OGP in Action: Hard Talk in a Soft Space

Unfolding within the walls of Dublin Castle last week was an experiment on OGPs peer exchange model. Named “OGP in Action”, these sessions at the European Regional Meeting in Dublin tried a new format to encourage an open exchange of ideas and challenges. Approximately five countries were grouped in each session. First, the IRM researcher commented on progress made in the country’s previous 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.... The government representative followed with a 5-minute lightening talk on the consultation process and highlights from their new draft Action Plan. The session culminated with reflections from fellow government officials and civil society members.

This was exciting, not least because the convergence of voices from the IRM, government officials and civil society representatives under one roof forced an honest, and grounded conversation between the three dynamic arms of OGP. The honesty was in particular refreshing – providing just enough discomfort to provoke a healthy debate among OGP’s stakeholders.

Government officials got a chance to showcase some inspiring new commitments at these sessions. For example, Greece outlined an initiative in their new Action Plan where all decisions taken by government agencies have to be uploaded online and will not be valid unless made transparent to the public. Ireland highlighted 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... on having a formal pre-legislative debate with citizens before 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... gets crystallized, giving the public an opportunity to engage in policy-making.

But it was the question/answer slot at the end that made these sessions come alive and tackle the thornier issues on implementation. The Swedish and Georgian government representatives were keen to know how to foster more ownership and improve coordination on OGP across their government. In response, the Moldovan representative noted that each ministry in the Moldovan government has an 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... focal point as well as Chief Information Officer, both of whom serve as channels to mainstream OGP priorities. Another idea was to link national strategy documents produced by different departments to the OGP process, as a way to secure more buy-in of OGP goals.

A related question that emerged from both government and civil society representatives was how to institutionalize OGP so that it can survive political instability and changes in government. The fact that 17 of OGP’s Cohort 2 countries have electionsImproving transparency in elections and maintaining the independence of electoral commissions is vital for promoting trust in the electoral system, preventing electoral fraud, and upholding the democr... More scheduled during their new action plan development period sounded a cautionary note. How do we ensure that OGP priorities don’t lose momentum with a change in government? One answer was that while governments may change, civil society is less volatile and can help ensure that new governments don’t lose sight of OGP values. But a more sustainable strategy would be in identifying and continuously engaging with reform champions within government, while simultaneously mainstreaming OGP priorities with the political opposition.

While there was a convergence of voices, there were certainly moments with a divergence of opinions among those in the room. One government official wanted to know how to reconcile the conflicting views of an IRM researcher and the governments own view in determining whether a commitment was complete. Is this just a consequence of different perspectives or a failure to manage expectations? Should the government raise awareness about how public servants do their jobs and the impediments they face, or should the government be more honest about its failures?

Arguably one of the more contested areas was the process of consultation on OGP Action Plans. Jordanian civil society regretted that despite many recommendations being given to the government, few had been incorporated. To this, the government representative responded that while there is strong commitment to OGP, the government also has to handle administrative bottlenecks and allow time for a much-needed cultural shift towards openness. But there were some beacons of hope in the room. Government representatives who were struggling with setting up a good consultation process were encouraged to speak to their colleagues in Bulgaria, Lithuania, Estonia, Moldova and Georgia, where the process was co-owned and co-designed with civil society and government.

Within the many layers of conversation at the OGP in Action sessions, there were two that really dominated. First, governments need strong political will, but also widespread ownership, resources and the capacity across government in order to make OGP a reality. Second, as much as we celebrate diverse voices within civil society, prioritizing a few ambitious but practicable steps for their government to adopt leads to mutually productive outcomes for both actors.  We hope that the open government reformers who were present in these rooms will have looked around and found their peers fighting similar battles – and will travel back to their countries energized with new ideas on how to deliver an even better Action Plan.