The Courage to Ask the Difficult Questions

This is an adapted version of a talk to be given at the Academic Days alongside the OGP Global Summit in Paris, December 7-9.

In times of fake news, referendums, and so-called “post-truth politics” the Open Government PartnershipThe Open Government Partnership (OGP) is a multi-stakeholder initiative focused on improving government transparency, ensuring opportunities for citizen participation in public matters, and strengthen... More (OGP) community, especially those among it who consider themselves the knowledge producers, must reaffirm and, where necessary, refine their mission. We aim to assure more effective, responsive government and a more engaged public, whether that is with openness as an end in and of itself or as a means to other ends. Despite–and perhaps because of–changes in the broader world, our work is more important than ever before.

Improving governance won’t be carried out primarily through technical assistance grants and perfectly executed hackathons. It will require politics. A realistic understanding of politics requires us to understand not only our own assets as a community, but the entire playing field. The vision of a more open and inclusive society has its opponents and we must understand the sources of that opposition.

We have seen a growing narrative in the last few months and years, and it comes from a place that is not so different to the motivations of many of us working in open government. It starts in a similar sense of frustration with “rot at the top” and declining trust in institutions in the Western world. In many developing countries, this is hardly new. “We don’t need transparencyAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, transparency occurs when “government-held information (including on activities and decisions) is open, comprehensive, timely, freely available to the pub... More or 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... to tell us that we are being robbed,” many would say.

But out of this frustration, there are two clear and distinct sets of solutions. One set of solutions bends toward majoritarianism and narrow nationalism, toward closed societies, rejection of old institutions, and in some of the worst cases, authoritarianism.

The other, which the Open Government Partnership is a part of, aspires to be a countervailing force. Our vision of a world—and I hope it is yours as well—is a world where:

• The local, national and the global enhance one another. It builds off the best aspects of globalization and strives for ever better solutions where that globalization has fallen short. We encourage a community of people who are not afraid to experiment to discuss and to fail, pick yourself up, and try a different approach.

• Our world is one where there is ever-increasing inclusionOGP participating governments are working to create governments that truly serve all people. Commitments in this area may address persons with disabilities, women and girls, lesbian, gay, bisexual, tr... and diversity of people, interests, and ideas. We envision a marketplace of ideas with deliberation, dialogue, and collaboration between citizens and between citizens and their government.

• We believe that, over the long run, understanding how policy affects our lives and that governments are responsive to public inputs and mutual trust coupled with healthy public oversight will grow.

This vision is based, in part, on a growing body of evidence and empirical research [cite Brookings], and in other parts, matters of faith and principle. To be fair, all political agendas, ideally are a mix of the possible and the aspirational. But we, who strongly believe in data-driven decision-making and deliberation nourished by rigorous evidence, have a special obligation to be unrelenting in understanding the society we live in and the society we want.

It is in this latter area that we need to grow. Many of my colleagues have called for more rigorous impact studies, including randomized control trials. While these are indeed useful and warranted, they risk missing the larger picture and lapsing into international development speak and managerialism.

What we need is a more clear theory of change, not of the Open Government Partnership, but of open government as a whole–what we expect to reap from more open governments, from free association, assembly, and expression, and more pluralistic, deliberative societies.

The community of open government researchers is building a growing body of knowledge. Just as importantly, there is a growing body of theory of how and when open government works on a practical and policy level. But in some sense, in the last few years, we may be losing the “narrative.” It’s not necessarily your job to develop that narrative, but I don’t think, at this juncture, it hurts us to shy away from theory and from bold, evidence-based claims.

Our collective investigation must look at the bigger questions of an open government vision. Things that we, perhaps, took for granted a few years ago now need a vigorous interrogation, articulation, and defense.

To wit, OGP offers up a world where there varied and conflicting interests can enter into a contest of ideas in the public space, where governments give reasons for their decisions, and where the public servants are held accountable.

First, a few requests.

We need a more nuanced portrait of civil society. We need to be able to construct a narrative with a broad definition of civil society–from the temples to the chambers of commerce, from the laborTransparent workforce data and increased representation of workers in labor policy-making lead to policies that better protect workers’ rights and remove barriers for underrepresented groups in the ... unions to the lone energized activist, from the village insurance collective to the philanthropist-funded think tank. We need to understand better the interplay of civil society and government, but under a broader definition than we have so far. In my country, we have nearly 1 million legally recognized organizations. This is before we even count churches, lobbyingLobbying transparency allows the public to ensure that there is diversity of participation and contribution to public decision-making. Technical specifications: Policies and actions affecting lobbying... organizations, or the millions more informal associations who do not have income, revenue, or employees.

Second, we need to understand how this civil society, in all its complexity, interacts with international processes like OGP. And let’s be realistic. The farmers’ cooperative 700 miles from the capital will not likely engage in OGP in a sustained meaningful way without the right intermediaries. But when, and how does such an interest group, so far from the capital engage in an initiative like OGP? What is a realistic and can be expected in an operational sense?

Finally, we need to be able to respond to the critics of open government, pluralism, and free association with ready, credible answers. These criticisms include:

• What is the role of professional civil society organizations when there are weaknesses in the fundamental institutions of a republic—the lack of checks and balances, weak oversight by parliament or the judiciaryWhile a majority of open government reforms occur within the executive branch, OGP members are increasingly taking on commitments to increase the openness of the judicial branch. Technical specificati..., ineffective decentralization?
• When does foreign funding undermine the credibility and efficacy of the reformers?
• Do associations have an obligation to represent the public? Which aspect of the public? Does the professionalization of some parts of civil society (the part we most often deal with) sacrifice its ability to represent others’ views?
• Doesn’t pluralism lead to the victory of the loudest voices in the room?
• Doesn’t open government introduce even more veto points into already slow government processes?
• What is the role of open government and non-partisan activity in the absence of a stable state or in the case of a predatory state?
• What is the interaction between organized interests using open government and a professional, impartial bureaucracy? What about when that bureaucracy is absent?

For many of these questions we may have the tacit understanding, but we haven’t taken the time to collectively communicate about these blind spots and come to a shared language about possible answers. For others, we genuinely do not know the answers. And, for still others, we may have sneaking suspicions about the answers, but as a community, we are afraid of the implications should we investigate them.

It is this last category that for which we need exercise a collective bravery. This community does not grow stronger through consoling itself with meditative mantras, tautologies that “open is better” and “better is open”. Rather, it is a community which is improved by airing its shortcomings, reflecting, and working collectively, in an oft-decentralized fashion, to arrive at a newer, better model.

As I stated at the beginning, there is fundamentally an element of faith that I bring to this movement and to my life’s work. At the same time, we have the obligation to muster as much evidence as possible. To do that, we need you to help draw the picture of the society we hope to live in through better understanding of the one that we do.