THE South African government has completed its term as lead chair of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) and has just been given an end-of-term report for its recently concluded two-year action plan.
The report, released last month, shows that it failed to meet key targets it set at the beginning of the process, but also shows improvements in some areas.
The partnership is an international initiative formed by eight countries in 2011 that has grown to 75 members. Its aim is to improve public sector governance and encourage civil society participation in making governments more accountable and responsive to citizens.
Some of the original founding members include Brazil, Mexico, Norway, the Philippines, Britain and the US. Nigeria is the most recent African country to sign up.
Countries are invited to join if they meet the minimum eligibility criteria. These include a framework on open budgets, a law on access to information, public asset-disclosure rules and basic protections for human rights.
Member countries are required to develop national action plans that are implemented in a two-year cycle. They are expected to submit self-assessment reports within the period.
In addition, the partnership secretariat appoints a country researcher who consults with the government and civil society organisations to monitor the implementation of the plans, and develops both a mid-term and end-of-term assessment reports.
Ultimately, the OGP provides an international platform for change agents at a country level, both within and outside government, to make government open, accountable and responsive to citizens.
During South Africa’s two-year leadership, the partnership hosted the Africa regional meeting, which focused on using open government for sustainable development in Africa.
This was significant because last year signalled the beginning of the implementation of the UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs). The goals are premised on the idea of partnerships for development.
This includes the establishment of a collaborative platform that involves various stakeholders to ensure that marginalised people have a voice in determining priority areas to achieve the goal of poverty eradication.
Recent events in South Africa make it clear how urgently this ideal must be realised.
Last year, the country was characterised by protests over higher education fees and the delivery of basic services. These distress calls came against a backdrop of growing concern about “state capture” – the diversion of state resources to benefit an already privileged elite. The problem of state capture shows a public accountability deficit that the partnership aims to address.
South Africa’s end-of-term report highlights the country’s accountability challenges. This is particularly true in relation to its failure to implement and mainstream public service anti-corruption laws. The report shows that the country failed to fully complete any of its seven commitments.
These were the establishment of: an accountability/consequences management framework, service delivery improvement forums, platform for citizen participation in government, environmental management information portal, online crowd sourcing tool on data conservation, schools connectivity project, and a service rights and responsibilities campaign.
The report also shows that, contrary to agreement, the government didn’t formally establish a forum to involve civil society organisations in the partnership process.
It still has to set up a joint mechanism to monitor the implementation of the government’s commitments.
Transparency may not do much to reverse the disconcerting rise in corruption in both the public and private sectors. But it is a good starting point in promoting public integrity and accountability.
South Africa cannot continue to place the burden of holding the government accountable on just the media and brave whistle-blowers.
These shortcomings not withstanding, it was not all doom and gloom.
The government must be applauded for setting up a citizen-based pilot monitoring programme. This was set up to collect community feedback on public services.
It is important that the lessons of the previous action plan be heeded as South Africa embarks on a new two-year national action plan. The focus here will be to link its partnership commitments with its development goals.
South Africa is now on its third two-year action plan, which will run from last year to 2018. It includes a commitment – introduced by civil society – to establish community advice offices to promote access to justice.
This fits in with goal 16 of the SDGs – to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions.
Other commitments include citizen-based monitoring of service delivery projects and increasing public participation in government planning and budget processes. Another is to increase the level of civic participation in the provision of basic services.
These commitments require the sustained involvement of civil society. It is high time the South African government established a permanent dialogue mechanism that treats civil society bodies as equal partners.
It also needs to develop ways of working more collaboratively so that it can make government work for all citizens.
It’s clear that the South African government recognises the importance of partnerships with civil society. But it stands accused of paying lip service to the idea of inclusivity.
Indeed, the shrinking space for civil society in governance that is seen around the world is also evident in South Africa. The country’s civil society organisations are not seen as equal partners.
For their part, South Africans need to re-imagine the role of civil society in the governance of their public services and management of their public resources.
The partnership initiative offers that platform. But it needs to be implemented effectively and in the spirit of participation by ordinary people.
● Adeleke is a Fellow at the University of the Witwatersrand, the Open Government Partnership country researcher for South Africa and the head of research at the South African Human Rights Commission. He writes in his personal capacity. This article first appeared in