil’s opinions on open government and transparency? Wouldn’t this de-legitimise its plans for the future?

    We’re struggling to get this bill to the President’s hands, but the Senate is holding it off. In the meantime, access to information requests are not usual to government institutions, and their response is similar to the one you mentioned on your post, the only difference is that sometimes certain government bodies disclose that they have not access to nor documented this information/data.

    But there is also some good things happening, namely the work of Minister Hage and the Coordination of Fight Against Corruption. They’re very open to CSOs, and maybe the only bridge between the government and the concerned citizens these days.

    I’m looking forward to the meeting tomorrow, and hope they publish a record of the launching online later. Let’s see how this story develops in the next weeks…

    All the best!

    Reply
  3. Hi again,

    I agree with what Georg said above, about increasing civic collaboration in transparency and open government. In this regard Minister Hage is doing a good work too actually.

    By the middle of next year, before the 15th International Anti-Corruption Conference, there is going to take palce the First National Conference on Transparency in Brazil. This conference, which is a result of municipal, state and regional conferences with CSOs and government bodies will help outline new policies on transparency and accountability in the country.

    One of the steps of the conference is called “virtual conference”, that is basically going to work as a virtual platform to abridge contributions of concerned citizens who couldn’t actively participate in the actual conferences in their cities or in the capital. And there is also some interesting steps taken by the Presidency, the Ministry of Justice and the Chamber of Deputies on creating bridges and reaching out citizens in public hearings and law-making online.

    Anyway, I also wanted to ask you something: is it true that you can’t FOIA the US President and the Congress?

    Reply
  4. David,
    You might also consider the “open” metaphor from the perspective of U.S. economic interests. U.S. companies have long sought to open markets to competition around the world–hence the proliferation of free trade agreements over the last two decades. U.S. companies are bigger, more efficient, more technologically advanced and backed up by the clout of the U.S. government, all of which make them good candidates to stick it to local industry and win government contracts when they are able to compete on a level playing field. Openness is not just about politics, it’s about competition as well. Great post and thanks for the reference, compadre.

    Reply
  5. Valid points all. The thing is, this isn’t that far from the internal discussions we’re having. The lack of transparency there is more capacity related than anything — there’s exactly one person working on this full time, a steering group of 16 institutions, and zero institutional structure under it. Our website went up yesterday. So, it’s messy right now. The normal tendency would be to lock down until everyone’s on the same page, which you (rightly) scorn above.

    So we’re somewhere in between, but at least me and the people I’ve been working with are pushing hard towards open, inclusive and accessible modes of communication. Maybe we’ll get there, maybe we won’t. It’s worth trying.

    Jonathan Eyler-Werve, Global Integrity

    Reply
  6. Hey David,

    Great post. In Latin America, I think carrots are more effective than judicial sticks. But media sticks can do wonders.

    Also, thanks for the mention of Gasto Público Bahiense. Speaking of media sticks, last week has been fun, with the case having reached national news. It even caused an angry local politico to go on local tv and radio primetime saying that we were breaking into “their” DBs, stealing information and so on. Classic FUD. During the few days while this was news, it helped put hard-to-explain issues such as machine readability and data accesibility on the agenda.
    Fortunately, a few progressive voices from inside the government reached out and we’re trying to convince them that CSV beats bad HTML ;)

    There’s still a lot to do; the Latin America Open Data reality is nowhere near that of the northern countries. Working with the government and reaching out to still-non-civic hackers (we need more hands!) is priority now.

    Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Open Government Partnership–A New Direction for U.S. Foreign Policy? « Observing Brazil - [...] fellow blogger David Sazaki and I recently discussed (and he recently wrote about), while openness may help advance the …
  2. Multilaterale Initiative “Open Government Partnership” gestartet » Open, Government, NGOs, Partnership-Initiative, Förderung, Aktionspläne » open3.at - [...] meetings between activists and geeks,” Open Society Foundation consultant David Sasaki writes in a blog post, “open government is …
  3. Too much information: week ending 15 July | The Barefoot Technologist - [...] Open Government Partnership launched US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Brazilian Foreign Minister Antonio Patriota this week announced …
  4. Are Leaders Meeting at the U.N. on NESARA and Disclosure? | The 2012 Scenario - [...] meetings between activists and geeks,” Open Society Foundation consultant David Sasaki writes in a blog post, “open government is …
  5. Are Leaders Meeting at the U.N. on NESARA and Disclosure? | The 2012 Scenario « 2012 Indy Info - [...] of meetings between activists and geeks,” Open Society Foundation consultant David Sasaki writes in a blog post, “open government is …
  6. El Oso » Archive » The Closed But Open Government Partnership Paradox - [...] few months ago I wrote a geopolitical analysis of the newly launched Open Government Partnership (OGP), a multilateral network …

Leave a Reply