Hungary: update on OGP progress

The Hungarian government published its draft action at the end of January. While it was developed in cooperation with CSO participants, the final draft does not contain but a few elements of the NGOs’ suggestions – its major part is a mere repetition of the government’s anti-corruption program with some minor innovations regarding budget data and transparencyAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, transparency occurs when “government-held information (including on activities and decisions) is open, comprehensive, timely, freely available to the pub... More of public procurements.

The super majority of the governing party in the Parliament has brought unique opportunities to intervene in previously neglected policies. This vast political authority was indeed used to implement radical transformation in the state structure, and various subsystems (e.g. Media, Health, EducationAccountability within the public education system is key to improving outcomes and attainment, and accountability is nearly impossible without transparent policies and opportunities for participation ...) became exposed to fast and profound changes. As corruption cases related to politicians of the previous governments triggered a serious outcry countrywide, and were between the factors leading to the landslide election victory; radical, comprehensive and definite steps were expected from the government in the field of anti-corruption as well. The government started to elaborate an anti-corruption program in the Fall of 2011. Expert CSOs criticised the draft program because it lacked transparency measures, which was particularly disappointing, as at that time CSO actors were already urging the Ministry of Public Administration and JusticeTo address barriers that prevent citizens from having their justice needs met, OGP participating governments are working to expand transparency, accountability, and inclusion into all systems of justi... to join the Open Government PartnershipThe Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a multi-stakeholder initiative focused on improving government transparency, ensuring opportunities for citizen participation in public matters, and strengthen... More. After several negotiations and public dissent, the Ministry of Public Administration and Justice expanded the program, and incorporated a commitmentOGP commitments are promises for reform co-created by governments and civil society and submitted as part of an action plan. Commitments typically include a description of the problem, concrete action... to join the OGP.

In its letter of intent Minister Tibor Navracsics set a deadline of November 2012 for the elaboration of the Hungarian action planAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open governmen.... While this deadline has been pushed to April 2013, the ministry has never missed a chance to use the OGP-issue in its communications as an illustration for its anti-corruption efforts. Last spring the Ministry initiated a consultation process on its anti-corruption agenda. Besides NGOs active in anti-corruption and transparency matters, representatives of other lobby groups and governmental agencies participated in the negotiations. The consultations covered several different topics, such as whistleblowing-protection, lobby regulations, impact assessment and, particularly, the content of the OGP action plan. The participating anti-corruption and transparency NGOs had a common understanding on the relevant topics and the necessary measures for strengthening transparency in Hungary and for bringing the government closer to citizens. Our common suggestions were the following:

As the table shows, neither suggestions related to open dataBy opening up data and making it sharable and reusable, governments can enable informed debate, better decision making, and the development of innovative new services. Technical specifications: Polici... nor those fixing the failures of the present FOI legislationCreating and passing legislation is one of the most effective ways of ensuring open government reforms have long-lasting effects on government practices. Technical specifications: Act of creating or r... were incorporated into the action plan. Commitments related to the transparency of public procurements and budgetary data fell short since (1) PP awarding authorities are already registered in a uniform way, and (2) the proposed budget visualisation tool does not go beyond the central governmental level. Not to mention that as these data sets have been public for a while, as of now two different NGOs are operating visualisation tools based on central budgetary data ( see eg. amipenzunk.hu). The incorporation of the anti-corruption program is only a formal enrichment of the action plan, since these measures had already been introduced before Hungary joined the OGP procedure. Only commitments focusing on anti-corruption and FOI education are represented in a satisfactory way.

Although it is considered a step forward that Hungary decided to join the OGP, the actual commitments or the lack thereof provide no guarantee for the government being more open and transparent. While NGOs became involved from the very beginning and the draft action plan is based on their recommendations, the overall process cannot be regarded as a real dialogue since civil actors never got any feedback or explanation on why some of their suggestions were left out or watered down. During the consultation sessions, NGOs took the chance to explain how their recommendations would contribute to open government and to the fight against corruption. When the government side indicated that they did not intend to implement thorough transformations, CSO actors reconsidered and reformulated their suggestions in order to remain at feasible and implementable measures. By the end of the procedure (last consultations before the publication of the draft took place in mid-January) NGOs became quite disappointed, especially compared to the promising atmosphere of the first consultations, where government officials seemed to have deep knowledge and expertise in their fields, and were open to incoming ideas. As the procedure went on, the consultation process rather became a series of listening sessions without real steps moving towards a strong and coherent action plan. As of now it is hard to define the factors leading to this weak and rather symbolic action plan.

It is highly probable that the Hungarian government’s commitment towards the OGP process and transparency issues as such is not truly serious – which is particularly unsatisfying as the current government – having regard to its overwhelming authorization – missed a unique chance to introduce effective reforms for a more open government, and address corruption challenges that have poisoned public life for 20 years. It is obvious that the OGP – as it lacks strong eligibility criteria and a sanctioning system – cannot really force countries to be more transparent, but OGP is a very good chance to take steps towards these goals. We saw countries like Chile, Georgia that took this opportunity. And we know dozens that were less successful. It is a disappointment to see Hungary among the latter.