 
|
|
»PRESENTATION |
|
Dear friends:
Once again, we have the pleasure to present another thematic newsletter of the Lima Agreement. This issue zeroes in on something many of our organizations deal with in non-electoral times: the promotion of local government monitoring and of citizen participation.
With warm greetings,
Asociación Civil Transparencia
Executive Secretariat
|
| |
|
PODER
CIUDADANO
|
|
Acuerdos de
Discrecionalidad Cero (Transparency Agreements in local governments) |
|
Argentina | Poder Ciudadano
The Acuerdos de Discrecionalidad Cero are agreements through which provincial and municipal authorities commit themselves to promote and implement public and citizen participation policies. The main objective is local democracy-building and development of best practices.
These are some of the laws and policies that the undersigned authorities commit to foster:
Information Access Law
- Ethics Law for Public Officials (Financial disclosure reports, conflict of interests, etc. )
- Public Hearings Law
- Creation of the Anti-corruption Office
- Creation of the Ombudsman’s Office
- Web page design
- Lobbying Law
- Law on Joint Elaboration of Regulations
- Law on Open Meetings for Supervising Entities of Utilities
- Free Internet Queries of the Official Bulletin
- Provincial or Municipal Administrative Descentralization
- Law on Popular Initiatives
- Law on Popular Consultations
- Experience-based Public Employment Regime
In those cases legislation or policies already exist, the main objective is to improve them and enhance their scope.
The agreements are entered into by three stakeholders: The authorities in charge of advancing the implementation of transparency policies, Poder Ciudadano and a local civil society organization (OSC). The term “local” organization implies an organization working at the area where the commitments of the agreement are to be implemented.
The local organization’s duty is to monitor the compliance with the agreement. Once the term of the agreement has elapsed, the local organization must carry out specific follow-up activities in order to ensure the effective implementation of every activity outlined in the agreement. The report stemming from the monitoring activities is submitted to Poder Ciudadano, which will then analyze, compare and publish it.
.
For further information, please contact Pablo Secchi
(pablo@poderciudadano.org).
|
| |
|
 |
|
Citizen surveillance of local governments |
|
México | Alianza Cívica
In Mexico, citizen participation in municipal public administration is set forth in several legal provisions. However, citizen involvement in local government administration is very limited and, therefore, needs to be promoted.
All citizen surveillance activities aim at fostering active citizen participation in public affairs by means of affordable tools that enhance the citizens’ propositional skills and the attention that is given to their demands and needs. Likewise, transparency and accountability of municipal authorities is looked into in order to avoid the misuse of public resources and to provide the authorities with guidelines to improve their administration. These guidelines must take into consideration the most pressing needs of the community and the most effective way to use public resources.
Alianza Civica’s proposal for citizen participation in monitoring local governments include the following fundamental concerns:
1) If the actions of municipal authorities draw on their public responsibilities and aim at fulfilling the citizens’ needs.
2) If free access to information is ensured, specially on monetary resources, programs, actions and works performed by the municipality.
3) If municipal authorities allow for and promote citizen participation in the decision-making process and in the actions taken by the municipality. In terms of local government surveillance, the starting premise is that the administration is ruled by legal provisions and include action plans (what will be done), budgeting (resource allocation for what will be done), plan and program execution (actions and resource implementation) and accountability (the outcome of actions undertaken and why resources were allocated in such a way).
Based on the aforementioned, there are four major stages to monitor public administration:
1. Every three years when municipal authorities are mandated to prepare a municipal development plan outlining the actions to be taken throughout the administration.
2. At the beginning of each year when the municipality elaborates its budget, that is, when they decide how much money will be spent.
3. Throughout the year, by monitoring the actions, works and programs to which municipal authorities apply the budget. 4. Throughout the year, requesting the municipality to be accountable by using the legal means that citizens count with.
Citizen monitoring promoted by Alianza Civica is based on a quantitative and qualitative indicator system made up by two tools:
a) A Citizen Surveillance Guide and,
b) A Citizen Perception Survey.
The first tool consists in monitoring the municipality’s work through interviews to municipal authorities and members of civil society organizations as well as requesting document reviews (development plans, programs, projects). The Citizen Perception Survey aims at knowing the perception that citizens have on public management performance, and will serve to compare and elucidate the municipal reality
.
For further information on the results of the citizen monitoring exercises by Alianza Civica and the tools used, please go to:
www.alianzacivica.org.mx
|
| |
|
 |
|
20 Municipal
|
|
Perú | Transparencia
The Civil Association Transparencia is currently developing the project titled “Promotion of Social Surveillance and Transparency in Local and Regional Administration” sponsored by ICCO. This Project is intended to contribute to democracy-building at the provincial and regional level. The starting point is the promotion and recognition of efforts and actions taken by local governments from different regions of the country in terms of two fundamental aspects of public administration: transparency and citizen participation.
In this way, Transparencia aims at promoting, consolidating and proposing means of communication and interaction between authorities and citizens, both the ones contained in the legislation as well as those put forward by the authorities. Likewise, the project proposes to strengthen citizen participation and monitoring. With the support of our volunteer committees we operate in 20 provinces to achieve the following objectives along with the local governments:
1. To instill transparency and openness practices into local authorities and officials throughout their administration, as well as to implement more effective communication and outreach channels for citizens.
2. To foster citizen participation in support of local governments, by promoting an ethical and transparent performance of local governmental authorities. Among the activities and actions to be performed in order to achieve the aforementioned objectives are:
- To publish an electronic monthly newsletter (20 Municipal) aimed at authorities, officials and citizens, containing relevant information on transparency of local administration, citizen surveillance, participation mechanisms, implementation of citizen outreach channels, regulation updates, among others.
- To produce informative and educational materials for a better understanding of municipal laws on transparency, ethics and citizen services.
- To get the authorities to sign a Statement of Principles in order to strengthen the communication channels between the municipality and the citizens.
- To hold training workshops for officials and authorities of local governments as well as for social leaders on municipal issues, citizen participation mechanisms, transparency and access to information, among others. - To publicly acknowledge the major good practices and the best efforts undertaken by provincial governments
.
For further information, please contact Claudia Solari
(csolari@transparencia.org.pe)
|
|
 |
|
MONITORING AND TRAINING TO PROMOTE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN MEXICO CITY
|
|
México | MOVIMIENTO CIUDADANO POR LA
DEMOCRACIA
Below are the general conclusions reached at the Project “Monitoring and Training to Promote Citizen Participation in DF”. This project, in its 3rd stage, was held as part of the Social Co-investment Program of DF's government. For this project, Movimiento Ciudadano por la Democracia set the following objective:
Analizar el proceso de conformación de la opinión política de OSC proclives a intervenir en las políticas públicas, a fin de establecer la distancia y la posibilidad de que se pudieran derivar criterios de orientación para las políticas públicas, en particular las de desarrollo social, compatibles con los de la administración pública de la ciudad de México a partir de ajustes mutuos.
Two elements were taken as a basis for this objective: First, the practice by which OSCs build the necessary capacities for a more effective intervention in public policies; and second, the practice by which governmental institutions favor the intervention of OSCs in social development policies. This context puts a special emphasis to this project, given that for governments and OSCs to collaborate between each other, not only technical criteria for policy design need to be shared but also “policy orientation criteria” must be developed.
With the aim of gaining more knowledge on this regard, a proposal was submitted to carry out and systematize debates on relevant political topics among OSC leaders in Mexico City . Based on such proposal, a group of experts (academic committee) would discuss and analyze their opinions, in turn, they would discuss these viewpoints with invited public officials. Finally the committee would provide feedback to the group of leaders and prepare a final report.
First debate :
Perspectives on the State reform.
Conclusion:
There is a basic difference between the ideas of the professional politicians and those of the OSC members: the former put emphasis on the procedural aspects of democracy and the latter, on the results of public administration regarding social welfare. On the axiological aspect, no major difference was noticed.
Second debate :
Fourth government report: The country's future and the union movement.
Conclusion:
The OSCs proposed to generate, first, some awareness documents to be distributed among their own networks, with the aim of adding up the efforts from the largest amount of organizations possible. Secondly, they offered to prepare another political positioning document and a proposal for concrete actions where the skills and capabilities acquired from their own experiences - such as analytical and programmatic capabilities - would be included. An evident gap was noticed between the civil organizations and unions, so was the need to carry out joint work. The forum stated the differences and difficulties for both stakeholders to get together, yet it dealt - at the same time - with the similarities and commonalities that would allow them to work together.
Third debate:
Public security and citizen security
Conclusion:
One of the main subjects dealt with by the OSCs– which could be considered as the outcome of the session - was the need to have discussions held between those organizations that deem insecurity as a police problem and those that consider it as a structural problem. Another highlight was that human rights advocacy groups must place the issue of public security in a more comprehensive context, one that incorporates the social and economic aspects as well, in accordance with the relevant International Convention.
Fourth debate:
Budget and civil society.
Conclusions:
Monitoring the money that is devoted to social development is important, but so is program orientation, since larger amounts are no guarantee of better policies. An element that is usually ignored is that the success of social programs not only depends on their design and resources, but also on the involvement of the different areas of society. Progressive governments and OSCs need to agree on social policy orientation criteria, for that is the only path towards effective collaboration.
Fifth debate:
Social policy and Reform of Article 122.
Conclusion:
This debate exposed some methodological possibilities to elaborate orientation criteria agreed upon by the governments and OSCs. Apparently, it is easier to make progress based on concrete scenarios. The information that governments may furnish is crucial for OSCs- and surely for all citizens – to fully grasp the problem. A prior understanding of the problems and a political perspective of public affairs is a must in order to demand adequate information and to process it effectively.
Agreement is likely to be achieved when the starting point is a joint analysis of the problems, not when one stakeholder has preconceived ideas of what they want from each other, only to then try to shift this ideas towards their own established vision.
Sixth debate:
Formation of citizenship with the youth.
Conclusion:
As has been mentioned, one of the priorities set forth by the academic committee- based on the discussions- was the politization of youth.
The seminar on youth could not be held successfully due to the lack of participation by the civil organizations convened. It is therefore clear to MCD that this topic needs to be dealt with next year thoroughly.
Seventh debate:
Follow-up to the analysis of the amendments to Article 122 (and session held by the Academic Committee)
Conclusion:
In the last two debates, it was made clear that the interaction between the government and the OSCs needs to be based on concrete scenarios, on information and vision exchanges, on conditions of equality, on the recognition of the differences regarding political and legal status and respecting the specific functions of both of them alike. Basically, it must be based on trust-building, not so much on discourse.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1. The lack of shared criteria for public policy orientation is a deficit in political discussions.
2. Discussions must not be zeroed in on the context of affairs but must be based on them.
3. Discussions must have the capacity to incorporate different stakeholders and different viewpoints.
4 . Agreement is conditioned upon prior dialogue.
5. The creation of dialogue spaces requires a strategy, not so much institutionalization.
6. The permanence of dialogue needs not be confined to institutions but to stakeholders with a specific strategy for its promotion
For further information, please contact Lisette González
(orionmontalata@hotmail.com)
|
|
Dirija sus consultas a
Claudia Solari
|
|
Poder Ciudadano (Argentina)
Laura Alonso
@: laura@poderciudadano.org
»:
www.poderciudadano.org.ar
Participa (Chile)
Pedro Ignacio Mujica
@: pmujica@mujicaycia.cl
»:
www.participa.cl
Viva la Ciudadanía (Colombia)
Nelson Socha
@: dhpazviva@etb.net.co
»:
www.vivalaciudadania.org
Cocívica (El Salvador)
Jorge Urbina
@: cocivica@integra.com.sv
»:
www.cocivica.org.sv
Participación
Ciudadana (Ecuador)
Juanita Bersosa
Anunziatta Valdés
@:
jbersosa@participacionciudadana.org
@:
guayas@participacionciudadana.org
»:
www.participacionciudadana.org
Mirador Democrático (Venezuela)
Mercedes De Freitas
@: merchydf@telcel.net.ve
@:
miradordemocratico@cantv.net
Acción Ciudadana (Guatemala):
Manfredo Marroquin
@: manfredo@intelnet.net.gt
»:
www.quik.guate.com/acciongt
Electoral Assistance Bureau (Guyana)
Father Malcom Rodrigues
@: siguy@networksgy.com
»:
www.eabguyana.org.gy
Conseil National D'Observation (Haití)
Gerald Tiberis
@: cnohaiti@yahoo.com
Citizens Action for Free and Fair
Elections
(Jamaica)
James Webb
@: jimwebb@infochan.com
»:
www.caffejam.com
Movimiento Ciudadano por
la Democracia (México)
Isaura Bono
@: mcddf@laneta.apc.org
»:
www.laneta.apc.org/mcd/
Alianza Cívica (México)
Silvia Alonso Félix
@: salonso@alianzacivica.org.mx
»:
www.alianzacivica.org.mx
Etica y Transparencia (Nicaragua)
Roberto Courtney
@: courtney@cablenet.com.ni
»:
www.eyt.org.ni
Justicia y Paz (Panamá)
Magaly Castillo
@: juspax@cwpanama.net
»:
www.angelfire.com/alt/justiciapaz/
PaginasWeb/MARCOS/juspax.htm
Decidamos (Paraguay)
Juan Carlos Yuste
@: decidamos@pla.net.py
»:
www.decidamos.org.py
Transparencia (Perú)
Percy Medina
@: pmedina@transparencia.org.pe
Emmy Dekker
@: emmy@transparencia.org.pe
»:
www.transparencia.org.pe
Participación Ciudadana
(República Dominicana)
Javier Cabreja
@: j.cabreja@pciudadana.com
»:
www.pciudadana.com
Momento de la Gente (Venezuela)
Luz Elena Aldazoro
Cira Romero
@: lop714@cantv.net
»:
www.momentodelagente.org.ve
Instituto Nacional Demócrata
(Estados Unidos)
Paulina Ojeda
@: Paulina.Ojeda@ndi.org
Gerardo Le Chevalier
@: gerardo@ndi.org
»:
www.ndi.org
Centro de Asesoría y
Promoción Electoral (Costa
Rica)
Ricardo Valverde
@: rvalverde@iidh.ed.cr
»:
www.iidh.ed.cr/capel.htm
|