Advocacy policy: Regional challenges and opportunities

1. Advocacy policy: Regional challenges and opportunities Dr. Vira Nanivska Dr. Volodymyr Nikitin Tbilisi 2003

2. Unprecedented event Greetings and thanks to the conference organisers for an unprecendented combination of public and advocacy policy under the framework of a single event. Until now, technical assistance programs for democratic transformations focused on advocacy, while issues of the quality of public policy were attributed to economic reforms. Public policy was the realm of only the IMF and the World Bank.

3. Why is it so important? ICPS’s experience and analysis of the experience of EU member states shows that the process of democratisation and real transformation aims at building two capacities in society: • The government must reckon with the interests of all legitimate groups in making and implementing policy • Stakeholders must be able to participate in and influence decision-making processes

4. Interdependency in the quality of public and advocacy policies • Quality of life and the possibility of effective advocacy directly depend on the quality of public policy. Without organised lobbying of all stakeholders in the government, public policy cannot be successful and socially oriented.

5. Contradictions are counterproductive • The success of advocacy programs definitely has to do with changes in the quality of public policy. The separation and even counterposition in technical assistance programs of these inter-related aspects of transformation executed in the post-Soviet terrain was and still is a gross blunder on the part of donors

6. Challenges in Ukraine: Democratisation cannot evolve naturally Hopes for fundamental democratic institutions to evolve naturally after the totalitarian regime collapsed never came true, due to the following: • Donor programs put on the table ready-made policy decisions without public participation. This is how the post-Soviet society missed the process of developing policymaking skills under political competition • Donor programswere developed without any public participation; on the contrary, at the World Bank they were even classified as confidential

7. Challenges in Ukraine: Democratisation cannot evolve naturally (2) • Programs for supporting democracy strove advocated civil rights, but never aimed at exerting any political influence • Only donors were allowed to think about reforms, while responsibility for the consequences was laid on “bad” governments and incorrect national mentality

8. Challenges in Ukraine: Democratisation cannot evolve naturally (3) Summary: • Representative democratic institutions were created, but the public-at-large and stakeholders had no access to decision making • Bureacratic machinery, built to meet the interests of only one ruling group, is unable to re-organise itself into a decision-making aparatus that takes into account the interests of various social groups We are of the opinion that such a re-organisation is impossible without purposeful and coherent institutional changes in policymaking, under the framework of technical assistance

9. Technical assistance is not focused on institutional changes International organisations grant assistance to Ukraine depending on the quality of governmental decisions, without even thinking about helping the government to develop the skills required to attain the necessary quality: • public participation of stakeholders in decision making, and transparency of this process • application of democractic decision-making procedures when preparing policy papers (public policy formats and standards)—goal-setting, problem identification, consideration of alternatives, analysis of consequences and resources, management of the decision implementation process • public discussion of decision-making preparatory stages by publishing Green and White Papers

10. Technical assistance is not focused on institutional changes (2) • The quality of policy is determined by technical skills, which can and should be shared, but donors did not strive for these objectives • Today’s basic technical problem preventing expansion of the democratisation process on a large scale is the inconsistency of organisation and orientation of technical assistance to challenges that should be tackled at the institutional stage of democratisation

11. Technical assistance is not focused on institutional changes (3) • Assessment criteria for democratic reforms do not take into account shifts in the transfer from the values and ways of acting adopted by governments and citizens in the USSR to those practiced by Western democratic societies. These criteria are grounded upon static indices calculated based on the development levels in countries with sustainable democracies. • Thus, the real transformation process is distorted in the public consciousness and donors’ visions; correspondingly, decisions related to technical assistance do not target the actual problems and aspects of possible transformations

12. Soros Foundations • «Soros» has revolutionised the development assistance world, having effecively introduced a technical concept of open society into international assistance programs. Today, NGO and public participation have come to be key concepts at centre of donor discourse

13. Soros Foundations (2) However, this has not improved the effectiveness of International Aid, because the main lessons of the Open Society Institute’s experience have not been learned: • Externally formulated policy advice never works; there has to be indigenous homework done on policy thinking, rooted in local policy constituencies • It takes learning and meticulous and systematic work to developindigenous democratic capacity

14. Soros Foundations (3) • Effective democracy requires new skills for both partners, government and non-government, to be capable of transparent dialogue; • Open society and public good do not spring up automatically after the pressure of totalitarianism is relieved through political and economic liberalisation, neither can they be charitably granted; • The sine qua non of sustainable change is the institutionalisation of political and administrative reforms through procedures, structures, standards, and skills

15. Soros Foundations (4) • We believe that today the Foundationsare not being used as a resource for launching targeted activities for institutionalising the procedures of public participation in decision making • The Foundations’working principles—resource allocation among many organisations chanelled to different spheres by management decisions —were adequate for the first stage of transformation, that is, collecting primary democracy-related knowledge, and the skills of propagating this knowledge

16. Soros Foundations (5) • However, these principles are absolutely irrelevant to the second stage objectives, that is, making the process of change purposeful and consistent • The first stage allowed to identify problems, gain experience of successes and failures, create independent NGOs. Based on this, today it is possible to concentrate efforts on institutional transformations

17. ICPS mission and activity ICPS activity and products falls into the following three key areas: • Serving as independent policy voice, including on policy studies and policy campaigns • Technical assistance to both central and local government bodies, to develop their capacities for public policy. ICPS has supervised training and instruction on policy issues for more than 140 high-level government officials

18. ICPS mission and activity (2) • Technical assistance to non-governmental organisations that work with grass roots targets the development of hands-on skills for participating and influencing public policy in their constituencies. The “People’s Voice” project, in tandem with the World Bank, devised and implemented a program“Network of Local Independent Policy Centres”

19. ICPS achievements: Examples of projects We adopted the following paradigm for project work: policy documents are designed by Ukrainian experts based on public policy standards and formats adopted in developed democracy countries, with international experts delivering consultations and trainings to support this process

20. ICPS achievements: Examples of projects (2) ICPS’s overall action plan looks as follows: • Discussion of necessary institutional changes with the government and donors. • Project development and implementation, with outputs in the form of government documents with technical assistance • Support for the implementation of the prepared documents

21. Such an approach has allowed ICPS to accomplish real changes in decision-making processes An example: Project “Creation of Policy Analysis Groups and an Information Resource Centre in the Government of Ukraine” • One of the deliverables: “Concept for the Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers” based on public policy procedures • Output: A new redaction of the “Provisional Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers” adopted by governmental resolution and based on the concept devised during the project

22. Such an approach allowed to accomplish real changes in decision-making processes (2) Example (cont’d): Next stage of project development: Project “Institutional Capacity to Develop Economic Programs” • One of the deliverables: “Instructions for Public Consultations” • Output: Draft governmental resolution “On the mechanism for citizen engagement in public policymaking and implementation by central and local executive government bodies”

23. Such an approach allowed to accomplish real changes in decision-making processes (3) • We regard these project outputs to be essential to creating a legal, normative, and methodological foundation for citizen engagement in advocacy campaigns

24. Technologisation of ICPS activities and sharing of experience • ICPS has been trained by Western partners such as RAND, the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, and the Сonference Board of Canada • A package has been formed of regular economic and political publications, having for their basis ongoing research and produced using a single technology • This technology has already been transferred to the Kazakhstan Public Policy Centre; the same is planned for a Moldova counterpart

25. Technologisation of ICPS activities and sharing of experience (2) • Organisation standards and formats for research projects have been developed, and this experience is now shared with NGOs from Ukraine and Central Asia • Public dialogue standards were developed, and these skills are now shared with other NGOs • Work is ongoing on summarising our experience and translating it into standards; that is how ICPS has come to assist Soros Foundations in creating public policy centres in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, with similar work initiated in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Also, ICPS is actively involved in expanding the Open Society Institute Network

26. ICPS transferrable capacities • Work with the government — overview on decision making in full-fledged democracies; projects to draft policy analysis papers; pilot projects with central and local governments; preparation and execution of papers on public participation in decision making; training and analytical support for this process

27. ICPS transferrable capacities (2) • Work with NGOs — teaching policy analysis standards and formats; participation in projects with central and local governments; creation of NGO networks capable of working under policy analysis frameworks; serving as a resource for launching large-scale advocacy programs and projects

28. ICPS transferrable capacities (3) • Work with political parties — analysis of party programs from the viewpoint of advocacy and influencing transformation processes, analysis of internal party policy • Work with parliament — demonstration of templates of draft laws designed in democratic countries, their adoption in legislative practice • Work with foundations — support for projects to create think tanks and networks

29. ICPS challenges and solutions • The activities of a single organisation, however successful, cannot result in large-scale changes. That is why we started to search for partners and, for this purpose, actively participate in networks and in creating new networks. Particularly useful to us has been the experience of the European OECD and Canadian IDRC networks

30. Particularities of working in networks • The network is a place where knowledge is concentrated and multiplied, and innovations are extensively implemented • Information is the lifeblood of networks, it circulates freely and, hence, meets high standards of reliability • Information circulation in partner networks unites people, institutions, and efforts • Single standards allow networks to create supra-cultural international systems of human development

31. Creation of partner networks • Since 1947, Western countries have abandoned the policy of war alliances and adopted that of partnership • Establishing partnerships was bolstered by the creation of horizontal dialogue networks • Over these years, an extensive experience of network cooperation has been accumulated

32. Absence of partner networks in the USSR • In the USSR, the ideology and ways of organising partnerships did not take root, instead decisions used to be coordinated in vertical management systems • Ultimately, this slowed down development and led to the absence of the capacity for necessary innovations • It has resulted in the absence of skills of working in partner networks in the post-Soviet realm

33. What is the benefit of network cooperation? • Cooperation in networks allows to organise regular research, information, and knowledge exchange, technical support and training, demonstrate experience and examples of specific successful decisions.

34. Conclusions 1. The democratisation process and the opportunity to organise advocacy campaigns requires building up two skills in society: • The government must be able to reckon with the interests of all legitimate social groups in making and implementing policy decisions • Stakeholders must be able to participate and influence policymaking

35. Conclusions (2) 2. Open Society Institute is a proven leader in transformation and thus has assumed the responsibility of supporting viable institutional transformations in post-Soviet countries

36. Conclusions (3) 3. Today, effective institutional transformations are possible if there are effective partner networks of public influence

37. Recommendation • To study the experience of successful international networks and apply it to developing a public policy centre network under the umbrella of the Open Society Institute