![]() Commitment examples: As part of the Summit for Democracy, Liberia committed to transparency and accountability in electoral funding while Moldova committed to increase sanctions and oversight for illegal financing of political parties.Commitment analysis: While many jurisdictions made Summit for Democracy commitments addressing electoral integrity, only six (Kosovo, Liberia, Mauritius, Republic of Moldova, Peru, and Taiwan) specifically focused on political financing.In addition, most available datasets lack identifying data on donors and are not published according to open data standards. Policy gaps: About one-third of OGP countries do not publish any political finance data online.In addition, covert foreign finance is one way governments undermine public trust and the bond between voters and their representatives. Political finance transparency is essential to leveling the political playing field and maintaining free and fair electoral competition. Below we look at three key areas of financial integrity, the gaps according to the research, and to what extent those gaps were addressed by Summit for Democracy commitments. While open data is only one element of financial integrity, it provides a sense of gaps and opportunities for reforms. New research from the Open Government Partnership (OGP), a multilateral initiative focused on advancing concrete commitments from governments to promote open government and combat corruption, and the Global Data Barometer on the state of open data in OGP countries can help support this effort. ![]() To be effective, commitments must be designed in consultation with the public to address each country’s specific challenges. Commitments must address context-specific challenges. Similarly, the United States committed to support journalists in their efforts to expose corruption and ill-gotten gains. For example, the Slovak Republic committed to protecting journalists’ independence through transparency of media ownership and regulated political advertising. Some commitments also focused on the intersection of anti-corruption and democratic freedoms. Other commitments dealt with financial crimes and abuses of power, such as whistleblower protection reforms. For example, Ireland committed to establish an independent Electoral Commission that will work to regulate online political advertising and modernize the electoral registration process. Around one-third addressed money in politics, including electoral reforms. These commitments covered a range of policy areas. Half of these anti-corruption commitments were relevant to at least one value of open government (transparency, civic participation, or public accountability). Over 40 countries made at least 125 commitments broadly related to anti-corruption. While many Summit for Democracy commitments addressed issues of inclusion and civic space, anti-corruption commitments formed a significant subset. Commitments to counter corruption are an important start. Otherwise, we risk losing another “year of action.” 2. However, to maximize the impact of the second summit, we must examine what countries promised at the first and how-or if-they’ve followed through with those commitments. Shortly following the first summit, the Biden administration announced a second Summit for Democracy to “take stock of the progress made.” The second Summit for Democracy can serve as a launchpad for broader, more sustainable, and better coordinated efforts. And while these commitments represented important first steps, few countries have publicly reported any evidence of implementation. Commitments focused on countering authoritarianism, fighting corruption, and promoting human rights. At the event, jurisdictions, including the host-the United States government-submitted formal commitments. Last December, more than 100 jurisdictions were represented at and participated in the first Summit for Democracy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |