Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

243
The first relates to the extremely difficult political conditions within
Guatemala. Despite its substantial political access, IDEA was unable to sufficiently
capture the far right political parties and ensure their commitment
to and ownership of the democracy agenda within the timeframes of its
project. Secondly, the project strategy developed for 1999 identified five
priority areas for action, which deviated from a focussed approach for democracy
dialogue and broadened the scope of the programming to include
substantial technical assistance efforts. While the technical assistance was in
support of the implementation of the democracy agenda, the evaluators felt
that given the instability of the political climate and the lack of social cohesion
within the country, the organization would have been better served by
remaining committed to supporting the dialogue process. Stakeholders also
reported that there was a clear need for continued emphasis on stimulating
public opinion and discussion in civic and inter-cultural forums under the
guidance and support of a competent, neutral partner like IDEA.
Sustainability: While IDEA spent much of 1997 evaluating the democracy
environment in Guatemala before deciding to implement a full-fledged
capacity building programme, it does not appear to have integrated the elements
of a comprehensive stakeholder analysis as part of its phase one capacity
building assessment activities. The absence of a good stakeholder analysis
perhaps led to some early programme decisions that may not have been
in the best interests of the long-term sustainability. There are significant
questions about the degree of ownership of the stakeholder network of the
Guatemalan programme. There is little evidence to support the consolidation
of the IDEA network in support of democracy promotion and dialogue.
Its withdrawal at this stage of the Guatemala programme appears
premature. Neither the PPD nor its stakeholder network appears to have
the legitimacy or degree of consolidation needed to manage and sustain the
demands of the new programme.
Given that the network is not fully mature, the PPD may not have either
the network or the high level contacts necessary to sustain the objectives of
democracy promotion and dialogue on its own. Moreover, one of the key
obstacles for the PPD noted by the evaluators was a lack of recognition of
its work. PPD is not known as a special project, and all of its work has been
done in the name of IDEA. PPD’s calling card in Guatemala was the IDEA
hat it wore, and it is not known on its own merits. This may leave the PPD
without either a clear mandate or corporate identity.
Partnership: The partnerships which have been entered into in Guatemala,
either in terms of local participants in workshops or seminars or partners
for programme activities, have been suitable and have consistently contributed
to positive project outcomes. Stakeholder observations indicated
that IDEA experts, workshop participants, and organizers alike have supported
programme goals and objectives at all levels. Most of the partnerships
appear to be temporary, however. The organization’s relationship with