Enabling Environment for Social Accountability in ... - SASANet

it was revealed that the agency and the police were merely acting on the orders of the aimag governor
who had issued Resolution 128 on October 15, 2003, to close down the food market.
The previous month the vendors had voluntarily moved to the new location; but they claimed that they
had lost customers because of its distance from the town center. Furthermore, although the new market
was clean and “modern,” the storage facilities were inferior and thus their products spoiled within a few
days. 69 Ironically, the vendors had been asked to leave the old market because the health department had
determined that it did not meet basic health requirements. When the vendors then attempted to move back
to their old market space, the confiscations and harassments began, ending with the arrest of three of their
leaders, who were detained for a few hours and released.
The vendors approached the WSP-UV, asking for advice on their legal rights. After analyzing the
governor’s resolution, the WSP coordinator claimed that it contained legal flaws, specifically the
violation of the law on fair competition that invalidated the decree. She therefore sent a copy of the
resolution to the National Human Rights Commission. The Commission then sent out human rights
experts, who investigated the case and wrote a report indicating that there had been a violation of
constitutional provisions, specifically in relation to fair competition and the illegal confiscations.
The WSP-UV also advised the vendors of their legal right to demonstrate, which they did in front of the
aimag government house for more than three months (November 2003 to February 2004). The governor
who was running as the MPRP candidate for a seat in the State Great Khural was greatly concerned. The
official campaign did not begin until April 2004, but the market relocation became a campaign issue
when the Democratic Party candidate running in a neighboring legislative district broadcast a meeting
with angry vendors on a local television station. Given that it is the only private station in the area and
had begun broadcasting just prior to the 2004 legislative elections, the WSP coordinator emphasized the
important “balancing” role it played in relation to public television, which she claimed is controlled by
the MPRP.
The DP candidate from the neighboring district then shared the footage with a colleague in the DP party
running against the MPRP governor, rebroadcasting it in the Uvorkhangai district. In the meantime, the
vendors collected money for the leader of the local Business Women’s Association to attend a national
meeting of the Chamber of Commerce where her speech on Uvorkhangai’s vendors “stole the floor.” 70
Ultimately, the MPRP grew concerned about electoral fallout and urged the governor to rescind the order.
The governor annulled it 10 days before the election, but suffered a resounding defeat in any case. 71
Whereas the case was a decisive victory for social accountability, there were other less tangible benefits
as well. In April 2005, the WSP-UV coordinator noted that Resolution 128 had provided an opportunity
for the vendors to learn about their rights. She noted that she had been “propagating information about
human rights for years, but it was only when this concrete issue arose that people were able to understand
the relevance and importance” of what she had been saying all along. Clearly the WSP-UV played a
69 Interestingly, the new market facilities are owned by a Democratic Party politician, whereas the governor is a leader of the
MPRP. Although this belies the argument that party politics was at play, there are also rumors of “bipartisan” collusion by elites.
70 A relatively soft-spoken woman, Ms. Dolgorsuren described how she was first thwarted from being placed on the agenda by
the local chamber of commerce, which was closely allied with the MPRP governor. Then, at the last minute, she went up on
stage, took the microphone from the recognized speaker, politely excused herself and described the current conflict between the
vendors and the governor.
71 When questioned about his stance on the unpopular resolution, the head of the citizens’ representative khural in UV also
claimed that he and his fellow representatives opposed the forced relocation. Although they had the power to rescind it, they
preferred to encourage the governor to do so.