wga_nam09

The World Governance Assessment (WGA) Survey: Namibia (2006)

A research report compiled by Justine Hunter and published by the Namibia Institute for Democracy (NID) “Country-led governance assessments: Sharing experiences and increasing political accountability” Windhoek, November 2nd – 5th 2009 1

Introduction & methodology [I] 



  







WGA: consultative and inclusive governance assessment by LOCAL stakeholders Understanding of governance provided by local respondents, not by foreign observers Generating quantitative data & capturing qualitative comments Country-based but allows for cross-country comparisons Interesting and relevant insights for local activists & foreign observers Separates the governance process into six ARENAS: civil society, political society, government, bureaucracy, economic society, judiciary Relies on six theoretical PRINCIPLES: participation, fairness, decency, accountability, transparency, efficiency Not country-specific, reflect universal human values 2

Introduction & methodology [II] 



 







Second round [2006] participating countries: Argentina, Bulgaria, Indonesia, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Peru, Palestine, Trinidad, Uganda, and Namibia Namibia: NID was local country coordinator [after NID had attended governance-assessment training course offered by InWEnt in 2005] Local country coordinators offer commentaries for contextualization Throw light on the political context, as well as on possible reasons why respondents have answered the questions the way they have Data collected from a cross-section of well-informed persons (WIPs) from 10 key stakeholder groups: religious, parliament, NGOs, media, judicial, international organization, government [ministers or deputy ministers], civil service, business, academia Distinction was drawn between “non-government WIPs” (73% of all respondents) and “government WIPs” (27%) Women constituted 21% of all respondents 3

Introduction & methodology [III]  











Focus on PERCEPTIONS of respondents Questionnaire included indicators for the ARENAS and PRINCIPLES listed above Questionnaire comprised thirty-six items, with a five point response scale (“very high”, “high”, “moderate”, “low” or “very low”) for each question The scores from 1 to 5 for the arenas and principles, corresponded with the five-point response scale To detect changes over time, respondents were asked to assess the quality of governance “five years ago” (2001) and “now” (2006) 105 WIPs were contacted – 70 completed the questionnaires (response rate of 66%) 77% used the paper version of the questionnaire, 23% completed the questionnaire online 4

Findings (I) 







  



Of the 10 countries that participated in the second round of the WGA, Namibia scored the highest One has to bear in mind, that the participating countries were not chosen on a structured sample basis (as the WGA was still in its pilot phase) The range of the WGA scale is from a low of 36 to a high of 180, Namibia’s overall scores of 111.9 (2001) and 114.4 (2006) are in the upper-middle of the scale Namibia’s WGA scores correspond with other cross-country surveys: 2009: Freedom of the World accorded Namibia the status “free” 2008: TI’s Corruption Perception Index was 4.5 However, the Afrobarometer National Citizens’ Survey came to the conclusion that the supply of democracy in Namibia exceeds the demand It is therefore necessary to understand Namibia’s political culture rather than to focus solely on cross-country comparisons 5

Overall mean scores per country

6

Findings (II) 











Assessment in Namibia might have been affected by political developments, Namibia’s history as a postcolonial/post-apartheid state and socio-economic factors: National elections in 2004, presidential succession in 2005, land reform process – farmland expropriation since 2003 Although qualified as a lower-middle income country, Namibia is one of the most unequal societies in the world (gini coefficient of 0.7 (2009) Poverty and marginalization are aggravated by high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates (2008: 19.6%) The overall assessment was that governance in Namibia improved slightly between 2001 (“five years ago”) and 2006 (“now”) As expected, government performance in some principles and arenas was assessed to be better than in others 7

Findings (III)  



 





PRINCIPLES: DECENCY (“Rules are implemented without harming people”), ACCOUNTABILITY (“Political decision-makers are responsible for their actions”), and PARTICIPATION (“The degree of involvement and ownership by affected stakeholders”) all received relatively high scores EFFICIENCY (“Use of limited resources for greatest output”) stands out as a more problematic aspect of governance in Namibia: Namibia’s public sector has a reputation of inefficiency Several respondents complained about public servants’ “laziness”, “incompetence” and discrimination against certain ethnic groups and the poor Most respondents felt that the system of recruitment and promotion in the civil service was not merit-based Nepotism, favoritism and the tendency to make political motivated appointments have been criticized by the respondents as obstacles to efficiency in the public service 8

Findings (IV) 

 







With regard to the ARENAS of governance, CIVIL SOCIETY received the highest scores Most WIPs gave high ratings to “freedom of association and expression” However, respondents believe that, although constitutional rights are respected, civil society does not really give inputs into policy making Some respondents say that civil society is denied to give these inputs, others believe that civil society is just not well enough organized to do so The comments also show that, although the freedom of association has not been directly violated, citizens fear to be associated with certain NGOs that have a reputation for being critical of government BUREAUCRACY stands out as the most problematic governance arena.

Given the overlap between the indicators for BUREAUCRACY [Arena] and those for EFFICIENCY [Principle], the suggested explanations are already given above

9

Findings (V) 

 









The GENERAL QUESTIONS section explores the relationship between the perceptions of governance in general and views on specific governance issues The following variables seem to be “drivers” of governance perceptions: Is there a meaningful separation of powers in the country? – Dominant party state since 1994!

Does the government care for the poorest 20% of the population? – High gini-coefficient!

Is the cultural and ethnic make-up of the country of importance? – Postapartheid state!

These findings suggest that the assessment of governance has been affected by historical and political developments, as well as by socioeconomic factors.

It clearly demonstrates that governance performance relates to local conditions, and, above all, that the context matters

10

Conclusion & dissemination and usage of results (I) 

WGA survey Namibia 2006 reaches six main conclusions:



Namibia’s overall scores correspond with other international crosscountry surveys Namibia’s governance climate continued to be influenced by the legacies of apartheid rule and the liberation struggle Views are shaped by intense partisanship and inequality of income distribution “Government WIPs” generally rated governance in Namibia more favorably than “non-government” experts Favoritism and the tendency to make politically motivated appointments were obstacles to efficiency in the public service In conclusion, factors that played a major role in the outcome of the assessment are historical and political developments, as well as socio-economic factors

    

11

Conclusion & dissemination and usage of results (II) 



  

 

The real strength of this survey appears to be on the country level, as this assessment is most relevant for national stakeholders The WGA does not only guarantee local ownership, it also guarantees the participation of “government WIPs” [buy-in] Dissemination strategies: Media & stakeholder workshop Postal and personal distribution to community libraries, archives, government representatives, civil society activities, academia and interested citizens Media coverage Free download on website www.nid.org.na

12

Conclusion & dissemination and usage of results (III) 

WGA results in Namibia: used as a tool for civic action by the NID (no complementing data available)



Usage of results on the arena CIVIL SOCIETY: To lobby donor community to support programmes aiming at strengthening the interaction between civil society and selected government institutions Incorporation of results in academic papers on the role of civil society in Namibia [e.g. presentation at “Vision 2020” conference (Windhoek, August 2009)]





  

Usage of results on the arena BUREAUCRACY and the principle EFFICIENCY: To lobby donor community to support the NID’s Zero Tolerance for Corruption Campaign [ZTfCC] in general Tailor-made integrity-related training workshops for civil servants and local authorities specifically 13

Thank you very much for your attention Contact: Justine Hunter: hunter@nid.org.na Namibia Institute for Democracy: www.nid.org.na

The WGA research report was funded by

14