Participation

The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity calls on adherents to “encourage transparency and stakeholders’ engagement at all stages of the political process and policy cycle to promote accountability and the public interest, in particular through:

a) Promoting transparency and an open government, including ensuring access to information and open data, along with timely responses to requests for information;

b) Granting all stakeholders – including the private sector, civil society and individuals – access in the development and implementation of public policies;

c) Averting the capture of public policies by narrow interest groups through managing conflict-of-interest situations, and instilling transparency in lobbying activities and in the financing of political parties and election campaigns;

d) Encouraging a society that includes “watchdog” organisations, citizen groups, labour unions and independent media.”

Questions for self-assessment:

1. Is open and transparent government promoted?

The legislative framework do not include provisions for access to information, open government and data.
The legislative framework specifies that Government data are “open by default” (except for specific cases defined in the regulatory framework). A list of datasets and mandatory information to be disclosed is defined in the regulatory legal framework. Yet implementation is limited or disclosure is only reactive to requests. Requests to access information often result in negative answers, if any, delays are common and resources are limited.
The legislative framework provides that all public institutions and private persons carrying out public duties are holders of public information; and that everyone, including non-citizens and legal persons, has the right to access information in all the forms available. The only restrictions to access public information are listed by law; there are statutory deadlines for processing requests for information. In practice, public organisations respond to all requests for information but delays exist. In case of refusal, the decision at the appeal level usually confirms the refusal.
The legislative framework promotes open government. Public organisations ensure a timely response to all requests. Digital tools as well as sufficient human and financial resources are in place to ease access and disclosure processes. Exceptions are limited and clearly defined. In case of refusal, the right to appeal to an independent body or the court against refusal or inactivity of an administrative body is ensured. The executive body cannot quash decisions of the public body specialised in public information.

2. Are government information and datasets publicly available?

There is no proactive publication of government information or datasets.
Some public organisations publish information and disclose specific datasets on their websites, but this practice is not widespread and access is complex. Disclosed datasets are in PDF form and reuse is limited.
Public information and datasets are disclosed online, free-of-charge, in a user-friendly manner and an open data format. Some institutions publishing datasets establish partnerships with user communities for the reuse of their datasets.
All relevant and required information and datasets are proactively disclosed online, free of charge, in a user-friendly manner and an open data format. Public institutions consistently and actively support and understand the needs of user communities, establish partnerships and design events and initiatives to foster the reuse of open data.

3. Are measures in place to ensure constructive stakeholder engagement in the policy – making process?

There is no legislative or regulatory framework mandating stakeholder engagement in the policy making process.
The legislative or regulatory framework requires public consultation for draft laws and a minimum duration for the consultation period is established. Public organisations consult on an ad hoc basis, but usually late in the policy-making process. Consultation methods are limited to posting on the internet without invitation to comment, and informal consultation with select groups.
The legislative or regulatory framework requires public consultation for draft laws and draft secondary legislation and is implemented. The established minimum duration for consultation is respected. Public organisations are required to inform those likely to be affected by the policy changes and other stakeholders in advance that a public consultation is to take place. Public consultation happens largely during the policy development stage, in a limited variety of forms, but some public organisations also consult during the agenda-setting stage. Public organisations communicate on the list of comments submitted and how each input was addressed.
The legislative or regulatory framework requires public consultation for all stages of the policy-cycle. Public organisations regularly carry out different forms of consultation on both draft primary and secondary legislation across the entire policy cycle. A range of tools are used to consult stakeholders, including public meetings, on-line consultation, and engaging with civil society groups to reach groups that are traditionally not consulted. Public organisations regularly report on the outcome of the public consultation as part of the documentation submitted with the agenda items for government sessions, including the list of comments received and how they were addressed. These reports are accessible on the public organisation’s websites. Political support is clear and public officials have guidance and training on how to carry out an effective stakeholder engagement process.

4. Are measures and practices in place to effectively manage conflicts of interest?

Conflict-of-interest is not defined in the legislative framework and there are no practices in place to manage conflict-of-interest situations.
The legislative framework lists incompatibilities between public functions and other public or private activities, and defines circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict-of-interest situations. There are no capacity building or awareness raising measures to support implementation of the framework. In general, there is little awareness among public officials on incompatibilities and conflict-of-interest situations. Sanctions are defined but never applied. Only a few conflicts of interest are detected and managed, as a reaction to external pressures.
The conflict-of-interest framework defines circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict-of-interest situations and requires conflicts of interest to be prevented, detected and managed. There are specific provisions for exposed positions (e.g. member of the government, member of parliament, member of the highest bodies of the judiciary, at-risk public officials, and newly appointed or reappointed top-tier civil servants) Some capacity building and awareness raising measures are in place to familiarise public officials with their responsibilities for identifying conflict-of-interest situations. In general, there is still little awareness among public officials on conflict-of-interest situations. Detection of conflict-of-interest situations is increasing but sanctions are enforced in a limited number of cases.
The conflict-of-interest framework defines circumstances and relationships that can lead to conflict-of-interest situations and requires conflicts of interest to be prevented, detected and managed. There are specific provisions for exposed positions (e.g. member of the government, member of parliament, member of the highest bodies of the judiciary, at-risk public officials, and newly appointed or reappointed top-tier civil servants). The conflict-of-interest framework is consistently implemented, regularly reviewed and updated to ensure relevance. Capacity building, guidance and awareness raising measures are regularly offered to all public officials to inform and update them on the conflict-of-interest framework. In general, there is high awareness among public officials on conflict-of-interest situations. Timely application of proportionate sanctions ensures accountability for violations.

5. Are regulatory measures and practices in place to manage asset and interest disclosure?

The legislative framework does not require asset or interest disclosure.
The legislative framework includes provisions for asset and interest disclosure. The asset and interest declaration system is paper-based. There is no audit or review of assets and interests declared. Publicity of the asset and interest is limited, if any, and not in an open and reusable format. Non-compliance with disclosure obligations is not sanctioned.
High-level officials (e.g. member of the government, member of parliament, member of the highest bodies of the judiciary), at-risk public officials, and newly appointed or reappointed top-tier civil servants, are required to submit an asset and interest declaration upon entry into new functions or when changes in the asset or interest occur. The asset and interest declaration system is partly paper-based but an electronic platform for disclosure is also in place. Audit and review of the assets and interests declared are limited. Oversight functions are established but they sometimes have limited human, financial and technical resources to collect and perform basic audit and review of declarations. Proportionate sanctions are enforced only in a few cases of non-compliance.
High-level officials (e.g. member of the government, member of parliament, member of the highest bodies of the judiciary), at-risk public officials, and newly appointed or reappointed top-tier civil servants, are required to submit an asset and interest declaration upon entry into new functions or when changes in the asset or interest occur. Compliance with disclosure obligations is high. The entire asset and interest declaration system and processes (i.e. declaration, management, audit and review, and publication) is digitalised. Public institutions proactively publish interest and asset datasets, in an open and reusable format, proportionately to the functions occupied and in compliance with data privacy and data protection provisions. Public institutions encourage and support reuse of the data published. Audit and review of the declared assets and interests follows a risk-based approach, based on cross-checking information with other available data sources and the use of data for assessing risks. Oversight functions have the necessary human, financial and technical resources to perform in-depth audit and review of declarations. Timely application of proportionate sanctions ensures accountability for non-compliance.

6. Are measures and practices in place to effectively manage pre- and post-public employment?

Pre- and post-public employment is not included in neither the legislative nor regulatory framework.
The legislative framework includes provisions for asset and interest disclosure. The asset and interest declaration system is paper-based. There is no audit or review of assets and interests declared. Publicity of the asset and interest is limited, if any, and not in an open and reusable format. Non-compliance with disclosure obligations is not sanctioned. The legislative or regulatory framework includes provisions to manage post-public employment, but the “cooling off” period is overly restrictive or not restrictive enough. Provisions on pre-public employment are not included. There are limited capacity building and awareness raising measures in place to support implementation, and sanctions for violations are limited and rarely applied. Responsibility for oversight is not clearly assigned and relies in practice on individuals. Implementation and monitoring is limited.
The legislative or regulatory framework includes provisions to manage pre- and post-public employment, and covers entities and job categories where there is a real or potential conflict of interest. The cooling-off periods are fair, proportionate and reasonable, considering the seriousness of the potential offence. Capacity building and awareness raising measures are in place to familiarise public officials with their obligations and the arrangements in place in case of inactivity during the cooling-off period. Lack of enforcement of their obligations can hamper implementation, and while proportionate sanctions are defined, they are not always applied in a timely manner. Responsibilities for oversight are assigned, but the function(s) in charge have limited resources and capacity to monitor all notifications and movements.
The legislative or regulatory framework includes provisions to manage pre- and post-public employment and covers all public institutions. The duration of the cooling-off period is tailored to the type of problem area and level of seniority. Decisions taken on post-public employment cases are case-specific and available online to enable public scrutiny. Regular capacity building and awareness raising activities communicate up-to-date standards, provide relevant guidance and address emerging concerns. Timely application of proportionate sanctions ensure accountability for violations. Oversight functions have the necessary resources and capacity, and can rely on digital tools to automate part of the monitoring processes.

7. Are regulatory or policy measures and practices in place to ensure transparency and integrity in lobbying activities?

Lobbying activities are not regulated in any of the branches of government.
Lobbying activities are regulated in at least one branch of government. The regulatory or policy framework includes provisions for transparency and integrity in interactions between public officials and lobbyists. Instruments, such as registries or public agendas, are established to collect information disclosed by public officials and/or lobbyists. Information disclosed is basic. Sanctions are not applied. Public officials have limited knowledge and support on how to interact with third parties.
Lobbying activities are regulated in at least two branches of government. The regulatory or policy framework includes provisions for transparency and integrity in interactions between public officials and lobbyists. Instruments, such as registries or public agendas are established to collect information disclosed by public officials and/or lobbyists. Information disclosed is comprehensive enough to know who is lobbying whom and on what issues. The information is not always presented in an open and reusable format. An established function ensures basic oversight of lobbying issues. Only a limited number of violations are investigated and sanctioned. A code(s) of conduct is in place to regulate the interaction between lobbyists’ and public officials. Guidance is developed for both lobbyists and public officials.
Lobbying activities are regulated in at least two branches of government. The regulatory or policy framework includes provisions for transparency and integrity in interactions between public officials and lobbyists. Instruments, such as registries or public agendas, are established to collect information disclosed by public officials and/or lobbyists. Information disclosed is comprehensive enough to know who is lobbying whom and on what issues. The information is presented in open, easily accessible and reusable format. An established function ensures oversight of lobbying issues. The verification of information disclosed is cross-checked with other available data sources. Violations are investigated and sanctioned. The code(s) of conduct is accompanied with detailed and tailored guidance that provides examples of at-risk or undesirable behaviours or situations. Capacity building and awareness raising opportunities are offered on a regular basis to inform and update lobbyists and public officials. Both lobbyists and public officials have support, knowledge and experience in applying the rules.

8. Are measures and practices in place to instil transparency in the financing of political parties and electoral campaigns?

Financing of political parties and electoral campaigns is not regulated.
The legislative framework regulates financing of political parties and election campaigns and includes requirements for political parties and electoral campaigns to produce financial reports. The information is not public. There is no established independent body with the mandate to oversee financing of political parties and election campaigns.
The legislative framework regulates financing of political parties and election campaigns and includes requirements for political parties and electoral campaigns to produce financial reports. The information is publicly available (subject to data privacy and data protection). Legislation establishes an independent body with the mandate to oversee financing of political parties and election campaigns, but implementation of functions is limited. Low amount anonymous donations are allowed. Political parties can be held liable for breaches and sanctioned. Only a limited number of violations are investigated and sanctioned.
The legal framework regulates financing of political parties and election campaigns and includes requirements for political parties and electoral campaigns to produce financial reports. The information is publicly available online (subject to data privacy and data protection) and updated regularly. All anonymous contributions are banned. Beneficial ownership rules require the mandatory disclosure of company data to identify owners of corporations. Beneficial ownership rules also require a central register to be established and information made publicly accessible.. Legislation establishes an independent body with the mandate to oversee financing of political parties and election campaigns. The oversight body publishes quantitative data related to breaches of political finance regulations, investigations conducted, and types of sanctions issued, which ensures implementation and monitoring of the political finance measures. Political parties as well as candidates can be held liable for breaches and sanctioned. Violations are investigated and sanctioned.

9. Are measures in place for civil society and media to carry out their watchdog roles?

The legislative framework does not protect freedom of association, of assembly, of speech and there are no measures in place for access to justice. The legislative framework does not guarantee independent media and media ownership transparency.
The legislative framework protects freedom of association, of assembly, of speech and there are measures in place for access to justice. In practice, these freedoms are regularly restricted. Independent media is in place, but ownership is not transparent. Provisions in the legislative framework protect journalists and their sources, but implementation is limited. Slander and libel laws are abused, leading to self-censorship by media outlets.
The legislative framework protects freedom of association, of assembly, of speech and there are measures in place for access to justice. In practice, administrative costs and requirements limit civil society’s activities. Media ownership is transparent and protection of journalists and their sources is established in the legislative framework and implemented. Restrictions are clearly specified in the legislative framework and applied in a limited number of cases. Slander and libel laws are limited, but some cases of liberal application can have a deterring effect on investigative journalism.
The legislative framework protects freedom of association, of assembly, of speech and there are measures in place for access to justice. Contextual factors, like security concerns, do not infringe on these rights. Costs and registration requirements are limited and conducive to a robust civil society and the value of active civil society is recognised politically and publicly. Media ownership is pluralistic and transparent, contributing to the diffusion of a wide range of views. Journalists and their sources are clearly protected, both in law and practice: the application of libel laws is very limited; public institutions respect the confidentiality of journalists’ sources as a basic condition of freedom of press; and an order of source disclosure is not considered acceptable unless justified by an overriding public interest.

Loading...