Les Editions IMODEV (Institut du Monde et du Développement pour la Bonne Gouvernance Publique)
Not a member yet
177 research outputs found
Sort by
Citizen Participation in an Internet Era
Get PDFitizen participation in government has relatively recent roots. For centuries, Europe was dominated by monarchs who offered ordinary citizens limited opportunities to influence, governmental decision-making. Indeed, some monarchs claimed to have been placed on their thrones by God, and also claimed that their actions and decrees were manifestations of God’s will. Of course, if Kings are “divinely inspired,” and carrying out God’s will through their actions, it is difficult to argue that ordinary people can or should be allowed to question or criticize what they have done, or what God has purportedly done through them
Access to Information in the UK and India
Get PDF[extract] This paper examines the impact of two pieces of transparency legislation: the UK Freedom of Information Act 2005 and the Indian Right to Information Act 2005. It looks at the origins and composition of the laws before examining how the two pieces of legislation function. Both laws have led to transparency and accountability by exposure and the raising of “fire alarms”, with information disclosure being used to bring about accountability as well as, to a more limited extent, reform and behavioural change. Of the two laws, the Indian RTI has proved more “politicised” and more capable of initiating political participation. Yet the “transformative” powers of such reforms are limited by poor implementation and resistance. Moreover, the effectiveness of such laws is shaped by context, with India in particular facing deep and complex socio-political obstacles that may prevent the laws from having the “revolutionary” effects advocates had hoped
Citizen Participation Facing the Transparency Challenge
Get PDF[Extract] In Hungary, one of the most important purposes of the 1989 rule of law revolution was to guarantee the right of everyone to exercise control over their personal data and to have access to public data. As regards the latest Hungarian constitutional reform, the legislature left informational rights basically unchanged, and only the institutional background was transformed. The Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, as the defender of two human rights, is responsible for supervising and defending the right to the protection of personal data and to freedom of information. Its responsibilities include both the state and the business sector.Freedom of information guarantees transparency regarding the activities of public authorities and the spending of public funds. Citizens can only be active participants if they are informed – appropriate information is fundamental to freedom of opinion. As clearly stated by the Hungarian Constitutional Court: ‘without being monitored by its citizens, the state becomes an unaccountable and unpredictable machine, and this is especially dangerous because a non-transparent state represents an increased threat to constitutional rights’.Freedom of information is one of the most sensitive rights in a democracy because the political forces always try to control the flow of information. When in opposition, politicians seek greater openness and transparency. When they are in power, they like to control the flow of information to their own advantage. In the field of data protection, the Hungarian DP&FOI Commission controls both the public and private sector since 1995. However, the obligation to safeguard FOI applies to the entire state administration from the municipalities to highest state organs. From the beginning, there was a gap in enforcement regarding publicity of public funds, because, for example, the contracting private party did not have to assure the publicity of the contractual relationship.[Extract] In Hungary, one of the most important purposes of the 1989 rule of law revolution was to guarantee the right of everyone to exercise control over their personal data and to have access to public data. As regards the latest Hungarian constitutional reform, the legislature left informational rights basically unchanged, and only the institutional background was transformed. The Hungarian National Authority for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, as the defender of two human rights, is responsible for supervising and defending the right to the protection of personal data and to freedom of information. Its responsibilities include both the state and the business sector.Freedom of information guarantees transparency regarding the activities of public authorities and the spending of public funds. Citizens can only be active participants if they are informed – appropriate information is fundamental to freedom of opinion. As clearly stated by the Hungarian Constitutional Court: ‘without being monitored by its citizens, the state becomes an unaccountable and unpredictable machine, and this is especially dangerous because a non-transparent state represents an increased threat to constitutional rights’.Freedom of information is one of the most sensitive rights in a democracy because the political forces always try to control the flow of information. When in opposition, politicians seek greater openness and transparency. When they are in power, they like to control the flow of information to their own advantage. In the field of data protection, the Hungarian DP&FOI Commission controls both the public and private sector since 1995. However, the obligation to safeguard FOI applies to the entire state administration from the municipalities to highest state organs. From the beginning, there was a gap in enforcement regarding publicity of public funds, because, for example, the contracting private party did not have to assure the publicity of the contractual relationship
Recent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on public access to documents: Regulation (EG) No.1049/2001 and beyond
Get PDFThis paper is about freedom of information in the European Union (hereafter: EU) in general and about Regulation (EG) No 1049/2001 in particular, which deals with various aspects of public access to documents. When addressing the topic of freedom of information with regard to the EU, the provisions which promptly and prominently spring to mind are enshrined in its so-called primary law2. In the EU’s legal framework, the remarkable importance which nowadays is attached to transparency is evidenced by the fact that freedom of information, in the broader meaning of the word, is anchored in several outstanding provisions of primary law, amongst which can be numbered Article 15 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereafter: TFEU), and Article 11 and Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights3 (hereafter: Charter)
The European Union and the Citizens of Europe
Get PDF[extract] The relationship between the European Union and the citizens of Europe has been a constant matter of debate since the failure of the European Constitutional Treaty after the referendums in France and the Netherlands. The national referendum on the suggestions of the European Union concerning the Greek crisis, launched by the former Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras and the discussion of Great Britain’s possible withdrawal from the EU (“Brexit”) have shown that this relationship remains a crucial issue for the European Union, even or maybe especially in times of crisis. Since the failure of the Constitutional Treaty the EU has become more aware of the central role of the citizens of Europe for the success of the European Union. The sometimes sceptically termed “elite driven project” EU therefore has put a lot of effort in the so called “Europe of the citizens”, trying to enhance civic participation at EU level. These efforts are part of a wider discussion concerning the so called “democratic deficit” of the EU. With the last comprehensive Reform Treaty of the EU, the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), which could only come into force after the second and then positive referendum of the Irish people, the member states have tried again to redress the “democratic deficit” of the EU. One of the major improvements for the democratic legitimacy of the EU has again been – as in every EU Reform Treaty – the increase of power for the European Parliament. Besides new rules concerning the election of the European Parliament and rules to strenghten the role of national parliaments in the EU, the member states have also created a new participatory opportunity for European citizens, the European Citizens’ Initiative in article 11 para. 4 TEU. With the European Citizens’ Initiative the European Union gives the European citizens (consisting of a minimum number from at least 7 of the 28 member states) a tool to suggest a legislative act to the Commission.The Citizens’ Initiative constitutes the first attempt to introduce an element of direct democracy in the European Union and it also represents the first attempt worldwide to introduce direct democracy into an international organization. The paper wants to adress the relationship between Europe and the European citizens from different perspectives. The first chapter shall deal with the structure of the European Union as an international organization and shall pose the question how democracy as a principle fits into that structure (I.). The chapter shall also describe the various forms of democratic elements in the European Union. The second chapter is supposed to sketch the “European citizen” as an idea of the European Union taking up the citizenship of the European Union (II.). The third chapter is dedicated to scrutinizing the participatory possibilities for European citizens (III.). In that context I also want to display some data how the new European Citizens’ Initiative has been working practically so far. The summary will be able to shed some light on the relationship between Europe and the European citizen (IV.).
Domestic Surveillance of Public Activities and Transactions with Third Parties: Melding European and American Approaches
Get PDF[abstract] In most countries, government surveillance of activities that take place in public is not regulated or only lightly regulated. Similarly, in most countries police efforts to obtain records of everyday transactions usually requires, at most, a finding that the record is “relevant” to an investigation. Arguably, these rules should change now that technology – cameras, drones, computers, and the like – has made both visual surveillance and transaction surveillance easier and cheaper. Technology allows creation of “panvasive” systems that scan across and record the activities of large groups of persons and mining the accumulated data
The Evolving Balance of Transparency and Privacy in Open Government
Get PDFThe important principles informing the topic of this symposium include recognition that meaningful citizen participation in government is essential to a viable democracy, and that governmental transparency is a necessary condition for fostering citizen participation. Any discussion of openness or transparency in government necessarily involves administrative law, the area of law dealing with the “organization and the operation of administrative agencies (including executive and independent agencies) and the relations of administrative agencies with the legislature, the executive, the judiciary, and the public.
Transparency and Opacity in Environmental Grandfathering
Get PDFRegulatory schemes designed to further sustainable development – whether through pollution control or natural resources preservation – often employ grandfathering, that is, granting legal rights based on activity that predates the regulatory regime. Transparency in the context of grandfathering must be nuanced. Government should be transparent about incentives to engage in environmentally valuable behavior, but government should not be transparent to the extent that grandfathering relies on prior behavior that is detrimental to the environment and sustainable development. Consider first grandfathering based upon prior behavior that is environmentally detrimental – for example, allocating fishing quotas based upon prior years’ catches. When a government wishes to distribute grandfathering rights to societal actors who currently engage in a behavior that will soon be restricted, the societal actors may engage in inefficient behavior to secure additional property rights. Such behavior may artificially increase pollution emissions, prematurely and inefficiently deplete natural resources, or both. To minimize the undesirable incentive, the government may employ a “retrospective allocation” based on activities that predate the limitations on resource access. Legal uncertainty makes it more difficult for societal actors to modify their behavior. Such systems have become increasingly common in the context of environmental and natural resource regulation. Over time, societal actors likely will come to expect retrospective allocation, and act in anticipation by engaging in the behaviors on which they predict the allocations will be based. In order to combat this gaming of the system, the criteria for winning allocations must change over time for retrospective allocation to maintain effectiveness on an ongoing basis. In other words, too much transparency in this context leads to inefficient behavioral distortions and poor environmental consequences; opacity serves to ameliorate these outcomes.In contrast, consider grandfathering of rewards for positive behavior – for example, awarding credits to societal actors who voluntarily reduce pollution emissions before a regulatory regime requires such reductions, or who make factories fuel-efficient before increased fuel efficiency is required. Whereas distortions by actors in attempts to garner more grandfathering rights by engaging in environmentally detrimental behavior is undesirable and should be discouraged by relying on some measure of opacity, environmentally desirable behavior should be encouraged via transparency. Assuming the government has decided upon behaviors it would like societal actors to undertake, the government should announce those behaviors and be transparent about its desire to provide positive benefits in the future. Such transparency will “lock the government in” and create greater incentives for societal actors to engage in the desired behaviors early in time, thus providing environmental benefits even before a regulatory regime is enacted and become binding.Before proceeding, I believe it important to identify an important caveat to the arguments I discuss here. I do not mean here to endorse grandfathering as normatively desirable. As I discuss below, legal and economic commentators have criticized grandfathering as a form of “transition relief” that is, relief from a transition in legal rule. These commentators argue that grandfathering inefficiently discourages actors from anticipating legal changes; they assert that it would be more efficient to subject all societal actors immediately to new legal regimes. While (as I also discuss below) there are arguments in support of limited grandfathering under limited circumstances, the arguments I make here have application so long as whatever the reason, and whether or not it is normatively desirable grandfathering continues to play a prominent role in environmental regulation.The balance of this chapter is organized as follows. Section 1 provides an overview of the role of grandfathering in environmental regulation. Section 2 explains how opacity should figure prominently in the government’s allocation of grandfathered rights on the basis of environmentally undesirable behavior. Section 3 discusses how, in contrast, the government should be transparent in identifying desirable behavior that it will reward with grandfathered rights. Section 5 concludes
Public Tools for Open Governance: Review of RTI Act and Social Media in Indian Context
No full textAs elsewhere in the world, in India too, serious questions are being raised about the capabilities and motivations of public-sector institutions in delivering effective and efficient governance. The new-found faith in liberal economic theories coupled with the emerging trends in technology has completely redefined citizens’ expectations from governance. These developments have led to a gradual regeneration of governance paradigm in democratic countries like India, seeking to make its governance more ‘open’, ‘good’ and ‘citizen-centric’. This, in return mandates design and use of several public tools, which could, for example be required for requesting public information, for organizing mass action or for undertaking collaborative decisions so that responsive eco-systems of participatory and transparent governance exist in the country. In India last two decades specifically saw a proliferation of public tools such as Citizens’ Charters, Right to Information (RTI), Right to Education (RTE), Right to Hearing (RTH) , implementation of Information and Facilitation Counters (IFC) as well as creation of digital Open-government platform (http://www.ogpl.gov.in) to build collaborative knowledge bases for participatory governance. Even the use of social media for mobilizing mass movements on governance issues (corruption, violence against women and so on) has become popular in the country. The present study endeavors to first focus on understanding of the basic concepts and building blocks of ‘open governance’. It further attempts to review the journey of open governance in a democratic country like India with special reference to status of implementation of RTI Act and issues assailing implementation of Social media. The paper concludes by suggesting a way forward so that the governance issues could be resolved in unison making this new multi-stakeholder synergy more productive, truly rewarding and of course aiming to advance citizen-centricity in the processes of governance
The right of Access to Public Information: An Analysis of International Conventions
Get PDF[extract] The right of access to public information is one of the cornerstones of freedom of expression, or the “free communication of ideas and opinions”, which is regarded as “one of humankind’s most valuable possessions” under the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of August 26, 1789, itself the inspiration for international texts. The right of access to public information is also fundamental to the right to transparency, which is one of the key components of democracy and an open government. This process has accelerated since Barack Obama’s Memorandum of 2009, but its underpinnings existed in earlier texts