The Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy commissioned an institutional evaluation of the period 2011–2014, with a focus on three country programmes (Georgia, Guatemala and Mali). The first objective of the evaluation was to assess the extent to which NIMD achieved results in the period 2011–2014. The second objective was to assess the extent to which the NIMD Multi-Annual Plan, 2012–2015 (MAP), 2014 Theory of Change and accompanying institutional reforms led to increased effectiveness. The third objective was to make recommendations on how to further embed or strengthen NIMD’s internal reforms in order to position it as an effective leader in its field.
This institutional evaluation was undertaken in two phases. The inception phase produced an inception report and full terms of reference for country programme evaluations. The main phase was the independent evaluation of three country programmes, which are synthesised in this report. The inception report and full country evaluations are available at the same link as the synthesis report.
On the results of NIMD interventions, the evaluation found that:
- NIMD can achieve positive, small but strategic results with its multiparty platforms
- NIMD’s direct party assistance results are hard to identify
- Democracy schools and additional civil-political society processes are an excellent NIMD innovation, which have led to concrete results
- NIMD’s willingness and ability to focus on gender and diversity was a value added
The evaluation also considered the relevance of contextual factors, finding that:
- A number of contextual factors explain the extent to which NIMD was able to achieve these results
- Political contextual factors, such as political instability, made multiparty platform interventions more difficult but do not seem to be determinant factors; they seem to have influenced party and parliamentary assistance more
- Different contextual factors influenced the results of the democracy schools and which diversity issues could be most easily addressed
- The three country contexts shared a number of characteristics that made NIMD interventions in support of multiparty democracy relevant
- Salience and fit to the political context, and relevance to powerful political players influenced the relevance of the platforms
- There are questions about the appropriateness of the focus of parliamentary assistance in relation to NIMD’s mandate and strategy
The evaluation found that financial sustainability was weak across all interventions, and none of the country programmes were financially sustainable without NIMD assistance. Furthermore, programmatic sustainability was weak with regard to political party assistance programmes, which were not aligned to political incentives and worked best when partners were committed to change and had access to fewer resources. Thus, a strategy is needed to address the main barriers to political participation, drawing on evidence.
The report concludes with recommendations on how to further embed or strengthen NIMD’s internal reforms to position it as an effective leader in its field.