Enabling Environment for Social Accountability in ... - SASANet

department unchecked authority to provide or deny access to information and may, thus, arbitrarily
obstruct access to information. 43
The wide range and ambiguous content of the legal code effectively allow individual bureaucracies to
define their own rules, leading to an extensive classification of documents. During both interviews and
focus groups, CSO leaders and journalists repeatedly complained that too many government documents
are classified. In a welcome development, however, the government made a commitment in 2005 to
revoke the Law on Secrets in its Ten Steps to Intensity the Implementation of the National Program to
Combat Corruption. Unfortunately, during the study’s dissemination in February 2006 opposition leaders
called into question the government’s commitment to reforming the secrecy laws. A prominent opposition
MP indicated that “there is no talk yet of modifying [the laws on secrecy] either within the government or
among the MPs.” Another MP from a different opposition party indicated that “there might be some
struggles for (retaining) the secrecy laws.” When a representative of the Ministry of Justice and Home
Affairs was asked to comment; he responded that this was not within their preview but the responsibility
of the State Intelligence Agency.
Poor accessibility of information characterizes the Mongolian legislative process as well (Finding 3.3.2).
During an interview in February 2005, an MP cited a proposal for mandatory publicizing of all bills to be
considered in parliament at least 30 days before they are put to a vote. During this period, citizens have
the right to evaluate the bill and voice concerns. However, the provision was revised to read that bills can
be publicized; consequently very few are. The MP attributed the revision to the socialist legacy of state
secrecy but asserted that “the soil is now ready” to change this practice and other legalities that hinder
CSO civic engagement and social accountability.
Access to parliamentary deliberations is also limited, so that citizens rarely attend parliamentary sessions
and standing committee meetings. Citizens are permitted no more than 15 minutes to observe sessions of
the State Great Khural; and minutes from the sessions are not easily accessible to the public. It is
therefore difficult, if not impossible, for citizens to evaluate the performance of their representatives or
monitor the legislative process, including budget allocations.
To address this issue, The Asia Foundation (TAF) funded a project in the mid-1990s to publish multiple
copies of parliamentary debates for the public record and to deliver them to various public access
libraries. One of these depositories was the UB headquarters of Women for Social Progress, which also
gained live television access to parliamentary debates (see box 3.3.1). After TAF funding ran out, the
GoM continued to publish and distribute parliamentary deliberations, as had been previously agreed upon
with TAF, but soon stopped, citing budgetary reasons. Currently, the only copy of the minutes from
recent parliamentary debates is in the archives of the State Great Khural. The general public has a legal
right to access these archives, but many people are unaware of this or are unable to travel to UB to consult
the documents. 44
43 .A survey by Globe International (2003) reports that out of the 47 government agencies surveyed, only 32 had produced a list of
secrets; and 33, a procedure for classifying documents as secret, indicating that many agencies have not fulfilled the legal
requirements to establish their own secrecy regime. Of the agencies that are complying, 23 considered the lists and procedures,
themselves, to be secret.
44 The UNDP also allegedly attempted to undertake a project to promote public parliamentary hearings, but there was some
political resistance, so it was never implemented.