Evaluation of the Norwegian Centre for Democracy Support 2002-2009

Preface

This report, prepared at the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presents the evaluation of one of the more controversial parts of Norwegian development cooperation, the institutions and arrangements for channelling support to political parties in partner countries. After very critical press reports about a year ago, and the subsequent closing of the Norwegian Centre for Democracy Support (NDS) by the Minister of Environment and Development, it comes as no surprise that the overall conclusions on the arrangements are negative. In fact, the main purpose of the evaluation has been to draw lessons from activities and programmes, including experience of programmes with similar purpose in other countries.

Still, the findings are not very encouraging. The evaluators find few indications that NDS has had major lasting impact on partner organisations in promoting democracy. This does not prevent the report from presenting programmes that have actually achieved quite a lot, for instance with benefits for a thousand party workers in Nepal or even rebirth of a vibrant women’s organisation in Kenya that the team characterises as impressive. And it should be added that to identify lasting effects of such activities is quite ambitious.

Most damning is the report about the institutional model and the party assistance arrangements. The Centre never functioned as an arena for collective learning and exchange of experience, as was the intention. The decision-making structure – built on an unwanted compromise – had major weaknesses, with obvious danger of conflicts of interest. The secretariat was not given the necessary authority. The story of the failure of NDS is, according to the report, the story of the political parties becoming “gradually isolated from the influence of other stakeholders”, some representatives taking pride in not being part of the development community.

The evaluation is not an audit report. But still a comfort is that the team has not been made aware of instances of misuse of funds or extravagant spending by Norwegian party representatives in connection with NDS projects. According to the report the issue has more been the failure to engage systematically with discussions about the uses of the democratic competency of Norwegian parties than any misuse of public funds by politicians for travels to tropical locations.

The report sums up experience from other countries’ with similar objectives, and presents a number of ideas and suggestions for a new arrangement to foster cooperation between Norwegian political parties and parties in the South. Whichever model is chosen, one thing is certain: this report cries out for clarity in responsibilities and for professionalism.

Asbjørn Eidhammer

Director of Evaluation