macy, but can seek to foster a combination of various types of legitimacy. Organisations rarely enjoy a high degree of l
POSITIONSPAPIR NR. 5
LTA: Legitimacy, Transparency and Accountability WHAT CISU WANTS:
WHY LTA IS IMPORTANT?
CISU wishes to promote systematic work by the Danish civil society organisations (CSOs) and their partner organisations to develop and strengthen their legitimacy, transparency and accountability. CSOs can only function and meet their goals as long as they are trusted by their users and members as well as by their partners.
The “Strategy for Danish Support to Civil Society in Developing Countries” stresses that: “Denmark will support a diversity of civil society organisations, so as to ensure that the needs and circumstances of many different groups can be addressed”, and “cooperation takes place with organisations with determination, ability and popular legitimacy to participate in decision-making processes, as well as with formal and informal organisations representing marginalised groups.”
As regards LEGITIMACY: that key stakeholders, such as members, users, partners and donors, perceive civil society organisations’ existence, activities and outcomes as justified with reference to stakeholders’ values. As regards TRANSPARENCY: that civil society organisations work with open and honest communications and are perceived as open, transparent and accessible by their key stakeholders. As regards ACCOUNTABILITY: that civil society organisations are aware that there is a responsibility entailed in working for somebody or for a cause, and that they can be held to account by their key stakeholders. Furthermore, CISU wants to promote the understanding: That civil society organisations are different and diverse, and that the variety of contexts plays its part in setting the framework for civil society organisations’ work and development, including for their efforts to enhance their legitimacy, transparency and accountability, LTA. That it is a continuous process to work with LTA principles and hence something that needs a chance to evolve.
The basic concept behind LTA work CSOs can only function and meet their goals as long as they are trusted by their users and members as well as by their partners. One way of achieving this is when users/members gain knowledge and experience of such organisations as trustworthy actors. Accordingly, it is important that demands be made by the organisations themselves, by members and target groups, as well as by other organisations, authorities and donors, requiring civil society organisations to “keep their house in order”. An organisation has certain rights, but also duties, to be fulfilled. CISU believes that the effort to address legitimacy, transparency and accountability is relevant to CSOs’ work in the North and in the South, since it both contributes to strengthening them as organisations and provides opportunities, responsibilities and powers to the people for whom they work.
Civil society organisations’ working foundation is in constant flux Historically, there has been a move from acquiring legitimacy through service delivery – often in cooperation with authorities – towards working with rights and advocacy, dealing with the authorities on behalf of poor
people. A CSO is characterised by representing or “advocating for” a population group and/or a particular cause. If it fails to lead by example in what it does and how it does it, it risks discrediting the people or cause represented. Only organisations considered to be legitimate can credibly make demands on other “duty bearers”, such as, authorities or other accountable parties.
Dutybearer og rightsholder: Two key concepts Dutybearer: Those responsible. It refers to the person or entity responsible for complying with people’s rights Rights holder: The people who have rights to be complied with.
The rise in the number of CSOs over the past 20 years has also led to the emergence of some organisations which act solely for their own interests, even if they present themselves to poor people as their “benefactors”. The subsequent distrust experienced by poor people casts CSOs in general in a bad light..
HOW CISU UNDERSTANDS LEGITIMACY, TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY 1. Legitimacy Legitimacy concerns other people’s views of the organisation. It can be defined as key stakeholders’ perception of the extent to which civil society organisations’ existence, activities and outcomes are justified with reference to the stakeholders’ values. Accordingly, organisations’ legitimacy is assessed from the outside by
stakeholders, while an organisation on the inside can merely seek to improve stakeholders’ view of it. When an organisation works to enhance its legitimacy, it may do so based on an understanding of four types as outlined in the table below.
Legitimacy
Main question
Areas of intervention
Challenge
Legal
Has the organisation been established and based on an accepted legal foundation?
Basing the organisation on clear statutes, rules and adherence to legislation.
The state provides the legal framework. Overall conditions and room for manoeuvre greatly affect the work of civil society.
Political
Does the organisation have a structure that ensures participation and is it characterised by transparency and accountability?
Pursuing a high degree of transparency and accountability, as well as securing the representation and participation of members or users.
Participation and representation in CSOs’ structures, statutes and rules of procedure vary widely. What is written on paper often differs from reality. Who has (no) influence? Who is (not) elected to governing bodies?
Practical
Does the organisation possess knowledge and does it deliver services to the satisfaction of members or users?
Ensuring that services meet acceptable standards and good practices in the field concerned, and that they meet the expectations of users.
SIt is difficult to find out which standards apply. Relevance to the target group of services delivered. Are services delivered by or for the target group? Sustainability of services.
Normative
Does the organisation’s work in general reflect norms and values in society and among members and users?
Ensuring that the organisation’s work reflects recognised values in society, and that the organisation works to inform about this.
Norms and values are determined by culture and context. It is a political struggle to set new agendas, e.g. regarding gender or inclusion of minorities.
It is important to keep in mind that an organisation’s legitimacy is assessed by members, users and other stakeholders. Different actors will view an organisation’s legitimacy from the perspective of their relation to it, and in the light of their own objectives and interests.
Accordingly, organisations cannot control their legitimacy, but can seek to foster a combination of various types of legitimacy. Organisations rarely enjoy a high degree of legitimacy in all fields, but rather develop their own combination of legal, political, practical and normative legitimacy. These four areas all touch upon elements that are concerned with transparency and accountability.
2. Transparency Transparency is fundamentally about allowing openness and taking the initiative to inform about available resources, decision-making processes, actions and results, i.e. to make known to whoever might be interested, what resources are at hand and how, as well as how much, is spent to achieve what. Such underpinnings serve to make governing bodies and leaders act in accordance with what has been agreed in a transparent and understandable manner, thus pursuing the interests of their members and/or target groups, instead of their own. Ensuring transparency in one’s organisation may entail, for example, addressing issues such as: Rules, plans and goals for the organisation’s work which are known by all stakeholders. The board’s presentation of budget and accounts to members
Members (and possibly other stakeholders) having the capacity and knowledge to understand what they look at, e.g.: ● qualifications needed to understand budgeting, accounts and output indicators. ● capacity-building of members, enabling them to understand budgeting and accounts, as such a measure helps enhance the board’s legitimacy among members. In some countries, a legal framework is in force for CSOs, which upholds a degree of transparency and combats corruption (e.g. publication of audited accounts and annual reports, published lists of board members and leaders, etc.). In other countries, where civil society’s room for manoeuvre is under pressure, it can be difficult for CSOs to make themselves publicly transparent without incurring persecution by the authorities. In such cases it is necessary, based on an understanding of the context, to attempt to work purposefully with transparency and to push the boundaries of what is possible
3. Accountability Accountability describes the responsibility to respond undertaken by a person or an organisation when others put their trust in them (give a mandate). For instance, a board is accountable to the rank-and-file members who elected it, while a leader or management has to report to the same board.
be interested in receiving such reporting and capable of understanding it. And if errors or omissions are detected, the party reported to must be able to invoke consequences. For example, the members of an organisation should receive the board’s report on time and in a language they understand, and if they are dissatisfied with the board’s effort, they should ultimately be able to elect a new one.
For accountability to work, the party responded to must
In an organisation with solid internal relations of accountability, the risk of fraud and corruption is low.
From a rights-based perspective, accountability arises from the relation between duty bearers and rights holders. Duty bearers must ensure that certain rights are complied with and can be enjoyed by rights holders. And rights holders can hold duty bearers to account as to whether they have complied with their rights as promised
Accountability can be perceived as consisting of four dimensions: 1. Upward accountability
2. Outward accountability (mutual)
Upward accountability often draws the most attention and energy, referring to the organisation’s reporting to possible donors, the management’s reporting to its board, employees’ reporting to the management, etc. Power relations between these levels tend to cause much energy to be invested in this effort, since the level above has the option of imposing sanctions if it fails to be carried out satisfactorily.
Outward accountability describes a genuinely mutual relation, involving a shared responsibility within a welldefined field. When talking about organisations, this typically refers to the relation with partners and other organisations working in the same area, geographically or thematically, or with which cooperation takes place, e.g. through networks or alliances.
4. Inward accountability
3. Downward accountability
In an organisation with solid internal relations of accountability, the risk of fraud and corruption is low. Inward accountability refers to relations between the various levels within an organisation and ideally how to prevent an individual or a few persons from monopolising power, at least not without the possibility of changing power relations using methods which may be detailed in the statutes. Inward accountability tends to be characterised by a high degree of internal information exchange and openness, as well as mutual understanding and respect for the roles and responsibilities of the various levels.
Where accountability runs the other way too, i.e. downwards, it fosters a sense of mutuality which matches the perception that duties are accompanied by rights. For example, when poor people invest their time, hope and expectations in an organisation which involves them in a project, they are entitled to expect the organisation to live up to its responsibilities, enabling them to hold the organisation to account, e.g. by means of participation, openness, information-sharing and by enabling complaints mechanisms. Another example is that, while a project manager must report to her superior, she also has the right to know about those decisions taken by her leader that affect her work.
Accountability relations and partnership Transparency, information-sharing and open
A known dilemma in South-North partnerships is the fact that the partner from the South is obliged to report ‘upwards’ to an organisation in the North. This is often referred to as an unequal relationship. However, the organisation in the North is also obliged to be an accountable and open partner. Moreover, it is possible for the two organisations to establish mutual accountability relations within other fields of cooperation that are not externally funded.
communication are core competencies to ensure accountability.
HOW TO WORK WITH LTA IN PRACTICE Depending on the challenges at hand and the context faced, there are many different ways of working with legitimacy, transparency and accountability in practice: If you wish to enhance LTA by means of organisational development, inspiration can be found in CISU’s and Disabled People’s Organisations Denmark’s “Guide to organisational development in civil society organisations”, which is available at www.cisu.dk/od.
If you wish to work specifically on accountability, you may use the Accountability Dialogue Tool, which is available at www.cisu.dk/korruption. Further inspiration regarding accountability and reporting can be found here: www.ingoaccountabilitycharter. org If you wish to work on financial aspects of LTA, you may use MANGO’s Financial Health Check, which is available at www.mango.org.uk If you wish to work on aspects related to prevention of corruption, inspiration can be sought at www.corruption-agenda.org If you seek international inspiration for your LTA work, you may use CIVICUS’s “Turning Principles into Practice”, among other tools. The document can be obtained at lta.civicus.org/component/content/ article/48 There are several initiatives at national, regional and international levels, where CSOs work together to develop joint self-regulating mechanisms capable of inspiring us in our transparency work. One example is the Philippine Council for NGO Certification at www.pcnc.com.ph; another the NGO Quality Assurance Mechanism in Uganda at www. ngoforum.or.ug
THE CIVIL SOCIETY FUND AND LTA The Civil Society Fund, which is administered by CISU, puts the spotlight on those organisations, and their relations, that cooperate to carry out interventions (partnership intervention, project or programme). In other words, what is assessed is not just the quality of each intervention, but just as much the organisations which carry it out and stand behind it. As far as the partners in the South are concerned, many an intervention supported is a means in its own right towards strengthening these organisations to become solid, trustworthy, legitimate actors in civil society, among other ways by working with LTA concepts as part of organisational development.
Requirements and expectations When high amounts are applied for to the Civil Society Fund, the organisational capacity of the organisations involved is expected to be correspondingly high, including active efforts to enhance and document their legitimacy, transparency and accountability. In particular the application form’s Annex A (the Danish organisation’s factsheet) and Annex B (the partner organisation’s) offer an opportunity for applicant organisations to account for their organisational capacity both in general and with reference to the LTA concepts.
Likewise, interventions supported by the Civil Society Fund may contribute to Danish organisations’ developing their legitimacy, partly through members backing their work, thus enhancing their roots in the Danish population, partly by demonstrating the results of their work, thus increasing their legitimacy in the eyes of other CSOs and actors.
Partnership
It takes time to develop organisational capacity, and it is possible to apply to the Civil Society Fund for support towards this end, as part of an intervention. Partnership interventions, for instance, may focus chiefly on the strengthening of LTA .
sition Paper No. 4, “Partnership and strengt-
LTA concerns the will to change and improve one’s practices, and this needs to be taken into account in the selection of partners. Read more about partnership in CISU’s Po-
hening of civil society”.
POSITION PAPERS BY CISU – CIVIL SOCIETY IN DEVELOPMENT CISU’s Board has agreed on a series of thematic position papers, which set out our view of how to understand and interpret, in practice, various key concepts in development work. The thematic position papers are drawn up against the background of our practice and experience from member organisations’ development projects and activities, our advisory services and courses, and our administration of the Civil Society Fund.
Klosterport 4A, 3.sal The office is open all workdays
The papers are prepared on the basis of consultations, and their final wording is approved by CISU’s Board. The papers are not intended to be carved in stone, but will, with appropriate intervals, be revised in view of experiences gained. At the same time, more position papers will be drawn up on other subjects.
CCISU – CIVIL SOCIETY IN DEVELOPMENT DK-8000 Aarhus C Tel: +45-86120342
[email protected] www.cisu.dk Telephone hours: 10 am – 3 pm Danish time
