Improving the quality of democracy and its institutions Decree 1172/03 on ‘Improving the Quality of Democracy and its Institutions’ represents an advance in terms of transparency of government contacts with powerful interest groups in Argentina. It goes part way to answering the public demand for radical change that faced President Néstor Kirchner when he took office in May 2003. But its application is patchy and it leaves important government sectors untouched. The decree was proposed by the sub-secretariat for institutional reform and strengthening democracy and by the anti-corruption office, and incorporates the recommendations of civil society organisations.2 The decree establishes the following mechanisms within the executive: highranking members of the national executive must record every meeting with lobbyists or special interest groups, providing the names of all participants at the meeting, its purpose and results; all agencies of the national executive, private organisations that receive state subsidies and privatised utilities must provide information within 10 days to any party who requests it; the official gazette must be made available in its entirety and free for posting on the Internet; an institutional space will be created to allow the public to make proposals and recommendations on all administrative rulings and draft laws submitted by the executive to congress; and the executive and bodies that regulate public services must hold public hearings and open meetings on policy changes, though the opinions that emerge are not legally binding. In terms of access to information, the decree represents a clear advance since citizens will henceforth have the right to request and receive information from organisations under the jurisdiction of the executive. The decree does not overturn previous laws restricting access to public information, however. Moreover, the NGO Poder Ciudadano has monitored compliance with the conflict of interest aspect of the
decree and found it to be variable from institution to institution. The decree has a number of other shortcomings, too. First, its jurisdiction is limited to the executive; it generates no obligations for the legislature, the judiciary or sub-national bodies. These are aspects of government that face harsh questioning for their lack of openness and poor access to information.3 Second, the regulation of a constitutional right,4 such as citizens’ access to public information, should not be limited or granted by presidential decree, but rather should be the subject of a law adopted by the legislature. A bill on access to information, currently before congress, has received initial approval by the lower house, but is likely to falter if the senate fails to pass it before the end of the 2004 parliamentary year. It is vital that the mechanisms included in the decree be applied to other areas and levels of government, such as the legislature, the judiciary and state governments, and that it be guaranteed by more robust laws – at present the decree could be modified or repealed by another presidential decree. Special attention should be paid to the problems that may arise from its implementation. It is too early to draw conclusions, but what is clear is that further steps are required if a gap is not to open between the new norms and their full implementation.
Plea bargaining: a path to truth? In December 2003, two civil servants confessed to acts of corruption and offered to help law enforcement agencies with investigations that eventually threatened to envelop government officials of the highest rank. Confessions such as theirs are rare in Argentina, though they would be more common if proper witness-protection legislation were adopted. Mario Pontaquarto, a former senate clerk, reportedly admitted to having been dispatched in April 2000 by the government
Country reports ARGENTINA
GC2005 02 chap06 97
97
13/1/05 4:33:55 pm