China Program Governance Workshop - April 20-21, 2004

Context

To respond to the increasing changes in Chinese society, the Chinese government is taking steps to improve democratic rule of law and consequently improving the relationship between individual Chinese and the State. As indicated in the Canadian International Development Agency's (CIDA) China Country Development Programming Framework (CDPF), the Chinese government increasingly sees rule of law as vital to retaining economic growth and social stability and is beginning to reform its legal, judicial and legislative institutions. Most recently, it has passed an amendment to the constitution and ratified a growing number of international agreements that enshrine in theory many universally acknowledged principles of good governance such as human rights protection, public consultation and the rule of law.

However, there is a widely shared feeling that these key governance concepts are far from being defined clearly, if defined at all, in the course of recent state-led political reforms. From there arises a concern that the vagueness of conceptual understanding and definition will undermine the government’s ability and resolution to enforce these theoretical changes seriously and credibly.

In recent years, CIDA programming in China has increased considerably in the area of democratic development and good governance, and cooperation with the highest institutions of China has developed successfully. In light of this rapid expansion into complex governance projects that promote exchanges on sensitive issues such as rule of law, human rights and democratic reform, there has been an increasing need for CIDA and its Canadian Executing Agencies (CEAs) to find ways to engage Chinese counterparts in the dialogue on key issues of governance and democratic development.

Sponsor and Participants

In April 2004, the Parliamentary Centre of Canada delivered a two-day workshop in Ottawa that focused on the topic of promoting dialogue in good governance projects in China. The workshop, which was funded by the CIDA China Program, brought together representatives from eight Canadian Executing Agencies (CEAs) currently involved in various governance projects with the CIDA China Program. The CEAs that were represented at the workshop included: Canadian Bar Association, Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Institute, National Judicial Institute, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform, the Human Rights and Education Centre of University of Ottawa, Canadian Learning School for Public Service (formerly Canadian Centre for Management Development), Canadian Civil Society Fund Coordinator and Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

Participants in the workshop also include members of the China Program at CIDA, a representative from the Auditor General’s Office and some outside experts and consultants.

Objectives

The general purposes of this workshop was to facilitate the sharing of experiences, lessons learnt, expertise, challenges and best practices of cross-cultural dialogues in all China-Canada Governance Projects, and to create a synergy between CEAs in their promotion of key governance issues. One central focus of the workshop was to investigate the linkage between intercultural understanding of key governance concepts, such as rule of law, human rights, public consultation, NGOs, and the achievement of practical results in governance projects. Based on the observation that clarity and coherence are often lacking in the definition of many value-based concepts essential to governance projects, the workshop sought to discuss how dialogue between project partners can strengthen conceptual clarity and understanding; thereby improving project performance.

Program Methodology

The Parliamentary Centre has been asked by CIDA's China Division to act as the organizer and chair of the workshop. Prior to the workshop, the Parliamentary Centre prepared and circulated a discussion paper that highlights some of the most common questions and issues facing CEAs working in governance in China. This issues paper served as a departure point and basis for the discussions later in the workshop.

Discussions on each day started with the Chair’s introductory remarks. The rest of the two-day workshop agenda was divided into some plenary and breakout sessions at intervals to facilitate discussions covering different interests. Nevertheless, discussions in both types of sessions were requested to closely reflect the following overall themes:

1 st Day:

• Identify and explore examples of values based governance concepts where there is potential for lack of clarity and common understanding. (For example, rule of law, human rights, public consultation, NGOs)

2 nd Day

• Describe the way individual Canadian agencies dialogue with their Chinese partners on understanding project concepts and suggest ways in which dialogue could be strengthened.
• Recommend other ways in which project design and management might be changed to encourage greater concept clarity and understanding

During breakout sessions, participants were asked to divide into two groups, namely, Legal/Judicial and Civil Society/Political, according to the different focuses that their projects represented. One person from each CEA joined the group related to his/her project and provided a brief account for his/her experience of dialogue with Chinese partners, while other representatives joined the opposite groups. For each breakout group, a chair was elected to moderate discussions along the designated themes and a rapporteur was appointed to summarize discussions and report back to plenary. The reports from all breakout groups formed the basis for the wrap-up plenary discussion of each day, which witnessed active participation of all the projects involved.

Professor William A. W. Neilson, Director of the Centre for Asia-Pacific Initiatives (CAPI), University of Victoria was invited to deliver a keynote presentation analyzing some major contextual issues confronting good governance projects in China. The workshop sessions also included a presentation delivered by Ms. Shannon Ellis, who is posted in Beijing as Coordinator for the China Civil Society Fund. Ms. Ellis concentrated her talk on the development of the Civil Society in China and introduced her fund’s experience pertaining to dialogue with Chinese partners on value-based terms.

Participant Input and Key Findings

Participants were engaged actively in discussions throughout all sessions. Closely adhering to the themes of the workshop, they identified obstacles to dialogue and shared experiences and recommendations that could potentially contribute to improving the quality of dialogue in other governance projects. In addition to becoming more convinced of the importance of understanding the context of good governance projects, they also gained a more comprehensive and in-depth perspective of the overall social and political context in China. While a few participants expressed varying opinions on whether the dialogue on key valued-based concepts should become a central focus for all governance projects, all participants generally agreed that transfer of technical know-how should be accompanied, to a greater or lesser degree, by dialogues probing into underlying governance concepts.

Some other key findings and recommendations are summarized as follows:

• Dialogue on value-based concepts is necessary and beneficial not only because it is in Canada’s interest to promote its fundamental values and ideas but also because many technical problems in governance cannot be solved without their roots being touched. Dialogue is an important way to sensitize Canadian partners in governance projects to contextual difference and prevent the failure of operations due to the mechanical transplant of technical expertise irrespective of contextual differences.
• The major risk of dialogue on value-based concepts is that it may damage the building of trust and goodwill in the partnership, particularly at the inception of the project. It is also practically difficult to carry out dialogue on key governance concepts across individual projects at the same pace, due to the lack of a strong conceptual consensus among Canadian Partners and limited financial resources allocated in that regard.
• Regarding the general pattern in which dialogue should be carried out, two alternative or, rather, complimentary views were voiced in the course of discussions. On one hand, most participants believed that dialogue should be built on and also contribute to the mutual trust and support between the interlocutors. Therefore, a dialogue process is really seen as a consensus seeking process that features enhanced mutual understanding and exchange of views with mutual respect. On the other hand, however, there is a concern that, while respect for the local context is important, fear for confrontation will make conversation, changes and even mutual understanding beyond the surface level eventually difficult. Therefore, strong advocacy of international norms is needed almost at the beginning of the process in order to dialogue with and learn about Chinese context in a more active and meaningful way.
• Discussions in the workshop witnessed the strong consensus among participants on the vitality of contextual learning to dialogue. There is a common feeling that contextual learning is essentially a mutual process, not only in the sense that Canadian and China partners should learn from each other, but also in the sense that Canadians should first learn about themselves. With significant interest, participants explored some underpinning social and cultural contexts in China that give rise to the distinct Chinese understanding of concepts like rule of law, human rights and accountability. Professor Neilson’s presentation brought a lot of scholarly perspectives in this area to the attention of attendants and inspired further discussion on how these findings could benefit the practical work of dialogue in governance projects.
• Based on their own experiences, participants recommended specific strategies, methods and tools to support a successful dialogue. Step-by-step and informal approaches to the dialogue were widely deemed useful for fostering a more friendly setting for the dialogue on value-based concepts. Strategies such as mutual learning and local champion engagement were also identified that may accelerate and enhance the dialogue process. Some models and best practices, such as engagement of local champions in the dialogue, small size of the inception mission and careful financial planning, were also shared widely among participants.
• A majority of the participants urged for more considerations for the need of dialogue in the preparation of LFA and PIP. Allocation of more resources to the inception of the project is deemed crucial to ensure adequate mutual understanding and dialogue. There were also urges for more active involvement and support of government departments throughout the dialogue process. For example, Ministry of Justice should make efforts to promote dialogue in the Judicial Linkage Project. Toward the end of the workshop, an online intranet, a listserv, newsletters and a shared field office were proposed as possible mechanisms to create some kind of synergy across all governance projects.

As a result of the workshop activities, a detailed report will be prepared to record and analyze the record discussion, findings and recommendations. The Parliamentary Centre will also prepare a concept paper to be shared with participating CEAs, that will outline proposed next steps to further this dialogue and further engage our Chinese counterparts.

Outstanding Questions

Participants in the workshop generally agreed upon the importance of conceptual clarity and contextual understanding to the effectiveness of governance projects. They also reached the common understanding that dialogue on the value-based issues should be conducted in parallel to activities at the technical level, even though the depth and coverage of dialogue should depend on particular conditions of individual projects. Due to the time limit, however, participants were not able to build on a number of questions as follows:

• When will conditions be ripe to allow dialogue with Chinese counterparts on value-based concepts? Some participants insisted on the importance of promoting Canadian values upfront while others hesitated to appear too aggressive before they are assured that mutual trust is strong enough. The underlying question requiring more exploration is where the boundary of the comfort zone lies and whether a benchmark is available to gauge the readiness of Chinese partners to dialogue beyond that boundary. Participants also expressed different views regarding the level of priority that should be given to deeper-level dialogue in relative to everyday activities.
• Is it necessary and desirable to follow up the discussion in this workshop with a more broadly involved workshop with the possible participation of Chinese counterparts? If yes, what is the best time and venue to hold such a workshop? A big portion of the participants feel that conditions are not ripe for such an all-inclusive workshop and prefer one-on-one dialogue to start with. Yet it still remained unclear how synergy and inter-project learning are to be facilitated between the dialogue processes of each individual project.
• Would it be necessary to compose and disseminate a unified lexicon/ glossary comparing the different perspectives of some key valued-based concepts in Canadian and Chinese contexts? The idea of creating a lexicon was raised a tool to help build mutual awareness of contextual differences and, by engaging both Canadian and Chinese partners in the work, set off serious dialogue on value-based concepts. However, certain participants questioned the feasibility of implementing the idea by pointing to the fact that even Canadian Partners have not reached clear and unified understanding of many concepts. There is also a worry about the risks of imposing a single standard on all projects regardless of their various natures. A proposed solution is to limit the size of the lexicon to a manageable level and its use would remain a free choice of individual projects.
• How should a horizontal linkage be forged between all CEAs of China Governance Project to facilitate more intense information sharing and knowledge dissemination in areas related to governance dialogue? A variety of recommendations such as a shared field coordinator and an online forum were raised but participants’ reactions varied. Some participants are concerned that excessive reliance on a field coordinator will jeopardize CEAs’ independence and project ownership. Other participants were worried that too much information sharing without careful orientation could easily overrun the handling capacity of CEAs.