United Nations Development Programme Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean
Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy Political Analysis and Prospective Scenarios Project: PAPEP
K nowle d g e S h a r i n g S e r i e s
This publication is the result of joint efforts of the UNDP Offices in El Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua and Brazil, the Practice Areas in Crisis Prevention and Recovery, and Democratic Governance, and the Knowledge Management Unit of the UNDP Regional Center for Latin America and the Caribbean. It is the culmination of a participatory process conducted in the “Knowledge Sharing” Workshop, which was held in Panama City on 15 August 2009, and which was attended by expert professors, country offices, students and experts of the Center’s work areas and of the Virtual School. Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy Political Analysis and Prospective Scenarios Project: PAPEP Knowledge Sharing Series Vol. II, ISBN 978-9962-663-05-8 Translate: Peter Robertson y Sofie Van Renterghem. Design and layout: Miguel Nova Cover picture: Jon Alex November 2009 Note: The opinions expressed in this document are not necessarily those of the United Nations Development Programme, its Board or its member states.
Index
1 Enough reinventing the wheel Experience travels, crosses borders and adds value to programs
5
2. Regional Context
7
3. The PAPEP Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
9
9
3.1. The PAPEP objective: Revaluing politics
3.2. The PAPEP network for a strategic political dialogue
10
3.3. The PAPEP studies
11
4. Strategic political analysis from the PAPEP
15
4.1. What sets the PAPEP apart: Objectives, Support and Impact
15
4.2. The PAPEP approach
16
4.2.1 Active Neutrality
16
4.2.2. Politics are important
17
4.2.3. The stakeholders’ view
17
4.3. The PAPEP Methodology
18
4.3.1. Design
18
4.3.2. Data collection
18
4.3.3. Analysis
19
4.3.4. Devolution
20
4.3.5. The PAPEP process
20
5. Activation of a PAPEP
23
5.1. Why activate a PAPEP?
23
5.2. PAPEP implementation phases
24
5.3. The PAPEP network in December 2009
27
6. Challenges
29
7. Recommendations
31
Experience travels, crosses borders and adds value to programs
The UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean supports systematization and documentation of the knowledge acquired by the countries from the region. As is known, every country performs a significant amount of work of a high quality and deep impact. Moreover, the different countries have great expectations regarding mechanisms for sharing, both internally and externally, knowledge, questions and sustainable successes. Well, we have undertaken the task of “Sharing Knowledge” guided by the following basic concept: many of our experiences may be useful for others in the region. Experience can travel, cross borders and add value to the work of others. This series of publications is the channel chosen for this purpose. Obviously, it is the result of joint efforts that included the development of a methodology to facilitate the systematization and exchange of knowledge. The initiative has involved colleagues from National and Local Governments, UNDP Country Offices, thematic experts, and the thematic teams of the UNDP Regional Center for Latin America and the Caribbean. Only the tip of the iceberg is visible. In this case, the publications are but one part of the “Knowledge Sharing” exercise. They are a summarized presentation of programming options and the relevant aspects of each experience. They provide us with a summarized overview of “how the program was made and how to make it”. Thanks to the participation of various colleagues, all of whom with a lot of experience in their respective fields of work, each publication is complemented with a rich and detailed amount of documentation online (project documents, evaluations, reports, relevant data etc.). These tools contribute to the transfer, recreation and adaptation - reality often challenges us – of the systematized program.
5 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
1
Enough reinventing the wheel
Count on us to take better advantage of this proposal. Our team is at your disposal so that, once the field particularities have been identified, multiple facets of the knowledge can be deepened and deployed which, at the service of your objectives, will reduce the costs of learning, research and development and allow you to concretize key solutions and programs. We appreciate the cooperation for producing “Knowledge Sharing�. Your comments and suggestions will help us provide better services. Team of the UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean Panama and Port of Spain 09 October
Knowledge Sharing Series
6
Latin America is in a situation which from a general perspective we can define as a search full of conflict for new consensuses. Following three decades of settlement of the electoral democracy, the region seems to have entered an ill-defined period with a search for changes or reforms. Obviously, there are enormous differences between the countries, but in almost all of them there is a demand for change in the political, economic, social or even in the cultural and ethnical spheres. Regardless of economic development, the new generations of Latin Americans wonder if the model of the state, of society and of the economy could be different, if it is possible to fight insecurity and crime more effectively, if the public institutions are too fragile and the law states incomplete or discriminatory, if regional integration should follow another course, and if the representativeness, effectiveness and legitimateness of democracy require improvements. From a macroeconomic perspective, in general most countries of the region are much better prepared than in the 1980s to face problems or crises, with monetary discipline, inflation control, and central banks that are supervised but not managed by the successive governments. However, what we see and foresee is a worsening of the economy, a loss of employment and high social costs. In institutional (Rule of Law and public sector) and political-sociocultural (representativeness of the political institutions, social cohesion, citizenship, national consensuses) terms, possibly the picture is even more complex; here, the task ahead is to find a new consensus, a common denominator of reform or change oriented policies, based on respect for and active defense of the rule of law and the freedoms of liberal democracy, which, as is clear from one of the latest Latin Barometers, stand out in Latin Americans’ appreciation, but with the ambitions and actions of social and participatory democracy, and the equal opportunities which citizens demand.
7 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
2
Regional Context
This democratization of democracy involves active participation of the citizens in political processes, processes regarding public policy choices and accountability, renewal of the language and of the representatives in the political arena, and in processes regarding generational and social-cultural changes. That is the great challenge the region faces today. This document is an instrument to find out what the elites and citizens are thinking, and to find the meeting points and basis for new consensuses.
Knowledge Sharing Series
8
Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
3.1. The PAPEP objective: Revaluing politics At the onset of the 21st century, Latin America is going through a time of crisis and change. The region is on the threshold of a new historical cycle, after the transition from authoritarianism to democracy and depletion of the structural reforms encouraged under the Washington Consensus. To a large extent, the way in which progress is made in strengthening of the political institutions and in solving equity issues will determine the possibilities of this turning moment becoming a path of renewal for democracy and development. The recurring political crises in countries of the region point to two common patterns. On the one hand, politics are unable to satisfy citizen demands and, in this sense, we are faced with a deficit in democratic governance that can be corrected only with more and better politics: which “[…] embodies the options, groups wills and creates power. These are three absolutely necessary conditions for the development of democracy” (PRODAL 2004: 177). On the other hand, the political players will not be able to solve the political-institutional problems, except if they are able to manage the problems of society, particularly the ones related to the deepening of social inequalities and the increase of poverty and human insecurity. For the Political Analysis and Prospective Scenarios Project (PAPEP), the principal challenge of democracy is to increase the political system’s response capacity in order to satisfy citizen demands, needs and expectations. And this should happen in national contexts marked by different institutional weaknesses, high indices of social conflict, more or less high degrees of political polarization and economies that are highly vulnerable to changes in the external context. In other words, the PAPEP intends to contribute to strengthening democracy from politics.
9 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
3
The PAPEP
The PAPEP operates in a strategic dimension, providing tools for navigation in turbulent waters, and building capacity in strategic political analysis in different development stakeholders. Decision-makers need a better, more realistic, plural and objective understanding of ongoing political processes in order to formulate viable strategies, programs and projects. The strategic political dialogue offered by the project makes it possible for the democratic institutions to approach citizen demands. On the one hand, the idea is to reconstitute some idea of a future regarding the challenges of democratic deepening in the region, admitting that there is more than one way and that societies produce different competing and interrelated political options. On the other hand, from this perspective, the project seeks to provide elements of analysis leading to a recovery of politics, both in terms of its ability to multiply spaces for discussion, dialogue and consensus-building and in terms of its ability to conceive and articulate citizen-centered public policies.
Knowledge Sharing Series
10 3.2. The PAPEP network for a strategic political dialogue The PAPEP has managed to become a high-level knowledge network for a strategic political dialogue in Latin America. The network is specialized in the production and discussion of prospective political diagnostics, political analyses and debates of strategic issues on public agendas, and capacity-building for prospective political analysis. The PAPEP network sails in different waters: It moves between the production of substantive knowledge (applied research) and political decision-making (the political system), between the strategic challenges of national political processes and regional macro trends, and between political situational analyses and political prospects in the short/medium term. The PAPEP network has developed a conceptual framework and a methodological toolkit, which are common to all PAPEP studies but the implementation of which is flexible and adaptable to the national partners’ needs and to the particular conditions of the national contexts in which they are applied. The network has a group of experts (renowned consultants, academicians and politicians) who do not only know and manage the tools developed by the project for strategic political analysis, but who have contributed to the development thereof. These experts come from different backgrounds in the fields of research and national and regional dialogues, but they share this intentional effort of building capacity in strategic political analysis through virtual courses (FLACSO/Argentina,
Escuela Virtual de Desarrollo Humano/Colombia) and presential training workshops (IAEN/Ecuador, CESU/Bolivia). The PAPEP network feeds on concrete results in the field of high-level strategic political dialogues, such as the ones mentioned below: Strengthen political dialogue and/or negotiation spaces in different national contexts. The PAPEP has supported and/or guided political dialogue processes in Bolivia (2001, 2008) and Honduras (2002). It has also multiplied rapprochements with strategic stakeholders in those countries when it was clear that, in the absence of a political agreement, the circumstances could only worsen (Bolivia, 2003 and 2007; Honduras, 2009). Two examples of successful but scarcely visible rapprochements: the agreement in Congress that paved the way for the presidential elections of 2005 2009.
11
Draw attention to issues that are considered to be strategic and build action capacity
Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
in Bolivia, or on the eve of the municipal and presidential elections in El Salvador in
in the different spaces where public policies are formulated and implemented. From concrete support to rethink the strategic challenges of the educational reform in Panama (2008) or to guide the action of electoral bodies in Bolivia (2008) and Haiti (2009), to more sustained political dialogue and research processes: In Honduras (2008) regarding the challenges of the energy crisis, in Paraguay (2009) regarding the perspectives of the State reform, and in Bolivia (2008/2009) regarding the process of departmental and municipal autonomies. Position the UNS. The PAPEP studies orient strategic positioning of the United Nations System, and of its project portfolio.
3.3 The PAPEP studies The PAPEP studies can be grouped in four different types, which are however strongly intertwined. They should not be viewed as isolated outputs, but as part of the strategic political dialogue process.
Type
Output
Description
Example
Reports and
National/
Medium-term focus.
Honduras (2006): Assessment of possible
analyses
subnational
They address the topics and
scenarios, with a view to year 2009, examining
on political
case studies
macro sociopolitical processes
the principal political, economic and social
processes to
that define the perspectives of
trends of the country
interact with key
the “democratic agendas”.
(How to get Honduras out of the “risk zone”?).
stakeholders
They include an analysis of
El Salvador (2008 – 2009): Analysis of viability of
structural characteristics of the
a “new political direction” before and after the
context and of the stakeholders’
national election in March 2009.
perceptions,
Panama: Medium-term socioeconomic
interests y demands.
scenarios
Significant information gathering
(2006) and prospective study on post-election
(essays, public opinion surveys,
governance (2009).
interviews with leaders, workshops).
Knowledge Sharing Series
12 Political
An instrument to propose
Bolivia (2003): Presentation of the country’s
situation
short-term alternatives to
political-economic situation; recommendation
reports
governments and stakeholders.
of policies to contribute to the creation of new
Brief development process that,
political and economic options in the short
to a certain extent, leaves aside
term.
structural analyses. Focus on
Peru (2004): Assessment of the possibilities of
the configuration of forces and
democratic consolidation in a scenario rated as
internal political factors of the
“progressive deterioration”, “blockage”, “chronic
country/region, alignment of the
stagnation” or “low-intensity equilibrium”.
stakeholders, the key topics of
Nicaragua (2007): Assessment of the situation
public agendas, ongoing social
of the country and perspectives after the first
processes and other relevant
months of the Sandinista government.
topics. Flash reports in crisis situations
Rapid reports that are presented directly to the stakeholders. The primary source of information is omnibus public opinion surveys and consultations with leaders. The objective is to show the “state of affairs” to decisionmakers so as to provide the elements needed to identify a way out.
Bolivia (2006): Flash consultation among highlevel national leaders and elites on possible arrangements regarding distribution of the Hydrocarbons Tax and the Dignidad Retirement Pension (Ministry of the Presidency). Bolivia (2008): Flash consultation among highlevel national leaders and elites on possible solutions for blocking of the Constituent Assembly as regards the issue of defining the capital city (Multiparty Commission chaired by the Vice-president of the Republic). Honduras (2009): Flash consultation among high-level national leaders and elites on the possibility of including a referendum for installation of a Constituent Assembly within the framework of the general elections.
Type
Output
Description
Example
Reports and
Political
Contains a diagnostic of the
Honduras (2007): Prospective political study on
analyses on
evaluation of
conditions of governance, the
energy and governance.
strategic topics
strategic public
degree of social and political-
of the public
policies
institutional tension, the map of
agenda in order
political players and of interest
to formulate
groups, including factual powers.
ecommendations
The objective is to analyze who wins and who loses with the programming of certain policies and, first of all, to define the political viability thereof. Evaluates the “political impact” –
Case study: Bolivia (2008)
evaluation of
beyond technical and procedural
Interviews with development practitioners in
development
aspects – of the development
Peru and Ecuador (2008)
programs and
projects.
projects Institutional
Identifies the fundamental
Panama, Ministry of Education (2008):
charts
phases in public policymaking
Assessment of the political context and
through the use of empirical
conditions to make progress in proposals to
instruments for measurement
change or improve the educational system.
and analysis.
Paraguay, Ministry of the Civil Service
From an operational perspective,
(2008 – 2009): Proposal of a critical path
it is an instrument that
for achieving the objectives of the Public
standardizes the policymaking
Administration Reform
process, identifying for each
Bolivia, Presidency of the Republic (March
phase the crucial dimension and
to July 2005): Recommendations of political
the type of decisions which must
actions to strengthen
be taken.
governance towards the general election in December 2005.
13 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
Political
Type
Output
Description
Example
Regional
Studies on the
Objectives: a) Produce
“A compass for democracy. Contributions for a
observatory
view of Latin
systematized information on
Governance Agenda”
American elites
democratic governance trends
Governance Working Paper 1: “Citizenship and
and future scenarios in Latin
Human Development”
America, identifying the principal
Governance Working Paper 2: “Political
challenges; b) Generate debates
Scenarios in Latin America”
for encouraging strategies aimed at strengthening an integrated democratic governance, by means of devolution processes with relevant stakeholders of the region.
Knowledge Sharing Series
14 Monitoring and
Analyzes the dynamic of
Early Warning
governance crises in Latin
System for
America. The objective is early
Governance
identification of the signs
Crises
of worsening governance conditions in order to develop actions to prevent the arrival of unwanted scenarios.
Capacity-building
Virtual training
Capacity-building and
Postgraduate Course in Governance and
courses
knowledge transfer in a virtual
Prospective Scenario Building
manner for professionals and
(FLACSO Argentina)
public servants (regional scope).
Course on Tools for Political Action (UNDP Virtual School, Colombia)
Presential
Capacity-building and
Postgraduate Course in Governance and
training courses
knowledge transfer in a virtual
Prospective Scenario Building
manner for professionals and
(FLACSO Argentina)
public servants (regional scope).
Course on Tools for Political Action (UNDP Virtual School, Colombia)
4.1. What sets the PAPEP apart: Objectives, Support and Impact The PAPEP is different from other political analysis teams because of its objectives, its support and its impact. For these three reasons, both internal and external players need and demand the strategic political analysis offered by the PAPEP. Objectives: As regards their objectives, the PAPEPs are unique. The devolution of a PAPEP project includes stakeholders in a relation of rivalry or competition. Normally, consultancies give advice to one specific stakeholder in order to strengthen him in relation to his rivals and competitors. The objective of the PAPEPs is not to strengthen one competitor against his rivals, but rather to improve the capacity for strategic political analysis of all stakeholders aimed at strengthening democratic governance. Support: This type of analysis requires the application of instruments and consultations developed on the basis of mutual trust and credibility which only the UNDP institutional backing can offer. Probably, in Latin America the UNDP is one of the few institutions able to attain this goal, since: • it has the required technical skills; • over the years it has developed a reputation of confidence and transparency and a close working relationship with governments and with the principal civil society stakeholders; • it has had some direct practical experiences of this type that are useful precedents for successfully promoting the project.
15 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
4
Strategic political analysis from the PAPEP
Impact: The successful PAPEPs give rise to various types of impact. • Less voluntarism. Its analytical approaches and successes contribute to fight against the crudest forms of political voluntarism and to facilitate development of a culture of political and policy debates. • Reasonable and lasting decisions. The PAPEPs strengthen a more plural and democratic style of debate which in the end favors the collective building of reasonable decisions that are stable over time. • More relational capital. The PAPEPs strengthen the image of the institution developing them, giving it a voice and generating very valuable “relational” capital in relation to the international donor community and others.
4.2. The PAPEP approach
Knowledge Sharing Series
16
The strategic dialogue of the PAPEP with governments and development actors is conducted with an agenda that starts from an own approach, which is characterized by active neutrality, the importance of politics and the stakeholders’ view.
4.2.1 Active Neutrality “Active neutrality” is the core of the PAPEP approach and includes the following “principles”: The PAPEP assumes that there is a diversity of political “options” in response to different ideological currents. The PAPEPs are neutral in relation to these ideological signs insofar as their objective is the defense of democracy. The PAPEP pursues a clearly defined goal: strengthening democratic governance. From a methodological perspective, the PAPEP does not take sides for any of the political, social or economic actors, but all of them, without exception, are an integrated part of its analysis. Thus, the PAPEP ensures an overall view that is the basis for the strength of its analysis and prospective scenarios. PAPEP outputs are translated into actions at the time they become tools for deliberation and encourage a dialogue among the different stakeholders. That is, a dialogue focusing on the paths or conditions needed to bring the governance processes nearer the best possible scenario.
4.2.2. Politics are important The PAPEP considers that there are three, strictly political, elements that are essential to increase the possibility of success of a public policy or of an institutional design: • Agreements: The capacity to generate political agreements regarding the need for an institutional change has at least the same impact on viability of the initiative as the intrinsic quality of the design itself. • Implementation: The process for installation of an institutional solution (its capacity to generate positive incentives, to offer alternatives to the “losers”, to neutralize the risks of delegitimization) is as important as the technical quality of the solution designed • Timing: Time management in the process for introducing changes (and particularly the way in which the tension between short-term costs and medium and longchange process.
4.2.3. The stakeholders’ view The population. Since democratic governance supposes a balance between citizen demands and preferences and the governors’ response capacity, knowledge of the population’s preferences, beliefs and perspectives is an indispensable element in the prospective scenario building process to strengthen democratic governance. The elites. The voice of the leaders (or elites) is essential, and as the horizon of political analysis and the attention concentrate on the short and medium terms, the ideas and behavior of this group become even more important. The political elites are crucial in shaping policies. The demands and pressure of voters and citizens mark the major directions, but the strategies and details of the policies are defined by the leaders, whose role is to shape those different demands and pressures, acting as the representatives of different sectors, negotiating with one another with varying degrees of polarization and conflict. Perceptions and interests. It is critically important to have knowledge of the perceptions (the most widespread fears and distrust, the image of other stakeholders, the way in which the preferences are organized) and of strategic interests in order to identify risks of blockage and possible points of support to be taken advantage of. The PAPEPs consider that it is fundamental to develop a consultation among a representative sample of the whole national political spectrum, of civil society, of economic and religious sectors etc.
17 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
term benefits is managed) is of the essence to ensure viability of any institutional
Inputs for agreements. It is necessary to generate spaces in which the different actors can exchange arguments and proposals so as to reach agreements or process disagreements. This exchange is possible only within a framework of the mutual recognition of identities, perceptions and interests. The PAPEP projects generate inputs to facilitate this process.
4.3. The PAPEP Methodology The PAPEP studies start with a specific demand. Once the question is defined, a PAPEP study consists of four phases: design, data collection, analysis and devolution. The PAPEPs have a theoretical-methodological perspective that
Knowledge Sharing Series
18
consists of analyzing potential interactions among actors, based on knowledge of their interests, preferences and capacities, and at the same time an understanding of the structure limiting these interactions, if any.
4.3.1. Design In this phase, the topics around which the work will be centered are defined, as well as the stakeholders that will be consulted and the instruments to be used. These definitions depend on the specific project objectives and the resources available for implementation.
4.3.2. Data collection This is the fieldwork phase that focuses on collecting information. Using different instruments (surveys, focus groups, interviews with elites), information is collected on the stakeholders’ perceptions and interests and studies are made on the political, economic and social context. The principal instruments of the toolkit used in this phase are: The voice of leaders: Data collection on perceptions, preferences and interests. The voice of citizens: Data collection on the population’s perceptions and demands using quantitative techniques (opinion surveys) and/or qualitative techniques (focus groups). Expert knowledge: A review of existing studies on the economic, social and political context by means of a series of positional papers prepared by national experts.
4.3.3. Analysis In this phase, an assessment is made of the probable trajectories of the different stakeholders in the short and medium terms. Based on the collected information, perceptions and opinions, the probability of factors of blockage or conflict (and of consensus) is identified. The segments of the political debate are characterized and, therein, the ones with more destabilizing (and stabilizing) potential for the political system. The PAPEP analysis is different because of its prospective perspective or approach, which implies an exercise for visualizing the effects and future options of the decisions made at the present time. This is the basis to point to trends and key events that could lead to, expected or unexpected, variations of recent history. In this phase, three instruments of the toolbox are used:
on the collected information. The workshop participants are experts linked to the PAPEP (particularly researchers and consultants, personnel of the United Nations System). The information is decanted until obtaining the principal structural trends, the critical change variables and the possible factors of rupture. This workshop generates the material for building the future scenarios. Scenario Building: Scenarios are possible future images that summarize specific (and different) trajectories of events and evolutions in the stakeholders’ strategies. Each scenario normally describes a specific interaction of critical events or variables that have evolved in a certain way over time. The validation workshop: Academicians, researchers and some public servants hold an integrated discussion on the critical variables in the stakeholders’ strategies that lead to each scenario. The objective is to validate, from a technical and political point of view, the conceptual output of the research, i.e. the scenarios.
4.3.4. Devolution The principal conceptual output of the PAPEP is the set of scenarios resulting from the analysis process and the principal product for the political dialogue is the devolution. The purposes of this phase are: To share the conceptual results of the PAPEPs (the scenarios) with relevant national stakeholders, the United Nations System and the international donor community.
19 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
The prospective workshop: These workshops generate a discussion process based
To involve stakeholders in the change process based on the development of a medium and long term vision. This involves encouraging a debate with these stakeholders on national priorities, the changes of direction required for bringing the country nearer to the desired scenarios and the factors that help to avoid undesirable scenarios. To actively promote institutional strengthening, democratic consolidation and human development. This phase uses the “devolution tables”, as the tool by excellence for political advocacy. Through the tables, it is possible to: • Increase knowledge by helping to show what futures could be possible, and how
20
• Generate innovations and new decisions based on fresh interpretations of the
Knowledge Sharing Series
and why they could happen.
• Rediscuss decisions or orientations by providing new information on the context
complexity of certain problems or situations. in which these decisions are taken. • Identify contingent decisions by exploring what the organizations or stakeholders should do if certain circumstances occur. • Create conditions for the development of shared visions of the future that may influence the behavior of organizations and individuals.
4.3.5. The PAPEP process The phases (design, data collection, analysis and devolution) in which the research of PAPEP studies is organized normally give rise to a linear image of the project, starting with the demand and ending with the devolution. In fact, development of a PAPEP project is an action research process in which the devolution generates the need for a redefinition of topics that give rise to a new demand, from the stakeholders, which restarts the process once again. Throughout the process, each phase generates different outputs. The conceptual output of the PAPEP is the prospective scenarios; the devolution tables produce political advocacy and, in a parallel manner, the PAPEP generates different types of studies in response to the strategic political dialogue style it promotes
Demand (Re)definition of Topics Resource Allocation Creation of the Work Team
Devolution
Design
Devolution tables
Toolkit
Analysis
Data collection
Prospective Workshops
The voice of leaders
Scenario Building
The voice of citizens
Validation workshops
Expert knowledge
Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
21
5.1. Why activate a PAPEP? Results of a survey conducted in November 2008 in 10 UNDP field offices show that in Latin America, the PAPEP projects are highly visible among UNDP officers. In particular, people value the substantive quality of the analyses and the advantages of a neutral but proactive positioning in relation to the political decision-making system. The PAPEP studies are perceived as an adequate tool to influence political processes through the interaction with governments and key political players, and as useful and definitively important tools for the UNDP activities in the countries of the region. The PAPEP project is activated with the demand of both “internal” (the government, political parties, State institutions) and “external” (the United Nations System, the international donor community) stakeholders and responds to at least three types of needs: • Have keys to interpret the orientation and evolution of complex national or local political processes in frameworks in which political uncertainty is a central factor in the short or medium term. • Build a political interpretation that underpins formulation of a certain public policy and of a critical path to support its implementation. • Set up a high-level political dialogue network with the principal development actors on the most relevant topics of the national agendas The PAPEP project deploys its full potential as it moves from the development and discussion of concrete studies to the creation of small units for strategic political analysis with permanent capacity to produce information and a political dialogue.
23 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
5
Activation of a PAPEP
The research conducted by these teams will be action-oriented, and in this sense pragmatic, concrete and with a sense of opportunity and management of political times.
The PAPEP research agenda • Research on strategic topics. Topics on which the political players have to take decisions that could lead to qualitatively different scenarios in terms of democracy and development • The emphasis is on strictly “political” aspects of a certain topic, including “technical” information that is relevant for political decision-making and/or configuration of the possible scenarios • The final output is the political dialogue. The research is sufficiently flexible so as to include changes arising in the political debate regarding a particular topic and/or to respond to new topics within relatively short terms • Adequate formats for decision-makers. Brief documents are produced that condense the relevant information and that
Knowledge Sharing Series
24
clearly show the strategic decisions that should be adopted.
5.2. PAPEP implementation phases The PAPEP strategy consists of building strategic political analysis capacity both in states and institutions and in the UNDP national offices. The idea is to set up strategic political analysis units in a medium term horizon. Implementation of a PAPEP project is subject to four modalities, which are translated in four phasesstages. In each phase, the capacity to produce substantive analyses and the capacity for political dialogue and relations with stakeholders are densified.
PHASE 1: PAPEP missions These are expert missions of the regional project that respond to a demand of the resident coordinator of the United Nations System in a certain country, according to a specific need of the national office or the interest expressed by a national partner.. • The support missions provide “concrete” support in “short times” to relatively “sensitive” “political” topics. This is in contexts in which the PAPEP has had prior experience (or where there are teams installed), and where it therefore has interpretation keys and networks of experts enabling a more precise understanding of the political context in which they are developed. By way of
example, we can mention the devolution to high-level political players of a flash report on the fourth urn and the electoral process (Honduras, May 2009). • The design missions seek to precisely define the needs and central interests of the national partner, present the project potentials and collect key information on the political context. With these elements, it is possible to draft a proposal on future lines of work of the PAPEP in the country. Two examples: support for the design of an integrated program for the electoral authority (Haiti, September 2009) and the political analysis for the electoral tribunal (Mexico, October 2009).
PHASE 2: PAPEP Studies In this phase, a PAPEP researcher who reports directly to the regional project, generates one or various outputs that are part of a work plan agreed with the work plan is included in a project promoted or carried out by the UNDP national office; it covers a six to 12-month period and its financing scheme can include seed resources of the regional project. A national case study (medium-term scenario building) is very important for another type of PAPEP outputs. For implementing the work plan, the PAPEP researcher needs the following support: • In the UNDP national office: A program assistant, with responsibility for administrative and operational support. A national program officer, with responsibility for substantive support and formally the PAPEP focal point. The degree of national office involvement, including of the resident representative himself, is a critical variable to define the level and quality of the political dialogue. • In the network of experts of the regional project: A high-level senior political advisor, a research assistant, and experts in conducting focus groups, analyzing public opinion surveys and coaching prospective workshops.
PHASE 3: PAPEP agendas A researcher who reports directly to a senior program officer of the national office (the PAPEP national coordinator) is assigned as the person responsible for implementing a PAPEP research agenda with technical assistance from the regional project. The activities center on: i) definition of the research agenda and the preparation of conceptual notes for all PAPEP outputs; ii) fieldwork and analysis of the primary information generated by the project; iii) scenario building within the framework of prospective workshops; and centrally iv) the articulation of political messages and the devolution process.
25 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
institutional partner and with the UNDP office at the national level. In general, this
Establishment of the PAPEP agenda comes after generation of the PAPEP products in a certain country insofar as: i) based on preparation of the base case study and the devolution thereof to national stakeholders, it is possible to identify relevant topics and partner stakeholders within the logic of defining a strategic research agenda; ii) through the creation of a small network of experts in the country, it is possible to identify a national researcher who knows the PAPEP research logic and who is relatively well acquainted with the conceptual framework and the methodological tools of the project; and iii) through involvement of the national office, it is possible to identify the best working space for harboring the PAPEP project (the representation, the democratic governance program, the human development report, or even the peace and development area), and the best way to build internal alliances in order to take advantage of the best human resources available in the office, besides all relevant information produced by different areas
Knowledge Sharing Series
26
and projects. For defining the research agenda, it is crucially important that the outputs be articulated to the generation of concrete spaces for devolution and interaction with governments and key stakeholders, with the formats and times of presentation being adapted to the audience. Within the prioritized lines of research, the analyses and reports have to respond to either a concrete demand from the political and institutional spaces to which priority will be given or to a strategic topic likely to generate a demand because of its strategic relevance and its sense of opportunity.
PHASE 4: PAPEP teams The PAPEP team is a team responsible for prospective political analysis that is coordinated by a senior national researcher who reports directly to the resident coordinator of the United Nations System and who works as a political advisor. The PAPEP coordination combines two core competencies: i) capacity to manage research projects produced by the team in conjunction with a network of consultants/experts to address the thematic agenda; and ii) capacity for a political dialogue and advocacy on a high level. The PAPEP projects are information “assemblers” to “produce” strategic political analyses; therefore, it is not necessary to have a broad in-house team, but rather a dense network of experts.
The PAPEP network in December 2009 Phase
Country
Results
Partner
PAPEP
Colombia
Coaching workshop UNS; Support for the
UNS Colombia;
program for accompaniment of the elections
UNDP Colombia /
2010/2011
Governance
Training workshops in prospective political
UNS Colombia;
analysis for the Presidency.
UNDP Colombia /
missions
Guatemala
Governance Design of an integrated program in support
UNDP/Haiti
of the permanent election council for the
USAID
electoral cycle in 2010.
CIDA CEP/Haiti
PAPEP
Ecuador
studies
Capacity-building in strategic political analysis
SENPLADES
for public servants.
IAEN/CEPROEC UNDP/Ecuador
Mexico
Citizenship, democratic institutions and
DGTTF/BDP
governance in Mexico.
TRIFE/Mexico UNDP/Mexico
Paraguay
PAPEP
Honduras
agendas
Nicaragua
Short and medium term political scenarios
Ministry of the Public Service/Paraguay
and navigation chart for the State reform in
UNDP/Paraguay
Paraguay.
JICA/Paraguay
Short and medium term political scenarios;
UNDP Honduras/
sectoral studies on public policies; study on
Governance
the political reform.
Political Parties
Medium-term political scenarios; prospective
UNDP Nicaragua
workshops UNS. Panama
El Salvador
Short and medium term political scenarios;
UNDP Panama /
Study on the electoral reform.
Governance
Medium-term political scenarios: the
UNDP El Salvador /
necessary agreements
Governance UCA, Fundaungo, FLACSO
27 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
Haiti
Phase
Country
Results
Partner
PAPEP
Bolivia
Documents on the political situation and
UNDP/UNS Bolivia
scenario building. Support for dialogue
Min. of Autonomies
processes. Support for the Ministry of
Min. of Public Works
Autonomies; political assessment of
Political Parties
development projects.
Social Organizations
Situational documents. Political diagnostics
UNDP/UNS Argentina
on the national and subnational levels (Santa
Unit of the Chief of Cabinet Governors of
Fé and Tucumán).
Tucumán and Santa Fe
teams
Argentina
The PAPEP projects are different from other projects that also include original analyses (including diagnostics and prospective scenarios) in that they are able to contribute (analytical and procedural) inputs for political decision-making, with the purpose of defining priorities and policymaking towards a common goal: the consolidation of democracy. In this setting, the current challenges the program faces are: 1. Ensure political influence. It is necessary to close the gap and imbalance between the capacity to produce conceptual studies and actual influence in the decisionmaking process. The PAPEP projects must adopt a more proactive attitude in the interaction with key national and external political players. For closing this gap, more and better internal coordination of the PAPEP is needed, within the framework of the UNDP, besides an articulation with political players. Likewise, it is fundamentally important to “stay connected� to the topics and debates which the political stakeholders consider to be relevant. 2. How to be on time? A PAPEP is activated when a government agency or a country office formulate the demand. For starting a PAPEP, it is necessary to consider the timing of the research (design, data collection, analysis and devolution) and UNDP processes (drafting of the terms of reference, recruitment, procurement). When the PAPEP activation time is out of synch with the urgency of the political demand, there will be a gap between programmatic timing and political timing. For adjusting the times, it is necessary to anticipate the thematic definitions resulting from the demand, based on a flexible political interpretation. Using the regional network of experts is a fundamental element for addressing the demand
29 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
6
Challenges
immediately. Detailed knowledge of the internal procedures is important to avoid delays due to exclusively administrative reasons. 3. How to get the message across without the messenger being shot? The approach of active neutrality characterizing the PAPEP supposes impartiality as regards competing visions and active promotion of the democratic ideal. This could generate short circuits with some political stakeholders. The challenge is to plan a careful strategy to communicate the conceptual results (the scenarios). This involves an analysis of what to say, who to say it to, when to say it and how to say it. If the communications strategy is neglected at the time of the devolution, the result could be a not very favorable resistance by the stakeholders that threatens the
Knowledge Sharing Series
30
advocacy capacity and that may erode the UNDP’s image of impartiality.
1. Strengthen the political dialogue: The most successful PAPEPs are those in which the strategic political dialogue process achieved continuity. And this was possible thanks to a careful design of the devolution phase. In each national context, there is a different constellation of political stakeholders, with different perceptions and interests. For this reason, it is critical to plan the devolution, taking into account the map of political stakeholders and considering the different positions in the political space and the degrees of openness to the dialogue. In this sense, the devolution should not be understood as a single event for the whole political spectrum, but as a phase with different platforms (the devolution tables) according to the nature of the stakeholders. 2. Institutional Shelter: The national governments and the development stakeholders recognize the UNDP’s vocation to produce substantive knowledge to promote human development. This was achieved through the careful implementation of different projects in the national offices. The type of strategic political analysis produced by the PAPEP and the action research style driving it are strengthened when the national offices offer institutional shelter to the project. Likewise, the recommendation is to conceive the PAPEP as an instrument to reinforce the recognition and positioning gained by the UNDP with governments and stakeholders as a player with a strategic will for development. Institutional shelter also means that the commitment of the UNDP office is expressed in the allocation of own resources or resources raised from the international donor community to facilitate the recruitment of a work team and implementation of the project
31 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy
7
Recomendaciones
3. Consider capacity-building: The strategic political analysis of the PAPEP has gained prestige and has positioned itself on the regional level. It is therefore fundamental to conceive it as a capacity-building process, both for national governments and for the UNDP offices. We recommend that in the implementation this aspect be not forgotten, because associating it exclusively to the generation of conceptual outputs (for example, scenario-building) could limit the advocacy capacity and the strategic potential of the PAPEP.
Knowledge Sharing Series
32