Promoting Democracy From Without: Evaluating From Within

Promoting democracy and ‘good governance’ in developing countries have become core objectives of official development agencies, both bilateral and multilateral. Three main sets of questions arise from such ‘assistance’. Analytically, what is the underlying motive in promoting political reform, and what is the assumed relationship between such measures and economic liberalisation? Contextually, are reform measures adapted to the political environment of a specific country? Pragmatically, what impact has such assistance had on democratisation processes in particular countries, intended and unintended, positive and negative? In addressing such questions, the issue of evaluation becomes crucial, but itself poses considerable challenges, with no generally accepted methodology. This paper explores evaluation methodology in this field. It notes the limitations of conventional evaluation methodology that is inwardly oriented to pre-established objectives, often at project level, and unable to capture the dynamic political context in which external efforts are embedded. Invariably such studies, generally undertaken by donor country consultants, corroborate and affirm donor efforts. Inappropriately, conventional evaluation methods seek a technical solution to a political problem. Alternatively, an evaluation methodology is proposed that entails a participatory political process. This consists of three main elements: • political context studies, providing background political analysis, undertaken by national experts; • tracing micro, meso and macro level linkages to facilitate impact evaluation; • a participatory approach, highlighting the perspectives of domestic actors and providing the key input of local knowledge and analysis of external efforts. Participatory evaluation focuses on an examination of external activities from the perspectives of domestic (national) actors, both governmental and non-governmental. It aims to critically evaluate the role of international agents and to re-assert domestic influence and control over external assistance. Advantages are claimed as two-fold. First, external activities are subject to more rigorous critique, in which the perceptions of informed domestic actors engaged in processes of democratic change are regarded as essential to judgements on the relevance, effectiveness and impact of external donor activities, with revised programmes guided by internal forces. Second, for participant evaluators, knowledge of processes of political change is enhanced, potentially strengthening local action for democratic change. Thus, the act of evaluation can become an act of democratisation.