MCA Monitor Blog

Sheila - Thanks for a great report, and an interesting question.

Requiring parliamentary ratification of compcts is an intriguing idea that could have some unanticipated effects, it seems to me. For one thing, it wouldn't necessary provide continuity if there were a change of government in the recipient country: for example, if the change of government included a turn-over in control of the parliament to a different party. Perhaps the new majority would reject a previously approved compact. More importantly, perhaps, I could imagine such votes becoming a political litmus test in which elected representatives would be pressed to express their views of the U.S. through a vote on the MCA. Given the low and falling popularity of the U.S. because of issues such as Iraq and climate change, I can imagine some parliamentarians rejecting an MCA compact for reasons that have little to do with the compact. Since these and other issues raised by a parliamentary vote on MCA compacts would almost certainly reduce the number of countries concluding compacts, perhaps ratification by the recipient government parliament wouldn't be such a bad idea after all: it would enable the MCA to live up to its original goal of offering substantial grants, even if (as seems increasingly likely) funding does not measure up to initial expectations.

OR maybe not. I'd be interested to hear what others think.

My own experience leads me to support the idea of parliamentary ratification. Yes, U.S. standing in the world is not the greatest, but few of the MCC-eligible countries are going to spurn the offer of several hundred million (or more) dollars in assistance (on a grant basis) just because they may not agree with our ME policy. More importantly, even though the composition of the parliament may change, that endorsement will provide both political validation of the process, as Sheila notes, and will open the door to parliamentary oversight, which is important from a good governance perspective. I would love to have had parliamentary endorsement of some of the larger development projects I was involved with at USAID.

1. A key set of indicators to become an eligible country is the nation's progress towards democracy. Perhaps an indicator could be manufactured on the quality of a nation's parliament, and then determine if the compact should be approved or not by its parliament based on that measurement. For many reasons, including MCC's own political maturity and independence, such indicator should not be used, yet.
2. In principle, but not necessarily in practice, in a functioning republic, parliamentarians represent the will of the people and balance the usually overwhelming power held by executive branch. Many countries already argue that their democratic processes make MCC's broader consultations redundant because parliaments and the executive represent the will of the people. In contrast, many civil society leaders believe their parliamentarians are thoroughly corrupt, and appointed by political machineries more than by participatory elections. In most cases, national realities fall withing those two extremes--a mix of angels and demons (indicator: ratio of angels to demons; if greater than one, the country pass?).
3. Following public finance criteria, MCC funds are grants. They do not affect the national budget a parliamentary prerogative. USAID grant projects already do not need parliamentary approval--because they do not mortgage the future of the country with sovereign debt.
4. Thus, MCC grant funds should not need parliamentary approval.
5. Even though they should not need parliamentary approval MCC should not pursue that route. Fortunately, MCC is a prize awarded, ex post, to countries which are doing well (a major distinction vs. other incentives such as conditionalities) . Democracy is one of the "doing well" (or to the more skeptics, doing better)critical areas. No option on this one, parliaments should approve.

Parliamentary ratification would guarantee continuity for the Millennium Challenge Account compact, and local civil society’s participation in the consultative process would validate this? Perhaps. But just ask the Kenyan MPs, they’re still debating on the constitution and on diverse “memorandums of understanding” years after the signatures have grown cold. Besides, during last year’s debacle with donors, the Kenyan Finance Minister designed a national budget that excluded any and all foreign aid, grants, you name it.