OGP turns 10!

Happy Anniversary, Open Government Partnership!

By Veronica Cretu, co-chair of the Open Government Coordination Committee, Moldova

September 21, 2021

I fondly remember my excitement when I first learned about this global initiative while sitting in a World Bank meeting in Chisinau in the fall of 2011, given the ‘promise’ it was bringing to ordinary citizens around the globe: such as more friendly, open, transparent, accountable, innovative governments, able to deliver high quality public services, engaging and co-creative policy making processes, national and local agendas shaped in a way that are reflective of the needs and realities on the ground.

My genuine joy was anchored in a longer-term dream of wanting to live in a free, open minded, democratic society in which the citizen is valued, has a voice and a say in the decision making process, and OGP was bringing this paradigm shift related to citizen engagement as part of its principles and Theory of Change. I loved everything about it!

I was very proud to have been elected as a civil society steering committee member to the OGP back in April of 2013. I took this role with a high degree of responsibility, given that I represented a region rather than just acting in my personal capacity.

I have frequently engaged with my peers from civil society organisations in Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan and have assisted colleagues in Kyrgyzstan and Nepal, who were interested in bringing their country closer to the OGP. Kyrgyzstan became the first country in Central Asia to join the Open Government Partnership in 2017. Back in 2019 I had the opportunity to work for a few days with civil society representatives in Bishkek and pilot the alternative reporting methodology of National Action Plan on Open Government. The drive from civil society was very impressive.

I had talks and meetings with OGP-ers and reformers in the UK, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Italy, Estonia, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, Ireland, Germany, USA during my mandate as steering committee member. I am grateful that OGP connected us, and I am convinced that hundreds if not thousands of similar ‘bridges’ were built in the OGP community during the past decade globally, regionally and locally.

Back in 2016, I was invited to join OGP as an Envoy and since then I ‘ve been supporting OGP efforts across regions, thematic areas and Communities of Practice. I reflected about the value of open government in a rapidly changing and technologically driven society, where the modus operandi across the public sector, in some parts of the world, is still based on the norms of the 20^th if not the 19^th century :(

As an OGP-er, I’ve written several papers, delivered speeches and presentations, provided insights to independent evaluations of OGP processes, developed contents for guidebooks on transparency and citizen engagement, facilitated trainings and workshops by promoting the values and principles of open government philosophy, anchoring those reflections in emerging agendas such as open data, e-governance transformation, participatory budgeting, open contracting or beneficial ownership, local open government, to name a few.

During the past decade, several Governments opted into the OGP, while others opted out. Everyone had its motives for either joining or disengaging with the OGP.

It was interesting to observe how eligibility criteria served as a great tool for self-assessment by the Governments and generated hot, internal debates about whether or not they will be able to keep up with OGP commitments and whether the OGP is the right ‘club’ to join. I recall how representatives of a certain government were almost there, on the stage, ready to share their commitment to join the OGP, when suddenly realised they don’t fit the profile.

Once becoming members, some governments were mostly preoccupied with the degree to which they are able to be actively engaged in the OGP, demonstrate progress and the IRM played a key role in these processes. For other governments, the quality and transformations which could have been generated through the OGP membership were timely and relevant, bringing political dividends, quick wins, even if shorter-term.

They aimed high and were keen to achieve the ‘five star’ commitments. Here are few examples:

- Ukraine with lifting the lid on its Communist past;

- Ireland with shining a light on influence peddling;

- Romania and strengthening a shared understanding of the law commitment;

- USA with opening federal spending;

- Chile with strengthening environmental democracy;

- UK with transforming international aid transparency;

- Georgia with unmasking government surveillance;

- Canada with scaling up open data;

- Paraguay with empowering citizens at the local level;

- Bulgaria with integrating access to information and open data;

- Italy with following the money.

On the other hand, OGP has had members who cared about external visibility and reputation more than about delivering on their National Action Plans. They were rather concerned about using one more ‘global stage’ to mock democratic reforms, with corrupt politicians continuing to compromise the efforts and the open government discourse behind the scenes. I believe that ‘motivation to join OGP’ is in itself an extremely interesting topic for a research.

All in all, after 10 years, several challenges still persist and many more questions remain unanswered.

Have we managed to build up a world class of public servants and government reformers able to embed an open government mindset across the public sector? How do we measure what success in OGP should look like after 10 years?Have the Star Commitments help deliver the promise? What are the lessons learned from almost 5 cycles of NAPs co-creation across the early OGP comers?

Regardless the difficulties in addressing these questions, OGP has one dominant constant and that is its Civil Society.

• It is the civil society which keeps putting constant pressure on their governments to ensure that there are institutionalised platforms for dialogue and engagement, going beyond the Open Government National Action Plans.

• It is the civil society which keeps monitoring and learning from what works and what does not when it comes to reforms, good governance, open data or NAPs.

• It is the civil society which acts as ‘institutional memory’ in OGP member countries given the frequent elections and transitions in Government.

• It is the civil society who has played a crucial role during the Covid pandemic and still does so, especially around monitoring of spending and public procurement of protective equipment and medical supplies, vaccines, thus, ensuring that transparency and accountability are at the core of the process.

• It is the civil society which keeps exploring opportunities for monitoring and progress tracking around OGP related commitments, through alternative reporting, independent evaluations, scorecards, dashboards, open data, etc;

• Civil society has been raising awareness about the need for support in national languages on OGP related issues as this might help broaden the base of CSOs engaged in open government processes, and go beyond the ‘usual suspects’, capital city based CSOs. If OGP wants to bring community-based CSOs as part of local or national OGP processes, it should be able to “speak their language”.

And the list can continue with other important roles civil society has played in the OGP processes.

It is without any doubt that civil society has been a real driver, catalyst and advocate of the OGP, however, without relevant support it is hard to keep the same level of enthusiasm in moving forward.

As I look at the next 10 years ahead, I can’t help from thinking about several predictions for 2030 or beyond, and the degree to which our Governments are ready to face the upcoming challenges. From demographics, climate change, migration or Artificial Intelligence, digital democracy, to post-Covid recovery or big data, governments and civil society require new skills, ability to learn fast, adjust smartly, project accurately and think critically.

How will these emerging issues be shaping the next decade of the OGP?

What the Theory of Change should be? Should it differ from region to region, country to country, based on where everyone stands, based on the current preparedness level, or governance model? Should it be attached to longer term country visions? What if a country does not have a longer-term vision?

How do we ensure political support for OGP when transitions in government have become a ‘routine’ for so many OGP members?

How do we ensure that civil society across countries like Myanmar is being heard and does OGP intent to be more vocal when it comes to emerging repressive regimes?

Should it care about OGP members only? And what should it do differently to bring other new members on board?

How do we develop civil society capacity for open government when civil society itself is highly dependent on outside donors and is not financially sustainable?

How do we develop and promote open government literacy among the general public in order to ensure demand for openness, transparency and accountability on a regular basis? Should we engage more Ministries of Education and aspire for a redesign of education system in a way that it is able to generate active citizens, capable to think independently and able to scrutinise their elected ones?!

Or should we also aim to train, in parallel, our elderly population and create more generational dialogues, in a way that old stereotypes and approaches are gradually reassessed, thus, leaving the nostalgia for the past behind (particularly across the former soviet block) and focusing on the new approaches?

Do we really know who are our genuine open government reformers in a world heavily influenced and dictated by political parties, political affiliations and loyalty to the party?

What should the real costs of Open Government Action Plans be? Are we doing the right estimates? No investment (financial, human) is worth the risk unless one gets a return. What is a good return on investment in OG Agenda?

Does OGP intend to keep the same National Action Plans' approach for the next decade or is OGP ready to adjust and adopt various models, diversifying and bringing in alternative solutions to the NAPs? How flexible OGP can be?

How would we know in 2030 that our OG efforts have been successful?

I stand ready to keep exploring on these and other pertinent questions as we move forward.

OGP is very close to my heart and I am forever grateful for all the wonderful learning opportunities, for the passionate and dedicated professionals I have met along the way, for the possibility to test, pilot, experiment and implement ideas I have only dreamt of ...

In the end, we both want the same: legacy in establishing new standards and norms for active citizenship, high quality public service delivery, evidence based policy making, transparency and accountability at all levels of government, by maintaining the legitimacy of the process. We want citizens to trust their governments, and governments to trust their citizens. This is about changing the mindset of both!

Open Government is a mindset! Let's keep developing it together! Happy Anniversary, dear OGP!