Skip Navigation

Fireside chat with Sanjay Pradhan and Rakesh Rajani

Thumbail Sanjay Rakesh (4)
Sanjay PradhanandRakesh Rajani|

This fireside chat brings together two leaders in open government: Sanjay Pradhan, outgoing CEO of OGP, and Rakesh Rajani, President of Just Systems and former OGP Co-Chair. As Sanjay prepares to step down as CEO after 9 years at the helm of OGP, this conversation offers a chance to reflect on the challenges confronting democracies, implications of the US elections and future of open government.

We’re excited to share this engaging conversation in multiple formats to suit your preferences. Choose your preferred format and enjoy the discussion!

Video: A concise, edited version for those who want to dive straight into the highlights.

 

Written Transcript: A clean, easy-to-read version of the full conversation.

Opening: Reflections on the U.S. elections

Rakesh Rajani: Hey Sanjay, it’s good to see you and have this conversation. I’ve been looking forward to it for a while. There is so much happening in the world, and I’d love to get your insights. Thank you for making the time.

Sanjay Pradhan: Thank you so much, Rakesh. I look forward to this conversation not only to share perspectives but to learn from you as well.

Rakesh: The pleasure is mine. Let’s jump right in and address the elephant in the room.

The recent U.S. elections have left many shaken. Donald Trump has been reelected, and some people call him a fascist, they say he represents authoritarian tendencies. In many ways, this election may be seen as a repudiation of the core values of democracy and open government. Some see it as a sign that the democracy and open government agenda are too highbrow, to out of touch. What are your reflections?

Sanjay: Thanks, Rakesh. So, you know, on the surface, it would seem that voters repudiated democracy and that they chose an outcome which puts democracy in peril. But a deeper examination actually suggests, in my view, that the electoral results in the U.S. were a wake up call. So to deepen and renew democracy, to practice genuine democracy that listens and delivers better for and with people.

Let me explain. Democracy is fundamentally about trusting the wisdom of the people. So rather than focusing on strong, divisive opinions about Trump versus Harris or Democrats versus Republicans, let’s take a step back and ask: Why did people vote the way they did?

When I looked at the stats and polls, one thing became clear—people were angry. Nearly 67% of Americans felt the country was on the wrong track, and 75% believed inflation had caused real harm to their families. A staggering 65% said they were living paycheck to paycheck, a 10% increase from just a year ago.

These numbers show that people are frustrated with systems that seem out of touch with their everyday struggles. If democracy is to survive and thrive, it needs to address these concerns in a tangible, meaningful way.

People were really hurting in trying to make ends meet. This is very tough. If you’re living paycheck to paycheck, how do you actually make ends meet? In addition, people had expressed grave concerns about illegal immigration. For instance, 57% of the voters supported mass deportation.

This was the anger that people were facing. But what compounded this anger and alienation is that voters felt that they were not listened to, that the incumbent Biden-Harris administration minimized or outright ignored their serious pain points on inflation and the economy, and also minimized and didn’t take any credible action on their grave concerns on illegal immigration. This was the mood that actually was pervasive. People were voting against an incumbent administration, which they found insensitive or unresponsive. Americans they were voting to better their lives through change.  They weren’t rejecting democracy or endorsing authoritarianism—they were voting for change to improve their lives. In fact, most Americans support democracy; only 4% want a dictator to be in charge, and 80% disagree. That said, the unfortunate reality is that the outcome of this election could have serious consequences for democracy in the U.S. and globally. But it’s crucial to understand that this result was a byproduct of voter frustration, not an explicit rejection of democratic values.

Are democracy and open government delivering on people?

Rakesh: I find that very compelling, Sanjay. I’m picking up two key points from what you’re saying. First, there was a huge amount of pain and suffering among the American voters, and the incumbent government seemed to be out of touch with that reality. Second, you emphasized the importance of listening – voters didn’t feel heard.

Reports suggest that Democrats relied heavily on polling, consultants and data-driven ad campaigns, but they seemd to miss the basic act of genuinelity listening to people and making them feel heard.

Let’s delve a little deeper. For instance, you’ve been part of meetings led by Samantha Power from USAID, focusing on what’s been called “democracy deliverance.” Do you think this is an example of how the Democrats—or democracy itself—lost touch with bread-and-butter issues like livelihoods and economic security?

You mentioned the staggering statistic that two-thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. It’s shocking that, in the richest country in the world, so many people are struggling just to get by. Does this highlight a fundamental failure of democracy to deliver on economic issues? Could you expand on this point?

Sanjay:   You’re absolutely right—both points are critical. Democracy does need to deliver better on the core concerns of people. A common thread, not just in this case but in other elections around the world, particularly in Europe, has been the economy.

Here, it was the cost of living and inflation—issues that are undeniably challenging to address given their global nature. However, democracy—and by extension, the open government agenda—must step up to tackle these economic concerns more effectively.

To be honest, the open government agenda has largely been absent when it comes to addressing economic pain points. That’s a gap I take personal responsibility for because we need concrete answers to the economic struggles people face. If you look at the youth protests in Africa, whether in Kenya or Nigeria, economic issues were at the heart of their grievances—whether it was unemployment, jobs, or the rising cost of living. These are real challenges that democracy and open government must prioritize.

We need to do better—both democracy and the open government agenda—in addressing core concerns like these. Democracy needs to deliver, yes, but that alone isn’t sufficient. It also needs to listen better, which ties into the second point you mentioned. And here’s where the open government agenda becomes critical because it’s meant to be an integral part of democratic governance. The essence of open government is to ensure that government serves its citizens better. That was the overarching goal of OGP and the open government agenda. To achieve this, it must listen to citizens more effectively. It’s a citizen-centric agenda.

This means eliciting citizens’ voices, truly listening to them, and responding meaningfully. If we look at the open government agenda today, one proxy for listening to citizens has been through government and civil society co-creation. But that’s a limited approach. The civil society groups engaged in the OGP process often advocate for specific issues that can feel confined to our bubble and don’t always align with the economic concerns citizens are voicing.

We need to broaden that base of civil society engagement. This means including youth groups, women’s organizations, unions, and advocates for health and education—groups connected to the pressing issues that people are agitating about. But broadening isn’t enough. We also need to implement more direct consultation methods. For example, live consultations—particularly with youth, who are often left out of these conversations—are crucial. Let me share one example from OGP.

This kind of citizen engagement is supposed to be the DNA of OGP. It should happen systematically and regularly as part of the open government agenda, but unfortunately, it’s not yet happening at scale. Let me share one example from OGP where this approach worked, though under unusual circumstances.

In 2012, Estonia—a relatively small country—faced a major political party financing scandal that triggered widespread public outrage. In response, the Estonian president invited grassroots organizations and citizen groups to voice their concerns and propose solutions. This led to the creation of the People’s Assembly, or the Radical Group Platform. The process included a combination of online voting, where citizens ranked their top concerns, and offline deliberations to discuss and refine proposals.

The result? Citizen-led legislation on political party financing and the establishment of a citizen petition system. Reflecting on the process, the Estonian president said, “Democracy works when people’s discontent and proposals are taken into account in between elections.”

This is the essence of OGP—democracy beyond the ballot box. Elections shouldn’t be the sole measure of public opinion. One of OGP’s strengths has been its ability to foster creative consultation mechanisms, both online and in-person. But to truly realize its potential, this engagement needs to happen systematically, at scale, and continuously. We can’t afford to wait for the next election to hear from citizens. Listening and responding in the interim is essential for democracy to thrive.

Rakesh: Sanjay, so many ideas come to mind as we discuss this. Would you agree that in many OGP member countries, most people likely don’t feel that the OGP platform provides them with a pathway to be heard, taken seriously, or genuinely listened to?

Let me break this into two questions. First, if we think about people more broadly—not just NGOs but everyday citizens—do they feel that OGP has helped create pathways through which governments truly listen to them? Does OGP help people feel seen and heard as they wake up each morning and navigate their struggles?

Second, isn’t this also, in some ways, a failure of organized civil society? Take the protests in Kenya and Nigeria—both OGP member countries. For example, the so-called Gen Z protests in Kenya weren’t driven by NGOs. Those young people didn’t feel represented by civil society organizations, including active members of the OGP network. Instead, they organized outside these traditional frameworks.

This raises a broader issue: are the organized structures and mechanisms we have for public participation failing to connect with more grassroots voices? If so, how can we address this?  Looking ahead, how do we ensure that in ten years, we’re not still having this conversation? How can the open government movement deeply connect with people and make their voices heard in a way that feels authentic and impactful?

Sanjay: Yeah, practitioners are very good points. I look at it in terms of OGP evolution. The Partnership is only 13 years old and it has accomplished a lot in that time—some of those achievements are quite impressive for a relatively young initiative.

Let me respond to your points by looking at OGP through two lenses: the glass half full and the glass half empty.

The glass half full perspective highlights how OGP has grown rapidly to become a global platform. With 75 countries and 150 local governments involved, it’s a proven model for government and civil society collaboration. Independent evaluations confirm that when these groups work together, reforms are more ambitious and impactful. Over the years, OGP has facilitated more than 5,500 reforms, and hundreds of those have had a transformative effect, opening up government to citizens in significant ways.

OGP has also served as a broad platform for partners like Open Contracting and Open Ownership to advance critical reforms. Open contracting reforms and beneficial ownership transparency, for example, address corruption—an issue that fuels citizen distrust. Thanks to OGP, 70 governments are now advancing open contracting initiatives, while 38 to 40 are pushing forward on beneficial ownership transparency.

An independent evaluation, The Power of Partnerships, underscores this success. It points out that OGP has shaped and elevated global norms in areas like open contracting and beneficial ownership. These achievements show what the Partnership is capable of.

Now, coming to the glass-half-empty perspective, we’re not necessarily connecting to people’s concerns. One party is focusing on things that matter to people. We’ve talked about the economy, inflation, employment, unemployment, but we also have tough issues like migration and security. Do we even have an answer to these? I’m not suggesting we do, but we should at least start addressing them. At the very least, we need to recognize what people are agitated about, listen to them, and connect with them.

What does this mean? To connect more deeply, we first need to broaden the tent of civil society, which starts with bringing in the “unusual suspects.” This means engaging youth groups, unconventional organizations, women’s groups, and LGBTQ+ unions. Broadening the base is vital, but it’s not enough just to state this. We must work to ensure they feel included and offer a compelling value proposition for why they should use the OGP platform for their advocacy. It will take effort, but it can be done.

You might remember our case in 2019 when Canada was the chair. Prime Minister Trudeau placed gender on the agenda, even though it hadn’t existed before. This led to a significant increase in commitments in all three areas of women’s empowerment—economic empowerment (for example, addressing the gender wage gap), social empowerment (such as fighting gender-based violence), and political empowerment (such as Sri Lanka’s commitment to increasing the number of women in local elections).

Today, with a rollback on women’s rights, we’re seeing countries like Argentina, Guatemala, and Ecuador advance in addressing gender-based violence. This shows that it can be done, and it happened by bringing gender and women’s groups into the Partnership. It will take effort, but it’s possible. Another way to connect isn’t just through organized civil society, but through more direct citizen engagement.

One key method is addressing issues that matter directly to people. OGP Local is an important asset here, as it focuses on local government issues that people care about—the things they interact with, care about, and notice. Let me give you two examples that show how this can resonate and help engage citizens.

In Madrid, a civil society group partnered with the government to create Decide Madrid, a platform that allowed citizens to vote on projects they cared about. For example, people could vote for green parks or submit proposals for projects they wanted to see funded. It was a form of participatory budgeting, and it was so successful that Decide Madrid became one of the most used social media platforms in Madrid, right after Facebook. This shows that if you address the core concerns of people and give them a platform to amplify their voices, it works. This model has been adopted in multiple countries.

In Kaduna, Nigeria, citizens were promised a health clinic funded by the budget. However, an audit revealed that the clinic existed only on paper, and the money was stolen. People were frustrated, but the budget director, Muhammad Abdullahi, wasn’t having it. He created a mobile app where citizens could track the geolocation of projects funded by the budget—things like health clinics and roads—and upload photos and feedback directly to the governor’s office and the state legislature. In just two years, Kaduna saw a significant completion rate for health clinics and roads. This is a clear example of citizens caring about issues and holding the government accountable.

These examples show the power of engaging people on the issues they care about. To do this, we need to not only consult people—whether through Estonia-like methods or other approaches—but also focus on the content of reforms. We need to amplify opportunities for citizens to have a voice in policymaking, as in Madrid, or to oversee the delivery of public services, as in Kaduna.

Ultimately, the concept of “democracy beyond the ballot box” means empowering people to shape and oversee their government every day—not just once every four or five years when they cast their vote. By doing so, we can connect with people’s concerns, but this requires a shift toward more direct citizen participation and addressing their core issues—some of which we have been neglecting.

Why leadership matters?

Rakesh: I love those examples, Sanjay. Local government participation is something that emerged as OGP evolved, but I can see how it offers a sense of concreteness. It can actually serve as a lab for innovation—places like Kaduna and Madrid are substantive examples, and they can help spark broader change.

As I listen to this, one thing that stands out implicitly, and I wonder if we should make it more explicit, is the idea of leadership. On one hand, we’re talking about very structural and systemic issues. Whether a government listens to its people or not is one of the most profound systemic issues. On the other hand, it’s people who change systems and structures. People are the ones who can take us from the status quo to something much better.

You’ve always cared about leadership—at OGP, but also before, even back when you were with the World Bank. It’s been a focus for you. So, what have you learned about why leadership matters? What kind of leadership does the world need if we want to recreate a sense of trust and confidence in government?

​​Sanjay: Sure. One way to look at the overarching goal of OGP is to advance ambitious reforms that rebuild citizen trust and renew democracy. That’s one way to frame it, as an overarching objective. Now, think about the word ambition—because we don’t want business as usual or the status quo. If we stick to that, it won’t make a difference to anyone.

Ambition requires leadership. The status quo just requires management—you manage what already exists. To make a real difference, you need leaders who are change agents—those who challenge and change the status quo, who make change happen. Leaders are the ones who can mobilize people, resources, ideas, and alliances to push forward ambitious, transformative reforms. The Harvard gurus of leadership, Heifetz and Linsky, say leadership is dangerous. It’s dangerous because you’re attacking the status quo. And when you’re attacking the status quo, you need the skills to navigate change.

In OGP, we assumed that by creating a co-creation platform, government and civil society would come together and naturally advance ambitious reforms. But often, these change agents—whether they’re points of contact or civil society activists—have risen to their positions as either technical experts or advocates. Now, they need to bring in other ministries, other civil society groups. They have to forge alliances with government, and that takes skill in leadership, coalition-building, and alliance-building, which isn’t always straightforward.

This is the blood, sweat, and tears that underpin the reforms we’re advocating. Let me give you an example, because I like to think in these stories, to demonstrate why leadership is so important, as you asked. 

One of the most celebrated examples in OGP, in my view, is Ukraine’s open contracting. I’ve referenced Ukraine’s Prozorro in nearly every speech I’ve given because it’s so impressive in terms of its results. 

But have we asked what actually led to Ukraine adopting such a transformational system? You wouldn’t expect Ukraine to become a world leader in open contracting, so what drove this change? We’ve started a leadership program called the Open Government Leadership Collaborative (OGLC), where we focus on three dimensions of leadership. Let me explain the Ukraine story in these terms.

The first dimension is leadership for impact. To create bold impact, you need ambitious goals. Ukraine’s journey toward open contracting began with that ambition. Leadership starts with dissatisfaction with the status quo, and the story in Ukraine begins with the 2014 Revolution of Dignity at Maidan Square. The then-corrupt, Russian-leaning President Yanukovych was ousted through mass citizen protests. In Maidan Square, a group of young reformers emerged—young people who believed the revolution and the promise of democracy would be incomplete unless they took control of the public procurement system from powerful oligarchs who had captured it.

At that time, Ukrainian media was full of scandalous stories about exorbitant prices for basic public procurement items, with contracts awarded secretly and often to oligarchs. The first step they took was to resolve, with a bold vision, to clean up the public procurement process in Ukraine. That was the start of the Prozorro story. 

The second piece of leadership that you need is about coalition building. A global vision is necessary, but it’s not enough on its own. The leadership behind Ukraine’s Prozorro was collaborative—it came from a partnership between young reformers from government, civil society, and business. Inside the government, alliances were formed across various departments, and outside of government, stakeholders from all sectors came together.

The Open Contracting Partnership has shared stories about the painstaking work required to broaden support and advance a reform like this. That led to the third key aspect of leadership: individual leadership from those stakeholders who made change happen. Collective leadership is important, but individual leaders—change agents—must believe, persist, and persevere in the face of opposition.

As Heifetz and Linsky say, when advancing ambitious reforms, you will be attacked, and you need personal passion and conviction to push through. In Ukraine’s case, there are powerful stories about individuals who made a difference. One of them is a young civil society activist who received the 2016 Open Government Award from President Hollande. When I congratulated him at the event, he looked at me and said, “You’re congratulating me now, but you may not see me again. I’ve challenged so many powerful people and interests that I fear for my life.” I asked him why he did it, and he replied, “Because I truly believe that this is crucial for the success and progress of my country.”

That personal conviction, that drive against formidable odds, is what I find truly impressive about the leadership behind Ukraine’s success. It’s individual and collective leadership that made it happen. This is the blood, sweat, and tears that underpinned the dramatic results in Ukraine. The BBC reported that Prozorro saved $6 billion in four years, and 80% of businesses reported reduced corruption. There was also a 50% increase in businesses bidding for contracts, including SMEs.

What led to these impressive results was this combination of individual and collective leadership. Recognizing this, in 2021, during the pandemic, when I saw OGP commitments losing momentum due to fatigue from both the pandemic and growing challenges like closed governments and attacks on civic space, I reflected on how leadership could reignite our efforts.

We launched a program I initially started at the World Bank Institute and customized it for OGP, called the Open Government Leadership Collaborative (OGLC). We started with a pilot cohort of 22 global leaders. At the time, we didn’t know where it would go, but it ended up receiving the highest ratings from participants, including ministers and senior bureaucrats. Since then, we’ve run four cohorts, and it’s been a very rewarding experience.

There’s often a debate about whether leadership is born or bred. The legendary American coach Vince Lombardi famously said, “Leaders are not born, they’re made. And they’re made the same way everything else is made, through hard work.” What I’ve learned, and what we are trying to do through OGLC, is that leadership skills can indeed be developed through specific tools.

With OGLC, we focus on ‘leadership for impact,’ the first level of leadership that I mentioned earlier, by helping leaders create individual and collective projects or reforms that advance ambition. We also focus on ‘leading with others,’ helping them forge alliances, and ‘leading self,’ which emphasizes leading your own inner self through practices like meditation. Meditation is particularly innovative because it helps cultivate a calm, clear mind, which is essential for dynamism and persistence. When you face challenges or attacks, it helps you stay grounded, connect authentically with others, and foster alliances. It also helps leaders connect with the core values of service and integrity, which are at the heart of OGP and can drive a change agent’s passion and persistence.

Now, on leadership at another level: high-level political leadership. This, I believe, is a major challenge for OGP right now. My biggest concern is the dwindling political leadership from national governments, especially when you compare it to the engagement we saw from heads of state and ministers when OGP was first launched. Currently, especially in light of the recent geopolitical shifts that have posed new threats to democracy and open government, there’s a growing rise in populist and authoritarian leaders, like Viktor Orban, who openly proclaim the end of liberal democracy.

In response, we need more leaders—heads of state, ministers, mayors, governors—to speak out in defense of democracy. They need to show, through their actions, that democracy can deliver and meet the concerns of the people. This brings us full circle to the idea of renewing democracy—citizen-centric democracy—because that’s ultimately what OGP is about. It’s my concern that we’re not seeing enough of this leadership today.

However, there is an opportunity on the horizon. We have a Global Summit coming up with Spain, and there are leaders from some of the world’s brightest democracies who can form a renewed coalition for democracy and openness. These leaders can push back against the forces eroding democracy and create a positive coalition focused on renewing democratic values. That’s the opportunity we need to seize.

Rakesh: This resonates deeply with the work I’m doing at Just Systems, where we recently focused on the question, “What does it take to make public systems work better for people?” Leadership ranked fourth on that list, underscoring its importance.

I really appreciate the three-part framework you shared. First, having a clear and ambitious purpose is crucial. Second, recognizing the need to build a broad coalition, including those who aren’t your natural allies, is key. Embracing diverse perspectives and backgrounds is essential. Third, personal practices like meditation help leaders stay grounded, persistent, and connected to their values. 

While it’s easy to focus on structural changes, it’s the committed individuals who make the real difference. Your emphasis on leadership really resonates with my own experience and the work we’re doing. 

How listening matters

Rakesh: I think part of the challenge in reengaging top national government leadership is for OGP to present itself as a truly useful platform for addressing the issues that people care about. For example, migration is another tough issue that could benefit from this approach.

Sanjay: At the OGP Support Unit we use the term “value proposition”. When approaching a government or a new leader, the goal isn’t to sell open government. Instead, you listen to their concerns and show how open government can help address them.

For example, when Jokowi first came to power in Indonesia, I visited him. His priorities included the environment, distributing funds to villages, and fighting corruption. For the village fund, we demonstrated how open government, transparency, and mobilizing citizens through platforms like LAPOR could amplify people’s voices and help achieve his goals—particularly in ensuring the successful distribution of funds to villages. It was about listening to his priorities and presenting open government as the solution.

The same approach applied when I met various heads of state at the Davos World Economic Forum. Each leader had different priorities, but by listening carefully, I was able to craft a value proposition that addressed their specific needs. That’s the approach we need to take.

Rakesh: I like that a lot, it’s a core insight that I have picked up. Over the last few years, for many of us activists who care deeply about an issue, we often approach governments with our cause and try to persuade them that they should prioritize it. But if we take a step back, we realize that government leaders are often inundated with hundreds of people knocking on their door with their own agendas.

Sometimes, the more effective approach is to start with where the government is at—what are they dealing with, what are their priorities—and then build from there. This doesn’t mean abandoning your issue, but rather, recognizing that to be effective, you need to meet people where they are. Understand their concerns, listen to them, and then build a connection from there. And, as you rightly pointed out earlier in this conversation, it all comes back to listening.

Sanjay:  When you’re anxious to advocate something, whether as an activist or in any leadership role, people can sense your anxiety. But when you a calm, clear mind —whether through meditation or other tools—you approach others without that stress. That’s been my experience with heads of state. I met 13 heads of state in Davos over two days, and if you’re able to engage with them in a stress-free, calm manner, your natural tendency is to form a real connection.

You can approach them with genuine empathy and authenticity, understanding what’s troubling them, and then offer how you can be of help. These tools can be extremely helpful for building alliances and exercising leadership that mobilizes heads of state, partners, and ministers to push forward reforms.

But, ultimately, this requires an authentic person-to-person connection. It cannot be about intellectual persuasion alone; it comes from the heart. That kind of connection comes from the heart, from a stillness that you need.

Rakesh: I love that word stillness. It can sometimes be seen as naive or even a bit “new age,” but at its core, it’s about being authentically human. It’s a completely different approach from the usual advocacy style, where we often go in with a more combative mindset—pointing out flaws and “calling out” failures. That typically puts people on the defensive, making them less likely to engage openly or consider your perspective.

By contrast, approaching others with empathy and authenticity allows for a deeper, more constructive connection. Instead of triggering defensiveness, it opens the door for real dialogue. People are more likely to listen when they feel seen and heard, and that can ultimately be more strategic than any number of “yellow cards” or sharp critiques. It’s about creating space for collaboration and understanding, and that’s where lasting change happens.

Personal journey

Rakesh: Sanjay, it doesn’t seem possible, but you’ve been at this for over 40 years! You must have started when you were four years old or something.

You’ve been working on governance in different guises for a while. I’m sure you’ve had many ups and downs. I can imagine you’ve changed your mind numerous times, evolving in your thinking. Things that you thought were important, perhaps are no longer or there’s much more nuance to your thinking.

As you step down from OGP, I’d like to invite you to reflect on your own journey, both personally and on a human level. Two questions come to mind: First, are there just a couple of very personal insights you’d like to share—insights that were powerful to you, that struck you deeply, that have guided or inspired you? And second, can you reflect on what this role has meant to you as a human being? What has this experience meant for you?

Sanjay: Let me begin by reflecting on what this journey has meant to me. It’s been a long one, and as you speak, I can’t help but think back to my four-year-old self.

My journey in governance started when I grew up in Bihar, India, which was known as the country’s poorest and most corrupt state. One of my most vivid memories is watching my father fight against corruption as a lone warrior. He was attacked, harassed, and threatened. He was in charge of building roads, and when it came to issues like open contracting, they wanted preferential contracts. He refused, and he stood firm. That determination was etched in my memory. On the very last day of his life, he transitioned into a lone civil society activist. From advocating against corruption in road projects to fighting for good governance, this marked the two ends of his journey.

There was a turning point I can’t help reflect on right now. I was about 19 years old, conducting a survey on rural poverty, feeling exhausted, almost famished and on the verge of fainting. At that moment, the poorest man in the village approached me, brought me inside his hut and insisted on feeding me. Later, I learned that he fed me the whole food for his family for two days. That really grabbed me. It marked a the turning point in my journey with governance. Here was a man who had virtually nothing, yet he gave me all he had to help me. Meanwhile, the rich and powerful in Bihar were robbing the poor like him behind closed doors, and that seemed so unjust. But beyond that, I was deeply moved by his kindness and I wanted to give back.  Over the last 40 years I’ve forgotten what this person looks like and even his name, but I’m still trying to pay back for that food. The experience has been a driver of my journey, motivating me to find different ways to make a difference—or at least try to.

Then I joined the World Bank, where I thought the solution was simple: this institution gives a lot of money, so if I direct it to the poor, it would help. My first big project was in Uganda, manging a  $100 million project. I was promoted quickly and even recognized by the board. But during a field trip, I found that the medicines and textbooks we had funded didn’t arrive. We conducted an expenditure tracking survey and discovered that 80% of the money never reached its intended recipients. That reminded me of that moment in Bihar, where the poorest man fed me. It made me wonder: what voice did this person have?

This led to a very interesting experiment in Uganda where reformers with us and others, they started broadcasting on radio and posting on billboards in schools and colleges how much money people were supposed to receive. Empowered with that information, people started demanding accountability, and the leakage dropped from 80 to 20%. This was my first real lesson on citizen empowerment, transparency and access to information.

Then I became a disruptor within the World Bank, which was focused on lending large amounts of money to governments. I kept pushing the importance of citizen engagement and transparency, and while it was difficult, I persisted. We created the Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA), a fund to build the capacity of civil society to oversee World Bank projects and government funding.  It was an uphill struggle, but I kept going.

Fast forward to OGP, which felt like coming out of the closet twice. Suddenly, I could talk openly about citizen engagement, governance, collaboration, and fighting corruption without any restraints. It was liberating and exhilarating. I’m deeply grateful for how OGP has connected me to issues far broader than where I started nine years ago. Initially, I was passionate about citizen engagement and fighting corruption, which I still am. But over time, I became deeply engaged in issues of gender, inclusion, LGBTQ rights, civic space, human rights, and the broader fight for democracy against authoritarianism. These have become defining passions for me. 

What I’ve learned is hard to put into one concise point, but I’ve been tremendously inspired by the reformers and activists I’ve met along the way. I’m just rattling off a few examples, but there are countless others. They’re the ones who came up with these incredible reforms, and I’m just a mirror reflecting their work. When I was awarded Social Innovator of the Year at Davos, I meant every word when I said, “This award doesn’t belong to me.” It belongs to the reformers and activists I’ve had the privilege to meet. I’ve been immensely inspired by the courage, the creativity, passion and dynamism of these reformers in our Partnership and by our Support Unit. I have to say, my team is young, fearless, and they’ve been very important drivers. I’ve been immensely privileged to be there.

It’s been a fantastic journey, and it was important to pass the baton. Thes passions I’ve developed have now become so fundamental to who I am.

OGP’s values represent my values, and they will live on in me, in whatever but destiny next has in store for me. So I’m immensely grateful for this journey that I’ve embarked, which has been a journey of a lifetime.

Rakesh: At the heart of everything, it truly is about people. The mess the world is in, and yet, as you so powerfully put it, it’s also human beings who will be the ones to turn it around. Through deep conviction, hard work, and relentlessness, we have the power to make change.

The fact that you have had an opportunity, throughout your life, starting from that experience in Bihar with your father and that man who fed you, all the way through to these amazing reformers you’ve been able to meet through OGP, in many ways they have shaped you, and made you who you are. In some ways, you are the you’re the luckiest person to have had the chance to be with these people, and to support them and have them shape you. OGP and the world have been lucky to have you contribute your part.

Sanjay: One central insight that came to my mind, tying together this journey, is that it all began with my father, the lone warrior, both in government and later in civil society. He did this alone. When I look at OGP, the real promise of OGP is to connect these lonely warriors so they can find collective strength and amplify their impact.

All those remarkable individuals you’ve mentioned, who are very much in our Partnership and beyond, embody this. The real promise of OGP — and where we need to go — is to connect these lonely warriors and help them multiply into a force capable of changing the world. That’s the real beauty of OGP and it’s what inspires me as I’ll continue to support this cause as global ambassador.

Rakesh: Thank you. I think it’s really powerful—the idea that OGP is really a community of reformers, of courageous people trying to make the world a better place and fulfill the promise of the social compact between people and their governments. The idea that we can’t improve the world by acting as individuals alone. We need governments and collective action. Government is another way of saying “How do we achieve our collective well-being?”.

If the leaders who are fighting this battle, sometimes against big odds, can find a community, both in their own country and across the world, where they can discover solidarity, connection, friendship, support, ideas, innovation and solace, then that’s truly worthwhile in the world.

Thank you for your part in making that happen. I am a big believer in the idea of the open government and the Open Government Partnership. You’ve really put it in a good place for your successor to take it further and reach even greater heights. Thank you for this conversation. I truly enjoyed it and learned a lot.

Sanjay: Thank you so much for doing this. As always, I’ve learned a lot from it and other conversations in the past. Thank you.

 

 

 

 

Filed Under: Champions Perspective

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Content

Thumbnail for OGP CEO Sanjay Pradhan to Conclude Outstanding Tenure

OGP CEO Sanjay Pradhan to Conclude Outstanding Tenure

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) announced today that Sanjay Pradhan has decided to step down from...

Thumbnail for Remarks from OGP’s CEO Sanjay Pradhan at the 2023 OGP Global Summit

Remarks from OGP’s CEO Sanjay Pradhan at the 2023 OGP Global Summit

Open Government Partnership