You also can be a part of it!
The Network of Democracy Research Institutes recently held a workshop at the World Movement for Democracy's Global Assembly in Peru . Entitled "Enhancing the Policy Impact of Democracy Research," the workshop featured presentations by NDRI members Martin Butora (Institute for Public Affairs, Slovakia ), Gabriel Salvia (Center for the Development and Opening of Latin America, Argentina ), and Tanya Hamada ( INCITEGov , Philippines ). An excellent discussion followed the presentations, and we wanted to share the main points raised during the discussion with you. A short workshop summary appears below.
Chairs: Marc F. Plattner and Christopher Walker (International Forum for Democratic Studies)
Opening Presenters: Gabriel Salvia (Center for the Development and Opening of Latin America (CADAL)
Martin Butora (Institute for Public Affairs)
Tanya Hamada (INCITEGov)
Rapporteur: Melissa Aten (International Forum for Democratic Studies)
This workshop was divided into two parts: the first was a discussion on "Enhancing the Policy Impact of Democracy Research," which is part of a broader initiative organized by the International Forum with NDRI members on this topic. The second part of the workshop focused on Network of Democracy Research Institutes ( NDRI ) business, including ways in which NDRI members can gain more value from participation in the network.
Marc F. Plattner opened the session by explaining how this workshop is part of an ongoing project undertaken by the International Forum for Democracy Studies that was begun at a conference in South Korea in 2008. The project is a collection of 10 case studies (from South Korea , Ghana , Romania , Lebanon , Ecuador , Turkey , Georgia , the Philippines , Slovakia , and Argentina ) of NDRI members' strategies and successes with ensuring their research reaches policymakers and enters in the public debate. These case studies will be published as part of a report by late spring 2013 (for further information on the "Enhancing the Policy Impact of Democracy Research" project, please contact Melissa Aten at: melissaa@ned.org ).
CASO DE ESTUDIO 1: CADAL ARGENTINA
Gabriel Salvia discussed CADAL's efforts to influence policy through the use of a legislative barometer. CADAL seeks to reach consensus on issues the public, including minorities, deems important, and CADAL surveys parliamentarians on their views of these public policy issues, and through these surveys, CADAL discovers consensus to influence policy.
CADAL targets parliamentary committees depending on the issue. For example, if the policy they are attempting to influence is applicable only to a particular committee, they only target that committee. If the policy relates to a broader issue, such as economic development, they target every legislator.
One of the main obstacles CADAL has faced in conducting this legislative barometer is that members of the ruling parties have been reluctant to respond publicly to the surveys, so CADAL has made the process anonymous.
CASE STUDY 2: IVO - SLOVAKIA
Martin Butora emphasized three distinctive features of think tanks in Slovakia : the fascist, communist, and post-communist legacies from which think tanks were developed; civil society involvement in politics and the struggle for the democratic character of the state; and civil society involvement in reforms. Unlike CADAL, IVO and other Central European think tanks were actively and substantively involved in shaping the democratic character of the state since the fall of communism.
IVO has initiated several projects in its attempts to influence policy:
• IVO Barometer on the Quality of Democracy, which measures the levels of institutional democracy and rule of law, the quality legislation, human and minority rights, and freedom of the media in Slovakia;
• Public opinion polls that reflect problems perceived by the public;
• Reports on elections in Slovakia , Hungary , the Czech Republic , and Poland ;
• Providing media commentaries on key political and social issues in the country;
• Reports on the state of minorities, including women, the elderly, the Roma, and the Hungarian minority;
• Survey on the quality of the judiciary in Slovakia , in which experts, citizens, and judges were polled; and
• Researching new forms of populism in Europe .
IVO faced a common challenge in its attempt to influence policy in Slovakia : reducing its long research works into concise summaries that were easily digestible to the public and policymakers.
CASE STUDY 3: INCITEGov - PHILIPPINES
Tanya Hamada discussed how INCITEGov differs from many think tanks because many of its researchers go in and out of the government, ensuring that the research it conducts research policymakers. The Philippines has been successful at overthrowing autocratic government, but they have not been as successful in establishing the day to day aspects of democracy. INCITEGov was formed in this context and attempts to connect democratic politics with good governance.
Prior to 2010, INCITEGov decided that they needed to engage political candidates. They created a social contract that later became the basis of President Aquino's campaign. The 2010 elections brought to power reform-minded politicians who were eager to engage civil society. Many INCITEGov researchers entered government after these elections, which allowed issues they worked on to take prominence in the government. Ms. Hamada gave two examples of such policies: security sector reform and the use of the budget as a tool of reform.
After the success of the 2010 elections, Ms. Hamada identified the difficulty in influencing and building platforms for local elections.
WORKSHOP QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD
During the workshop's discussion period, participants identified other ways think tanks could influence policy:
• Using charts and graphs to make analytical research easier for the public and policymakers to consume;
• Publishing columns regularly in a reputable news outlet.
A discussion also ensued at the importance of distinguishing between think tanks that operate in environments where they have the opportunity and ability to influence policy and those that operate in closed and more repressive societies. Participants identified competition with government-sponsored research centers as a major impediment to think tanks in closed societies getting their message out.
IMPROVING NDRI PARTICIPATION AND ACTIVITY
The second part of the discussion, chaired by Christopher Walker, focused on how to make the NDRI more effective. Mr. Walker pointed out that the "Translating Research" project is relevant beyond democratic think tanks; all non-governmental organizations need to know how to get their message across effectively.
Participants identified several areas on which the NDRI could focus:
• The problem of regressing countries, such as Bangladesh, Romania, and Argentina, who had once been considered "graduated" but where democracy is now considered under threat;
• The use of international observers and membership in regional organizations as a topic for think tanks in closed societies to study;
• Organizing conferences, on any topic, to see what other countries are doing about a particular issue; and
• Establishing a mentoring program where young think tanks can benefit from the experience and expertise of more established centers;
• Overall, NDRI members are encouraged to consider ideas for potential joint initiatives that can help inform key challenges to democratic development and the democratic idea.
The Network of Democracy Research Institutes is a global association of think tanks that focus on democracy and democracy-related issues. More information about the Network can be found at www.ndri.ned.org .
