Amman Workshop Expert data

Tarzen

Download

Post to :

URL :

Related Presentations :

Add to Flag Embed

Uploaded from authorPOINTLite

Views: 40

Category: Entertainment

Presentation Description

No description available.

Comments

Presentation Transcript

Promoting Rule of Law and Integrity in the Middle East and North Africa:

Promoting Rule of Law and Integrity in the Middle East and North Africa Experts Surveys covering Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Morocco.

Overall Approach:

Overall Approach Project combines structured qualitative and quantitative methodologies to develop evaluations of the state of the judiciary, media, and parliament in four target countries Qualitative Methodologies Utilized: Subject area expert’s in-depth studies Focus groups Key informant interviews Quantitative Methodologies Utilized: Expert surveys Public opinion surveys

Overall Approach, contd.:

Overall Approach, contd. Experts on each of the four countries utilized primary and secondary research materials to draft an exhaustive analysis of the state of the judiciary, media, and parliament in their particular area of expertise Focus groups and key informant interviews with those knowledgeable about the state of affairs in each of the pillars were utilized to identify issues of importance when evaluating the state of the judiciary, media, and parliament, and to develop questionnaires for the expert surveys that would address these key issues The questionnaires for the expert surveys were designed to elicit expert opinions on the key thematic concerns used to evaluate the state of the judiciary, parliament, and media. These key thematic concerns are: Judiciary: Independence, Integrity, Competence, Efficiency Media: Independence, Integrity, Competence Parliament: Representation and Participation, Independence, Performance, Integrity

Methodology: Expert Surveys:

Methodology: Expert Surveys The expert survey questionnaires were also designed to identify reform priorities for each pillar in each of the countries The general public opinion survey questionnaires were designed to elicit the general public’s opinions on these key pillars in each of the countries This research represents a first of its kind effort to gather comparative data on emerging democratic reform issues in key sectors in Arab countries A random sample of experts able to address important issues in each of the pillars was surveyed in each country Due to resource limitations, expert surveys were generally limited to experts in capital cities or other large cities in the country The sampling methodology utilized for the expert surveys does not allow for the samples to be judged as being representative of the population of experts in each pillar, but due to the fact that the leading experts in each of these countries tend to reside in the capital cities and other large cities, the data can be said to be highly indicative of the opinions of the population of experts in the country

Methodology: Expert Surveys (contd.):

Methodology: Expert Surveys (contd.) A brief description of the methodology utilized for each group of expert survey follows next. JUDICIARY Surveys conduced with lawyers and judges in the capital cities and other major cities in each of the four countries (Egypt - Cairo and Alexandria; Jordan - Amman; Morocco – Rabat, Marakesh, Casablanca; Lebanon – Beirut) Judges were generally sampled through systematic sampling from an exhaustive list of judges; only exception is Morocco where such lists were not available and where sampling was conducted at courthouses over a span of two weeks 80 judges interviewed in each country with exception of Lebanon where 47 judges were interviewed Lawyers were also generally sampled through systematic sampling from an exhaustive list of lawyers in the cities in which surveys conducted 120 lawyers interviews in each country

Methodology: Expert Surveys (contd.):

Methodology: Expert Surveys (contd.) MEDIA Surveys conducted with employees of media companies in journalistic capacities in each of the four countries. A total of 150 surveys were conducted in each country First step of sampling process was to identify media organizations in the capital city of each country; only exception is Morocco where surveys were conducted in Casablanca as well as Rabat Employees from identified media organizations were randomly selected through systematic sampling

Methodology: Expert Surveys (contd.):

Methodology: Expert Surveys (contd.) PARLIAMENT Surveys conducted with members of parliament and parliamentary employees in each of the four countries Members of parliament were generally randomly selected through systematic sampling procedures; sample was stratified by major party blocs in parliament with Morocco an exception where sample was stratified by three key cities represented by parliamentarians; 35 members of parliament surveyed in Jordan, 25 in Lebanon and Morocco, and 22 in Egypt In Egypt, parliamentary members from the Muslim Brotherhood did not take part in the surveys Parliamentary employees were randomly sampled from lists of all employees in parliament through systematic sampling; 25 interviews in each country In Morocco, interviews were split between moustachiers/counsellers and parliamentary employees

Judiciary: Main Findings:

Judiciary: Main Findings

Judiciary: Main Findings:

Judiciary: Main Findings

Judiciary: Main Findings:

Judiciary: Main Findings

Judiciary: Resources:

Judiciary: Resources

Judiciary: Freedom of Expression:

Judiciary: Freedom of Expression

Judiciary: Freedom of Association:

Judiciary: Freedom of Association

Judiciary: Objectiveness and Transparency of Judicial Appointments:

Judiciary: Objectiveness and Transparency of Judicial Appointments

Judiciary: Anti-Corruption Laws:

Judiciary: Anti-Corruption Laws

Judiciary: Access to Legal Information:

Judiciary: Access to Legal Information

Judiciary: Reprimands for Delay:

Judiciary: Reprimands for Delay

Judiciary: Pressures on Judicial Decisions:

Judiciary: Pressures on Judicial Decisions

Judiciary: Need for Reform:

Judiciary: Need for Reform Note: For each category we made an index of all the questions relating to that particular type of reform. The index was constructed by taking the average of the respondent’s answers (scored 1 strongly in favor of reform to 5 strongly against reform) in that particular battery of questions. “Strong advocates” of reform are those who scored an average of 2 or lower on that particular battery of questions.

Judiciary: Need for Reform:

Judiciary: Need for Reform General Population survey questionnaire: “Reforms are needed to enhance the judiciary’s integrity.” Expert survey questionnaire: “Reforms to increase institutional integrity are needed.”

Judiciary: Need for Reform:

Judiciary: Need for Reform General Population survey questionnaire: “Reforms are needed to enhance the independence of the judiciary.” Expert survey questionnaire: “Institutional reforms are needed to strengthen the independence of the judiciary.”

Media: Main Findings:

Media: Main Findings

Media: Main Findings:

Media: Main Findings

Media: Freedom of Expression:

Media: Freedom of Expression

Media: Protection for Journalists :

Media: Protection for Journalists

Media: Regulations:

Media: Regulations

Media: Defamation Law:

Media: Defamation Law

Media: Government Censorship:

Media: Government Censorship

Media: Arbitrary Prosecution of Journalists:

Media: Arbitrary Prosecution of Journalists

Media: Threats to Journalists :

Media: Threats to Journalists

Media: Need for Reform:

Media: Need for Reform Note: For each category we made an index of all the questions relating to that particular type of reform. The index was constructed by taking the average of the respondent’s answers (scored 1 strongly in favor of reform to 5 strongly against reform) in that particular battery of questions. “Strong advocates” of reform are those who scored an average of 2 or lower on that particular battery of questions.