Good Governance: Transparency and Accountability

          This post is a summary of two articles. The first with the title of, "Strengthening transparency and accountability for improved governance." Published in November 2012 at

http://publications.iadb.org/bitstream/handle/11319/665/Strengthening%20Transparency%20and%20Accountability%20for%20Improved%20Governance%2.pdf?. The second with the incomplete title above. It was published  at http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan010193.pdf

           The countries of the Latin America consistently fall below global average on issues that affect the business climate and confidence in state institutions, which has a significant impact on their competitiveness. Diverse indicators in the region show a correlation between competitiveness and transparency policies, mechanisms for the prevention and control of corruption, and institutional capacity to audit public resources. It is therefore concerning that 48% of the population believes that what is missing from democracy is the reduction of corruption; that 44% have paid bribes to accelerate some transaction; and that 34% have done so to receive a public service. It is also worrisome that the control of corruption is weaker in the Latin America that in other regions. Corruption weakens economic and social development, as well as the credibility and legitimacy of democracy governance. Recognizing this reality,so the promotion of institutions that view transparency and accountability as useful tools to prevent and control corruption,  and more improve quality and efficiency in the provision of public service should be a priority. With the support of the government of Norway, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) has created the Transparency Fund. Its objective is to strengthen the institutional capacity of borrowing member countries, in order to support the design and the implementation of access to information and targeted transparency policies, mechanisms, and practices. Transparency builds citizenship. An open and transparent government is a tool for preventing and controlling corruption, but also because it strengthens democracy and improves the effectiveness of the state, especially in the provision of public services. Transparency transforms the bureaucratic culture by introducing discretionary counterweights. It improves efficiency and diminishes the possibilities of fraud and corruption in public management, by reducing the number of steps and transactions and maximizing the use of new technologies. Transparency enables accountability, as it promotes the ethic of public service in public administration, as well as citizens participation in the formulation of public policy. All of these characteristics help to promote a better government for the people.

              Improved governance requires an integrated, long-term strategy built upon cooperation between government and citizens. It involves both participation and institutions. The rule of law, accountability, and transparency are technical issues, but also interactive to produce govenment that is legitimate, effective, and widely support by citizens, as well as a civil society that is strong, open, and capable of playing a positive role in politics and government. Good governance involves far more than the power of the state or the strength of political will. The rule of law, transparency ans accountability are outcomes of democratizing processes driven not only by committed leadership, but also by the participation of, and contention among, groups and interests in society. Most of the emphasis in the aftermath of political and economic transition has been upon participation in politics. Institutions are essential to sustain and restrain orderly boundaries between politics and economics, and to enable developing societies to shape their own destinies in a increasingly interdependent world. Many institutions will have the task of checking the excesses of the powerful in the name of ordinary citizens. That potential mismatch means that institutions must not only be well designed, but must also have support at all levels of society. State and society must be able to influence each other, policies must respond to social realities and demands. In attempting to improve policy and implementation it is tempting to rely too much on laws and top-down policymaking. Controls on administrative and personnel systems can become so strict that managers can not manage or get their programs implemented. The resulting inflexibility wastes resources, produces policies unresponsive to realities, and can increase corruption. There is a need for policies that increase the space for debate and consultation, and encourage innovation. The controversy that often accompany open debate may seem a problem. Too many reformers view governance primarily as a set of administrative tasks, and public participation as a process to be orchestrated from above via high-profile, but short-lived mass campaigns. Citizens have little opportunity or incentive to participate in any long-term way, or to link promises to the problems of their own communities. Civil society can and should help define the ends and means of governance, benefits from its success, and claim part of the credit for initiatives that turn out well. Public opinion matters in many ways. Survey and community meetings to identify what people believe about current state of affairs and expect are essential. So are sustained efforts to educate the public about key problems. Public education can also change citizens conduct by encouraging them to resist exploitation by officials or by other citizens and to file useful reports of problems. While coordination among segments of government is essential, it is only part of the picture. Government must also be able to check its own excesses. The judiciary is essential and if it is not independent of the government it will be ineffective. Similarly, executive agencies require oversight, and here legislative scrutiny and credible external "watchdogs" can enhance effective policy implementation and check abuses. An ombudsman system to which citizens can make complaints and reports may also be valuable, but citizens must be confindent that they will not face reprisals and that their reports will be take seriously. Better Governance will be attainable where it is not reduced to some sort of institutional "tool kit", or some set of specific policy goals alone, but rather is a long-term strategy to bring state and society closer together to build a standard of living that permits people and societies to realize their full potential. Even more important, good governance need not necessarily involve a expansion of the role of the state, its resources or its policy repertoire; the key, instead, is using human and material resources and opportunities wisely and with a long-term strategy in mind. 

     "Transparency is for governments and big organizations, privacy is for individuals."

                                                     Julian  Assange

Social Change and Social Media, Latin America Activists` Use of Digital Tools

               This  post is summary of a report with the complete title of, "Social change and social media: Latin America activists`use of digital tools in the face of the digital divide."   Published in May 2012  at    http://www.arifyildirim.com/ilt510/summer.harlow.pdf

     A free press, freedom of expression, and the availability of alternative information are fundamental for a political participation and democracy. Advocates for a "multiperspectival" journalism, in which citizens voices are in the news, adding diversity and thus strengthning democracy. Informed citizens are more likely to participate politically and the more citizens participate, the more democratic a country is. Activists and other groups excluded from mainstream media turn to creating their own alternative, more democratic forms of communication, which in this digital age often means the use of online social sites. In today`s digital era of web 2.0 and interactivity, scholars have praised the internet`s democratic potential, spotlighting its ability to increase access to information, encourage free speech, and mobilize citizen participation. What is more, the internet provides noncommercial, non-hegemonic media options, and affords opportunities for diverse voices to express themselves. Whether YouTube, blogs or social media sites like Facebook or Twitter, new digital tools open up alternative public spheres, allowing for online horizontal communication that overcome boundaries of time and space. Whether aimed at offering a space for emancipatory discourse, empowering subaltern groups, or simply producing journalism from the bottom-up, alternative media serve as "contraflows" to break up the hegemony and homogeneity of mainstream media. In digital era, scholars look to the internet for its potential, especially with the interactive and participatory capabilities of Web 2.0, has signaled a way for activists to circumvent the gatekeepers of traditional media, taking control of their own messages, in terms of production, content, and dissemination. For example, digital communication tool allow anyone to act as a journalist, providing a viewpoint alternative to those of transnational corporations and mainstream media. Also raises the opportunity for activists information to cross over into the mainstream media realm, thus even further extending activists` audiences. Beyond allowing for the cheap and fast spread of information, also opens the possibility of resistance and activism. But many scholars contend that the internet is just one more tool and some even argues that not only are online interactions unable to create trust required of meaningful collective action, but that in fact in some instances could be harmful, resulting in increased government surveillance, as well "slacktivism" or weakened participation. However, the success of the Arab Spring and the spread of protests from country to country, indicate that perhaps these scholars are being pessimistic. More research suggest that the internet can indeed help to promote a collective identity and establish a sense of community necessary for mobilizing people not just online, but also offline. Further, online activism can facilitate and translate into offline activism, even allowing collectives to form and movements to take shape. The internet could even be creating news forms of activism and participation. Latin America has a long history of alternative media serving as a counterforce to the concentrated, hegemonic mainstream media corporations. Based on concept of conscientization, or the notion that dialogue and horizontal communication are necessary for empowerment and social change, the ideas of citizens participation, self-expression, and dialogue are fundamental tenets to alternative media in Latin America, where ordinary voices are mostly excluded from a mainstream media. Alternative media are critical in a region where truly free, independent press has been hindered by repression coming in the form of violence against journalists, authoritarian laws that restrict watchdog report. Still, online activism often is hamstrung because of the digital divide. Roughly 60% of the region`s population lacks internet access, and only about a quarter uses Facebook. Of course, that does not mean those populations have no access to other ways. Latin American activists hailed the democratic potential of using internet in activism as creating democratic spaces, open spaces for dialogue that shorten distances, facilitate communication between activists and citizens and allow for communication to a larger audience. Internet strengthened democracy by offering a way to skirt potential repression that could result from offline activism. Still Latin America activists said that government censorship and surveillance are threatening internet democratic potential. They cited the possibility of internet being used to wage campaigns against democracy and justice that activists were working towards. As one respondent said, "Internet has lost its egalitarian character. someone can pay an army of people to delegitimize activists`discourse. The internet no longer is just the platform of alternative voices, but also of the establishment." Latin America activists saw the ability of the internet to "amplify" their activism and raise awareness around the world. Internet allow to ally yourself with people with same objectives and to work together. They saw the internet increasing their reach, allowing them communicate with existing supporters worldwide, as well as reach people who otherwise might never had been made aware of or gotten involved with a particular cause. Internet also are creating "imaginary spaces," some activists worried. They express concern that internet were creating the ability to virtually support a cause from afar, thus diminishing physical participation and creating a false sense of involvement, an imaginary activism. Being a fan of a cause on Facebook does not change reality. Being on the street, in meetings with decision makers, in real events, this is what cause changes. Likewise, online activism lets people have a clear conscience, but sometimes could create a fantasy that pressing a button online is enough. This study showed that Latin America activists consider their activism to occur equally offline and online and they believe that internet indeed can benefit democracy and justice, where they can communicate, mobilize supporters, and work toward change. Some activists expressed concern that perhaps the internet was not safe space as it should be, as it facilitate government surveillance, potentially undermining democracy and activists`efforts.  While they recognized this potential problem they saw internet offering more rewards than risks, as the internet allows for reduce the costs of informing, communicating and mobilizing, allowing activists more easily unite to work for justice.

The Geeks Who Leak

           On last Thrusday, the world press marked the first birthday of the revelations of Edward Snowden, the former NSA employee, with many articles about privacy violations. Since September 11 2001, a lot of people suspected about privacy violations, but for the first time, somebody from the inside the system had the courage to show many evidences about that violations, after all transparency is not what the talking is about. This post is a summary of two articles. The first published almost one year ago, the title is above  http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2145506,00.html. The second with the title of, "Why NSA IT guy Edward Snowden leaked top secret documents." Published in October 2013 at http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/06/10/why-nsa-it-guy-edward-snowden-leaked-top-se

          The 21st century mole sees himself as an idealist, a believer in individual sovereignty and freedom from tyranny. Chinese and Russian spooks will not tempt him. Rather, it is an online political philosophy that attract his imagination. He believes above all that information wants to be free, that privacy is sacred and that he has a responsibility to defend both ideas. "The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong," said Edward Snowden, who admitted on June 6 to one of the most significant thefts of highly classified secrets in U.S. history. The documents he turned over to the press revealed a massive program to compile U.S. telephone records into a database for investigations. Another program has given the NSA access to records at major online providers like Google and Facebook to search information on suspects. The secret program has been under way for seven years. The NSA infrastructure was built to protect the nation against foreign enemies and the spies they recruit. Computer geeks like Snowden, with utopian ideas of how the world should work, scramble those assumptions. Just as antiwar protest of the Vietnam era argued that peace not war, was the natural state of man, this new breed of technophiles believes that transparency and personal privacy are the foundations of a free society. Secrecy and surveillance, therefore, are gateways to tyranny. And in the face of tyranny, the leakers believe, rebellion is noble. Snowden explained in a video interview the reasons for his actions, with a hint of serenity, even as he described how he could be killed by the CIA. He characterized the surveillance systems he exposed as "turnkey tyranny" and warned of what would be happen if the safeguards now in place ever fell away. He hoped to force a public debate, to set the information free. "This is the truth. This is what is happening," he said. Three years earlier, a 22 year-old Army analyst stationed in Iraq named Bradley Manning offered a nearly identical defense for a similar breach of military secrets. Both young men grew up in the wake of the security crackdown that followed the September 11 attacks. They had come of age online, in virtual communities where this new antiauthority, free-data ideology was hardening. That hacktivist ethos is growing around the world, driven in large part by young hackers who are increasingly disrupting all manner of institutional power with online protest. "That is the most optimistic thing that is happening, the radicalization of the internet-educated youth, people who are receiving their values from the internet, this is the political education of apolitical technical people and it is extraordinary " said Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. Today that same defiant spirit still dominates large swaths of the internet. Peter Ludlow, a philosophy professor who has written extensively about cyberculture said, "there was always this kind of tech-hacker ethos, which was probably libertarian, which has collided with this antiauthoritarian political impulse." In the days after the Snowden disclosures, a coalition of 86 groups, including online communities like Reddit and BoingBoing, signed on to an open petition to Congress calling the NSA programs unconstitutional. A petition filed with WhiteHouse.gov calling on Obama to pardon Snowden reached 60,000 names in three days. Sales of George Orwell`s novel 1984 have soared. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, founded a legal-defense fund for Snowden. And a recent online video campaign, with Hollywood filmmaker Oliver Stone and actors such as Peter Sarsgaard and several journalists, has been organizing a social media campaign called "I am Bradley Manning," The threat of more leaks is likely to grow as young people come of age in the defiant culture of the internet and new, principled martyrs like Snowden seize the popular imagination. "These backlashes usually provoke political mobilization and a deepening of commitments," said Gabriela Coleman, a professor at University in Montreal, who is finishing a book on Anonymous, "I kind of feel we are at the dawn of it."
             Many people see objectionable practices in their workplaces. Most grumble to colleagues or complain to a spouse. Why did Snowden decide to share what he saw with the world, torpedoing his $200,000 job, forcing him to flee the country, and risking a lifetime in prison. He has been interviewed by th Guardian and by the Washington Post about why he leaked the documents, here a collection of his quotes explaining his motivation: He said, "the majority of people spend time interacting with the internet, and governments are abusing their powers beyond what is necessary and appropriate. I believe that the greatest danger to our freedom and a threat to the institutions of free society than missed intelligence reports, and unworthy of the costs. I will be satisfied if the secret laws, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for a instante. An explanation of the motivations behind these disclosures outside the democratic model. My motive is to inform the public to which is done in their name and that which is done against them. The debate which will trigger among citizens around the globe about what kind of world we want to live in. If you realize that is the world you helped create and it is going to get worse with the next generation who can extend the capabilities of this sort of architecture of oppression, you realize you might be willing to accept any risk. I can not in good conscience allow the government to destroy privacy, internet freedom, and basic liberties. Even if you are not doing anything wrong, you eventually fall under suspicion from somebody even by a wrong call and then they can use the system to attack you on that basis to derive suspicion from an innocent life and paint anyone in the context of a wrongdoer. I do not want to live in a world where there is no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity."