Issue Paper

Evaluating Judicial Reform Projects Funded by the International Donors in Egypt and Turkey

Majid Mohammadi

IPF Fellow, 2006-2007

Abstract

Assistance in judicial reform has become a major category of international aid. Whether based on altruism or national interest of Western countries, tens of projects has been supported by the international donors to improve judicial systems of the Middle Eastern countries, especially after the Sep. 11, 2001 events. In most parts of the world, the rule-of-law promotion aid has been a very small part of aid pool, though the effects have been moderately positive. In spite of attracting tens of rule-of-law projects, the Middle Eastern judicial systems are functioning poorly. My project is to evaluate these projects based on their goals and effectiveness in the areas of judicial reform. My goal is to find out if these projects are timely, effective, consistent and coherent.  

1. Background

The development community reached to this conclusion in the 1990’s that sustainable development is impossible without legal and judicial reform[1]. Scholars and activists in the aid and development community kept to believe in this idea in the 2000’s. Now this is a common sense in the donor community that democratization and development could not be reached without modifying or overhauling the legal and institutional framework and firmly establishing rule of law to create the necessary climate of stability and predictability.

   Judicial reform projects could also be understood as a part of a liberal reconsideration of the nature of the state and democratization process in the Middle East and at the same time a section of a realist policy of regime maintenance and undergirding authoritarian regime legitimacy in the region[2].  

2. Why This Issue and This Project

Rule of law has been introduced as a solution to some of the problems of developing countries. A multitude of countries in the Middle East are engaged in a wide range of rule of law and judicial reform initiatives; in these mostly authoritarian sates, rule of law initiatives focus on regular and efficient application of law but do not emphasize on the government subordination to it. The law, for these governments, exist not to limit the state but to serve its power[3] and international donors and people who work with them have not usually challenged this premise not to risk their activities inside those countries.

   Evaluation of the judicial reform projects as a big part of the rule of law promotion programs can shed some lights on the reason of failure or the limited perspective of at least some of these internationally sponsored programs. Project evaluation is to ensure the compliance with the project requirements, to determine the level of effective and consistent management and work practices, and facilitate informed decision-making. Any evaluation should inform the sponsors, implementing partners, stakeholders and the general public about the results that are achieved, improvements that are considered, and the lessons that are learned. My study could provide a systematic way to gain insights and reach judgments about the effectiveness, validity, and the impacts of judicial reform projects in the designated countries[4]. Listening to different sides of this issue, i.e. donors, implementing partners, and internal stakeholders, could reveal the advantages and disadvantages of these projects for rue of law, democracy and development.

   Evaluation of judicial reform projects is necessary because 1) at least some of the results (positive or negative) are unexpected in social and political projects, 2) there are implementation problems and unmet needs, 3) the validity of some hypotheses and assumptions are questioned, 4) there are key questions that should be addressed and answered, 5) donors should be held accountable due to receiving big chunk of their budgets from public resources (most of the international donors are Western governmental departments and agencies), and 6) there are lessons to be learned for and improvements to be implemented in the future projects in this realm.

3. Related Institutions and Programs

In this study I have excluded projects which are focused on providing legal assistance, drafting participatory processes related to legal associations, supporting and enhancing civil and human rights through training for NGOs and civil society institutions[5] or rehabilitation of and social support to individuals and families, usually considered as victims. I will focus on reform projects for judiciary as a branch of the government and any project which is somehow related to it like training lawyers and law students.

   The most important information about each judicial reform project are the institution which sponsors it, its budget, the duration, the implementing partner which implement it, its goals, and the country in which the project is executed. I will also try to find evaluation on these projects, if any. All the projects are listed in another file named “Judicial Reform Projects Sponsored by International Donors in Egypt and Turkey.”

4. The Research Questions

Looking at the specifications and descriptions of judicial reform projects for the Middle Eastern countries funded by the international donors, especially Turkey and Egypt, these questions come to mind:                      

a. About Methodology

● How can we evaluate the policy, design, implementation and results of these projects?

● Are the judicial reform projects in the region well designed, consistent, and coherent?

● Is rule-of-law promotion a non-ideological task (merely technical)? Is it presented as a technical task to decrease the risks of confronting obstacles from the governmental institutions?

b. About Donors and Implementing Partners

● Why the Western states have chosen judicial reform as a prominent theme in their reform initiatives? 

● Do people who do the work have policy oriented mindset?

            ● What are the priorities in the area of legal and judicial reform for the donors?

● Have the donors evaluated the sponsored projects in the end?

● Is there any difference between American and European approaches to aid and its direction, and in this case, rule of law promotion? 

 ● Do the donors have a macro-level perspective in allocating funds for these projects?

            c. Design and Planning

● Does rule of law proceed from a more liberal conception of the state and its relationship to society or precede it?

● Is there a specific or appropriate model of rule-of-law promotion (as it is claimed for democracy and development) for each and every society?

● How have these projects been thought through?

● Is the project plan livable, flexible and dynamic?

● Are the internal stakeholders involved in planning?

d. Implementation

● What factors have been considered to run this project?

● How have you assigned human and material sources to the project?

e. Results

● How have these projects been doing with respect to institution building?

            ● Have these projects achieved the goals defined for them?

            ● Have these projects been effective?

● Are the rule-of-law aid support domestically rooted processes of change?

● Are rule of law and judicial reform efforts constructive and promising entry points to encourage the evolution of more liberal institutions of governance in the region?

            f. Project Evaluation

● How are evaluations scheduled? Are they formative or summative?

● Are they thematic, institutional or project-oriented?  

g. Lessons

● Have the donors learned to spend their reform money where they will do the most good for the recipient societies?

● What are the lessons for the internal judicial reform initiatives?

I will ask these questions from sponsors, implementing partners, and stakeholders to evaluate judicial reform projects funded by international donors. 

5. Deliverables: Outcome and Publication, Policy Recommendations

This policy research will produce three types of outcomes: