“Nothing dies faster than a new idea …

Before I came to New York, I worked with UNDP Afghanistan as legislative adviser for the Afghan National Assembly. Providing quality policy advice on time was difficult, especially in a post-conflict situation. In Bangladesh, where I worked on governance and human rights, things were just as difficult but for entirely different reasons.
In both the duty stations, I was fortunate enough to have been connected to a global pool of resources, thanks to UNDP’s network family. As an active member of quite a few UNDP knowledge networks, I was able to think and contribute globally while working locally. It was a wonderful feeling — I felt connected to a worldwide network of likeminded people and didn’t feel that I was alone.

Knowledge sharing proved particularly useful when I worked with colleagues from different country offices on a justice and human rights project in Kathmandu and Bangkok. Instead of hiring a consultant to develop guidelines for the initiative, which would have been the norm, a few of us got together and relied on UNDP’s in-house resources that were readily available through the Sub-Regional Resource Facilities, better known as SURFs. Not only were we able to pull together the expertise of country offices in different sub-regions, it also helped us strengthen the in-house capacity.

That’s when I learned the importance of “community of practice.” It was possible to make a connection between knowledge sharing at the national level and that of the regional level, which then led us to the global thematic teams and policy facilities.

As the facilitator for the democratic governance practice, I also experienced interesting shift in my role. It evolved from facilitating discussions and information exchange to promoting innovation. More specifically, it involved consolidating applied knowledge, forging partnership among partners both from the South and the North, and supporting reform initiatives. Fundamental changes and critical development do take place at the field level. But we can support those changes by sharing our insights.

People often overlook how useful their particular knowledge might be to others. An individual might know about something and not think that it could be useful for people at other times in other places. I can say this because I discussed governance challenges with colleagues from all over the world. The challenges faced by our colleagues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Timor Leste, Afghanistan and Sudan are quite different from those faced by colleagues in Guatemala, Fiji, Ethiopia or Maldives. Any knowledge or experience can trigger innovative ideas across disciplines and institutions.

Knowledge management is, therefore, a change in attitude. It is going from “We are the experts,” to “Let’s explore what’s going on and see if we can support other initiatives.”

The developments in technology will also facilitate such an attitude change. The e-mail based knowledge sharing system — Web 1.0 — has been a critical instrument to bring together the members of the governance community of practice. But we are, with the rest of the world, inevitably heading in the way of Web 2.0, which has been the base for online communities, such as social networking groups, wikis and blogs. Even though technology is only one of the many factors that affect the knowledge sharing in an organisation, it is precisely for that reason that a large and hierarchical institution such as UNDP with its non-confrontational culture might benefit from technology like Web 2.0.

A gradual transition to Web 2.0 could be an effective tool to provide constructive criticism and foster openness and ownership. I believe that practitioners everywhere like to share their experience. We just need to listen to them, and listen to them with empathy. Understanding the barriers that discourage our colleagues from sharing experience is the first step towards implementing changes. The reason wikis, blogs and interactive workspaces flourish outside the UN is because they act as a means to facilitate dialogues.

There are other things that can help us share knowledge. Enhancing knowledge partnership with the private sector and the civil society would be essential to lessen UNDP’s knowledge gap. We also need to get rid of our “silo” mentality. Moreover, we should know that knowledge does not evolve around the UN’s good practices and lessons learned. We need to engage more actively with all our constituents.

I always try to remember the proverb, “Nothing dies faster than a new idea in a closed mind.” We need to open our mind. I have no doubt that innovation is the key to collective knowledge creation and sharing.

*** published in UNDP Bulletin on 30 January 2009

A New Opportunity for Human Rights and Justice?

As I wrote in my previous post, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a process which involves a review of the human rights record of all 192 UN Member States once every four years. The second review round will commence in May 2012. It will last 4.5 years and will focus on “inter alia, the implementation of the accepted recommendations and the developments of the human rights situation in the State under Review”.

I believe that the review is a great opportunity to advance the human rights agenda in our region. Here’s why:

• national ownership: UPR recommendations are agreed and accepted by national governments;
•  a unifying effect: the UPR addresses human rights, justice, and, equality issues and challenges from a holistic point of view. The recommendations are not limited by any particular theme or mechanism or specific international convention.
• it is an opportunity to create an inclusive national dialogue with a broader developmental angle. For example, recommendations related to the ratification of the UN Convention on the Persons with Disabilities have close affinity with UNDP’s social protection, social inclusion, non-discrimination, and, most importantly, human development agenda. Therefore, it transforms a narrow technical approach into a broader developmental framework which is sensible and useful.

National Human Rights Institutions – UN/UNDP’s partners in national programming – due to their specific mandate are increasingly becoming aware of the implications of the UPR process, particularly when it comes to the next phase of state party reporting on the implementation of the agreed recommendations. The same can be said for civil society organisations’ involvement in the reporting, monitoring, and, national/sectoral assessments.

Through UNDP’s ecently launched UPR Follow-up Facility (UFF), we will provide assistance to these partners to build their capacity in partnership with other international organisations (i.e. OHCHR). This will entail, among others, regional or sub-regional training for government agencies (as well as for civil society) in developing their respective reports.

UPR represents more than a cyclical international obligation: it is a nationally-owned human rights agenda. The review process has the potential to develop into a mechanism that brings sustainable improvements in peoples’ lives across different sectors of society (i.e., persons with disabilities, people living with HIV, minorities, socially excluded groups, marginalised communities etc.).

You are, therefore, most welcome to join us. If you have any idea (new or old!) how we can make this a reality through meaningful change, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Paving the way for democracy: My days with the Afghan Parliament

On a bright, sunny day in June 2005, I arrived in Kabul to help establish the legal framework for the Afghan Parliament that did not yet exist. I was at that time the only adviser for the newly launched UNDP initiative called Support to the Establishment of the Afghan Legislature, or SEAL. SEAL is like any other traditional UNDP parliamentary support programme, except that its mandate was to establish a brand new parliament for Afghanistan.

Afghanistan’s decade of parliamentary experience (during the so-called constitutional period) was brought to an end by the 1973 coup. During the thirty years of crisis and armed conflict which followed, all expertise in this field was largely scattered until there was no one left in the country with parliamentary experience. In the absence of any representative legislative organ, government executives, influenced by internal and external factors, dominated the governance of Afghanistan. The fabric of ‘checks and balances’ among the three principal organs of the country was largely destroyed, and the new constitutional democratic institution did not come into being until December 2005.

Against this backdrop, I started working with the Legislative Drafting/Parliamentary Affairs Department as interim Project Manager. One of the most daunting tasks I had to accomplish immediately upon arrival was the finalisation of the draft Rules of Procedure for the Afghan National Assembly. It was quite a memorable experience. Holed up inside the secretariat for weeks on end with the key parliamentary staff, we sifted through the often conflicting good practices suggested by parliamentary experts based on different parliamentary models (British, American, French, German, Indian and more), trying to come up with an Afghan solution. It is heartening to note that the Rules of Procedure have since been approved by both the houses with modifications.

Another memorable assignment was in supporting the Parliament administration in drafting its Staff Regulations, which exposed me to the fledgling Afghan civil service and its specialized segment, the parliamentary staff. The proposed Staff Regulations have been accepted in principle. Now it is up to the political leadership to shape the administration to the best interest of an efficient and effective parliamentary civil service without sacrificing staff continuity. I also ended up supporting the process of drafting the all-important security regulations, a work in progress subject to the confirmation of the political leadership.

The culture of knowledge management and codification at workplace is in its infancy here. To strengthen this dimension, SEAL organized a three-day national seminar on the subject for over 350 parliamentary staffers. Staff presented their experiences, and identified good practices and lessons learned during study tours and attachments with the parliaments of India, Italy, Sri Lanka, France, Denmark, Morocco, Turkey, Germany, and Indonesia. This proved to be an excellent way of allowing those who had not attended the study tours to learn from their colleagues – especially important in a society where traditions of learning are essentially oral and not necessarily written.

Despite the need for strong legislatures, many legislatures across the world are overwhelmingly dominated by the executive branch. This problem is especially prevalent in emerging democracies like Afghanistan. To address this concern and facilitate mutual cooperation between the two branches, we coordinated an international conference on effective legislative-executive relations. We were deeply impressed with the eagerness of the Afghan Senators and members of the executive to find a workable balance of power.

Finally, a code of conduct for both staffers and parliamentarians is critical to ensure workplace ethics and professional integrity, which will in turn build public confidence in the newest organ of the state, the National Assembly of Afghanistan. But establishing such a code may be easier said than done. Some staffers wanted to know why Afghans need a “code of conduct” at all when they have the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Quran, and the messages of the Prophet Hadith. As a Muslim, I had some success in convincing them that a “code of conduct” is not necessarily a prescription for a way of life, but rather a way of determining the propriety of workplace behavior based on organizational culture and mandate. In my last weeks, I worked with a small group of talented officials of both houses to draft a coherent code of conduct; but finalizing and implementing it will take time. Changing the infrastructure of a parliament is one thing; influencing a culture is quite another.

From the security guards and cleaners to the administrative staff, national officers, technical advisers and project management, the SEAL Project is a wonderful team of committed individuals. My days in Afghanistan have been truly remarkable because of their presence, warmth and friendship. Without question, teamwork has been a key ingredient in the project’s success.

Democracy is a continuous journey. Fortunately, the journey toward positive change has begun in Afghanistan, as the ongoing parliamentary processes of cabinet reconfirmation and budget approval attest. This is why, one year after arriving with untested aspirations, I leave Afghanistan with a ray of optimism. It has been a great privilege to be part of this historic pilgrimage.

Goodbye Afghanistan, and goodbye the Afghan National Assembly. See you in …?

Source:  UNDP Bulletin: My Two Cents (originally published in May 2006)

The author, a legal and human rights specialist, was the Legislative Adviser for the Afghan National Assembly. Prior to Afghanistan, he initiated the first-ever police reform/human security programme in Bangladesh.

Accountability 2.0

Let me briefly share with you some of my thoughts which I jotted down while attending a very interesting session on ‘Accountability 2.0: Using Social Media in the Fight against Corruption’ at the XIII International Anti-Corruption Conference in Athens (30 October -02 November 2008).

The session discussed the trends and issues of using social media (Social media are primarily Internet- and mobile-based tools for sharing and discussing information among human beings. The term most often refers to activities that integrate technology, telecommunications and social interaction, and the construction of words, pictures, videos and audio) in the fight against corruption. Internet based social media has profoundly changed the way we engage with others in the private and public sphere. Social activists, political campaigners, NGOs, government, and business all increasingly make use of connective power of these communication tools to mobilize support, produce knowledge, deliver services, and engage with other stakeholders.

The session provided Inspiring examples (USA, Egypt, Argentina, Kenya, Russia, China, to name a few) for innovative use of social media tools for fighting corruption and fostering sustainable development. Focused on potential for collaborative knowledge generation and advocacy through social media tools, the workshop offered perspectives from leading civil society organisations (i.e., Sunlight Foundation, Transparency International) private sector experts (Open Society Institute, Wikileaks, New Technologies), and activists (International Center on Nonviolent Conflict, Global Corporate Citizenship). They demonstrated how social media is used to advance corporate social responsibility, government accountability and political integrity and, most importantly, human rights. The example of using Facebook (‘Facebook Revolution!’) in Egypt to express grievances and lodge social protest within democratic framework is truly inspiring.

For almost 3 hours, the workshop provided a platform to share practical experience with these tools with a broader governance and anti-corruption audience and inspired a discussion on how social media tools can be best appropriated for fight against corruption.Unfortunately as it happens in most of the workshops, there were limited time for ‘Q&A’ and open discussion. The deliberations confirmed my understanding that social media is rapidly changing the way social networks and political action are organized and experienced by younger generations all around the world. Fighting corruption essentially becomes collaborative and crowd-based. De-centralised action and organisational forms can be established where it is necessary. Social media can empower people that want to change things. It enables a bottom-up approach by giving voice to the people most affected. The unprecedented use of technology and social networks in the just concluded US Presidential campaign is another example of this.

The session showed a number of real potentials for us in future depending on how we can mobilise our forces around it. Knowledge partnership with private sector and civil society would be critical for widening the frontier of our ‘policy-reach’ and, lessening ‘knowledge gap’. We also need to get rid of our silo mentality: ‘knowledge does not revolve around our good practices and lessons learned only’. Engagement with civil society, think-tanks, new media, and private sector actors more aggressively is critical. Innovation is the key to harnessing the real potentials of collective knowledge creation, and sharing.