Connecting anti-corruption efforts and civic engagement
Preparing for the International Anti-Corruption Conference, Copenhagen 2018
It is clear that work still needs to be done to highlight the potential of people-centred anti-corruption. Zero tolerance policies and internal control mechanisms are important to track CSOs’ spending and ensuring it reaches beneficiaries. But in addition, we need to strengthen the argument for strategic thinking on social accountability — making anti-corruption efforts participatory and people-focused.
Saul Mullard — Senior advisor at U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, and a social scientist with a background in historical sociology, development studies and South Asian studies. Research interests include the interaction between the state and society, the role of people’s and social movements in social change, and state formation and governance.
In preparation for next year’s International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) in Copenhagen, Danida and the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs hosted a seminar on 23rd November for those working in the development arena. It gathered representatives from Danish-supported civil society organisations (CSOs), academia, and policy research centres. We shared knowledge and experience, and discussed potential panels and sessions at the IACC.
An important message I take from the event is that we need to overcome the artificial division in the anti-corruption sphere — stemming from how work is divided within CSOs. There is often a disconnect between the realms of the controllers and programme staff. Thus often anti-corruption mechanisms and monitoring tasks belong to control and compliance staff, whereas civic engagement work falls on programme people. Rather than seeing anti-corruption and civic engagement as two separate worlds, try to approach them as two sides of the same coin! They can impact and influence each other. It is important to explore how we can do this in practice.
Rather than seeing anti-corruption and civic engagement as two separate worlds, try to approach them as two sides of the same coin!
The power of engaging people
At the seminar, I led a session on The power of engaging people in anti-corruption. Drawing on the latest research, I highlighted the important role people can play in tackling the challenges resulting from systemic corruption — particularly concerning development outcomes. Several programmes have had success with participatory anti-corruption work. They offer useful lessons for other CSOs and donors to consider for their own projects and programmes. See for example Doing accountability differently — vertical integration of civil society advocacy and monitoring.
The step from community empowerment to active people-centred anti-corruption efforts is not a big one.
CSOs and donors can start gearing anti-corruption work into citizen action — start with these questions:
1. What are you already doing in your advocacy or community empowerment programmes that can point to potentials for people-centred anti-corruption?
2. How can you think strategically about relevant links between rights-based development and anti-corruption?
3. What indirect approaches to anti-corruption might emerge from exploring these links?
For example, community advocacy and empowerment programmes that emerge out of rights-based approaches are often good starting points. They often create the building blocks for active participation, they articulate the relationship between claiming one’s rights and people’s action. They often create:
– A Sense of collective outrage over powerholders’ behaviour
– Collective identity
– Collective responsibility
– Collective ownership
– Forums for people to address shared social challenges and claim their rights.
The step from community empowerment to active people-centred anti-corruption efforts is not a big one. Nor is it an unnatural one. In one programme in Nepal, a group of Dalit youth, had decided to tackle corruption in local government. They had identified it as the biggest impediment to development of their community. Organisations and donors can build upon these one-off cases. They can turn them into strategic approaches that link rights-based development to anti-corruption work. This will ground the problem of corruption in everyday experiences, but expands the action beyond individual communities. It links communities not only to other communities, but also to wider bodies for support and solidarity.
Issues to consider
Several insights and areas of interest emerged in our discussions that merit ongoing consideration.
Upward and downward accountability
How can we best ensure both upward and downward accountability of CSOs’ development work? To be serious about rights-based development, NGOs recognise that whilst they need to be accountable to their donors, it is equally important to be accountable to the communities they work with.
Whistleblowing mechanisms
What is best practice for whistleblowing mechanisms for rights holders? Whilst most large NGOs have whistleblowing mechanisms in place, the challenge is ensuring that rights holders have access to this system for reporting corruption within the NGO and its local/regional partners.
Shrinking spaces for CSOs
How can CSOs act in the current situation in many countries where authorities are cutting back their rights and opportunities to advocate for reforms and hold government to account? See for example The global participation backlash: Implications for natural resource initiatives.
CSO bureaucracy burden
How do we avoid turning anti-corruption mechanisms into a bureaucratic strain for CSOs? With pressure to show value for money and to reduce administrative shares of budgets, it is important to ensure that anti-corruption mechanisms work effectively without being burdensome.
Anti-corruption’s negative sound
We can transform negative perceptions about anti-corruption by turning focus on integrity role models and linking them to wider anti-corruption work. See for example Accountability Lab’s naming and faming with integrity idol. In Liberia, Mali and Nepal, Accountability Lab hosts annual pop-idol style shows. Here individuals and local communities call attention to public servants that conduct themselves with integrity. People nominate their integrity idol, and a public vote decides who wins. This is a great step in the right direction. We need to build upon such initiatives to link role models to wider anti-corruption work.
Building momentum for progress
This event’s clear goals and link to the IACC preparations were useful in enabling CSOs to raise concerns and issues. We certainly built momentum. Let’s continue the work in more events leading to wider discussions at the IACC in 2018.
What do you think?
Would you like to share any other concerns and ideas that are important for succeeding with people-centred and effective anti-corruption efforts?
Log in to add any comments, ideas, or examples below.
About U4
The U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre at CMI works to identify and communicate informed approaches to partners for reducing the harmful impact of corruption on sustainable and inclusive development.
Follow us
Disclaimer
All views expressed in this post are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U4 partner agencies, or CMI/U4.
