In 2011, Armenia became a member of the Open Government Partnership (OGP) initiative. The basic purpose of the OGP, which was founded by eight countries: the United States, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Norway, Philippines, South Africa and the United Kingdom, was the formation of a transparent and accountable government with a large-scale public participation in the public life. Currently 63 countries are participating in this initiative. In the framework of this partnership, Armenia had 2012-2013 action plan, which provided for numerous events for ensuring governance transparency and openness. Today, the civil society, which is the most important part of the open governance, in the face of the “Asparez” Journalists Club, Counterpart International, and “Partnership for Open Society” initiative, had organized a discussion regarding the involvement of OGP in Armenia, the Implementation of 2012-2013 Action Plan in the framework of OGP, and 2014-2016 projects. The expert of the Freedom of Information Center of Armenia Liana Doydoyan presented the principles of OGP, spoke about the guideline of OGP program, and Artak Kyurumyan presented the independent assessment of 2012-2013 Action Plan of OGP in Armenia. According to this assessment, the seven out of 15 commitments in the national action plan was in compliance with OGP values and the eight of them is substantially or completely implemented. The budget transparency, according to the 4 score scale, was rated 0, the freedom of information was rated 2 (the law operates, however, the information is not always accessible), publication of declarations was rated 3, because only the properties of selected officials was declared, and the public participation was rated 3. After the discussion was over, Aravot.am talked to the Deputy Director for Programs of the “Open Society Foundations-Armenia” David Amiryan. Recalling that as an evidence of transparent practice, our government is constantly bringing the example of e-gov.am site, saying that there is no such an unprecedented thing in many developed countries, when all government decisions and budget is fully placed in the website accessible to everyone, when you can follow the process of your formal application, etc., we asked whether our government is open. “Literally translating the Open Government Partnership from English it should be an open government partnership; the idea of the program is to ensure the openness of the governance of the country with civil society partnership. Its philosophy is based on several values, one of which is freedom and access to information. Our government takes in and says that I have created an e-gov, but it’s not enough. The access to the information is not that the information is placed somewhere, in the depths of the Internet, it should be perceptible for any person. Maybe it’s a wonderful thing for narrow specialists, but it does not mean an open government partnership. The civil society, when submitting recommendations to the government as a partner, they are much more radical steps and are aimed at solving some problem quickly and immediately. For example, in 2012-13 Action Plan, Levon Barseghyan (Chairman of “Asparez” club) had sent recommendations of 15-17 pages, none of which was adopted. Or, they say that we have introduced an e-procurement system. The e-procurement system no way affects the e-procurement-related big issues that are available. In one report, it was noted that last year 70 % of procurement were procurements made from one source in rapid procedure. Well, no matter what you call it: electronic or not, the problem is not solved. There is a similar problem with perception of phenomena between the civil society and the government. In addition, OGP implies the commitment for the implementation of activities over the government, the government should demonstrate that it seeks to be open and become transparent, but what is often done, an NGO is implementing a program, in which the government is the beneficiary, and the government marks a “plus” next to it that it had done it. But, the government itself should implement programs.” To our question of how you will score the 2012-13 Action Plan of the Open Government Partnership based on the conclusion of estimates by the independent appraiser, David Amirian said, “I would score 2. The openness off the government must be directed to the public. Does any citizen feel its openness? Do people feel? I do not think so. The independent appraiser had taken the value, which was defined by OGP, he has also taken the activities of the Government of Armenia under this value and had scored whether the activity corresponds the value, whether there are results, whether it should be continued, etc… And when you look at the report point by point, it appears that there are major problems: the steps performed do not match the values, they had not achieved result, and so on.” Interestingly, no one from the government attended the discussion of this issue. To inform also that the same values were defined by other 63 countries joining the OGP, the same format, the government assumes the same commitments and the independent appraisers are evaluating the Action Plans of the government of those countries by the same standards. After all, all of these will be placed on international platform for general assessment, a rating list will be made. “They do not have any mechanism for pressure. Perhaps, only the score given to you, your rating will be some “pressure”. But, the openness and closeness of your government is your problem, the problem of your government. They have said that we have such an initiative, those who want may join, we will provide the values and ideas, you implement. We, our government, has joined in its own, and the civil society as part of this initiative says the government, if you had gone and have joined, let’s do it correctly, in good and complete form, in compliance with the values, in consistent to the idea, and not for formality.”
Melania BARSEGHYAN
