Time Table

Start Period: April 2005
End Period: April 2006

Developing Arguments: March 2005

Analysis (1-2 months)

In collaboration with the various stakeholders in Government, Civil Society, UNDP and IPF, developing these arguments will be based on these assumptions and will help shape the report:

The main assumption is that the society is fragmented, heavily tribal and decentralised by nature. Relationship between people and the state has many dimensions and is often weak;
The Government failed to deliver their promises of prosperity to the people, capacity problems alone with tribal demands weakened the government more, and consequently lead to a loss sense of national identity. However, the government gained power through their shrewd political international relations, resulting to weaken the tribal system even more;
The failure for the society to integrate in the state and to influence in development planning
Services were provided were tribal leaders exerted pressure on the government. In places were tribes were weak, there demands were not a prioritised- conflict arose in these states
Literacy, Gender inequality and remote geographical locations stand as an obstacle to achieving a good level of participation
Civil Society is weak
Donor behaviour in the area of Democratic Governance was incoherent. It is important not to penalise government’s weaknesses were there is a will to reform, and look of how to overcome this rather than force it

Data Collection: May 2005

Building on Existing Data and Analysing Arguments (1 month)

Historical Analysis
Tribal relations in the last 40 years: overview and analysis
Northern-Southern Relations: overview and analysis
Regional Relations: Gulf War, Iraqi War
International Relations: US, donor community
Other Influential Actors
Dynamics
Structures

Mapping and Analysis of External Responses: June 2005

Are the existing accountability mechanisms efficient? What is the level of penetration of the state? (2 months)

Ministry of Finance: Role of MoF in pro-poor budgeting and their intervention in development planning – looking at the role of Customs, Tax Authority
Ministry of Local Administration: Measuring their role and input in development planning considering thy are mandated for implementing the Decentralisation Agenda
Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation: This Ministry is responsible for all Donor /Diplomatic relations and provides National and Development Plans for the country. How do these plans translate in reality and how do they coordinate with other Ministries especially the MoF?
SFD: Role of SFD in combating conflict
Media: Looking specifically at Media Reform issues.
Civil Society: Capacity, constraints, accessibility, representation
Parliament and other Democratic Institution’s role in pro-poor and development planning
Local Councils, relationship with the central government, representation of society
Accountability: Kidnapping of tourists and government officials occurred in the mid 90s to the current date as a means of the isolated tribes to push for basic services: schools, roads, elections, etc

Field Analysis: July 2005

Measuring progress of Democratic Governance (5 months)

Relationship between the people and the state
Is the system working? Can it work? Can it translate to reality or would It just remain a myth, or a potential of what can happen?
Do people have any involvement in measuring Democratic Governance? Do they have the power to hold the government accountable for the use of Public Funds?
Developing Policies and strategies
Public Financial Management: Local Councils in diverse areas: their ability to influence, their role, who do they represent? Society or political groups? Etc

Final Review: November 2005

Final Review (3-4 Months)