|
|
Walter Fust
|
Governance is unfortunately very often misused and negatively connoted word. It is an issue for every section of the society. Be it a government, national or local, or be it NGOs. NGOs believe that they are automatically well governed, which is not true.
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) has been a strong support for the ICT for Development sector. Its Director General, Walter Fust, in an exclusive interview with Manish Kumar of OneWorld South Asia (OWSA), shared SDCs work and thoughts on governance issues. He remarked, I am unhappy about the fact that an information society summit is merely limited to Internet governance and financing matters. It has a lot to do with the society, the future of the society and the development of the society, and it is a concern to all the nations. All nations should take advantage of this summit to discuss what future society they are looking for and not just leave it either for G-8 to pre-cook things or to an international organisation to come forward. I think it has to become a bottom up process.
What does governance mean for SDC?
Governance is unfortunately very often misused and negatively connoted word. It is an issue for every section of the society. Be it a government, national or local, or be it NGOs. NGOs believe that they are automatically well governed, which is not true. It is same for private companies and the universities.
Governance means to do the task one is entrusted with in the best possible way. So that the services or the outcomes are corresponding to the expectations of those whom they are serving.
How can ICTs enable pro-poor governance?
I am absolutely sure that ICTs can be the tool for accountability, for transparency, to transport information, and to transform information into knowledge. I do follow the international discourse on ICTs. I see that many governments in a number of countries are concerned about the potential misuse of ICTs. Thats a very important concern. But we have to try to reduce the potential of misuse by better using the potential advantages ICTs are offering. However, never ever will we be in a position to completely reduce the misuse of ICTs. Let us take an example of the knife. We all use a knife in our routine household work on a regular basis. But if we misuse it, it can lead to ugly things.
Similar is the case with ICTs. Its effect, positive or negative, would depend entirely on the way in which it is used.
What are other constraints to pro-poor governance, besides the misuse of ICTs?
There are other issues of concern with regard to pro-poor governance. The first issue is of connectivity which also includes the issue of cost of connectivity. The second issue is that of access lack of adequate technology for access, language barrier, and the cost constraints especially of the poor households. I think very often the question is put wrongly with regard to poor people. I always hear people saying that they first need nutrition. The human being needs two things to stand on its own. That is food and education. But the ICTs can serve both and that is very important.
How is governance linked to MDGs?
MDGs are important and it is vital that it is addressed to. For any nation whether industrialised, developing or in transition, it is crucial to reduce poverty by half. For this to happen you need good national frameworks, a commitment by the politicians and parliament and you need an informed population. Here again ICTs are tools to better implement MDGs; to better reach the potential to implemnet the MDGs.
Are you saying that countries lack proper framework for mainstreaming ICTs in development policy itself?
That is partly true and correct but in many countries where you have Poverty Reduction Strategy (PRS), they rank ICTs quite high. When it comes to creating policy, I would say, half of the countries have such policies. But to have a policy is one thing and to implement is yet another and then to scale up a project is an entirely different matter. I have seen many countries with wonderful e-policies on paper but it is seldom implemented at the local level.
What is the significance of Mission 2007? What can other developing countries learn from it?
I think it has been time enough that we move beyond this ever piloting approach to scaling up. This is a wonderful example of how to bring it from a national level, to a national mission, to a national concern, to a national policy and to bring all the stakeholders around one table so that each one can add value and complement each other in better reaching the overall aim. It is
important to see how this process is working with all its benefits, and also shortcomings. I think that will be of utmost importance and relevance to other countries because in large number of countries we face exactly similar issues. These countries also want to scale up the initiatives and create a national conciousness around these issues, but they do not always have the political will or ability or capability to do so. In this context, I am very confident that India will lead such a change. I consider Mission 2007 as one
of the biggest initiatives, in recent times, on social development and in particular in ICT for development.
How can Mission 2007 contribute to improving local governance?
Knowledge is power. I think when you empower people with knowledge, they will contribute more to local development. Once empowered with knowledge, they will come up with innovative ideas for local development. The local governments, knowing well that the people are enlightened, will take their proposals seriously. In that respect it is a two way street. Good governance must be two way process; it can neither be only bottom up nor only top down.
How can SDC facilitate ICT-enabled governance in South Asia?
We can support local and national initiatives. We can support the creation of a group like the International Support Group (ISG) for Mission 2007. We can convene knowledgeable people and we can give financial support. We can assist in getting the best capacities together, not just from Switzerland but from other countries as well, because this is not bound to any national board. It is more a matter of mobilising support. We can definitely promote the cause. I often hear that ICT has to be mainstreamed.
Yes certainly. But what does that mean? Many international organisations consider that ICTs have long been mainstreamed, but in reality it has not been mainstreamed in their own organisation. I think there is still a kind of connotation in the industrialised countries about ICTs. When we speak about it, they only think of Internet. But when you go to an African country people speak about telephone or access to radio. When we go to India we have the whole scope of high-tech mobile phones upto rural areas.
What lessons could South Asian countries draw from SDCs experience in Africa and Latin America?
We can only be a catalyst, a convener for bringing people together for exchanging knowledge. Thats the reason why SDC supports the Global Knowledge Partnership (GKP) because GKP is about building partnerships and sharing of knowledge. So how to create the space for sharing knowledge is one of our important subjects. We are sure that there are so many things to look into. But also a lot of local content is available in any country and to make it accessible to others is also an important objective.
I think in South-East Asia there is still a different concern about getting licences for local radio, community radio. We have seen from our experience in Africa and Latin America that local radio is an extremely powerful tool to inform people about disasters and many other things. But in many countries people or governments, especially politicians, think that local radio can become politically too powerful or can be used by the opposition parties against them. Information is power for people who have to vote. But in the long run it is benefiting all.
How relevant is the Right to Information act recently implemented by the Indian government?
It is extremely important. It is so important that India has made this deliberation. It will showcase to many other countries. India is one of the biggest countries of the world and the world is looking at the developments in India. For this we should thank the Indian leaders and Indian parliament.
Do you see a role for SDC in national e-governance strategies of South Asia?
It depends on respective governments whether they want to share knowledge or want to commonly develop certain tools. We are open for that. We are a small country with limited possibilities but our work is need based. So it depends on what our partners really want from us. So when we know what our partners want to do, then we can tell them how best we can support them. But we cannot just bring solutions.
Does governance in information society only mean Internet governance?
No, it is much more than that. I am unhappy about the fact that an information society summit is merely limited to Internet governance and financing matters. It has a lot to do with the society, the future of the society and the development of the society, and it is a concern to all of the nations. All nations should take advantage of this summit to discuss what future society they are looking for and not just leave it either for G-8 to pre-cook things or to an international organisation to come forward. I think it has to become a bottom up process.
The larger societal issues seem to be ignored in the second phase of WSIS in Tunis. What do you think?
You are very right. Unfortunately, this is happening. What is the value of information in a future society, how to convert information into knowledge, all these highly societal issues have to be discussed, and of course all these have political dimensions.
About Walter Fust He is the Director General, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, Switzerland.
|
