A Chilean NGO’s online app has revealed that 40% of the country’s MPs have not been registering their assets and interests in full, despite being compelled to do so.
The Guardian.
An app that cross-matches Chilean MPs’ register of assets and interests with their voting record has revealed a startlingly low level of openness among the parliamentarians about their interests.
Chilean MPs have been compelled for some time to register their assets and interests – but it was only last year, when a non-government body, the Ciudadano Inteligente Fundacion, cross-matched that data with a wide range of information about MPs’ voting records that it was revealed that 40% of MPs were not registering their full assets and interests.
The organisation has set up a database, that enables members of the public to find potential conflicts of interest by analysing the data disclosed through the members’ register of assets.
“No-one was analysing this data, so it was incomplete,” explained Felipe Heusser, executive president of the Fundacion. “We used technology to build a database, using a wide range of open data and mapped all the MPs’ interests. From that, we found that nearly 40% of MPs were not disclosing their assets fully.”
Publicity about the finding has resulted in greater use of the app, which enables people to map MPs’ declared interests against topics on which they are voting.
The app is one example being highlighted at this week’s Open Government Partnership conference in Brazil. Heusser said the aim is to change MPs’ behaviour and highlight potential conflicts on interests. “And this was all done with a simple app and open data,” he said.
The Guardian public leaders network is a digital media partner of the Open Government Partnership conference in Brazil.
Por Rudi Borrmann, Director General de Información y Gobierno Abierto de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires.
Siete meses pasaron desde que en Septiembre del año pasado se lanzó la Alianza Internacional para el Gobierno Abierto (Open Government Partnership) una iniciativa de Estados Unidos y Brasil para englobar a los países que implementan políticas de Gobierno Abierto. En ese momento 8 países formaban la Alianza, hoy son 55 con la reciente incorporación de Rusia.
Este primer encuentro anual, realizado en la ciudad de Brasilia, tuvo hoy su gran apertura con la presencia de, probablemente, las dos mujeres más poderosas del mundo: la secretaria de Estado de los Estados Unidos, Hillary Clinton, y la presidenta de Brasil, Dilma Rousseff. Cerca de las 10 de la mañana, la sala principal del Centro de Convenciones Ulysses Guimaraes estaba colmada con más de 1000 personas.
Funcionarios de los diferentes países miembros, representantes de la sociedad civil de todo el mundo, periodistas y gente del sector privado esperaron las palabras de ambas mujeres que se mezclaron con los discurso de Nika Gilauri, primer ministro de Georgia, Jakaya Kikwete, Presidente de Tanzania, y varios ministros de Brasil (hay que mencionar que el gabinete completo de Rousseff estaba presente en el evento). Los discursos fueron algo similares, un listado de las iniciativas implementadas en sus países, el fuerte compromiso y los desafíos del futuro.
“El Gobierno Abierto no es una varita mágica que soluciona problemas, es clave la voluntad política”, dijo Hillary en su discurso. Para luego remarcar algo que se repetiría en todas las sesiones, la importancia del rol que juega en estas iniciativas la sociedad civil “Deben estar al mismo nivel que los países de la Alianza, debemos aprender mucho de ustedes”, dijo la ex senadora.
Por su parte Dilma remarcó que la “la Alianza representa una nueva forma de relación multilateral” y que “la apertura de datos debe darse no sólo en el ejecutivo sino también en el nivel judicial y el legislativo”.
La agenda para el primer día tuvo como eje central las presentaciones de los planes de acción de los países miembros. Un funcionario del país exponía (en 5 minutos) los lineamientos principales del plan y luego un representante de la sociedad civil ofrecía la mirada del sector. El contrapunto resultó muy interesante, pero en varias charlas no quedó mucho tiempo para preguntas en debates que eran muy ricos. “¿Cómo mejorar los métodos de consulta a la ciudadanía?, ¿Cómo involucrar a la gente”, “¿Cuál es la mejor manera de abrir información pública?”.
En líneas generales todos estaban de acuerdo en que no existe una línea de acción específica a seguir. No hay un manual de cómo un país avanza hacia el Gobierno Abierto. Pero se avanza. Y lo importante de este primer día fue tener en claro la importancia del intercambio y la colaboración entre las administraciones que avanzan en estos proyectos, y por supuesto, el rol clave que cumple la sociedad civil en estos temas. Este último concepto se repitió en muchísimos paneles. Son justamente las organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil las que llevan más tiempo trabajando los temas de transparencia y participación ciudadana, su rol en estas iniciativas es fundamental.
Me llamó la atención que países en crisis (y que se acaban de integrar a la Alianza), como Italia y España, marcaron la necesidad estratégica de apoyar este tipo de políticas, aún cuando la prioridad parecen tenerla temas más urgentes. Hay una entendimiento generalizado que este es el único camino, tarde o temprano, con o sin crisis.
Tim Kelsey, Director de Transparencia y Open Data para el Reino Unido, mencionó en el panel de Europa del Oeste, el rol clave de la transparencia como un disparador para hacer un Gobierno más eficiente. Su contraparte de la sociedad civil, Rufus Pollock, Director de la Open Knowledge Foundation, hizo hincapié en la importancia de establecer alrededor de las políticas de Open Data, marcos regulatorios a largo plazo que blinden de alguna forma las iniciativas y les permitan crecer e instalarse.
Desde hoy y hasta el 18 de abril se realizará en la ciudad de Brasilia una nueva conferencia anual de la Sociedad de Gobierno Abierto (Open Government Partnership). En dicha instancia, más de 50 gobiernos del mundo se encontrarán con organizaciones de la sociedad civil para fortalecer el compromiso que mantienen sus miembros de promover la transparencia, la autonomía delos ciudadanos, combatir la corrupción, y aprovechar las nuevas tecnologías para fortalecer la gobernabilidad.
Como miembro y representante de la sociedad civil latinoamericana, una vez más la Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente reafirma su compromiso con los Gobiernos Abiertos, y se hará presente representada por el Presidente Ejecutivo de la Fundación, Felipe Heusser, y el Gerente Juan José Soto. Además, por primera vez participarán del encuentro dos grandes proyectos de Ciudadano Inteligente; Desarrollando América Latina y Desarrollando El Caribe, que van representados por su coordinadora Anca Matioc.
Politicians love to make promises. Here in Mexico, presidential contender Enrique Peña Nieto even spent the morning of the first official day of campaigning at a public notary’s office where he signed his name next to his first three campaign promises.
But politicians, like most of us, find it easier to make promises than keep them.
In Chile back in 2010, newly inaugurated president, Sebastián Piñera, was eager to present his country with an ambitious program for change, covering everything from entrepreneurship to judicial reform to mining concessions. The bright, young open government activists at Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente (disclosure: grantee of my employer) wanted to know just how many of those legislative commitments had actually been achieved in the past two years. The answer: half way into Piñera’s term, he’s only been able to pass 24% of what he committed to.
When I sat down with Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente Director Felipe Heusser last month to take a look at the new site called “From What Was Said to What Was Done“, my first question was: “is 24% high or low?”
We simply don’t have enough data to compare. My hunch is that most politicians achieve less than 20% of the commitments they make during their campaigns, most of which remain forgotten in the depths of Google and recycled newspaper.
That may soon start to change thanks to a new trend in the online transparency community. The first website I’m aware of that set out to track the fulfillment of campaign promises by politicians is Mumbai Votes, which was first created back in 2004. (You can see Namita Singh’s interview with Mumbai Votes founder Vivek Gilani at the Technology for Transparency Network.)
Then in 2009 PolitiFact launched the Obameter, a compilation of President Obama’s 508 campaign promises, categorized by topic and the current level of fulfillment. (So far Obama has kept roughly 34% of his promises, which puts him well ahead of Chile’s Piñera.)
Last month, in Perú, the transparency organization Proetica — in partnership with the National Democratic Institute, Citivox, and Escuelab — launched Promesometro.pe, the “promise meter,” which encourages citizens to document and monitor the promises of politicians. The Monterrey-based Mexican newspaper El Norte launched its own Promesometro for the 2009 gubernatorial race in Mexico’s northern state of Nuevo Leon.
Of all the new promise-tracking platforms, the most intriguing for me is Arena Electoral, which has yet to track a single promise. But that’s because Mexico has yet to elect its next president. (Elections are in July.) Until then, Arena Electoral has worked with political scientists to develop a methodology to rank the four candidates’ proposals on 11 different issues. It has also grown a community of dozens of Mexico’s most respected civil society organizations and think tanks to participate in the evaluation of the candidate’s proposals. For example, Cencos and Espolea will evaluate the candidates’ proposals related to human rights while CIDAC, IDEA, and IMCO will evaluate their proposals for economic development. The strict methodology and the diversity of thought among all these organizations should help ensure something resembling objectivity. Throughout the campaign, Arena Electoral will create a database of each candidate’s campaign promises and then rank the fulfillment of each of those promises during the next president’s six-year term.
I believe that the demand for promise-tracking software is only just beginning. Carole Excell of The Access Initiative says that civil society organizations participating in this year’s United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development have called for a global registry of all commitments made by federal governments in international fora related to sustainable development. That’s right, a “sustainabledevelopmentometer.” OK, so they’ll come up with a better name.
There are similar calls for a platform to monitor the commitments of governments at the Open Government Partnership. In fact, OpenTheGovernment.org has already launched Open Government Partners as a WordPress-based blog where civil society organizations involved in the Open Government Partnership can leave updates on their government’s progress toward commitments. I’m a fan of launching early, but it seems to me that the site could benefit from studying some of the other commitment monitoring platforms.
Finally, and perhaps the most ambitious promise-monitoring project of them all, the Avina Foundation has launched the Latin America Network of Sustainable Cities to unite civil society organizations in major cities across the region in order to standardize indices that measure a city’s performance on seven major topic areas related to sustainability (for example, “access to water” or “climate change”). They then hope to link the results of those investigations to the commitments by local politicians in order to improve their cities’ sustainability.
So here are my own initial reactions to the rise of promise monitoring. They are probably ill-conceived and mostly off-the-mark, but I offer them with the hope that readers can help improve my thinking.
First, fulfillment of promises isn’t always the most important metric. Rather, we should focus on results. The Chilean project, From What Was Said to What Was Done, emphasizes that 69% of the legislative proposals made by President Piñera didn’t correspond to his original commitments, but what if those pieces of legislation are actually better than what Piñera had originally proposed? (Always keeping in mind that “better” is that most subjective of adjectives.) Just because a politician promises something doesn’t mean that it’s good. Here in Mexico, for example, candidate Lopez Obrador has promised to lower the cost of fuel, but Mexico’s leading think tanks have demonstrated effectively how fuel subsidies hurt the country’s economy, environment, and urban planning. This is what I like about Arena Electoral — it will measure progress toward commitments that have already been assessed by the country’s leading civil society organizations.
Second, these platforms seem to offer an important opportunity to educate citizens as to how legislation is crafted, how it is passed, and how it is obstructed. Both The Obameter and From What Was Said to What Was Done do this in their own ways. The Obameter hires bloggers to post updates to each of Obama’s 508 commitments (lots of work), and those blog posts usually include links to related documents from The White House and the Congress. For example, we’re told that Obama promised to “expand and make refundable the child and dependent care credit.” But Obama had to let go of that promise in order to get an extra year of unemployment benefits for qualified workers and a one-year reduction of Social Security taxes. To bad for those busy parents paying for costly child care, but a boost for the unemployed in return.
From What Was Said to What Was Done relies more on graphics and visualizations, but for each piece of proposed legislation we are given a link to its sister site, Vota Inteligente, which offers a full summary of the bill, the voting results, and the record of the congressional debate — all scraped directly from the official congressional website.
Neither website, however, seeks to show how lobbying often influences which promises a presidential candidate is able to keep and which remain broken. The Obameter, it seems, could benefit from linking more liberally to Sunlight Foundation’s Lobbying Tracker and Influence Explorer while From What Was Said to What Was Done could mine some fascinating data from its sister site, Interest Inspector.
I think that promise monitoring platforms will need to partner with influential media if they want politicians to feel pressured to keep their commitments. Here in Mexico, the Internet has enabled the rise of fascinating and relatively influential indie pundit sites like Crítica Pura, Vivir Mexico, and Homozapping. But the vast majority of Mexican voters still form their opinions based on what they are told by mainstream news anchors Joaquin Lopez-Doriga and Carmen Arestegui. Such influential opinion-shapers could help hold elected leaders more accountable by consistently pointing their respective audiences to promise monitoring platforms. Only then would politicians feel compelled to respond.
Thinking in the long term, it seems that promise monitoring platforms will be most effective in countries and situations where sanction mechanisms are in place. For example, the Obameter is better positioned in the United States than Arena Electoral in Mexico because the US has re-election while Mexico does not. Obama has clear incentives to show the electorate that he fulfilled the promises of his first campaign now that he is once again up for re-election. However in Mexico, where there is no re-election, President Felipe Calderon has less incentive to fulfill his initial commitments since he will be out of office (and likely out of the country) no matter what. (The group “Reelect or Punish” has produced an excellent documentaryexplaining the importance of re-election in Mexico.)
Similarly, the member countries of the Open Government Partnership have no clear incentives to fulfill their commitments because there are no clearly defined rewards or sanctions for doing so. Governments such as Mexico’s receive positive coverage on the Open Government Website despite making little progress toward their commitments. Promise monitoring platforms will be most impactful in situations where the “promisers” have clearly defined incentives to fulfill their commitments (and sanctions when they don’t).
Finally, I would stress that it is important to recognize the achievements of elected officials, rather than merely dwelling on their shortcomings. It’s easy to glance at the first page of The Obameter and criticize the US president for only keeping 175 of his 508 campaign promises. On the other hand, when I dug deeper into each of Obama’s “kept promises,” it is rather extraordinary what he has been able to do in the past three years despite the lack of a shared vision with Congress. It seems to me that promise monitoring platforms can be most effective by strategically doling out criticism and recognition.
Those are my initial thoughts about the rise of political promise monitoring. What do you think?
Original publication: http://davidsasaki.name/2012/04/helping-politicians-keep-their-promises/
In the mid-nineties, following the return to democracy (1990), Chile began a process of cultural change aimed toward greater transparency. At that point, “the Chilean state was known as a state of secret” explains Alberto Precht, Secretary of the Commission on Integrity and Transparency of the Ministry General Secretariat of the Presidency and Chile’s representative to Open Government Partnership.
Corruption cases reinforced the need for a pro-transparency agenda that became increasingly formalized from 2002-2003 onwards. According to Precht, it was an agenda of “consensus” that would ultimately change the political makeup of the government.
Increasing Public Access
One of the most important milestones during this pro-transparency reform period has been the enactment of a 2008 law increasing public access to information. To monitor compliance, the government created an independent agency, the Council for Transparency.“More than 100,000 requests for information have been submitted to date,”notes Precht.
While embraced by the public, the requests for increasing transparency sparked fears among some government officials. “I remember the fear public officials had of publishing their salaries on the Internet. However, despite all the concern, nothing serious happened,” says Precht. One outcome of the law has been the revelation of the properties, assets, and potential conflicts of interest for government officials. This has generated news reports and increased audits and scrutiny by civil society representatives, which have in turn helped restore integrity and stronger accountability mechanisms among public officials. “While modernization requires public participation, this implies a paradigm shift because policies have historically been generated from the experts and not from the people,” Precht adds.
He also suggests that other measures will soon go up for parliamentary debate, including a new regulation on lobbying and financing of electoral campaigns. Additionally, other open government initiatives are in the works, such as the recently launched beta version of a public data portal, which according to Precht “allows for databases that can build applications and provide information, such as crime maps or how much longer a bus will reach a particular stop.”
“We want to shine in OGP”
Last September, the government of Chile submitted a letter of intent to join the Open Government Partnership (OGP). In December, officials created a domestic OGP working group that included four NGOs and the Comptroller General of the Republic and the Commission for Transparency, which are autonomous auditors in this area. These groups will work together with the Government to create the first draft country action plan to be presented on March 30, 2012 by President Sebastián Piñera to the Chilean public.
Felipe Heusser, Director of Ciudadano Inteligente, one of the civil society organizations invited to the working group in charge of developing a country action plan for Chile, says that there is no doubt that Chile is much better off than it was a few years ago. “We now have a Freedom of Information Law in place that has worked reasonably well thanks to all stakeholders, including Government, civil society organizations, and the Transparency Council (Information Commissioner) that have done a fantastic job. In comparative terms, Chile is one of the countries with most submissions of information requests, which is a healthy sign of a society that is using its right to know,”Heusser notes.
“As a country, one of our greatest assets should be to have the image of a transparent country,” says Precht. Chile recently ranked number 22 in the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index and wants to move to the top 20. “Though we are witnessing some positive signs towards transparency like the publishing of data catalogs, much more needs to be done. Open data is not about the publication of a few pieces of data, but the substantive publication of enough data that may allow us to understand policies and account government’s performance. Policies will never be transparent if they can’t be tested and openly evaluated,” adds Heusser.
In March, Chile attended the OGP regional outreach meeting in Mexico, and also undertook a technical visit to Colombia to learn about the government’s strategy to reduce paperwork.
These past few months, Chile reached agreements on OGP at the technical committee level. However, the public consultation process involved only five organizations, so the remaining challenge is to get input from a larger number of citizens who may not yet be aware of these new measures.
According to Heusser, Chilean civil society organizations are looking forward to OGP and its upcoming annual meeting in Brazil. “We see it as a great opportunity to persuade our governments to move the transparency agenda forward and deeper by learning and sharing from some of the best transparency practices that exist among the international community.”
Thus far Precht and Heusser believe that the greatest success for Chile since joining the OGP has been the understanding that secrecy in public affairs has to be the exception, not the rule, and that ensuring accountability requires independent bodies to oversee public agencies. Chile will deliver its first draft action plan in April 2012 “and we want shine in this initiative,” concludes Precht.
OGP original publication: http://www.opengovpartnership.org/news/case-chile-secret-state-open-state
¿Tienen algo en común la colusión de las farmacias con que un diputado “se equivoque” votando?
En el sector privado, entre miles y miles de buenas empresas,tristemente, destacamos siempre lo malo. Sobre todo a los “grandes malos”:Tras La Polar, vino el “cartel” de los pollosyantes el–excelentemente bien multado-“cartel” de las farmacias. Estos casos, entre muchas cosas, nos hablan de secretismo, de no acceso a la información, donde el consumidor es víctima, y poco o nada puede saber y, mucho menos, hacer para enfrentarse al abuso (menos aún, para evitarlo).
En el Poder Legislativo, aún con record de proyectos aprobados el 2011, destacamos también, tristemente, lo malo. En el último episodio de la ley del Tabaco, no sé qué llama más la atención: si parlamentarios que se “equivocaron”, o el escandaloso lobby, que se huele desde lejos, de las tabacaleras y otros organismos. Esto claramente deslegitima a la política, en particular al Poder Legislativo que ya está “al debe”, al aplicársele solo parcialmente la Ley de Transparencia. Contribuye a que el Estado se vea como una gran caja negra donde el ciudadano, poco y nada puede saber. Y mucho menos hacer (¿realizar más marchas…?)para enfrentar y prevenir esto.
Y si pensamos en el mundo de las ONG´s y del Poder Judicial, se aplica exactamente lo mismo.
De allí que la transparencia y el acceso a la información, sean mecanismos tan importantes para que la ciudadanía pueda participar. ¿Por qué? Porque es una herramienta de control social, de promoción de la probidad, legitimando y valorando nuestras instituciones y contribuyendo de paso a revertir la bajaconfianza que estamos teniendo entre nosotros.
Se trata de cambiar la cultura del secretismo enraizada en la gestión pública y privada que, finalmente, siembra un manto de duda sobre la mayoría de empresas y servicios públicos que trabajan de manera correcta y que son opacadas por estos “grandes malos” en todos los ámbitos.
Podemos votar –ahora voluntariamente- por los que nos parezcan más honrados y los que mejor nos representen (y que no se equivoquen). Podemos también dejar de comprarle a ciertas empresas (castigándolas, como desde ahora estamos viendo con el tema de la portabilidad numérica). Todo esto es muy importante y debemos tomar conciencia de este poder para ejercerloefectivamente. Pero no es suficiente. Por eso debemos seguir avanzando en transparencia y en establecer mecanismos defiscalización y control ciudadano.
Hemos recorrido mucho, sin duda. Un tremendo aporte fue la Ley de Transparencia, el mayor paso en muchos años, pero la tecnología nos permite hoy consolidarla y darle aún más fuerza. La ciudadanía, gracias a las nuevas tecnologías, tiene hoy una capacidad superior –no solo para coordinarse masivamente- sino para procesar la información que proviene del sector público y del mercado… pero requiere de la información. En otras palabras necesitamos los datos.
En ese contexto quiero destacar dos iniciativas. Primero, la adhesión del Gobierno de Chile, con apoyo de ONG´s comoCiudadano Inteligente y demás actores de la sociedad civil, a la Alianza Multilateral por el Gobierno Abierto (Open Governmentpartnership – OGP), que tiene por objetivo asegurar el compromiso concreto de los gobiernos en la promoción de la transparencia y la participación ciudadana, el fortalecimiento de la lucha contra la corrupción, así como la utilización de las nuevas tecnologías para incrementar la eficiencia, la apertura y la rendición de cuentas. Se busca la apertura de los gobiernos a la participación y el escrutinio público del actuar de sus instituciones y representantes. Se trata,entre otras cosas, de que esté disponible públicamente la información. De tener los datos.
Y en segundo término quiero destacar la aprobación unánime, de la ley del Ministerio de Desarrollo Social, que obliga no solo a evaluar, sino justamente a mostrar activamente los datos públicos de los programas sociales a la ciudadanía. Podremos analizar su financiamiento, focalización, resultados, impacto y eficiencia. Esto permite a universidades, centros de estudios y a cualquier ciudadano fiscalizar, y evaluar, permitiendo proponer caminos más efectivos en lo relativo al diseño y el control de las políticas públicas.
Esperemos (y presionemos para) que esto siga sucediendo.
Las organizaciones de la sociedad civil entregaron a la Segpres un documento con una serie de propuestas que buscan cooperar en la iniciativa gubernamental que tiene por objetivo la promoción de la transparencia y la participación ciudadana, y la modernización del Estado. Todo esto en el marco de la adhesión a la Alianza del Gobierno Abierto, a la que se le presentará una propuesta final en marzo de este año.
El Consorcio por la Transparencia y Fundación Ciudad Viva enviaron al secretario ejecutivo de la Comisión de Probidad y Transparencia, Alberto Precht, un documento con una serie de propuestas que apuntan al perfeccionamiento de la Ley de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública, y la promoción de la participación ciudadana.
La entrega del documento se dio en el contexto de la invitación que realizó la Agencia de Probidad de la Segpres a la sociedad civil para presentar propuestas en el marco de los compromisos que el Gobierno está elaborando para integrar la Iniciativa del Gobierno Abierto (Open Government Partnership). Un proceso de consulta en el que también participan el Parlamento, la Contraloría General de la República y el Consejo para la Transparencia.
Dentro de las propuestas que el Consorcio y Ciudad Viva presentaron a la instancia dependiente de las Naciones Unidas, destacan la publicidad actualizada y permanente de las estadísticas por servicio público, en la que se indiquen la cantidad de solicitudes de información recibidas y las respuestas entregadas por los servicios respectivos; la administración de un Observatorio por parte de la Agenda de Probidad, que realice seguimiento y apoyo a la implementación de la Ley 20.500 (“Sobre Asociaciones y Participación Ciudadana en la Gestión Pública”) y de la calidad de las consultas públicas on-line; el perfeccionamiento de la institucionalidad vigente del Consejo para la Transparencia, fortaleciendo su institucionalidad y presupuesto; y la creación de un Convenio Regional del P10 como un resultado concreto de la Cumbre de Río+20, a celebrarse en Junio del 2012 en Brasil.
El documento, además, busca definir las principales líneas del Plan de Acción, estableciendo metas de corto plazo en un primer año, así como otras de más largo alcance en temas como el compromiso del fortalecimiento de la lucha contra la corrupción, la utilización de las nuevas tecnologías (Tic’s) para incrementar la eficiencia, la apertura y la rendición de cuentas de los países.
El Consorcio por la Transparencia es una agrupación de organizaciones sin fines de lucro y pro transparencia, que vela por el bienestar de la sociedad civil; conformado por Fundación Pro Acceso, Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente, Fundación Pro Bono y Corporación Participa.
La propuesta completa que el Consorcio y Fundación Ciudad Viva entregaron al gobierno, puede ser descargada del sitio web www.consorcioporlatransparencia.cl.
¿Qué piensa cada congresista sobre el binominal, el semipresidencialismo, el matrimonio homosexual o sobre el aborto terapéutico?, ¿A qué opositor de su conglomerado político admiran más, a cuál menos?, ¿cuáles son sus creencias religiosas y cuáles sus referentes personales? 19 parlamentarios de diferentes partidos políticos accedieron a someterse al Rayo X Político, la nueva iniciativa de El Vaso, el blog de la Fundación Ciudadano Inteligente.
