Peru

Better Safe Than Sorry

City/State/Region
Begin – End: 2018 – 2018
Name of organization in charge: Japiqay
Type of organization in charge: civil society
Level: national

Impact

?

Implementation: was the innovation effectively, partially or not put into practice at all?

Fulfillment of Aims: were the goals of the innovation completely, partially or not achieved at all?

Output: has the innovation generated recommendations, initiatives, decisions or policies?

Outcome: if there were a policy output, was it enacted or implemented?

Implementation: partial
Fulfillment of Democratic Innovation’s aim: unknown
Output: -
Policy Outcome: -

?Better Safe Than Sorry? was an initiative promoted by the civil association ?Japiqay? with the purpose of sharing and providing relevant information about the political candidates that participated in the electoral process conducted on October 2018 in Peru. Japiqay collected specific information regarding the background, records, professional trajectory, work experience, and potential links with corruption cases and illegal activities of the electoral candidates nominated for the elections of 2018 in the different levels of government. This with the aim of providing truthful and objective information about the contenders to avoid the election of candidates involved in serious cases of corruption, like it happened before in the election of regional presidents. Additionally, as an effort to actively involve civil society in the initiative, an online questionnaire was provided through which citizens had the possibility of sharing further information about the candidates and, in this way, increase and enhance the available data.

Institutional design

?

Formalization: is the innovation embedded in the constitution or legislation, in an administrative act, or not formalized at all?

Frequency: how often does the innovation take place: only once, sporadically, or is it permanent or regular?

Mode of Selection of Participants: is the innovation open to all participants, access is restricted to some kind of condition, or both methods apply?

Type of participants: those who participate are individual citizens, civil society organizations, private stakeholders or a combination of those?

Decisiveness: does the innovation takes binding, non-binding or no decision at all?

Co-governance: is there involvement of the government in the process or not?

Formalization: not backed by constitution nor legislation, nor by any governmental policy or program
Frequency: single
Mode of selection of participants: open
Type of participants: citizens
Decisiveness: democratic innovation yields no decision
Co-Governance: no

Means

Deliberation
Direct Voting
E-Participation
Citizen Representation

Ends

Accountability
Responsiveness
Rule of Law
Political Inclusion
Social Equality

Policy cycle

Agenda setting

Formulation and decision-making

Implementation

Policy Evaluation

Sources

http://www.japiqay.org/portfolio/elecciones2018/