In May, the UN High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda presented a report entitled “A New Global Partnership: Eradicate Poverty and Transform Economies through Sustainable Development.” IMR Advisor Boris Bruk is skeptical about the prospects for the realization of these goals in Russia.
The High-Level Panel, comprising twenty-seven members, was initiated by the UN Secretary-General in 2010 and is co-chaired by the leaders of Indonesia, Liberia, and the United Kingdom. The report offers recommendations for a new agenda for world development, which will replace the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) outlined in the United Nations Millennium Declaration of 2000.
The report recognizes significant progress made toward achieving the MDGs and emphasizes the necessity of further steps to “carry forward the spirit of the Millennium Declaration and the best of the MDGs,” and, at the same time, to “go beyond the MDGs.” As a result of numerous meetings and consultations, the report offers twelve goals that are currently expected to be at the core of the roadmap for world development between 2015 and 2030.
Experts point to the significance of one listed goal in particular: the goal of ensuring good governance and effective institutions. According to Huguette Labelle, chair of Transparency International, “This is an important first step in ensuring that good governance and anti-corruption will be at the heart of the post-2015 agenda.” To determine how “good” a country’s governance is, several factors are typically taken into consideration: On the one hand, efficiency and effectiveness play a key role. On the other, good governance inherently involves the application of democratic principles. For this reason, public participation, rule of law, accountability, transparency, and openness are especially important.
More than a few discussions at the High-Level Panel emphasized the idea of “people-centered” development. It is often argued that citizens should have the opportunity to participate in identifying development priorities. One initiative that offers such an opportunity on the international level is the UN global survey My World. Over 605,000 individuals from different parts of the world have already participated in the survey, and their opinions will be taken into consideration in the process of forming the new post-2015 development agenda. Participants in the survey are asked “to vote for the changes that would make the most difference to [their] world.” Currently, out of sixteen priorities listed on the website, “honest and responsive government” ranks third overall, following only a “good education” and “better healthcare.” Russian respondents selected the same top three priorities; however, “honest and responsive government” currently ranks first for Russians.
In Russia, public participation in policy-making has been discussed for quite some time. In 2011, Vladimir Putin suggested that Russia should share other countries’ governance aspirations and defined a course toward “open government,” which, in his words, is based on “citizen involvement in current affairs of public institutions.” In February 2012, a working group was established and its activities gave birth to Dmitri Medvedev’s “child”—the Russian system of “Open Government.” In April of the same year, the Russian foreign ministry prepared a letter of intent for Russia to become a member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP)—the largest international initiative on matters of open government, which was launched at the 66th session of the UN General Assembly in 2011. Russia began developing an action plan to join the OGP and was expected to become a member in September 2013
Open government was a matter of pride for Russia’s delegation to the UN Human Rights Council at the April 2013 meeting. As Gazeta.ru pointed out, however, other delegations were “more interested in what the UN Council was silent about: ‘foreign agents,’ legal support of homophobia, toughening of public rally regulations, and crimes against journalists.” In the end, unflattering comments voiced at the meeting and references to Russia’s “draconian laws on NGOs” and limitations on civil society outweighed conversations about the state’s “advancements.”
Russian authorities have decided to postpone the country's accession to the Open Government Partnership.
In late May of this year, the question of how much real openness one can expect of Russia’s “open government” became even more complex: the decision was made in Moscow to postpone Russia’s accession to the OGP. According to Mikhail Abyzov, Russia’s open government minister, “This decision is both technical and content-based.” A “more thorough” analysis of the OGP’s regulations and procedures is planned, as well as proposals on improving OGP performance. This raises questions of “why now” and “what for”: why has a thorough analysis suddenly become so important, and does the OGP really need proposals to improve its performance? As a letter that recently appeared on the websites of Transparency International—Russia and the Freedom of Information Foundation points out, civil society organizations’ opinions were not sought in the decision to postpone, despite the fact that they had participated in developing the action plan for accession to the OGP. Additionally, according to civic activists, “It is currently unclear if consultations [with interested civil society representatives] to define a new format for Russia-OGP cooperation are going to happen.”
Ivan Begtin, director of the NGO “Informational Culture,” states that the decision to withdraw from membership is harmful to Russia’s reputation because it highlights the government’s “inconsistent approach to this matter.” Ivan Pavlov, head of the Freedom of Information Foundation, which works with the OGP, argues that Russia’s refusal to become a member of the partnership “on others’ conditions” has come as no surprise. He makes a noteworthy point: “If there is ‘sovereign democracy,’ perhaps, there should also be ‘sovereign openness.’” David Eaves, open government advocate at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University, has stated that the current situation means that “transparency matters” and that “Russia may still be in OGP. Just not soon. And maybe never.”
This step also raises questions about Russian authorities’ commitment to changing their approach to governance. Governance trends inevitably influence all other areas of a nation’s social life and, to a significant extent, determine the success or failure of major processes, including development—the core issue in the report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons. The panel identified several indicators of progress toward the goal of ensuring good governance and effective institutions in a country. These included: freedom of speech, association, peaceful protest, and access to independent media and information; reduction of corruption; and increase in public participation. Taking into consideration these indicators and Russia’s apparent move toward “sovereign openness”—an “openness” that would grant access to only a particular circle of individuals—it seems premature to talk about good governance in Russia. Its path to future development, meanwhile, is becoming increasingly foggy.
