Conclusion: Lessons for Future Reform
| Author | James Anderson; David Bernstein; Cheryl Gray |
| Profession | Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Department (ECSPE) in the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) Region |
| Pages | 57-64 |
Page 57
THE ANALYSIS IN THIS REPORT SHOWS A MIXED PICTURE WITH REGARD to progress made on legal and judicial reform in the transition countries since the early 1990s. On the one hand, significant progress has been achieved in a number of countries in a number of areas, including independence, increased judicial training capacity, and initial steps toward judicial self-regulation and management of court administration. However, as many surveys and expert analyses show, much remains to be done to increase the capacity of both judges and their staff, reduce case backlogs and increase court efficiency, develop the proper incentives and deterrence to address both the perception and the reality of corruption in the region's judiciaries, and promote greater access to the courts. Along many important dimensions of performance that matter to investors and citizens alike-including affordability, fairness, speed, and ability to enforce decisions-courts in many transition countries appear to have deteriorated rather than improved in recent years. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that less overall progress has been made in judicial reform and strengthening than in almost any other area of policy or institutional reform in transition countries since 1990.
While each country presents different challenges and opportunities, certain lessons apply in most settings:
Efforts at building a depoliticized and independent judiciary in Page 58 the transition countries have focused so far primarily on formal, structural independence, neglecting (until recently in a few countries) reforms that would make judiciaries operationally independent from Ministries of Justice. For example, while judicial councils or judicial administration bodies have been created in many countries, these bodies have not been given full authority or the necessary capacity to manage the judiciary, including overseeing or at least influencing staffing, budgeting, and disciplinary proceedings.1 Assistance to help clarify the roles and responsibilities of judicial administrative bodies and capacity-building programs that provide these self-management bodies with authority, resources, and staff would go a long way to help courts operate effectively and efficiently.
Independence and accountability must go hand-in-hand to ensure honesty and quality in the judiciary. Merit-based and transparent appointment of judges, random assignment of cases, full publication and dissemination of judicial decisions, peer evaluation and oversight panels to review promotions or complaints, and strong mechanisms for citizen and media feedback on judicial performance are some of the tools that can be used to enhance judicial accountability and honesty. Given the political and technical complexities surrounding this area of reform, strong leadership and commitment from top government officials and senior judges are essential. In systems where corruption is prevalent, a major change in leadership and personnel may be required. A push for accountability should be a central pillar of judicial strengthening programs.
An additional benefit of operational independence can be improved management and more efficient functioning of the courts. The early inattention to judicial reform, particularly the lack of...
To continue reading
Request your trial