Recently, Brazilian society celebrated three years of the enactment of the Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil da Internet). It is the first ever national law to “establish principles, guarantees, rights and obligations for the use of the Internet” and has been praised internationally for its progressive nature. Among many reasons to commemorate, two aspects of the Marco Civil deserve to be highlighted.
First, the Bill has brought transparency and legal security to the Brazilian digital landscape. Before it became law, no Internet user in the country could be sure about how service and content providers would handle their data. With the current legislation, any request of an Internet user to remove personal information from social media or website must be promptly honoured. Moreover, the so-called metadata—for example, information about one’s date and time of access—must be stored under absolute secrecy by telecommunication providers and may only be disclosed in response to a court order.
The Marco Civil has also affirmed the principle of network neutrality. Companies and organizations, regardless of size, resources and influence, can rest assured that their content will be accessed and transferred under exactly the same technical parameters as those of any other institution.
Second, the Brazilian Marco Civil is not only a product of lawmakers, but of Brazilian society as a whole. Its original idea stems from protests of civil society organizations against an Internet criminalization draft Bill that would typify crimes such as illegal downloads, electronic financial fraud and paedophilia.
Cyber activists claimed that before criminalizing Internet users’ behaviour, their rights and responsibilities had to be defined. Facilitated by an online platform provided by the federal government, Brazilian Internet users began a collaborative drafting process that eventually resulted in the text that was submitted to Congress in 2011 and three years later became the Marco Civil da Internet.
The Brazilian tradition of multi-stakeholder participation in the digital realm dates back to the year 1995, when the Brazilian Internet steering committee (CGI.br) was established. The CGI.br is the body responsible for managing the “.br” top-level domain and the countrywide assignment of IP addresses.
Since its inception, it has been governed by a multi-stakeholder board, composed of representatives from governmental institutions, private sector, non-governmental organizations and academia. Despite the natural differences that arise during the committee’s debates, its decisions carry the approval of the various national sectors involved in the maintenance and evolution of the Brazilian Internet.
Such a democratic platform confers stability and predictability, which are essential to a dynamic digital economy and to the effectiveness of information and communication technology-related policies. Using the same participatory approach, Brazilian society has been fully engaged in discussions on a national data privacy law and has contributed to the drafting of the national policy for the Internet of Things, which is soon to be released.
In the international arena, Brazil has been a long-standing advocate of multi-stakeholder Internet governance mechanisms, in combination with multilateral arrangements. Brazil is the only country to have hosted the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) twice [Rio de Janeiro (2007) and João Pessoa (2015)].
The NETmundial Meeting (São Paulo, 2014) attracted over 1,000 people from more than 100 countries and was the first ever multi-stakeholder “bottom-up” process to agree on a set of Internet governance principles and a road map for the future evolution of the Internet.
Within Icann (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)—the California-based company responsible for managing the Internet “address book”—Brazil has been vocal in defending the suppression of its unilateral command. And in the context of the UN Human Rights Council, Brazil and Germany have proposed a resolution on the principle that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online”. The resolution ultimately resulted in the establishment of the role of the special rapporteur on the right to privacy, whose final report is expected to be released in 2018.
During the 10-year review of the World Summit of Information Society (WSIS+10), in New York, in December 2015, Brazil, together with India and other delegations, played a key role in overcoming the traditional polarization between countries that either only support multi-stakeholderism or otherwise defend an exclusive intergovernmental management of the Internet.
Our countries have shown that the two models are not contradictory—rather, they complement each other. While cybersecurity matters require the leadership of governments, given their legal implications, topics such as the coordination of critical Internet resources are better treated under a multisectoral scheme. Similarly, the definition of Internet communication standards should be guided by the private sector and academic/engineering bodies, due to their technical capabilities, while transnational electronic trade rules need to be deliberated under a multilateral arrangement.
The Internet should be governed by many. And it has to serve all. As of today, more than half of the world’s population has never had access to its benefits. The collaborative approach will continue to be the most suitable one to address the challenge of bringing online those hitherto offline.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- In the Large States category (overall), Chhattisgarh ranks 1st, followed by Odisha and Telangana, whereas, towards the bottom are Maharashtra at 16th, Assam at 17th and Gujarat at 18th. Gujarat is one State that has seen startling performance ranking 5th in the PAI 2021 Index outperforming traditionally good performing States like Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, but ranks last in terms of Delta
- In the Small States category (overall), Nagaland tops, followed by Mizoram and Tripura. Towards the tail end of the overall Delta ranking is Uttarakhand (9th), Arunachal Pradesh (10th) and Meghalaya (11th). Nagaland despite being a poor performer in the PAI 2021 Index has come out to be the top performer in Delta, similarly, Mizoram’s performance in Delta is also reflected in it’s ranking in the PAI 2021 Index
- In terms of Equity, in the Large States category, Chhattisgarh has the best Delta rate on Equity indicators, this is also reflected in the performance of Chhattisgarh in the Equity Pillar where it ranks 4th. Following Chhattisgarh is Odisha ranking 2nd in Delta-Equity ranking, but ranks 17th in the Equity Pillar of PAI 2021. Telangana ranks 3rd in Delta-Equity ranking even though it is not a top performer in this Pillar in the overall PAI 2021 Index. Jharkhand (16th), Uttar Pradesh (17th) and Assam (18th) rank at the bottom with Uttar Pradesh’s performance in line with the PAI 2021 Index
- Odisha and Nagaland have shown the best year-on-year improvement under 12 Key Development indicators.
- In the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Goa and Tamil Nadu and, the bottom three performers are Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand and Bihar.
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers were Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim and Mizoram; and, the bottom three performers are Manipur, Assam and Meghalaya.
- Among the 60:40 division States, Orissa, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh are the top three performers and Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Delhi appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland; and, the bottom three performers are Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh
- Among the 60:40 division States, Goa, West Bengal and Delhi appear as the top three performers and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Bihar appear as the bottom three performers.
- Among the 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Himachal Pradesh and Tripura were the top three performers and Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh were the bottom three performers
- West Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu were the top three States amongst the 60:40 division States; while Haryana, Punjab and Rajasthan appeared as the bottom three performers
- In the case of 90:10 division States, Mizoram, Assam and Tripura were the top three performers and Nagaland, Jammu & Kashmir and Uttarakhand featured as the bottom three
- Among the 60:40 division States, the top three performers are Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the bottom three performers are Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Goa
- In the 90:10 division States, the top three performers are Mizoram, Sikkim and Nagaland and the bottom three performers are Manipur and Assam
In a diverse country like India, where each State is socially, culturally, economically, and politically distinct, measuring Governance becomes increasingly tricky. The Public Affairs Index (PAI 2021) is a scientifically rigorous, data-based framework that measures the quality of governance at the Sub-national level and ranks the States and Union Territories (UTs) of India on a Composite Index (CI).
States are classified into two categories – Large and Small – using population as the criteria.
In PAI 2021, PAC defined three significant pillars that embody Governance – Growth, Equity, and Sustainability. Each of the three Pillars is circumscribed by five governance praxis Themes.
The themes include – Voice and Accountability, Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Regulatory Quality and Control of Corruption.
At the bottom of the pyramid, 43 component indicators are mapped to 14 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that are relevant to the States and UTs.
This forms the foundation of the conceptual framework of PAI 2021. The choice of the 43 indicators that go into the calculation of the CI were dictated by the objective of uncovering the complexity and multidimensional character of development governance
The Equity Principle
The Equity Pillar of the PAI 2021 Index analyses the inclusiveness impact at the Sub-national level in the country; inclusiveness in terms of the welfare of a society that depends primarily on establishing that all people feel that they have a say in the governance and are not excluded from the mainstream policy framework.
This requires all individuals and communities, but particularly the most vulnerable, to have an opportunity to improve or maintain their wellbeing. This chapter of PAI 2021 reflects the performance of States and UTs during the pandemic and questions the governance infrastructure in the country, analysing the effectiveness of schemes and the general livelihood of the people in terms of Equity.
Growth and its Discontents
Growth in its multidimensional form encompasses the essence of access to and the availability and optimal utilisation of resources. By resources, PAI 2021 refer to human resources, infrastructure and the budgetary allocations. Capacity building of an economy cannot take place if all the key players of growth do not drive development. The multiplier effects of better health care, improved educational outcomes, increased capital accumulation and lower unemployment levels contribute magnificently in the growth and development of the States.
The Pursuit Of Sustainability
The Sustainability Pillar analyses the access to and usage of resources that has an impact on environment, economy and humankind. The Pillar subsumes two themes and uses seven indicators to measure the effectiveness of government efforts with regards to Sustainability.
The Curious Case Of The Delta
The Delta Analysis presents the results on the State performance on year-on-year improvement. The rankings are measured as the Delta value over the last five to 10 years of data available for 12 Key Development Indicators (KDI). In PAI 2021, 12 indicators across the three Pillars of Equity (five indicators), Growth (five indicators) and Sustainability (two indicators). These KDIs are the outcome indicators crucial to assess Human Development. The Performance in the Delta Analysis is then compared to the Overall PAI 2021 Index.
Key Findings:-
In the Scheme of Things
The Scheme Analysis adds an additional dimension to ranking of the States on their governance. It attempts to complement the Governance Model by trying to understand the developmental activities undertaken by State Governments in the form of schemes. It also tries to understand whether better performance of States in schemes reflect in better governance.
The Centrally Sponsored schemes that were analysed are National Health Mission (NHM), Umbrella Integrated Child Development Services scheme (ICDS), Mahatma Gandh National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SmSA) and MidDay Meal Scheme (MDMS).
National Health Mission (NHM)
INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ICDS)
MID- DAY MEAL SCHEME (MDMS)
SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ABHIYAN (SMSA)
MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (MGNREGS)