Policy Brief no. 47, April 2016
How many years does a country need to become inclusive, participative and open to its citizens? The answers may be difficult and very different from one case to another. Romania is still struggling to make its participative mechanisms functional, to open data or to develop a culture of active civic involvement. Recent years have shown that people can protest when their green space is at risk or if politicians abuse power and civic rights. Still, is it enough? Can we do more?
DEMOCRACY FROM THE FJORDS:
CIVIC PARTICIPATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN NORWAY. A
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE Expert Forum undertook a study visit We searched for some answers of in April 2016 in Sogn og Fjordane
our own, in a study tour in Norway, county and in Oslo, in order to find out a country that the public opinion more about public participation, sees as one of the most developed in freedom of access to information, the world. Norway rates good, elections and simple citizens. We met with the county governor of Sogn og together with other Nordic Fjordane, in Leikanger, with the mayor countries, in several rankings of Sogndal, ministries, non- regarding corruption, public governmental organisations and media integrity of the level of living. It is in Oslo1. The research includes ranked as the best democracy in the conclusion of the meetings with these
world by the Democracy Index 1 The full list of meetings can be consulted Ranking. The World Bank rates the at the end of the paper. We thank all our
country highly regarding the control interlocutors and the County Governor of of corruption and rule of law. What Sogn og Fjordane for the support for this visit. Special thanks go to Mr. Gunnar makes Norway a good example and Hæreid, Vice-Governor of Sogn og what can we learn from the Nordic Fjordane County experience? Policy Brief No. 47
public institutions, as well as analysis part of the money come from the of the Norwegian legislation. central government.
Municipalities receive money taking The challenges of managing into consideration the geographical Norway position, number of inhabitants, the
surface of the county, in a general With a length of 2,800 km and its transfer formula. Essentially, unlike in particular fragmented geography, Romania, the intergovernmental Norway is an inherently decentralized fiscal transfers are very country. It has 3 levels of transparently and objectively government: municipality, county and allocated; political interference in central government. Municipal and the allocation is limited to a county councils are directly elected by minimum3. the citizens and are the backbone of
local government; the mayors are Municipalities cannot go bankrupt, but elected by the councillors. Norway is should they have a deficit, this needs divided regionally into 19 counties, to be balanced in the next 3 years or each governed by a Council. otherwise the municipality is placed on
It has, overall, 428 municipalities with a “black list” and will suffer administrative restrictions on loans. an average population of 12,000. Still, There are rather few municipalities in there are many localities with much this situation and, interestingly, both smaller population; the smallest one smaller and larger communities; for is Utsira, with just 209 inhabitants. example, in Sogn og Fjordane, 5 out While this fragmentation follows the of 26. This indicates that fiscal geographical particularities of the responsibility depends critically on the country, there is an on-going reform , not only on to consolidate small municipalities by leadership’s accountability the municipality's own resources. voluntary, incentive-driven mergers into larger communities, to ensure that local governments can indeed provide local services in a financially sustainable manner and at acceptable levels of quality.
Counties and municipalities get their money from income taxes and some local revenues such as building permits or fees for garbage and water supply. These latter revenues are earmarked – for example, municipalities cannot spend fees from building permits on anything but
expenses connected to building Sogn og Fjordane region. Source: www.expertforum.ro permits. Municipalities may impose www.commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Norw property tax; in 2010, a number of ay_Counties_Sogn_og_Fjordane_Position.svg 340 out of 428 municipalities imposed property tax2. Moreover, the biggest /archive/00196/Local_Government_in_19 67 45a.pdf 3 See our study on public money and 2 2 Local Government in Norway, political clientelism here: www.bergen.kommune.no/bk/multimedia http://expertforum.ro/clientelism-2016/
Democracy from the fjords
Norway is a country where the politics citizens. Therefore, the Governor can is based mostly on political parties. get involved more directly in the Very few independent candidates step decision making process if illegal up in the electoral competitions. At decisions are being taken. Our the same time, in Norway the political interlocutors stated that in most market is liberalized and there are cases, the Governors do not intervene virtually no barriers to setting up new on the political side of the decisions, parties. Also, there are very many but mostly on the administrative and local parties which run for elections at legal aspects; in general, such the local or regional level. interference is extremely limited and very well thought through and The central government is motivated, to avoid abuses against represented at the local level by the local autonomy. Mayors are not always County Governor (similar to the happy with this power that the Romanian Prefect, but with more Governor can put into practice, but powers). There are 17 county this is part of Norway’s checks and governors in Norway, appointed balances system. directly by the Government. Their role is to ensure that central governmental Although the county governors are decisions and guidelines are politically appointed, should the
Norway Statistics, www.sbb.no implemented by the municipalities, governmental cabinet be replaced, the serving also as a regional county governor cannot be dismissed. ombudsman. Their mandate is for 6 years and can www.expertforum.ro be renewed once. Their areas of The governor is entitled to overturn responsibility are broad, from decisions of the local governments, agriculture and climate and either ex oficio or at the request of environment to supervision of local administrations, but mostly as a municipal primary and lower consequence of complaints filed by secondary education and civil 3
Policy Brief No. 47
protection and emergency access to public information is preparedness. The Governor also has free the role of encouragement and it is applicable for all support of local development, not just governmental agencies and monitoring. For example, it can help institutions, as well as state- municipalities to coordinate in owned companies. It also developing certain projects. applies to corporations that are
51% state owned, with the One of the most important tasks is to oversee that the freedom to exception of those listed on the information act (FOIA) is properly stock exchange or that function enforced. The county governor also on the competitive market. trains public officials on topics related There is an on-going discussion to government, including FOIA. to extend the applicability of the FOIA act also to private In Sogn og Fjordane are concentrated companies operating in fully most matters concerning e- regulated, natural monopoly government given that the region has areas, as well as for companies the human resources and a strong with state ownership below educational system focused on 51%, as local watchdogs technology. The Governor of Sogn og (particularly investigative Fjordane has also developed and is currently managing the registry of journalists) are constantly political party financing, for the entire challenging the limits of access country. The portal to public information. www.partifinansiering.no centralizes It covers all new forms of the incomes and expenses for all information (video, phone calls political parties in the country and can etc.) be viewed as a best practice. Such Requests need to be answered portal is very useful for electoral in 3 days maximum. Some authorities to put all political funding institutions deliver it in one day together and for citizens to see what There are documents that do money their representatives get and not fall under the jurisdiction of spend, in a reusable format4. FOIA, especially those related to
economic competition, state
Getting the right information secrets or security issues. Documents drawn up for an The transparency of the agency’s internal preparation of administration is regulated by FOIA, a case are also not available. law of public administration and the However, in this case, the local government act. The Freedom of citizens or journalists asking for Information Act5 states that: information on FOIA and not receiving the information on www.expertforum.ro grounds of national security 4 More centralized, open data format can issues or other considerations be visualized on the website of Statistics have the option to complain to Norway, the Ombudsman. The https://www.ssb.no/en/valg?de=Funding Ombudsman has the right to +of+political+parties 5 receive all the information from
the public institution and 4 https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2006 -05-19-16 assesses whether the claims of
Democracy from the fjords
non-disclosure for security or these notes are not final state secrets considerations are decisions, but documents for justified (if not, the discussion; on the other hand, Ombudsman makes the journalists and activists for recommendation to the public transparentization argue that institution to release the such notes are essential to information). The Ombudsman, understand the process of a very credible institution in decision-making inside the Norway, also found it important government. Economic to clarify the approach to the contracts are also in the grey access to such sensitive area. The general trend is to information on FOIA and set open up for the public the precedents for transparency. access to information, and the Another grey area on which media actively and continuously information may or may not be pushes for more access. disclosed concerns internal Norway uses an interesting tool that documents or internal seems to be quite unique in the world; correspondence of institutions. Iceland and Switzerland failed to For example, the notes of the develop such platform. In order to ministers that are discussed grant access to information more during the cabinet meetings easily, governmental agencies use
www.expertforum.ro
can be interpreted as non- OEP – the Electronic Public discloseable, though there is Records Platform, administered by on-going discussion about the Agency for Public Management and 6 releasing such information. On eGovernment (DIFI), in Leikanger.
one hand, ministries argue that 6 https://www.difi.no/om-difi/about-difi 5
Policy Brief No. 47
journalists or citizens can complain to The history of data publishing is quite the Ombudsman; and can sue in old, starting from 1993. Initially the courts. Institutions can ask the opinion access was just for media. In 2010, of a specialized department dealing the OEP had 16 million records, with FOIA in the Ministry of Justice to available for all the citizens. This interpret the right to access that comprises e-mails, letters and information. For instance, the County documents. A number of 10.000 Governor may submit a request to the documents are entering the portal Ministry of local government and each day. modernization, to have a statement from the legal department of the OEP is a collaborative tool which 120 ministry of justice regarding principial central government agencies (initially matters. Watchdogs are very active in 20) used to publicise their journals of pushing for more transparency in the correspondence – meaning the “grey” areas. information that gets in and out of the institutions. Some institutions also In 2013, 61 % of the requests were publish internal communications, based on professional reasons, 28 % although it is not explicitly required by on private reasons and 7 % were the law. demands based on different groups of civil society7. Public record data is stored in a searchable database with metadata The platform only offers metadata, not which users can search to locate case documents. Anonymous users can also documents relevant to their field of grant access to documents. An e-mail interest. Having located relevant case address is enough to get an answer. documents, users may submit requests to view these. Requests are DIFI is currently working on a new, sent to the respective agencies improved version of the platform. This responsible for the case documents is scheduled to be functional by 2018. and public record entries; the person The element that DIFI is looking to who published the document must improve is, first of all, direct manage the request. accessibility to documents and not just metadata. This would lower the The agencies themselves then process number of requests for information requests, sent to them via OEP, and drastically which, similar to other reply to users directly, in 3 days countries, has been deemed by public maximum. The responsible agency servants as quite voluminous. The can grant or deny access to OEP, in its current version, does not documents, but a denial needs to be include municipalities, but these are motivated. Since 2010, an estimative planned to be included in the future number of 1 million request have version; at the same time, many been processed. The media is the municipalities already publish the vast most frequent user, with more than majority of the documents available 50% of the requests. More than 80% on FOIA on their own website. In the
www.expertforum.ro of the requests are answered to efforts to build the new platform, Difi immediately. For the remaining 20% consulted citizens, press organisations (a part of which could be more or academia. sensitive, for good reasons or not), there are very good mechanisms and 7
alternatives to ensure that access is http://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/ 6 not unjustifiably denied. The default/files/Self%20Assessment%20Repo rt%202013_1.pdf
Democracy from the fjords
concise and clear, the government A poll done by Difi shows that set-up the Plain Language Project handling the documents in the (www.klarspråk.no). The project is platform involve a lot of resources focused on the language used in the that are increasing, according to the legislation, regulations, circular institutions. While institutions would documents, information materials or prefer to have the documents letter. The project included a web- uploaded directly, citizens believe that based toolbox for civil servants it takes too much time to get an (including advice, tools on how to answer. write in a user friendly and clear manner), courses for civil servants, OEP does not cover all the data project grants, the Plain Language institutions should publish. There are Prize and best practices9. good practices when it comes to publishing information related to the Moreover, according to the Open municipalities. For example, the Government Partnership Action Plan10, commune of Jolster Norway is aiming to make use of the (www.jolster.kommune.no) publishes public information financed through on the website data that got out of public funds, especially if it may the institution, for each day. Still, this become an opportunity for innovation is not necessarily the rule. and new business opportunities. All state enterprises are asked to make Open data is not a rule neither, as not public data available electronically and all the institutions are accustomed to in a user-friendly format. Norway has publish this type of information; still, also developed StatRes11, a program there is an increasing trend to use it. that shows statistics on state According to the Global open Data resources use and results. Index8, Norway ranked 10th in 2015, with high rates for company registry The freedom to information is an and national budgets. important right in any democratic country. In Norway, journalists, On the other side, there are county governors, mayors, institutions who try to cheat the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ministry of system. For example, they try to Justice representatives and NGOs, modify the names of the records in each feel responsible for safeguarding OEP, so that citizens cannot find them it, one way or another. easily. Municipalities try to hide documents related to the activity of Still, the law is not always applied as it the local councils. Such attempts are should. There are public institutions however kept under “check” in that refuse to answer and the answer Norway by the fact that the country comes after a very long time. The has a very active investigative press, citizens have the option to send a which acts like a watchdog and complaint to the superior institution continuously challenges such initiatives to limit access to public 9 information. www.expertforum.ro http://www.sprakradet.no/Klarsprak/Diver
se/Toppmeny5/In-English/ In order to ensure a better 10 understanding of public documents http://www.opengovpartnership.org/count and to make public them more ry/norway 11
https://www.ssb.no/en/sok?sok=statres&s 8 http://index.okfn.org/place/norway/ tart=0 7
Policy Brief No. 47
(for example, a ministry); or go to the which provides an additional Ombudsman; or seek an confidence in his impartiality. interpretation on the access to that information to the Ministry of Justice; The Ombudsman reveives more than or go to Court. 3000 complaints every year. The institution has a special department The Sivilombudsmannen dealing with complaints regarding (Parliamentary Ombudsman) is an freedom of information. In 2014 it essential institution in ensuring the received 3,211 complaints, of which it freedom to information, with a major dismissed 1,721, considered 1,490 impact in Norway12. The modern and expressed criticism in 182 cases. Ombudsman has been established in Of these, 637 where related to local 1963, although regulations were in administration and 258 cases where place since 1814. Its main task is to accepted; in 41 cases it expressed make sure that people are not criticism. subjected to injustice by the public administration. It also manages issues The investigations conducted by the related to taxes, social security, Ombudsman rely entirely on the immigration, planning and building or legality of the decision, not morality or prevention of torture13. ethics.
Although the Ombudsman is When it comes to freedom of appointed by the Parliament and information, a person could complain reports annually to the Parliament, to an institution, the Ombudsman or the institution is independent; the directly to a Court. The opinion that former Ombudsman remained in office the Ombudsman issues at the end of for 24 years. The current Ombudsman the investigation is not legally binding is Aage Thor Falkanger, appointed in for the public administration. The 2014. The most important criterion for Ombudsman makes recommendations appointing an Ombudsman is that and, in the vast majority of cases, the he/she should meet the qualifications recommendations are followed to be a Supreme Court judge. precisely because of the credibility and Appointing a person who would not be impartiality. It is not common for the perceived as independent and of administration not to comply with its excellent competencies would simply opinions and recommendations. be inconceivable for the Norwegian Should they not comply, the Parliament - the powers of the Ombudsman can recommend that the Ombudsman derive mostly from the plaintiff go to Court, offering financial credibility and impartiality of the support to pay for legal assistance. Ombudsman, perceived as an But a plaintiff cannot go to Court and independent referee between the the Ombudsman at the same time, citizen and the state. The person is neither can they appeal to the appointed by a general consensus of Ombudsman after having gone the Parliament (unanimous vote), through regular judicial procedures. It is very important to mention that the
www.expertforum.ro 12 Norway also has other types of judiciary has strong credibility in institutions defending citizens’ rights: Norway and there are strong ethical Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman, the norms that judges internalize in their Ombudsman for Children, the Gender behaviour to avoid any perception of Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud lack of impartiality. 13
8 https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/case -categories/category1580.html
Democracy from the fjords
As we concluded from our discussions lawyers. The institution is oriented with civil society representatives and more on citizens, media and creating journalists, the Ombudsman is a precedents. reliable, credible institution. A lot of the complaints that the Ombudsman The Ombudsman can also make receives on access to information are proactive investigations regarding a from journalists. One of the most certain institution, if there are several interesting cases it had to investigate complaints about its activity. Such was regarding the request some case is the Ministry of Defence, where journalists had made to have access a lot of requests for information are to the phone invoices of the prime- consistently rejected for claims of minister. They were denied access by sensitivity for national security; in this the Government and thus complained case, the Ombudsman recommended to the Ombudsman. According to the the transparentization of many investigative procedures, after documents. Moreover, the institution receiving a complaint, the can send opinions regarding legal Ombudsman writes to the institution initiatives in the Parliament. The requesting the documents that were Ombudsman can also take issues denied and the explanation. It then regarding ministries to the Parliament. analyses the documents and demands a written response from the Civil society and its voice in public institution. The Ombudsman is, of matters course, not allowed to disclose the documents or any Being part of an other confidential If you ignore the citizens, association is important information to the you can have a storm. in the Norwegian plaintiffs. Helsinki Committee society. There are 2,200 nationwide Finally, the organisations and Ombudsman issues an opinion on 120,000 local associations registered whether or not the institution should in Norway, with around 10,000,000 grant access to the documents to the members. Many of them are small plaintiff. Out of the investigations it ones, with less than 50 members and conducts, the Ombudsman criticizes with no substantial budgets, interested the public administration in about in culture or sports14. On average, 20% of the cases. In this case, the every citizen in Norway is a member Government had claimed that should of at least 2 NGOs. The procedures to the invoices be disclosed, information set-up an NGO are quite simple, on- about the location of the calls will be line; they have some financial benefits made public, jeopardizing foreign according to the Norwegian law. The affairs and confidential information. NGOs in Norway are „not afraid to However, the argument was refuted raise criticism of public authorities and because the agenda of officials is neither are they completely dependent public and in this case the location of on support from the authorities.”15 the phone calls could not be interpreted as confidential. www.expertforum.ro
14 Transparency International Norway, In 2015 it registered 149 complaints Norway’s Integrity System on FOIA. The Ombudsman can choose - not quite perfect?, which requests to follow up. For www.transparency.no/wp- example, it can refuse big companies, content/uploads/sites/10/engelsk_versjon due to the fact that they can hire _av_NIS.pdf 15 Idem 9
Policy Brief No. 47
But to become an inclusive society, as much feedback as possible from the Norway has had a long history of public. At the central level, most of the building up democratic values and important pieces of legislation are procedures, which take time and under public consultation for about patience. Protests, criticism in three months. general, are not viewed as threatening by public authorities, local In its turn, the Parliament usually or central, but of proof that people consults the NGOs through hearings feel that they need to be included in and consultations when preparing the decision making process. This is regulations. The public can also take especially true in smaller regions, at part in meetings of the parliamentary the local level, where the community commissions. The Parliament arranges is more united and decisions have a its own hearing, where outside direct impact on them. participants can register for short speeches, but written statements can Active civic involvement is a matter of also be sent. Of course, however, democratic tradition in Norway, which there is no guarantee that the is reflected in the engagement of opinions of the public change the final citizens throughout the country. This decision. has led, in time, to a very high level of trust in their public authorities. As To enhance the consistence and one will surely be told by anyone readability of documents of public living in Norway, one of the main interest, but also to ensure proper assets is trusting other people and accountability to the public, in 2005, authorities. According to the UN’s the Parliament published World Values Survey16, Norway rates Instructions for Official Studies highest in people’s trust in other and Reports.17 This has the purpose people. On the other hand, all to ensure the “proper preparation and decisions at the administrative level administration of all work relating to take into account that this high level official reforms, amendments to of trust is fragile and should not be regulations and other measures”. The lost. main purpose is to ensure that financial, administrative and any other To keep this high level of trust, significant impact are clear and that transparency on decision-making in the costs of the laws or reforms are Norway is a matter of common visibile. The instructions make practice, going beyond the strict mandatory the publication of these requirements of the law. As an consequences, prescribe rules for example, ministries generally publish preparatory steps of reforms and for debate all documents supporting a ensure that evaluations really happen certain policy, well before it is adopted and that all the institutions that might (the equivalent of the "impact studies" be affected are consulted. They are and "public policy documents" in the applied to ministries and subordinated Romanian legislation). Though the law agencies when it comes to official would require only to publish on studies, regulations, reforms and
www.expertforum.ro website for decisional transparency, measures, as well as reports and ministries organize debates and propositions to the Parliament hearings out of their own accord, as (Storting). they are genuinely interested to get 17 16
https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/ 10http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.js upload/fad/vedlegg/statsforvaltning/utred p ningsinstruksen_eng.pdf
Democracy from the fjords
former mayor is under investigation Morevover, the government published for receiving favours; she has not in 2009 the Central Government been re-elected during the September Communication Policy that shows 2015 elections. The local the principles on which the administration also seems to be a communication with the citizens risky area when it comes to issues should be based during the legislative such as corruption or conflicts of process: openness, participation, interest, particularly because the little access to relevant information for all population makes it impossible to citizens, activeness, coherence and ensure there are no personal line management18. Electronic means relationships between decision-makers are the main medium of and owners of local businesses. communication and the government must see to it that citizens who are The role of the media is essential in not able to make use of digital checking possible corruption or abuses channels, do get corresponding of the state. Journalists play an information and an opportunity to important role in investigating and participate through other, suitable exposing such cases of corruption. channels. Journalists are also extremely vigilant concerning attempts to hide information and continuously The alert watchdog challenge the interpretation of the FOIA limits. Both the public and the Of course, Norway is not a perfect Government view the media as having society. Corruption evolves as well a massive contribution to the into new and modern forms. Petty transparentization of the public corruption may not be a problem in decision-making. Norway, but international corruption in big corporations and state-owned What is critical and very relevant for companies has been growing in recent Romania as well, in Norway, the years. Conflicts of interests are a journalists have a strong self- visible problem, especially in small governing and regulatory body that communities where everybody knows imposes ethical standards on its (or is related to) everybody. A report members. The Press Association has a in 2015 published by Difi shows that committee that receives and analyses ½ of the population thinks that in detail complaints from people who favouritism is a problem in the claim that journalists were unfair to Norwegian administration. them in their articles. It does not Procurement is one of the most judge these complaints based on legal sensitive topics when it comes to provisions, but on ethical standards. corruption. You can also find corruption in more specific topics such Self-governance amongst journalists as sports or humanitarian aid. There has helped raise the level of are scandals related to companies professionalism of journalists in bribing foreign states in order to get Norway. The local media is abundant contracts, to buying city buses, as and active, on both political sides, and www.expertforum.ro well as political influence scandals in in the past 30 years the media has big cities such as Bergen, where the become very professionalized and less party-biased. This means that, e.g., a 18 conservative journal is today equally https://www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/ critical on conservative politicians and upload/fad/vedlegg/informasjonspolitikk/s must be as objective as possible in tatkompol_eng.pdf 11
Policy Brief No. 47
exposing facts and considering all the Norwegian language, district and sides of each story, regardless of the identity, environment. political affiliation of those involved. Media ownership is transparent. There CASE STUDY 1. PEOPLE'S VOICE is a clear separation of ownership and ON MERGING MUNICIPALITIES management and editorial matters. An example related to merges comes Does the citizen matter? Local from the municipalities of Bjugn and examples from the Sognefjord Ørlandet, Sør-Trøndelag county:
Maybe one of the most important The municipalities of Bjugn and questions is if citizens matter when it Ørlandet held referendums on merging comes to making actual decisions. the municipalities. The turnout was 54 Although the opinions may be diverse, per cent in Ørland and 65 per cent in we may think that in general the voice Bjugn. In Ørland, 63 per cent of the of the citizens is heard by the eligible voters voted in favour of authorities, although not always taken merging the municipalities, while in into account. The participation seems Bjugn, 64 per cent voted against. The to take into account the personal process of merging the municipalities needs of each was halted as a result of community and in the majority in Bjugn There is a strong many cases debates opposing a merger20. tradition that the organized by public government wants to authorities do not Norway is undergoing hear what the people have interlocutors, intense debates, want. due to the fact that discussions and even local Helsinki Committee people are simply referenda on the subject of not interested an administrative reform, enough in a more precisely, merging particular topic. Participation in small small municipalities all over the communities seems to be more country, in their efforts to join forces active. Here, consultations seem a (financial and human resources) to question of tradition. Moreover, become better and stronger. people can gather and decide more quickly about their interests. In the county of Sogn og Fjordane, the furthest municipality is 4 hours away Citizens need permits from the Police from the County Council’s office, while for organizing public meetings, but its smallest municipality has just 851 mostly for their safety. inhabitants. The main advantages of Municipal and county councils can merging municipalities is that bigger organize consultative referenda. municipalities have better Between 1970 and 2014 a number of professionals in their administration on 727 referenda took place, on subjects such as environment, legal or different topics. Although the voter architecture and zoning. Furthermore, turnout differed, it was lower than in pooling resources together gives small
www.expertforum.ro general, local or county elections19. municipalities a better chance in Between 2010 and 2014 most of them developing business and creating jobs. were territorial, but some also Nonetheless, unification of any kind concerned topics such as variants of needs, as a main rule, to be voluntary.
19 20
12https://www.ssb.no/en/valg/statistikker/f https://www.ssb.no/en/valg/statistikker/f olkavs_kostra/aar/2015-06-22 olkavs_kostra/aar/2015-06-22
Democracy from the fjords
Still, the Cabinet has stated, since the process started, that if a „natural” CASE STUDY 2. DOES THE merger of four municipalities is PEOPLE'S VOICE REALLY MATTER? feasible, and that if one out of the four suddenly rejects, it is possible for Sogndal is one of the biggest the Parliament to decide against that municipalities of Sogn og Fjordane municipality’s will. county with around 7800 inhabitants. It has a good job market with low Multiple referenda took place so that unemployment and diverse communities decide by themselves opportunities for its citizens; the how to merge (or not) with other educational system is one of the most municipalities. There seems to be a important employers. Apart from this, struggle, as not many of them want to there is a famous local jam factory, a give up their independence or well renowned college that brings resources. For example, in the latest about 3000 students to the region referenda that took place in April in every year and a relatively successful several municipalities in Sogn og football team with a modern stadium Fjordane, the voter turn-out was which is also used for accommodating between 43 and 73%21. Some of the students and businesses, well known citizens had 3 possibilities, while other in Norway. had just two. The poll asked the citizens to join some The mayor is not directly communes or other or The moral of the mayor elected, but is appointed not merge at all. For is: we shall listen to the by the municipal council. example, the citizens people. I am not right Some of the larger cities, in Askvoll had three every time. The have “city cabinets”, choices: politicians are not right appointed by the city A. Merge with every time. council and the mayor is Fjaler, Hyllestad Mayor of Sogndal not a part of that and Solund cabinet. The citizens B. Merge with directly elect the Førde, Gaular, Jølster and members of the municipality’s council Naustdal by voting for a list. In Sogndal this list is for 25 people. The mayor is elected C. Do not merge among the councillors. Most 40% voted C, 36% voted B and 24% frequently, the mayor is the councillor voted A. The turnout was 50.6%. on the top of the list. Since the mayor In another commune, Flora, more is not directly elected, he can’t be than 70% voted against the merger dismissed by the council or by the and almost 30% for the merger with citizens. Dismissal is possible for another commune in the region. But extremely rare and serious cases, in Førde 53% of the people voted for such as criminal charges. the merge with 3 communes, while 17% against. Therefore, the results Among Jarle Aarvoll’s plans is to are not unitary and in some become a “5 minutes society”, where communes people want to merge, you can get to all important places in www.expertforum.ro while in other this does not seem to this time; walkers and bicycles should be an option. receive priority before cars. But he admits that he may not always be 21 right, when telling us a about a zoning http://www.nrk.no/sognogfjordane/her- plan that the municipality had been er-resultata-fra-folkeroystingane- invested for years that did not go 1.12885404 13
Policy Brief No. 47
through after it failed to round up attending the meetings of the youth support during consultations with council. The youth council is made out around 200 citizens. of teens aged 12-18 who meet regularly, discussing and organizing The question was where the main for various events of their interest. road through the city should be The mayor attends their meetings and constructed. The mayor supported the consults with them on various construction of a short tunnel under subjects, giving them real life the city centre so that the traffic information from the cases that the bypassed the city and would not municipality deals with. It also disturb the citizens. The community, organizes 1-2 meetings per year with including the local businesspersons 13-14 year old children; he considers refused this version and asked for the it a good exercise to get a new road either to pass through the city perspective and new solutions. center or through a longer tunnel One of the most interesting examples under the city, with a, probably on how the municipality makes use of unrealistic, request for the state to the resources available and takes into pay. Politicians were initially divided. account the opposing views of various Students agreed with the mayor’s stakeholders was the local sports plan. In open consulting meetings, a arena. This is important especially as great opposition arose, objecting to the public space is limited and claimed the two “holes” that the short tunnel by stakeholders with diverging would need as entrances. The mayor opinions. regrets that his version did not pass the political vote. Sogndal has a football premier league team that uses the arena for its For all of these decisions to be taken matches, but during the week the in the interest of the citizens, a lot of facility is used for the high school and consultations are needed. Beside the college activities. In order to build the organized consultantions, citizens can stadium, consultations with schools, also participate in the council's county council and the county meetings, but they cannot intervene governor were organized; discussions in the meetings. The Local on optimizing the use of the facility Government Act states that the continued even after the stadium was council's meetings are generally public built. The main idea is that the mayor and can be secret if motivated (e.g., if achieved a Pareto-optimal compromise acts not available on FOIA are among various stakeholders for the discussed). The minutes of the construction of the stadium by meetings are kept in a book. The negotiating the sharing of the facility. agenda and documents of the meetings are public in most cases. Still, there are also examples that The meetings open to the public ”shall show that the political power does not be announced in an appropriate always change their decisions despite manner”. the opposing opinions of the citizens. Contrasting to the earlier example, the
www.expertforum.ro Participation in public consultations or municipality gave the building permit the municipality’s meetings is quite for the only six-level block of flats and low in the youth segment. Most of the offices in Sogndal on the shore of the people that attend public hearings are fjord. The building replaced a derelict 50-60 years old. So, the mayor factory. More than 1800 citizens
reaches out to the younger public by signed a petition disapproving the 14 proactive measures, e.g., by construction, especially due to the fact
Democracy from the fjords that it blocked the view to the There are, of course, important scenery. The law22 says that 300 cultural differences between Romania signatures are enough in order to and Norway. The Norwegian public present a petition to the municipal administration proactively seeks inputs and feedback from the general public. councils (and 500 for the county The climate of trust, as well as the level). The councils are obliged to mechanisms to protect the citizens discuss the issue that is raised and against abuses of the state, have been vote upon it in less than six months. built over centuries; whereas the civic involvement in Norway and the role of In this particular case, the local the media as a watchdog are simply politicians decided to move forward beyond comparison to Romania. with the project despite the petition opposing the construction of the However, there are some things that building. Indeed, no protest took can be learnt from the Nordic States. place after the building was built. Of course, you can find corruption However, the mayor, who must be there, even if they are viewed as the accountable to the community and best countries to live in. And there will needs local support even between the always be abuses, a politician willing
elections, continues to support to receive money to influence some publicly the benefits of the project to decision, a political party hiding its the community. His arguments are finances or a company bribing for a that the project also opened the procurement contract. But successful access for pedestrians to the shore countries like the Nordic states have and cleaned up the site, which had also built the safeguards to limit such previously been the site of an abuses. Here are some lessons that abandoned factory. can be learnt.
Conclusions 1. Public institutions need to become trustworthy Developing a trustful relationship between the state and the citizens is a People in Romania (and not only) see never ending process, even in political parties as some of the most countries where this practice has been corrupt institutions. The Parliament is internalized for centuries like in in the same league, at the bottom of
Norway. Institutions and citizens can the trust pyramid. In Norway most of www.expertforum.ro learn from each other and be the processes are based on the public partners. trust in institutions and political parties.
22 The Local Government Act, One cannot build trust overnight. In http://app.uio.no/ub/ujur/oversatte- Norway this trust was built over lover/data/lov-19920925-107-eng.pdf 15
Policy Brief No. 47
centuries. But political parties and professional, broadly-supported institutions in Romania must start to Ombudsman, independent from understand that citizens will not be a political pressures is vital to true partner until they quit using ensure the protection of the corrupt practices and start to organize citizen against abuses of the state. consultations, publish data or meet with their constituency. 2. Transparency of institutions
As shown above, Norwegian citizens Although the FOIA exists in Romania voted against the former mayor of since 2001, serious flaws still exist, Bergen, under investigation for and these do not concern the actual corruption; and all of our counterparts provisions in the law, but the way indicated that it would be in which it is applied. Institutions inconceivable for citizens in Norway to refuse to give data, do not publish for vote politicians under suspicions of themselves and they are afraid of corruption. Apparently, Romanians open data. The paper and the scanned are not that different: a recent poll23 pdf is the favourite tool of the shows that over 82% of the administration. population in Romania would not svote for a corrupt candidate. It is Norway understood that by using on- therefore critical for parties to build line tools and publishing as much as up the credibility of political possible directly on the institutions' institutions (Parliament, central and websites things become cheaper local governments) by proposing as and more practical and they stop candidates and political appointees being pestered with requests for credible citizens with no issues of information. By publishing the integrity. information proactively, institutions spare time and redirect their efforts Appointments in key positions must towards other priorities. be transparent and obtain broad support from the political spectrum. However, it is essential that As shown, the Norwegian Ombudsman watchdogs push permanently for is a highly esteemed professional and the transparentization of data. the Norwegian practice is that he or Access to information in the "grey she must be appointed with areas" can become more transparent unanimous support from all parties in through pushes from journalists Parliament. He is also iremovable and the Romanian Ministry of during his fixed-term mandate; and, Consultations. having the possibility to return to his previous position as a Supreme Court Very importantly, institutions become Judge, cannot be pressured with the more transparent where is a very threat of dismissal. It is the active, well self-organized and Ombudsman's credibility that is the highly professionalized media. The basis of the Ombudsman's powers and Norwegian media became credible in influence. In the case of Romania, as the past 30 years by self-regulation
www.expertforum.ro even the case of Norway indicates, and internal ethics codes and the selection of a new, committee; self-organization, professionalization, and a high statute 23 of the journalist also help resisting any http://adevarul.ro/news/politica/sondaj- kind of political pressures,
psd-pnl-intra-umar-umar-alegerile-locale- management interference with 161_570d0e695ab6550cb8e90fbe/index.ht editorial policy and compromises. m l
Democracy from the fjords
than in Romania, governments agreed Open data should be a priority. Until to join EITI to improve their public now, in Romania, the OGP work image (e.g., Ukraine, Central Asia comprised mostly the central etc.). institutions and just some modest local contributions. Local institutions 3. Defend the rights of the citizens must become more open and publish essential data (such as revenues and A functional system of defending the expenses or urban planning) rights of the citizens must be a proactively. Norway has found that priority. The differences amongst the providing open access to data in a role of the Ombudsman are quite useable format also increases the visible. credibility of public decisions and institutions can obtain free analysis The Ombudsman (a highly credible from researchers, think tanks and and independent professional, as watchdogs processing this data and explained above) must really become publishing the results. the defender of the civic interests and respond with priority to Even more importantly, Norway concerns from the citizens (who assumes international leadership in have less resources for redress than, opening data by strategic flagship say, companies that can hire initiatives. For example, Oslo hosts expensive lawyers and go directly to the international secretariat of EITI, courts). Challenging to the an intitiative increasing the Constitutional Court the emergency transparency of revenues to the state decrees of the government of grounds from the extractive industries, of non-constitutionality is a critical included in OGP. Norway promoted means to defend the public's rights the idea of hosting the EITI against abuses of a Government that secretariat because the data for may trespass the limits of its Norway was already available in a Constitutional powers. Also, the very detailed format and joining EITI Ombudsman must start inquiries in was a low-cost, high-reward initiative, very visible cases, e.g., whether the providing a free "international medical and emergency rescue advertisement" for Norwegian good procedures in the "Colectiv" case governance and transparency. protected the rights of the persons involved. In the context of the endless discussion about the proper sharing of 4. Stop proposing corrupt and profits with the state in extractive fishy electoral candidates industries (most notably, oil and gas) Romania should also join EITI. Citizens in Norway would simply not Publishing data on how much money vote for a corrupt candidate. In the companies pay to the state and Romania, several candidates that were how much money the state receives in preventive arrest were voted by the and reconciling the figures are an citizens in the past years - for lack of a excellent starting point for the better alternative, and parties www.expertforum.ro discussion on the right level of continue to nominate controversial taxation and the technocrat candidates. The efforts should be Government's public image could common. Citizens should not vote for benefit this transparentization. Even people who lack public integrity and countries where the level of corruption the parties should not put them on the in extractive industries is much higher lists. It is a long way to go here, 17
Policy Brief No. 47
because the political class does not formula-based intergovernmental just change; but small pressure, from transfers. new parties, independent candidates can be a start in this direction. It is 6. Educate for democracy also very important to liberalize as much as possible the political Democratic involvement is difficult market and to ensure without civic education. Education in representation, e.g., in Norway it is Norway is widespread and is seen as very easy to set up local parties and one of the best in world. Participation authorities proactively promote also seem to be a natural, traditional measures to facilitate voting to mechanism, even though young citizens. The excessive regulations people tend to get less involved. In in the Romanian electoral system Romania, education for civic (numbers of signatures needed to involvement is essential and must be run for local or general elections, supported as an obligatory school the single-round voting for course. This is one of the reasons mayors etc.) restrict the political EFOR implements the School for competition. Democracy program that envisages to develop civic skills in students, 5. Reform the less functional teachers and activists25. In the last administration year 18 teachers and more than 500 students learnt more about democracy A significant part of the Romanian and public participations and met their communes are bankrupt. They cannot local authorities, in orer to show their pay even for the salaries of the views over the development of the employees and they become captive locality their live in. to the central government. In Romania, the fragmentation of communes goes hand in hand with the clientelization and discretionary transfers from the central budget to local budgets against political support before elections. On the contrary, Norway's intergovernmental transfers are objective, formula-based and allow very little discretion.
The Norwegian example shows that municipalities should join forces in order to function better. Therefore, merging the communes seems to be the correct way, while making them smaller and powerless is surely the wrong one. We have advocated in the past for an administrative
www.expertforum.ro reform24 to promote voluntary mergers of small municipalities, with fiscal incentives, and introducing clear, objective,
24 25 18 www.expertforum.ro/en/communes- www.expertforum.ro/en/school-for- reform/ democracy-2015/
Democracy from the fjords
Full list of meetings
Sogn og Fjordane County Governor Agency for Public Management and eGovernment Municipality of Sogndal Ministry of Local Government and Modernisation
Sivilombudsmannen
Helsinki Committee
Norwegian Press Association
Transparency International Norway
EITI Secretariat
Ministry of Justice
www.expertforum.ro
19
Policy Brief No. 47
Authors
Cezara Grama – rule of law Septimius Pârvu – elections & civic engagement Otilia Nuțu – energy
Review Gunnar Hæreid - Vice-Governor, Sogn og Fjordane county
The current project has been implemented in partnership with the County Governor of Sogn og Fjordane
Semilunei 7, ap. 1 Bucharest www.expertforum.ro
Njøsavegen 2, 6863 Leikanger, Norway https://www.fylkesmannen.no/en/Sogn- og-Fjordane/
SUPPORT EFOR
www.expertforum.ro/doneaza
www.expertforum.ro
This project is implemented with financial support from the NGO Fund in Romania, Program financed by EEA Grants and managed by Civil Society Development Foundation. The contents of this material does not necessarily represent the 20 official stand of SEE grants 2009 – 2014. For official information regarding the SEE and Norwegian grants, access www.eeagrants.org.