United Nations Development ProgrammeRegional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean

K nowledge Shar ing Ser ies

Revaluing politicsto strengthen democracy Political Analysis and Prospective Scenarios Project: PAPEP

This publication is the result of joint efforts of the UNDP Offices in El

Salvador, Mexico, Nicaragua and Brazil, the Practice Areas in Crisis

Prevention and Recovery, and Democratic Governance, and the

Knowledge Management Unit of the UNDP Regional Center for Latin

America and the Caribbean. It is the culmination of a participatory

process conducted in the “Knowledge Sharing” Workshop, which was

held in Panama City on 15 August 2009, and which was attended by

expert professors, country offices, students and experts of the Center’s

work areas and of the Virtual School.

Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy

Political Analysis and Prospective Scenarios Project: PAPEP

Knowledge Sharing Series

Vol. II,

ISBN 978-9962-663-05-8

Translate: Peter Robertson y Sofie Van Renterghem.

Design and layout: Miguel Nova

Cover picture: Jon Alex

November 2009

Note: The opinions expressed in this document are not necessarily

those of the United Nations Development Programme, its Board or its

member states.

Index

1 Enough reinventing the wheel

Experience travels, crosses borders and adds value to programs 5

2. Regional Context 7

3. The PAPEP

Revaluing politics to strengthen democracy 9

3.1. The PAPEP objective: Revaluing politics 9

3.2. The PAPEP network for a strategic political dialogue 10

3.3. The PAPEP studies 11

4. Strategic political analysis from the PAPEP 15

4.1. What sets the PAPEP apart: Objectives, Support and Impact 15

4.2. The PAPEP approach 16

4.2.1 Active Neutrality 16

4.2.2. Politics are important 17

4.2.3. The stakeholders’ view 17

4.3. The PAPEP Methodology 18

4.3.1. Design 18

4.3.2. Data collection 18

4.3.3. Analysis 19

4.3.4. Devolution 20

4.3.5. The PAPEP process 20

5. Activation of a PAPEP 23

5.1. Why activate a PAPEP? 23

5.2. PAPEP implementation phases 24

5.3. The PAPEP network in December 2009 27

6. Challenges 29

7. Recommendations 31

5

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

1The UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean supports

systematization and documentation of the knowledge acquired by the countries

from the region. As is known, every country performs a significant amount of work

of a high quality and deep impact. Moreover, the different countries have great

expectations regarding mechanisms for sharing, both internally and externally,

knowledge, questions and sustainable successes. Well, we have undertaken the

task of “Sharing Knowledge” guided by the following basic concept: many of our

experiences may be useful for others in the region. Experience can travel, cross

borders and add value to the work of others.

This series of publications is the channel chosen for this purpose. Obviously, it is the

result of joint efforts that included the development of a methodology to facilitate

the systematization and exchange of knowledge. The initiative has involved

colleagues from National and Local Governments, UNDP Country Offices, thematic

experts, and the thematic teams of the UNDP Regional Center for Latin America and

the Caribbean.

Only the tip of the iceberg is visible. In this case, the publications are but one

part of the “Knowledge Sharing” exercise. They are a summarized presentation of

programming options and the relevant aspects of each experience. They provide

us with a summarized overview of “how the program was made and how to make

it”. Thanks to the participation of various colleagues, all of whom with a lot of

experience in their respective fields of work, each publication is complemented

with a rich and detailed amount of documentation online (project documents,

evaluations, reports, relevant data etc.). These tools contribute to the transfer, re-

creation and adaptation - reality often challenges us – of the systematized program.

Experience travels, crosses borders and adds value to programs

Enough reinventing the wheel

6

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

Count on us to take better advantage of this proposal. Our team is at your disposal

so that, once the field particularities have been identified, multiple facets of the

knowledge can be deepened and deployed which, at the service of your objectives,

will reduce the costs of learning, research and development and allow you to

concretize key solutions and programs.

We appreciate the cooperation for producing “Knowledge Sharing”. Your comments

and suggestions will help us provide better services.

Team of the UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean

Panama and Port of Spain

09 October

7

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

2Regional Context

Latin America is in a situation which from a general perspective we can define as a

search full of conflict for new consensuses. Following three decades of settlement

of the electoral democracy, the region seems to have entered an ill-defined period

with a search for changes or reforms. Obviously, there are enormous differences

between the countries, but in almost all of them there is a demand for change in the

political, economic, social or even in the cultural and ethnical spheres. Regardless

of economic development, the new generations of Latin Americans wonder if the

model of the state, of society and of the economy could be different, if it is possible

to fight insecurity and crime more effectively, if the public institutions are too fragile

and the law states incomplete or discriminatory, if regional integration should follow

another course, and if the representativeness, effectiveness and legitimateness of

democracy require improvements.

From a macroeconomic perspective, in general most countries of the region are

much better prepared than in the 1980s to face problems or crises, with monetary

discipline, inflation control, and central banks that are supervised but not managed

by the successive governments. However, what we see and foresee is a worsening

of the economy, a loss of employment and high social costs. In institutional (Rule

of Law and public sector) and political-sociocultural (representativeness of the

political institutions, social cohesion, citizenship, national consensuses) terms,

possibly the picture is even more complex; here, the task ahead is to find a new

consensus, a common denominator of reform or change oriented policies, based

on respect for and active defense of the rule of law and the freedoms of liberal

democracy, which, as is clear from one of the latest Latin Barometers, stand out

in Latin Americans’ appreciation, but with the ambitions and actions of social and

participatory democracy, and the equal opportunities which citizens demand.

8

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

This democratization of democracy involves active participation of the citizens in

political processes, processes regarding public policy choices and accountability,

renewal of the language and of the representatives in the political arena, and in

processes regarding generational and social-cultural changes. That is the great

challenge the region faces today.

This document is an instrument to find out what the elites and citizens are thinking,

and to find the meeting points and basis for new consensuses.

9

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

3.1. The PAPEP objective: Revaluing politics

At the onset of the 21st century, Latin America is going through a time of crisis and

change. The region is on the threshold of a new historical cycle, after the transition

from authoritarianism to democracy and depletion of the structural reforms

encouraged under the Washington Consensus. To a large extent, the way in which

progress is made in strengthening of the political institutions and in solving equity

issues will determine the possibilities of this turning moment becoming a path of

renewal for democracy and development.

The recurring political crises in countries of the region point to two common

patterns. On the one hand, politics are unable to satisfy citizen demands and, in this

sense, we are faced with a deficit in democratic governance that can be corrected

only with more and better politics: which “[…] embodies the options, groups

wills and creates power. These are three absolutely necessary conditions for the

development of democracy” (PRODAL 2004: 177). On the other hand, the political

players will not be able to solve the political-institutional problems, except if they

are able to manage the problems of society, particularly the ones related to the

deepening of social inequalities and the increase of poverty and human insecurity.

For the Political Analysis and Prospective Scenarios Project (PAPEP), the principal

challenge of democracy is to increase the political system’s response capacity in

order to satisfy citizen demands, needs and expectations. And this should happen

in national contexts marked by different institutional weaknesses, high indices of

social conflict, more or less high degrees of political polarization and economies

that are highly vulnerable to changes in the external context. In other words, the

PAPEP intends to contribute to strengthening democracy from politics.

3 Revaluing politics to strengthen democracyThe PAPEP

10

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

The PAPEP operates in a strategic dimension, providing tools for navigation in

turbulent waters, and building capacity in strategic political analysis in different

development stakeholders. Decision-makers need a better, more realistic, plural

and objective understanding of ongoing political processes in order to formulate

viable strategies, programs and projects. The strategic political dialogue offered

by the project makes it possible for the democratic institutions to approach citizen

demands.

On the one hand, the idea is to reconstitute some idea of a future regarding the

challenges of democratic deepening in the region, admitting that there is more

than one way and that societies produce different competing and interrelated

political options. On the other hand, from this perspective, the project seeks to

provide elements of analysis leading to a recovery of politics, both in terms of its

ability to multiply spaces for discussion, dialogue and consensus-building and in

terms of its ability to conceive and articulate citizen-centered public policies.

3.2. The PAPEP network for a strategic political dialogue

The PAPEP has managed to become a high-level knowledge network for a strategic

political dialogue in Latin America.

The network is specialized in the production and discussion of prospective political

diagnostics, political analyses and debates of strategic issues on public agendas,

and capacity-building for prospective political analysis. The PAPEP network sails

in different waters: It moves between the production of substantive knowledge

(applied research) and political decision-making (the political system), between the

strategic challenges of national political processes and regional macro trends, and

between political situational analyses and political prospects in the short/medium

term.

The PAPEP network has developed a conceptual framework and a methodological

toolkit, which are common to all PAPEP studies but the implementation of which

is flexible and adaptable to the national partners’ needs and to the particular

conditions of the national contexts in which they are applied.

The network has a group of experts (renowned consultants, academicians and

politicians) who do not only know and manage the tools developed by the project

for strategic political analysis, but who have contributed to the development

thereof. These experts come from different backgrounds in the fields of research and

national and regional dialogues, but they share this intentional effort of building

capacity in strategic political analysis through virtual courses (FLACSO/Argentina,

11

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

Escuela Virtual de Desarrollo Humano/Colombia) and presential training workshops

(IAEN/Ecuador, CESU/Bolivia).

The PAPEP network feeds on concrete results in the field of high-level strategic

political dialogues, such as the ones mentioned below:

Strengthen political dialogue and/or negotiation spaces in different national

contexts. The PAPEP has supported and/or guided political dialogue processes in

Bolivia (2001, 2008) and Honduras (2002). It has also multiplied rapprochements with

strategic stakeholders in those countries when it was clear that, in the absence of a

political agreement, the circumstances could only worsen (Bolivia, 2003 and 2007;

Honduras, 2009). Two examples of successful but scarcely visible rapprochements:

the agreement in Congress that paved the way for the presidential elections of 2005

in Bolivia, or on the eve of the municipal and presidential elections in El Salvador in

2009.

Draw attention to issues that are considered to be strategic and build action capacity

in the different spaces where public policies are formulated and implemented. From

concrete support to rethink the strategic challenges of the educational reform in

Panama (2008) or to guide the action of electoral bodies in Bolivia (2008) and Haiti

(2009), to more sustained political dialogue and research processes: In Honduras

(2008) regarding the challenges of the energy crisis, in Paraguay (2009) regarding

the perspectives of the State reform, and in Bolivia (2008/2009) regarding the

process of departmental and municipal autonomies.

Position the UNS. The PAPEP studies orient strategic positioning of the United

Nations System, and of its project portfolio.

3.3 The PAPEP studies

The PAPEP studies can be grouped in four different types, which are however

strongly intertwined. They should not be viewed as isolated outputs, but as part of

the strategic political dialogue process.

12

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

Type Output Description Example

Reports and

analyses

on political

processes to

interact with key

stakeholders

National/

subnational

case studies

Medium-term focus.

They address the topics and

macro sociopolitical processes

that define the perspectives of

the “democratic agendas”.

They include an analysis of

structural characteristics of the

context and of the stakeholders’

perceptions,

interests y demands.

Significant information gathering

(essays, public opinion surveys,

interviews with leaders,

workshops).

Honduras (2006): Assessment of possible

scenarios, with a view to year 2009, examining

the principal political, economic and social

trends of the country

(How to get Honduras out of the “risk zone”?).

El Salvador (2008 – 2009): Analysis of viability of

a “new political direction” before and after the

national election in March 2009.

Panama: Medium-term socioeconomic

scenarios

(2006) and prospective study on post-election

governance (2009).

Political

situation

reports

An instrument to propose

short-term alternatives to

governments and stakeholders.

Brief development process that,

to a certain extent, leaves aside

structural analyses. Focus on

the configuration of forces and

internal political factors of the

country/region, alignment of the

stakeholders, the key topics of

public agendas, ongoing social

processes and other relevant

topics.

Bolivia (2003): Presentation of the country’s

political-economic situation; recommendation

of policies to contribute to the creation of new

political and economic options in the short

term.

Peru (2004): Assessment of the possibilities of

democratic consolidation in a scenario rated as

“progressive deterioration”, “blockage”, “chronic

stagnation” or “low-intensity equilibrium”.

Nicaragua (2007): Assessment of the situation

of the country and perspectives after the first

months of the Sandinista government.

Flash reports in

crisis situations

Rapid reports that are presented directly to the stakeholders. The primary source of information is omnibus public opinion surveys and consultations with leaders. The objective is to show the “state of affairs” to decision-makers so as to provide the elements needed to identify a way out.

Bolivia (2006): Flash consultation among high-level national leaders and elites on possible arrangements regarding distribution of the Hydrocarbons Tax and the Dignidad Retirement Pension (Ministry of the Presidency).Bolivia (2008): Flash consultation among high-level national leaders and elites on possible solutions for blocking of the Constituent Assembly as regards the issue of defining the capital city (Multiparty Commission chaired by the Vice-president of the Republic).Honduras (2009): Flash consultation among high-level national leaders and elites on the possibility of including a referendum for installation of a Constituent Assembly within the framework of the general elections.

13

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

Type Output Description Example

Reports and

analyses on

strategic topics

of the public

agenda in order

to formulate

ecommendations

Political

evaluation of

strategic public

policies

Contains a diagnostic of the

conditions of governance, the

degree of social and political-

institutional tension, the map of

political players and of interest

groups, including factual powers.

The objective is to analyze who

wins and who loses with the

programming of certain policies

and, first of all, to define the

political viability thereof.

Honduras (2007): Prospective political study on

energy and governance.

Political

evaluation of

development

programs and

projects

Evaluates the “political impact” –

beyond technical and procedural

aspects – of the development

projects.

Case study: Bolivia (2008)

Interviews with development practitioners in

Peru and Ecuador (2008)

Institutional

charts

Identifies the fundamental

phases in public policymaking

through the use of empirical

instruments for measurement

and analysis.

From an operational perspective,

it is an instrument that

standardizes the policymaking

process, identifying for each

phase the crucial dimension and

the type of decisions which must

be taken.

Panama, Ministry of Education (2008):

Assessment of the political context and

conditions to make progress in proposals to

change or improve the educational system.

Paraguay, Ministry of the Civil Service

(2008 – 2009): Proposal of a critical path

for achieving the objectives of the Public

Administration Reform

Bolivia, Presidency of the Republic (March

to July 2005): Recommendations of political

actions to strengthen

governance towards the general election in

December 2005.

14

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

Type Output Description Example

Regional

observatory

Studies on the

view of Latin

American elites

Objectives: a) Produce

systematized information on

democratic governance trends

and future scenarios in Latin

America, identifying the principal

challenges; b) Generate debates

for encouraging strategies aimed

at strengthening an integrated

democratic governance, by

means of devolution processes

with relevant stakeholders of the

region.

“A compass for democracy. Contributions for a

Governance Agenda”

Governance Working Paper 1: “Citizenship and

Human Development”

Governance Working Paper 2: “Political

Scenarios in Latin America”

Monitoring and

Early Warning

System for

Governance

Crises

Analyzes the dynamic of

governance crises in Latin

America. The objective is early

identification of the signs

of worsening governance

conditions in order to develop

actions to prevent the arrival of

unwanted scenarios.

Capacity-building Virtual training

courses

Capacity-building and

knowledge transfer in a virtual

manner for professionals and

public servants (regional scope).

Postgraduate Course in Governance and

Prospective Scenario Building

(FLACSO Argentina)

Course on Tools for Political Action (UNDP

Virtual School, Colombia)

Presential

training courses

Capacity-building and

knowledge transfer in a virtual

manner for professionals and

public servants (regional scope).

Postgraduate Course in Governance and

Prospective Scenario Building

(FLACSO Argentina)

Course on Tools for Political Action (UNDP

Virtual School, Colombia)

15

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

4 Strategic political analysis from the PAPEP

4.1. What sets the PAPEP apart:Objectives, Support and Impact

The PAPEP is different from other political analysis teams because of its objectives,

its support and its impact. For these three reasons, both internal and external

players need and demand the strategic political analysis offered by the PAPEP.

Objectives: As regards their objectives, the PAPEPs are unique. The devolution of a

PAPEP project includes stakeholders in a relation of rivalry or competition. Normally,

consultancies give advice to one specific stakeholder in order to strengthen him

in relation to his rivals and competitors. The objective of the PAPEPs is not to

strengthen one competitor against his rivals, but rather to improve the capacity for

strategic political analysis of all stakeholders aimed at strengthening democratic

governance.

Support: This type of analysis requires the application of instruments and

consultations developed on the basis of mutual trust and credibility which only the

UNDP institutional backing can offer. Probably, in Latin America the UNDP is one of

the few institutions able to attain this goal, since:

• it has the required technical skills;

• over the years it has developed a reputation of confidence and transparency and

a close working relationship with governments and with the principal civil society

stakeholders;

• it has had some direct practical experiences of this type that are useful precedents

for successfully promoting the project.

16

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

Impact: The successful PAPEPs give rise to various types of impact.

• Less voluntarism. Its analytical approaches and successes contribute to fight

against the crudest forms of political voluntarism and to facilitate development of

a culture of political and policy debates.

• Reasonable and lasting decisions. The PAPEPs strengthen a more plural and

democratic style of debate which in the end favors the collective building of

reasonable decisions that are stable over time.

• More relational capital. The PAPEPs strengthen the image of the institution

developing them, giving it a voice and generating very valuable “relational”

capital in relation to the international donor community and others.

4.2. The PAPEP approach

The strategic dialogue of the PAPEP with governments and development actors is

conducted with an agenda that starts from an own approach, which is characterized

by active neutrality, the importance of politics and the stakeholders’ view.

4.2.1 Active Neutrality

“Active neutrality” is the core of the PAPEP approach and includes the following

“principles”:

The PAPEP assumes that there is a diversity of political “options” in response to

different ideological currents. The PAPEPs are neutral in relation to these ideological

signs insofar as their objective is the defense of democracy.

The PAPEP pursues a clearly defined goal: strengthening democratic governance.

From a methodological perspective, the PAPEP does not take sides for any of the

political, social or economic actors, but all of them, without exception, are an

integrated part of its analysis. Thus, the PAPEP ensures an overall view that is the

basis for the strength of its analysis and prospective scenarios.

PAPEP outputs are translated into actions at the time they become tools for

deliberation and encourage a dialogue among the different stakeholders. That is,

a dialogue focusing on the paths or conditions needed to bring the governance

processes nearer the best possible scenario.

17

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

4.2.2. Politics are important

The PAPEP considers that there are three, strictly political, elements that are essential

to increase the possibility of success of a public policy or of an institutional design:

• Agreements: The capacity to generate political agreements regarding the need for

an institutional change has at least the same impact on viability of the initiative as

the intrinsic quality of the design itself.

• Implementation: The process for installation of an institutional solution (its

capacity to generate positive incentives, to offer alternatives to the “losers”, to

neutralize the risks of delegitimization) is as important as the technical quality of

the solution designed

• Timing: Time management in the process for introducing changes (and particularly

the way in which the tension between short-term costs and medium and long-

term benefits is managed) is of the essence to ensure viability of any institutional

change process.

4.2.3. The stakeholders’ view

The population. Since democratic governance supposes a balance between citizen

demands and preferences and the governors’ response capacity, knowledge of the

population’s preferences, beliefs and perspectives is an indispensable element in

the prospective scenario building process to strengthen democratic governance.

The elites. The voice of the leaders (or elites) is essential, and as the horizon of

political analysis and the attention concentrate on the short and medium terms, the

ideas and behavior of this group become even more important. The political elites

are crucial in shaping policies. The demands and pressure of voters and citizens mark

the major directions, but the strategies and details of the policies are defined by the

leaders, whose role is to shape those different demands and pressures, acting as

the representatives of different sectors, negotiating with one another with varying

degrees of polarization and conflict.

Perceptions and interests. It is critically important to have knowledge of the

perceptions (the most widespread fears and distrust, the image of other stakeholders,

the way in which the preferences are organized) and of strategic interests in order

to identify risks of blockage and possible points of support to be taken advantage

of. The PAPEPs consider that it is fundamental to develop a consultation among a

representative sample of the whole national political spectrum, of civil society, of

economic and religious sectors etc.

18

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

Inputs for agreements. It is necessary to generate spaces in which the different

actors can exchange arguments and proposals so as to reach agreements or process

disagreements. This exchange is possible only within a framework of the mutual

recognition of identities, perceptions and interests. The PAPEP projects generate

inputs to facilitate this process.

4.3. The PAPEP Methodology

The PAPEP studies start with a specific demand. Once the question is defined,

a PAPEP study consists of four phases: design, data collection, analysis and

devolution. The PAPEPs have a theoretical-methodological perspective that

consists of analyzing potential interactions among actors, based on knowledge of

their interests, preferences and capacities, and at the same time an understanding

of the structure limiting these interactions, if any.

4.3.1. Design

In this phase, the topics around which the work will be centered are defined, as well

as the stakeholders that will be consulted and the instruments to be used. These

definitions depend on the specific project objectives and the resources available

for implementation.

4.3.2. Data collection

This is the fieldwork phase that focuses on collecting information. Using different

instruments (surveys, focus groups, interviews with elites), information is collected

on the stakeholders’ perceptions and interests and studies are made on the political,

economic and social context. The principal instruments of the toolkit used in this

phase are:

The voice of leaders: Data collection on perceptions, preferences and interests.

The voice of citizens: Data collection on the population’s perceptions and demands

using quantitative techniques (opinion surveys) and/or qualitative techniques

(focus groups).

Expert knowledge: A review of existing studies on the economic, social and political

context by means of a series of positional papers prepared by national experts.

19

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

4.3.3. Analysis

In this phase, an assessment is made of the probable trajectories of the different

stakeholders in the short and medium terms. Based on the collected information,

perceptions and opinions, the probability of factors of blockage or conflict (and of

consensus) is identified. The segments of the political debate are characterized and,

therein, the ones with more destabilizing (and stabilizing) potential for the political

system.

The PAPEP analysis is different because of its prospective perspective or approach,

which implies an exercise for visualizing the effects and future options of the

decisions made at the present time. This is the basis to point to trends and key

events that could lead to, expected or unexpected, variations of recent history. In

this phase, three instruments of the toolbox are used:

The prospective workshop: These workshops generate a discussion process based

on the collected information. The workshop participants are experts linked to the

PAPEP (particularly researchers and consultants, personnel of the United Nations

System). The information is decanted until obtaining the principal structural trends,

the critical change variables and the possible factors of rupture. This workshop

generates the material for building the future scenarios.

Scenario Building: Scenarios are possible future images that summarize specific

(and different) trajectories of events and evolutions in the stakeholders’ strategies.

Each scenario normally describes a specific interaction of critical events or variables

that have evolved in a certain way over time.

The validation workshop: Academicians, researchers and some public servants hold

an integrated discussion on the critical variables in the stakeholders’ strategies that

lead to each scenario. The objective is to validate, from a technical and political

point of view, the conceptual output of the research, i.e. the scenarios.

4.3.4. Devolution

The principal conceptual output of the PAPEP is the set of scenarios resulting from

the analysis process and the principal product for the political dialogue is the

devolution. The purposes of this phase are:

To share the conceptual results of the PAPEPs (the scenarios) with relevant national

stakeholders, the United Nations System and the international donor community.

20

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

To involve stakeholders in the change process based on the development of a

medium and long term vision. This involves encouraging a debate with these

stakeholders on national priorities, the changes of direction required for bringing

the country nearer to the desired scenarios and the factors that help to avoid

undesirable scenarios.

To actively promote institutional strengthening, democratic consolidation and

human development.

This phase uses the “devolution tables”, as the tool by excellence for political

advocacy. Through the tables, it is possible to:

• Increase knowledge by helping to show what futures could be possible, and how

and why they could happen.

• Generate innovations and new decisions based on fresh interpretations of the

complexity of certain problems or situations.

• Rediscuss decisions or orientations by providing new information on the context

in which these decisions are taken.

• Identify contingent decisions by exploring what the organizations or stakeholders

should do if certain circumstances occur.

• Create conditions for the development of shared visions of the future that may

influence the behavior of organizations and individuals.

4.3.5. The PAPEP process

The phases (design, data collection, analysis and devolution) in which the research

of PAPEP studies is organized normally give rise to a linear image of the project,

starting with the demand and ending with the devolution. In fact, development

of a PAPEP project is an action research process in which the devolution generates

the need for a redefinition of topics that give rise to a new demand, from the

stakeholders, which restarts the process once again.

Throughout the process, each phase generates different outputs. The conceptual

output of the PAPEP is the prospective scenarios; the devolution tables produce

political advocacy and, in a parallel manner, the PAPEP generates different types of

studies in response to the strategic political dialogue style it promotes

21

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

Demand(Re)definition of Topics

Resource Allocation

Creation of the Work Team

DevolutionDevolution tables

AnalysisProspective Workshops

Scenario Building

Validation workshops

DesignToolkit

Data collectionThe voice of leaders

The voice of citizens

Expert knowledge

23

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

5Activation of a PAPEP

5.1. Why activate a PAPEP?

Results of a survey conducted in November 2008 in 10 UNDP field offices show

that in Latin America, the PAPEP projects are highly visible among UNDP officers. In

particular, people value the substantive quality of the analyses and the advantages

of a neutral but proactive positioning in relation to the political decision-making

system. The PAPEP studies are perceived as an adequate tool to influence political

processes through the interaction with governments and key political players, and

as useful and definitively important tools for the UNDP activities in the countries of

the region.

The PAPEP project is activated with the demand of both “internal” (the government,

political parties, State institutions) and “external” (the United Nations System, the

international donor community) stakeholders and responds to at least three types

of needs:

• Have keys to interpret the orientation and evolution of complex national or local

political processes in frameworks in which political uncertainty is a central factor

in the short or medium term.

• Build a political interpretation that underpins formulation of a certain public

policy and of a critical path to support its implementation.

• Set up a high-level political dialogue network with the principal development

actors on the most relevant topics of the national agendas

The PAPEP project deploys its full potential as it moves from the development and

discussion of concrete studies to the creation of small units for strategic political

analysis with permanent capacity to produce information and a political dialogue.

24

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

The research conducted by these teams will be action-oriented, and in this sense

pragmatic, concrete and with a sense of opportunity and management of political

times.

5.2. PAPEP implementation phases

The PAPEP strategy consists of building strategic political analysis capacity both

in states and institutions and in the UNDP national offices. The idea is to set up

strategic political analysis units in a medium term horizon. Implementation of a

PAPEP project is subject to four modalities, which are translated in four phases-

stages. In each phase, the capacity to produce substantive analyses and the capacity

for political dialogue and relations with stakeholders are densified.

PHASE 1: PAPEP missions

These are expert missions of the regional project that respond to a demand of the

resident coordinator of the United Nations System in a certain country, according to

a specific need of the national office or the interest expressed by a national partner..

• The support missions provide “concrete” support in “short times” to relatively

“sensitive” “political” topics. This is in contexts in which the PAPEP has had

prior experience (or where there are teams installed), and where it therefore

has interpretation keys and networks of experts enabling a more precise

understanding of the political context in which they are developed. By way of

The PAPEP research agenda • Research on strategic topics. Topics on which the political players have to take decisions that could lead to qualitatively

different scenarios in terms of democracy and development

• The emphasis is on strictly “political” aspects of a certain topic, including “technical” information that is relevant for

political decision-making and/or configuration of the possible scenarios

• The final output is the political dialogue. The research is sufficiently flexible so as to include changes arising in the political

debate regarding a particular topic and/or to respond to new topics within relatively short terms

• Adequate formats for decision-makers. Brief documents are produced that condense the relevant information and that

clearly show the strategic decisions that should be adopted.

25

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

example, we can mention the devolution to high-level political players of a flash

report on the fourth urn and the electoral process (Honduras, May 2009).

• The design missions seek to precisely define the needs and central interests of the

national partner, present the project potentials and collect key information on the

political context. With these elements, it is possible to draft a proposal on future

lines of work of the PAPEP in the country. Two examples: support for the design of

an integrated program for the electoral authority (Haiti, September 2009) and the

political analysis for the electoral tribunal (Mexico, October 2009).

PHASE 2: PAPEP Studies

In this phase, a PAPEP researcher who reports directly to the regional project,

generates one or various outputs that are part of a work plan agreed with the

institutional partner and with the UNDP office at the national level. In general, this

work plan is included in a project promoted or carried out by the UNDP national

office; it covers a six to 12-month period and its financing scheme can include seed

resources of the regional project. A national case study (medium-term scenario

building) is very important for another type of PAPEP outputs.

For implementing the work plan, the PAPEP researcher needs the following support:

• In the UNDP national office: A program assistant, with responsibility for

administrative and operational support. A national program officer, with

responsibility for substantive support and formally the PAPEP focal point.

The degree of national office involvement, including of the resident representative

himself, is a critical variable to define the level and quality of the political dialogue.

• In the network of experts of the regional project: A high-level senior political

advisor, a research assistant, and experts in conducting focus groups, analyzing

public opinion surveys and coaching prospective workshops.

PHASE 3: PAPEP agendas

A researcher who reports directly to a senior program officer of the national

office (the PAPEP national coordinator) is assigned as the person responsible for

implementing a PAPEP research agenda with technical assistance from the regional

project. The activities center on: i) definition of the research agenda and the

preparation of conceptual notes for all PAPEP outputs; ii) fieldwork and analysis of

the primary information generated by the project; iii) scenario building within the

framework of prospective workshops; and centrally iv) the articulation of political

messages and the devolution process.

26

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

Establishment of the PAPEP agenda comes after generation of the PAPEP products

in a certain country insofar as: i) based on preparation of the base case study and

the devolution thereof to national stakeholders, it is possible to identify relevant

topics and partner stakeholders within the logic of defining a strategic research

agenda; ii) through the creation of a small network of experts in the country, it

is possible to identify a national researcher who knows the PAPEP research logic

and who is relatively well acquainted with the conceptual framework and the

methodological tools of the project; and iii) through involvement of the national

office, it is possible to identify the best working space for harboring the PAPEP

project (the representation, the democratic governance program, the human

development report, or even the peace and development area), and the best way

to build internal alliances in order to take advantage of the best human resources

available in the office, besides all relevant information produced by different areas

and projects.

For defining the research agenda, it is crucially important that the outputs be

articulated to the generation of concrete spaces for devolution and interaction with

governments and key stakeholders, with the formats and times of presentation

being adapted to the audience. Within the prioritized lines of research, the analyses

and reports have to respond to either a concrete demand from the political and

institutional spaces to which priority will be given or to a strategic topic likely to

generate a demand because of its strategic relevance and its sense of opportunity.

PHASE 4: PAPEP teams

The PAPEP team is a team responsible for prospective political analysis that is

coordinated by a senior national researcher who reports directly to the resident

coordinator of the United Nations System and who works as a political advisor.

The PAPEP coordination combines two core competencies: i) capacity to manage

research projects produced by the team in conjunction with a network of

consultants/experts to address the thematic agenda; and ii) capacity for a political

dialogue and advocacy on a high level.

The PAPEP projects are information “assemblers” to “produce” strategic political

analyses; therefore, it is not necessary to have a broad in-house team, but rather a

dense network of experts.

27

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

Phase Country Results Partner

PAPEP

missions

Colombia Coaching workshop UNS; Support for the

program for accompaniment of the elections

2010/2011

UNS Colombia;

UNDP Colombia /

Governance

Guatemala Training workshops in prospective political

analysis for the Presidency.

UNS Colombia;

UNDP Colombia /

Governance

Haiti Design of an integrated program in support

of the permanent election council for the

electoral cycle in 2010.

UNDP/Haiti

USAID

CIDA

CEP/Haiti

PAPEP

studies

Ecuador Capacity-building in strategic political analysis

for public servants.

SENPLADES

IAEN/CEPROEC

UNDP/Ecuador

Mexico Citizenship, democratic institutions and

governance in Mexico.

DGTTF/BDP

TRIFE/Mexico

UNDP/Mexico

Paraguay Short and medium term political scenarios

and navigation chart for the State reform in

Paraguay.

Ministry of the Public Service/Paraguay

UNDP/Paraguay

JICA/Paraguay

PAPEP

agendas

Honduras Short and medium term political scenarios;

sectoral studies on public policies; study on

the political reform.

UNDP Honduras/

Governance

Political Parties

Nicaragua Medium-term political scenarios; prospective

workshops UNS.

UNDP Nicaragua

Panama Short and medium term political scenarios;

Study on the electoral reform.

UNDP Panama /

Governance

El Salvador Medium-term political scenarios: the

necessary agreements

UNDP El Salvador /

Governance

UCA, Fundaungo,

FLACSO

The PAPEP network in December 2009

Phase Country Results Partner

PAPEP

teams

Bolivia Documents on the political situation and

scenario building. Support for dialogue

processes. Support for the Ministry of

Autonomies; political assessment of

development projects.

UNDP/UNS Bolivia

Min. of Autonomies

Min. of Public Works

Political Parties

Social Organizations

Argentina Situational documents. Political diagnostics

on the national and subnational levels (Santa

Fé and Tucumán).

UNDP/UNS Argentina

Unit of the Chief of Cabinet Governors of

Tucumán and Santa Fe

29

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

6Challenges

The PAPEP projects are different from other projects that also include original

analyses (including diagnostics and prospective scenarios) in that they are able to

contribute (analytical and procedural) inputs for political decision-making, with

the purpose of defining priorities and policymaking towards a common goal: the

consolidation of democracy. In this setting, the current challenges the program

faces are:

1. Ensure political influence. It is necessary to close the gap and imbalance between

the capacity to produce conceptual studies and actual influence in the decision-

making process. The PAPEP projects must adopt a more proactive attitude in

the interaction with key national and external political players. For closing this

gap, more and better internal coordination of the PAPEP is needed, within the

framework of the UNDP, besides an articulation with political players. Likewise, it

is fundamentally important to “stay connected” to the topics and debates which

the political stakeholders consider to be relevant.

2. How to be on time? A PAPEP is activated when a government agency or a country

office formulate the demand. For starting a PAPEP, it is necessary to consider

the timing of the research (design, data collection, analysis and devolution) and

UNDP processes (drafting of the terms of reference, recruitment, procurement).

When the PAPEP activation time is out of synch with the urgency of the political

demand, there will be a gap between programmatic timing and political timing.

For adjusting the times, it is necessary to anticipate the thematic definitions

resulting from the demand, based on a flexible political interpretation. Using the

regional network of experts is a fundamental element for addressing the demand

30

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

immediately. Detailed knowledge of the internal procedures is important to

avoid delays due to exclusively administrative reasons.

3. How to get the message across without the messenger being shot? The approach

of active neutrality characterizing the PAPEP supposes impartiality as regards

competing visions and active promotion of the democratic ideal. This could

generate short circuits with some political stakeholders. The challenge is to plan

a careful strategy to communicate the conceptual results (the scenarios). This

involves an analysis of what to say, who to say it to, when to say it and how to

say it.

If the communications strategy is neglected at the time of the devolution, the result

could be a not very favorable resistance by the stakeholders that threatens the

advocacy capacity and that may erode the UNDP’s image of impartiality.

31

Reva

luin

g po

litic

s to

str

engt

hen

dem

ocra

cy

7Recomendaciones

1. Strengthen the political dialogue: The most successful PAPEPs are those in which

the strategic political dialogue process achieved continuity. And this was possible

thanks to a careful design of the devolution phase. In each national context, there

is a different constellation of political stakeholders, with different perceptions and

interests. For this reason, it is critical to plan the devolution, taking into account

the map of political stakeholders and considering the different positions in the

political space and the degrees of openness to the dialogue. In this sense, the

devolution should not be understood as a single event for the whole political

spectrum, but as a phase with different platforms (the devolution tables)

according to the nature of the stakeholders.

2. Institutional Shelter: The national governments and the development

stakeholders recognize the UNDP’s vocation to produce substantive knowledge

to promote human development. This was achieved through the careful

implementation of different projects in the national offices. The type of

strategic political analysis produced by the PAPEP and the action research style

driving it are strengthened when the national offices offer institutional shelter

to the project. Likewise, the recommendation is to conceive the PAPEP as an

instrument to reinforce the recognition and positioning gained by the UNDP with

governments and stakeholders as a player with a strategic will for development.

Institutional shelter also means that the commitment of the UNDP office is

expressed in the allocation of own resources or resources raised from the

international donor community to facilitate the recruitment of a work team and

implementation of the project

32

Know

ledg

e Sh

arin

g Se

ries

3. Consider capacity-building: The strategic political analysis of the PAPEP has gained

prestige and has positioned itself on the regional level. It is therefore fundamental

to conceive it as a capacity-building process, both for national governments and

for the UNDP offices. We recommend that in the implementation this aspect be

not forgotten, because associating it exclusively to the generation of conceptual

outputs (for example, scenario-building) could limit the advocacy capacity and

the strategic potential of the PAPEP.