Threats
to Democracy
Notes For An Address By Hon. David Kilgour,
M.P. Edmonton Southeast
Secretary Of State (Latin America And Africa)
Towards A Community Of Democracies Conference,
Warsaw, Poland, June 26, 2000
In 1947,
Winston Churchill said: "Many forms
of government have been tried, and will
be tried in this world of sin and woe. No
one pretends that democracy is perfect...
Indeed, it has been said that democracy
is the worst form of Government except all
those other forms that have been tried from
time to time."
Churchill’s
words were prophetic. Democracy is a difficult
and necessarily arduous process. It is about
citizens and states organizing through an
institutional core in a common effort for
societal betterment and justice. We democrats
know that our system is not easy; nor has
it been perfected. But it is in this very
difficulty and imperfection that the strengths
of democracy are present. It is in our struggle
to maintain the democratic systems some
have enjoyed for hundreds of years; it is
in our fight to consolidate flourishing
new democracies. Indeed in gatherings such
as this one the richness and strengths of
the democratic process are evident..
Threats to
Democracy
If there
is one overriding truth about democracy,
it is that it is precious but vulnerable.
The twentieth century shows that the enemies
of democracy are as numerous as they are
threatening. Over the course of my 21 years
as a parliamentarian and through travels
as Canada’s Secretary of State for
Latin America and Africa, I have witnessed
many threats to democracy. While many are
obvious, the most dangerous are subtle.
It is not empty stomachs, impunity or corruption
alone that necessarily jeopardize democracy;
it is their accumulated effects. The greatest
threat to democracy does not always come
from the barrel of a gun, but from the collected
effects of poverty, apathy, and economic
insecurity.
Another obstacle
to democracy is that the value of its name
often exceeds the principles of its practice.
The past century demonstrated that the banner
of democracy was used to sustain just about
any system. Democracy does not include oppression,
corruption, division, segregation, terror
and murder. A genuinely democratic nation
thrives on diversity and difference, through
which it builds on its collective wisdom
and strengths. We must now forge a new trail
in the twenty-first century where the merits
of democracy are not in its name alone,
but in its non-negotiable, irrefutable truths.
Freedom and
Responsibility
The waves
of democracy that swept through the past
twenty years has been an extraordinary achievement.
For new and old democracies alike, the great
opportunity presented was the empowerment
of civil society. Democracy subordinates
states to people; they own their government,
not vice versa. Democracy implies freedom
of speech, association, assembly - essentially
the freedom for individuals to express who
they are and what they believe.
No one put
it better than Abraham Lincoln; it is government
"of, by and for the people."
Ultimately,
democracy can only be as good as people
choose to make it. Referring to the need
for public responsibility, President Václav
Havel of the Czech Republic wrote: "A
genuinely fundamental and hopeful improvement
in political and economic systems cannot
happen without a significant shift in human
consciousness, and that it cannot be accomplished
through a simple organizational trick...
Man must extricate himself from this terrible
involvement in both the obvious and the
hidden mechanisms of totality, from consumption
to repression, from advertising to manipulation
through television. He must discover again,
within himself, a deeper sense of responsibility
toward the world, which means responsibility
toward something higher than himself."
In my view,
democrats place the democratic process above
themselves. We must be disciplined in our
devotion to the democratic process through
engagement and participation. Voters must
be responsible to make enlightened choices.
In the end, anything less presents a major
threat to democracy.
Education
In order
to be a responsible and disciplined democrat,
one must first be knowledgeable and informed.
For this reason, it is obvious that the
persistent problem of worldwide illiteracy
is a perpetual threat to democracy. How
can one vote when one cannot read an electoral
ballot? How can one make civic choices if
one cannot read a newspaper?
Literacy
is still unacceptably low. According to
the UN, the world literacy rate is only
78%. In the world’s least developed
countries it is only 50%; 38% for women.
How can democracy flourish when only half
a population can read?
Ultimately,
literacy does not just mean reading the
word, but reading the world. It means understanding
concepts and responsibilities. It involves
understanding others and diversity. When
the world’s citizens are given the
opportunity to read the written word, they
are also empowered to share ideas and live
fulfilled lives.
Rule of Law
Fundamental
to a healthy democracy is a strong judiciary.
Alexander Hamilton noted that there could
be no liberty if the power of the judiciary
is not separated from the legislative and
executive branches of government. In some
cases, the tyranny of legislatures was considered
to be the most formidable impediment to
the proper development and functioning of
constitutional democracy. In Canada we feel
that an independent judiciary, with real
power to review acts passed by legislators,
is a safeguard against potential harms that
may be caused to the rights of individuals.
The rule
of law and independent judiciaries, consistent
with international human rights standards,
are not present in all democracies. Judges
are dismissed in some jurisdictions if they
do not pass judgments that are acceptable
to the government, and more obsequious replacements
are found. There may be threats of violence
against judges in order to persuade them
to act in accordance to the will of a dictator.
Under these conditions, there can be no
impartiality as judges must choose between
their own personal safety and the rights
of an individual or a group of individuals.
This is an extreme example; but more subtle
means are deployed by regimes that seek
to project an image of a constitutional
democracy, and yet rule as a dictatorship
of the legislature or executive.
Striking
an appropriate balance between majority
rule and protection of individual and minorities’
rights is one of democracy’s most enduring
challenges. John Locke expressed the notion
of inalienable rights in a society: those
rights which are so fundamental to the well
being and happiness of an individual that
a state has very limited rights to infringe
upon them. In more modern times these inalienable
rights have taken the title of fundamental
rights or human rights in the perspective
of international law. One needs only to
look at a newspaper to find instances where
individual and group rights are being infringed.
Democracy’s
reliance on a vigorous judiciary makes it
possible for minorities and marginalized
groups within a state to live peacefully
as full members of society. Such groups
are no less entitled to live a happy and
fulfilling life than those of us who had
been lucky enough to be born into freedom.
All nations give their judges and lawyers
the authority to ensure justice for all,
even in the face of mob anger and prejudice.
Experience
as Secretary of State
I have witnessed
the challenges of and opportunities for
democracy in the Western Hemisphere and
Africa. For Canada, much of our recent experience
has been in the context of two institutions:
the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group
(CMAG) and the Organization of American
States (OAS), and I want to briefly refer
to how each of these has worked. I will
also comment briefly on the role of La Francophonie
in this area. Each of these is designed
to take into account differing histories
and traditions. CMAG as such is not completely
transferable to Latin America or La
Francophonie,
although some aspects could be relevant.
The same could be said of the kind of initiatives
that we have taken in recent years in the
OAS. Beyond regional mechanisms, I want
ti underline that the United Nations is
one of the main places that Canada uses
for raising human rights and related issues
such as democracy, in particular at the
Commission on Human Rights and the Third
Committee of the General Assembly. There,
Canada has supported a number of democracy-related
resolutions.
Africa
Democracy
has recently swept through Africa. At the
close of the last century, 32 out of 54
heads of state had been chosen on the continent
in elections against rivals backed by opposition
parties. This can be compared to 1975 when
only three heads of state were chosen that
way. Over the last decade there has been
the founding of more political parties in
Africa than at any time since
decolonization,
and democracy has taken root in countries
like Botswana, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania,
Ghana, Mauritius and South Africa. Democratic
elections were particularly successful in
Senegal last year with a very gracious hand
over of power by former President Diouf.
More and more African governments are turning
away from the military option, and made
a significant commitment in this regard
at the OAU (Organization for African Unity)
summit in Algiers. It was here that African
governments collectively resolved to oppose
any government which comes to power by military
means.
Nigeria has
been a sterling example of a country striving
to consolidate democracy after years of
military rule and mismanagement. President
Obasanjo has gone to great lengths to nurture
a fledgling democracy. Many applauded his
tenacity as well as the activism of the
Nigerian parliament. The emergence of democracy
in Nigeria, as in other African countries,
has raised expectations among the public,
who want to see ‘democracy dividends.’
These benefits have not always been obvious
in nations which are going through difficult
economic situations. The perceived failure
of democratically elected governments to
deliver a better standard of living and
greater human security is probably one of
the greatest threats to democracy in Africa.
The clear
lesson from Africa is that economic renewal
and democratization must go hand in hand.
There are African leaders who believe that
economic development must precede democracy.
For instance, Botswana and Mauritius have
experienced the highest long-term growth
rates, while also enjoying the longest period
of democratic rule. More recently, positive
growth has returned to Benin, Ghana, Mozambique
and South Africa, where the resurgence of
democracy has been the strongest. Those
having the most difficulties during the
1990s are not cases of failed democratization
but failed governance.
The greatest
hope for democracy in Africa is the resurgence
of civil society, which has been at the
forefront of the struggles to dislodge authoritarian
regimes and install democratic ones. The
NGO sector in many countries has grown with
groups dedicated to the promotion of democracy
and good governance. It is in states where
civil society and an independent media are
weak that we find the greatest challenges
to genuine electoral competition and accountability.
Such threats to democracy abound not only
in Africa but around the world, it is the
response to these threats that will determine
the extent to which we are free to determine
our own destinies.
OSCE
As the primary
instrument in its region for early warning,
conflict prevention, crisis management and
post-conflict rehabilitation, the Organization
for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) puts a great deal of emphasis on
enhancing democracy from "Vancouver
to Vladivostok." The organization does
this not only through the regular monitoring
of democratic processes among its participating
states, the results of which are reported
to the Permanent Council, but also through
most of the 20 active OSCE field missions,
many of whom have democratization as a principle
component of their mandate. Finally, the
OSCE also has a specialized agency devoted
to democratization pursuits, called the
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights (ODIHR). The OSCE’s ODIHR is
a Warsaw-based office active in monitoring
elections and developing national electoral
and human rights institutions, providing
technical assistance to national legal institutions,
and promoting the development of NGOs and
civil society. Canada has been a strong,
long-time supporter of this facet of the
OSCE's work, and has been well pleased by
the contribution its efforts have made in
enhancing European peace and security.
Commonwealth
Much of Canada’s
efforts to support democracy in Africa has
been through the Commonwealth which is a
multilateral organization that grew out
of a shared background and a number of common
values such as equality, democracy and the
rule of law. These values and traditions
are reflected in the Harare Declaration
of 1991, in which member governments pledged
their commitment to the protection and promotion
of the fundamental political values of the
Commonwealth, namely democracy (including
democratic processes and institutions, the
rule of law, the independence of the judiciary,
just and honest government) and human rights.
These are referred to as the Harare principles.
In order to be a member in good standing
of the Commonwealth, a country must now
have a civilian, democratically elected
government.
In 1995,
Commonwealth Heads of Government accepted
a major initiative by Prime Minister Jean
Chrétien to put the Harare principles
into practical action by giving the Commonwealth
an expanded mandate on democracy, including
mechanisms for responding to problems when
they arise in member countries. The result
was the Millbrook Action Programme, authorizing
increased Commonwealth action to promote
democracy, development and consensus building.
One section
of Millbrook establishes the Commonwealth
Ministerial Action Group, (CMAG), the body
established to investigate "serious
or persistent violations of the [Harare]
principles." The Group, convened by
the Secretary-General and comprised of the
Foreign Ministers of eight countries, is
tasked with recommending measures for collective
action aimed at the speedy restoration of
democracy and constitutional rule. The composition,
terms of reference and operation of the
Group are reviewed by the Heads of Government
every two years.
Since its
creation in1995, CMAG has held numerous
meetings at the ministerial level, and has
sent ministerial missions to The Gambia,
Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Pakistan and most
recently to Fiji and the Solomon Islands.
One of the
strong points of CMAG is that it is composed
of a small group of Ministers. The fact
that they are Foreign Ministers, rather
than officials, means that they can take
decisive action, while the small size of
the group encourages a faster decision-making
process.
CMAG uses
a variety of carrots and sticks ranging
from constructive dialogue to sanctions
in order to encourage military regimes to
return to the barracks and restore democracy
as quickly as possible. The key to its effectiveness
has been its flexibility.
While CMAG’s
current mandate has mainly focussed on violations
of democracy brought on by military overthrows
of democratic governments, there is on-going
debate within the Commonwealth as to whether
this mandate should be broadened to include
other violations such as human rights ones.
The Americas
and the OAS
The Americas
too have seen an extraordinary democratic
revolution, a far cry from twenty years
ago when there were only four democratic
governments in South America.
The promotion
of democracy was a fundamental consideration
when Canada joined the OAS ten years ago
and has been the abiding consideration in
our relations with OAS member states. The
OAS was the first international organization
to expressly promote democracy. Canada has
focused on developing the capacity of the
organization to promote and serve democratic
development. We have also strived to consolidate
and strengthen the institutions that support
political and human rights.
Canada worked
for the establishment of the Unit for the
Promotion of Democracy (UPD). We are cooperating
with hemispheric partners in the Ad Hoc
Working Group established last November
and in the OAS Committee on Juridical and
Political Affairs to find ways to strengthen
the human rights system and to ensure that
its principal organs - the Inter-American
Human Rights Commission and the Inter-American
Human Rights Court - function efficiently.
Since its
adoption at the 1991 OAS General Assembly,
Resolution 1080 has been the principal inter-American
mechanism for providing a collective response
to a grave democratic crisis in a member
state. In essence, the resolution provides
for a collective response to a crisis situation,
such as a coup, but does not contemplate
action in the face of other democratic irregularities.
The mandate of the Ad Hoc meeting (or special
session of the General Assembly) is to look
into the events collectively and adopt appropriate
decisions. Resolution 1080 has been invoked
four times: Haiti (1991), Peru (1992), Guatemala
(1993) and Paraguay (1996).
The Protocol
of Washington, which amended the OAS Charter
in 1992, allowed for the de facto suspension
from the OAS of a country whose democratically-elected
government has been overthrown by force.
Recently
at the 30th General Assembly in Windsor,
Ontario, OAS Foreign Ministers agreed to
send a high-level mission led by Canadian
Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy and OAS
Secretary General César Gaviria to
Peru to examine means to strengthen the
country’s democratic structures following
irregularities in the second round of presidential
elections. This important mission is taking
place this week.
In Windsor,
member states also adopted a resolution
establishing a Special Fund for Strengthening
Democracy to be used to respond to requests
from member states requiring assistance
when faced with threats to the democratic
process. Windsor also saw foreign ministers
agree to "take ownership" of democracy
and governance issues in the Summit of the
Americas process.
La Francophonie
Canada has
worked with La Francophonie to support democracy.
The organization has developed mechanisms
to foster and strengthen democracy and has
undertaken several informal political initiatives
to support democracy in some countries at
risk. At the Moncton Summit, the final declaration
and the action plan both identified support
to democracy and human rights as core goals.
In practical
terms, the work of La Francophonie has focused
on electoral observation missions, technical
assistance in areas related to institutional
development and "good offices"
missions mounted by the Secretary General
to assist in political crises. More recently,
as a result of discussions at Moncton, Foreign
Ministers have agreed to hold a high-level
symposium on democracy and human rights
in Mali in November 2000.
With respect
to "crises of democracy", the
practice has developed of the Secretary
General lending his personal efforts (or
efforts of his representatives) to resolve
difficult situations. These missions can
have a variety of purposes, but they occasionally
have included issues of democratic governance.
Some recent examples include missions to
the Central African Republic, to Togo and
various contacts with the authorities of
Côte d’Ivoire. The missions have
tended to be diplomatic, private and facilitative
in nature. Canada thinks that this is a
very good beginning and we are confident
that the organization will continue to play
a meaningful role in the promotion of democracy
in francophone nations.
Canada, Multilateralism
and Democracy
What has
Canada learned from its experiences in the
Commonwealth, the OAS and La Francophonie?
I think that we first have concluded that
there is no single model for how to address
threats to democracy. In the contexts of
the Commonwealth and the Americas, CMAG
and the OAS have respectively worked well.
For Canada, engaging global partners in
democracy through multilateral institutions
has been our preferred approach.
The second
conclusion is that each threat to democracy
must be addressed in its own context. In
many cases, the best approach is one of
what we might call accompaniment. That is,
we need to be supportive of local initiatives
and ideas on how to strengthen democracy
and send a message that external actors
are there to support, and not necessarily
to force change. Wherever possible, we should
let local actors take the lead in resolving
their own challenges. In other cases, however,
particularly when there are violations of
fundamental principles, we must be prepared
to take stronger measures. This again argues
against universal models, but instead supports
the idea of taking a country-level approach
to democracy strengthening.
Third, our
experience has shown that while in a few
cases, threats to democracy can be resolved
in short order, most of the time, we must
travel a long road and have patience. As
external supporters, we need to be ready
to listen, enter into dialogue, and provide
technical advice and assistance where needed,
and be willing to do so over an extended
period.
Finally,
we must always be careful that in our efforts
to be creative and supportive, we do not
compromise basic principles or offer bad
advice, and keep our actions in-line with
the promotion and protection of human rights
consistent with international human rights
law. Otherwise, we will not have democracy
and we will have betrayed the people we
are trying to help.
While the
threats to democracy may seem great, we
must never let them overwhelm us. As I stated
earlier, the strength of democracy is in
the struggle. It is a struggle to build
the conditions in which democracy can grow
and it is a continual struggle to maintain
it where it is strong. With a full appreciation
and understanding of what threatens democracy,
let us continue the critical endeavour of
strengthening it.
|
