|
Statement by Kenneth Wollack, President,
National Democratic Institute for International Affairs Before the Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Human Rights U.S. House of Representatives July 7, 2004 The National Democratic Institute (NDI) thanks the Committee for this opportunity to present its views on U.S. democracy assistance programs on the occasion of the release of the Department of State's second annual report on Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2003-2004 Report. The introduction to this Report states: "the best guarantor of security and prosperity at home and abroad is respect for individual liberty, and protection of human rights through good governance and the rule of law." NDI concurs with this assertion. The report provides a comprehensive and much-needed review of US democracy assistance programs over the past year. As one of the organizations that has implemented a number of these programs, we would like to briefly share some of the lessons we have learned in the course of our work in more than 50 countries. Promoting Democracy and Human Rights NDI firmly believes that the United States should attach the highest priority to democratic development as an essential element of its foreign assistance programs. Nothing better serves the moral and strategic interests of the United States than the promotion of democratic practices and institutions. This convergence of interests has been recognized by both Democratic and Republican Administrations and by successive Congresses. In fact, the creation of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) was itself a bipartisan initiative. President Ronald Reagan's leadership in the establishment of the Endowment was one of his important legacies. The notion that there is a dichotomy between our moral preferences and our strategic goals is a false one. Our ultimate foreign policy goal is a world that is secure, stable, humane and safe, and where the risk of war is minimal. Yet the undeniable reality is that violence is most likely to erupt in areas of the world that are nondemocratic or where governments are anti-democratic. Economic and social dislocations can generally be traced to political systems in which the victims have no political voice, in which government institutions feel no obligation to answer to the people, and in which special interests exploit the resources, land and people, without fear of oversight or the need to account. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to take part in the government of his or her country, by acting directly or through freely chosen representatives, and that the will of the people expressed in genuine elections is the basis of authority of government. Thus, democratic governance is itself an internationally recognized human right. However, democratic governance cannot be achieved unless the people of a country are free to exercise a wide range of other civil and political rights. The freedoms of expression—association, assembly and movement, as well as freedom of the press—are simply the most obvious of these. Citizens must also be free from political violence, intimidation and other forms of coercion in order to make free choices at the ballot box and to participate in public affairs. This goes directly to the right to life, liberty and security of person. Likewise, the exercise of civil and political rights cannot be achieved unless there is equality of the law, equal protection of the law and effective remedies provided by competent, independent tribunals for violations of fundamental rights. Establishing a democratic political process provides the best possibilities for developing governmental policies that address economic, social and other issues that are essential for advancing human dignity. Such a process provides the means to peacefully resolve the competition for political power through democratic elections and to address grievances that are often the source for internal and even international conflict. Establishing a democratic process in a country also provides the best mechanisms to combat corruption and redress abuses of power. These all are important antidotes to autocracy, corruption and lack of accountability that create instability and foster political extremism. Effective promotion of democracy, human rights and the rule of law therefore is essential to breaking the symbiotic relationship between political extremes. There should be no trade-off between achieving stability and promoting democracy. There have been times when the principal concerns of the international community have been the restoration of peace, assisting in the rapid forming of a new government and maintaining national unity. Experience has taught us, however, that an early investment in democracy and human rights is the best way to ensure stability in the long run. In Pakistan, a military coup was at first greeted warmly by many Pakistanis who sought an end to the political bickering and corruption that had long plagued the nation. But the suppression of the country's more moderate, secular parties has led to greater prominence of more extreme, religious forces. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, three decades of autocratic rule were viewed by some as providing stability, but the suppression of democracy and human rights finally led to an outburst of pent-up frustrations, violence and armed conflict that has now claimed the lives of well over three million people in that Central African country. When stability comes at the expense of democracy we may achieve neither. A New Internationalism The promotion of democracy does not lend itself to unilateralism. At a time when there is growing recognition of the interconnectedness between economic prosperity and democracy, more and more other nations, intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations and international financial institutions are beginning to engage in democracy promotion and human rights activities. Literally dozens of government-funded foundations have been formed or have expanded in Europe, Asia and Africa; intergovernmental bodies such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have units dedicated to democratic institution building. Donor aid agencies are increasingly committing funds to democracy promotion and even the World Bank and other international financial institutions have begun to recognize the linkages between political development and economic reform, and are implementing civil society and governance programs. NDI programs have benefited greatly from cooperation with many of these groups. There is a growing global movement to support networks of democrats, to connect political and economic development, and to build the democratic institutions that provide the ultimate protection against human rights abuses. Such increased support validates the United States' longstanding leadership in the promotion of democracy, and should encourage an even stronger commitment to such programs. We have been most successful at NDI when we have joined with others to share democratic skills. As a practical matter, peoples making the transition to democracy require diverse experiences. The experiences of democrats from other nations—from new and established democracies alike—are often more relevant than our own. Cooperative approaches also convey a deeper truth to nations attempting a transition to democracy: that they are not ceding something to the United States when they develop democratic institutions; rather, they are joining a community of nations. That other nations have traversed the same course. That while autocracies are inherently isolated and fearful of the outside world, democracies can count on natural allies and an active support structure. And that other nations are concerned and are watching—something that would-be autocrats, who flourish outside the glare of the international spotlight, will bear in mind. This cooperation was evident in Istanbul, Turkey, at a recent gathering of leading democratic reformers from predominately Muslim countries. The Congress of Democrats from the Islamic World was sponsored by NDI, the UNDP and the Turkish Democracy Foundation, with the support of 16 governments and foundations from the United States, Europe and the Middle East. Democracy and Political Extremism Understandably, much attention is currently being paid to the lack of democratic institutions in the greater Middle East. At the same time, a number of predominantly Muslim countries have made impressive, but often overlooked, advances in their democratic development. In Turkey, citizens elected to power a party with Islamic roots that subsequently passed far-reaching political reform legislation. In Morocco and Jordan, national legislative elections put more women in parliament in these countries than ever before. In Indonesia, the government undertook a transparent and inclusive constitutional reform process that has enabled direct elections for President and Vice President, and has eliminated military and police appointees from legislatures at all levels. In the Kingdom of Bahrain, leaders are spearheading an international judicial reform program. Recent elections in Yemen have led to a multiparty legislature. And in Senegal, more than 1,700 women now hold local government office. Nondemocratic countries in the Middle East and the wider Islamic world are caught in a destabilizing cycle of authoritarianism and the radicalism it helps to breed. Political life has been polarized, marked by sharp cleavages between secular and religious forces, and between ruling elites and civil society. However, throughout the Islamic world, democratic political and civic activists are struggling against great odds to build a "third way," a democratic middle ground that could offer viable political alternatives to citizens whose voices remain unorganized and often unheard. These men and women are trying to discredit extremism by creating new space for debate and participation. To succeed, they must be armed with the skills, knowledge and institutional networks to recruit and sustain broad constituencies. Without support for this moderate democratic middle, radicalism will grow. Autocracy, corruption, and the lack of accountability feed powerlessness, poverty, and despair. In these situations, democracy and human rights are not only ideals to be pursued by all nations—they are also pragmatic tools that are powerful weapons against extremism. During the 1980s, an important lesson was learned about political transformations in countries like the Philippines and Chile—that political forces on the far left and far right enjoy a mutually reinforcing relationship, drawing strength from each other and, in the process, marginalizing the democratic center. Prospects for peace and stability only emerged once democratic political parties and civic groups were able to offer a viable alternative to the two extremes. These democratic forces benefited from the solidarity and support they received from the international community and in the U.S., Republicans and Democrats joined together to champion their cause. Today, these conditions find their parallel in the greater Middle East and Asia, where democratic activists now fear that they might be caught between governments that are using the call to action against terrorism to root out even benign forms of political participation, and fundamentalists who have always regarded democratic reform as a threat to their vision of a religious state. Yet a new generation of democrats in the region are taking advantage of every opportunity to push for more freedom and accountability from their leaders. They are active in newly elected legislatures, within reform-oriented political parties, in women's organizations and among an abundance of non-governmental organizations. The men and women who form this growing indigenous democracy network have no questions about the compatibility of democracy and Islam, and are committed to the struggle for democracy in the Middle East. If it is offered and provided in a spirit of cooperation, they welcome practical assistance from the outside. The U.S. agenda in the wider Middle East can help support those working for freedom of speech and expression, for fair elections that reflect the will of the voters, for representative political institutions that are not corrupt and that are accountable to the public, and for judiciaries that uphold the rule of law. There are those who would argue that democracy the Middle East and elsewhere must develop gradually and cannot be rushed. This is a common refrain of autocratic leaders from the Middle East to Central Asia to the Far East. And we cannot expect democratic change overnight. But, as NDI Chairman Madeleine Albright has said, �we need to answer that gradual is fine, but glacial is not.� Gradual means a steady discernible movement in the right direction, and our democracy support programs should be geared towards those progressive forces advocating real, discernible institutional change. While local democracy efforts are useful, particularly when resources are plentiful, they should not come at the expense of those initiatives that can help promote a reform agenda at the national level and challenge entrenched authoritarian behavior. We should not want, even inadvertently, to contribute to a steady erosion of reforms that leaves citizens in exactly the place year after year. Future programs can identify key areas where democracy assistance can be effective, particularly concentrating on encouraging women's participation, strengthening democratic institutions and practices at a local and municipal level, providing opportunities for regional networking, and supporting journalists and activists in opening up debate throughout the region. In Iraq, a virtual explosion of politics followed the fall of Saddam Hussein. However, there have been few established avenues for those parties and individuals that could form a constituency for Iraqi peace, stability and democracy. There is an urgent need for democratic education, for political party strengthening, for coalition building and for material assistance to both established and emerging democratic movements and organizations. Few of the new parties and movements being formed by businesspeople, professionals and more progressive tribal interests have the organizing skills needed to participate effectively in a political process, and to build political coalitions that could cross ethnic and sectarian lines. Iraqi women, in particular, face numerous obstacles in attempting to enter into politics. Operating with an experienced international staff of political and civic practitioners, NDI has been conducting programs in Iraq since last June, when we carried out some of the first public opinion research in the country. Since then, the Institute has served as a resource for hundreds of fledgling political parties and civic groups, and is currently working on programs to help strengthen these organizations over the long term. Our civic programs are designed to help groups develop organizational structures and strategies for becoming actively involved in the political process. Our political party programs, through a series of workshops on organizational development, recruitment, research, message development, and women's participation are helping parties develop training plans for their local and regional branches. Indeed the U.S. government has recognized the growing needs in the region, and has increased funding for democracy promotion in the Arab and Islamic world. The Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) of the State Department's Near East Affairs Bureau (NEA) and the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor's (DRL) Human Rights and Democracy Fund have provided support for new initiatives in the region. While we are encouraged to see additional resources being allocated for the Middle East, there is concern that democracy funds to Africa, Latin America and certain countries in Eastern Europe and Eurasia may be reduced. This would be a shortsighted approach to democracy promotion efforts, sending a dangerous signal to autocrats and democrats alike. To be effective, there must be a sustained and long-term commitment to these efforts globally. U.S. Government Support and the Role of NGOs NGOs such as NDI have greatly appreciated the expansion of democracy initiatives undertaken by the U.S. government. U.S. government support for democracy programs comes from a variety of sources and through various mechanisms. In the early 1980s, these programs were funded primarily through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). The NED and its core institutes—NDI, the International Republican Institute, the American Center for International Labor Solidarity and the Center for International Private Enterprise—give concrete expression to America's democratic values while serving our country's national interest by promoting political environments that are inhospitable to political extremism. Since the 1980's, support from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has allowed for a significant increase in democracy promotion activities, as has the Department of State's application of Economic Support Funds for these purposes. Increased resources within the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) have allowed even greater opportunities for much-needed assistance. Pluralism in democracy assistance has served the U.S. well. It has allowed for diverse yet complementary programming that, over the long term, could not be sustained by a highly static and centralized system. Funding by the NED, for example, has allowed NDI and the other core institutes of the Endowment to respond quickly and flexibly to emerging opportunities and sudden problems in rapidly shifting political environments. Also, the NED has been able to operate effectively in closed societies where direct government engagement is more difficult. USAID funds have provided the basis for a longer-term commitment in helping to build a country's democratic institutions; and funding from DRL and other focused programs within the State Department have given the U.S. government the capacity to support, without cumbersome regulations, cutting-edge and highly focused democracy programs in individual countries, and for regional and global initiatives. Role of U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) While the U.S. government can set the tone, and foreign aid can provide needed resources for democratic development, much of the work on the ground must be done by non-governmental organizations. This is particularly true in the Middle East. Groups such as NDI are capable of assuming responsibility, yet are not constrained by the stringent rules of formal diplomacy. NGOs can readily share information, knowledge and experiences with groups and individuals who are pursuing or consolidating democracy, sometimes without the cooperation or sanction of their government. Perhaps most important, in countries where one of the primary issues being addressed is the paucity of autonomous civic and political institutions, the fundamental idea that government ought not to control all aspects of society can be undermined by a too-visible donor government hand in the development and implementation of democracy programs. NGO initiatives must grow out of the needs of democrats in the host country. The work should always be in the open and should be conducted with partners committed to pluralism and nonviolence. At the same time, consultation is necessary with the Congress, USAID missions and embassies. When public funds are used, transparency and accountability should always prevail. Importance of Political Party Programs If there is one area where the allocation of additional resources would increase the effectiveness of democracy assistance programs, it would be in the area of political party modernization and reform. Political parties serve a function unlike any other institution in a democracy. By aggregating and representing social interests, they provide a structure for political participation. They act as training grounds for political leaders who will eventually assume governing roles. They foster necessary competition and accountability in governance. In the legislative arena, they translate policy preferences into public policies. And it is political parties, acting through the legislative process, that the public must ultimately rely on to design anticorruption measures and oversee their enforcement. It should come as no surprise, then, that when political parties fail to fulfill their special roles, the entire democratic system is placed in jeopardy. Despite the importance of parties to democratic development, in recent years it has been civic organizations that have received the bulk of democracy assistance funding. The international development community has buttressed civic groups and assisted their rise. This is a good and necessary endeavor; NDI has participated in many such initiatives and continues to do so. At the same time, there is a danger in focusing almost exclusively on civil society development. Civil society activism without effective political institutions quickly creates a vacuum. It sows opportunities for populists and demagogues who seek to emasculate parties and legislatures, which are the cornerstones of representative democracy. The international community must respond to the need to build, sustain, and renew political parties in a way that matches our efforts to build and sustain civil society. The democratization of political parties must be a priority in the efforts to restore public confidence in parties and the democratic process as a whole. Greater citizen participation, accountability of leadership, transparency, and institutional safeguards are more important now than ever for this democratization effort to succeed. Organizations and institutions that have the commitment and expertise to underpin and promote these initiatives lack adequate resources to do so at present. Over the past several years, there has gradually emerged a new recognition of the need to support political party development. The Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) affirms that the "strengthening of political parties is a priority for democracy." And with the support of NDI, the three largest global groupings of political parties, reflecting Social Democratic, Liberal and Christian Democratic ideologies, are joining forces to promote political party modernization, reform, and renewal. These three political party "internationals" represent 340 parties in 140 countries. Impact of Democracy Assistance Programs One of the lessons we at NDI keep learning, with more than a little humility, is that the appropriate role of our Institute is to provide support for democratic forces within society - be they governmental or nongovernmental, political or civil. In nondemocratic settings, these forces are seeking to promote peaceful political change, often against seemingly insurmountable odds, or at great personal risk to themselves. In new democracies, governments, political parties and civil society are finding ways to work cooperatively to construct their nascent democratic institutions. In all these settings, our efforts are only successful when we stand behind people, not in front of them; when we follow, not lead; and when there are self-motivated and dedicated people on the ground pursuing homegrown initiatives for democratic reform or consolidation. In short, these democracy promotion efforts are not an imposition. As NDI Chairman Madeleine Albright remarked at the Congress of Democrats from the Islamic World: "It is not true that we intend or desire to impose anything upon anybody. Even if we did, we could not succeed. Because democracy is defined by the right of people to express freely their own views about who should lead their own societies. The truth is that, in any place at any time, it is dictatorship that is an imposition; democracy is a choice. At the core of democracy is the premise that governments have an obligation to respect the rights and dignity of their citizens." In some cases, democracy assistance has played a critical and transformative role at a certain moment in a country's democratic transition. In other situations, longer-term assistance has allowed for the growth and development of stable, democratic institutions and processes grounded in the principles of inclusion, transparency and accountability. And in those places where democratic change has not occurred or has stalled, assistance has provided protection to, and solidarity with, courageous democrats seeking peaceful reform. Even in countries which are widely regarded as democratic success stories, "next generation" democracy challenges—such as corruption, economic progress, political party reform, information technology, women, youth and minority participation, leadership development and addressing public apathy and disaffection—must be tackled through greater linkages between the citizenry and political institutions and elected officials. Following are examples of NDI-sponsored programs that have been supported by either USAID, the NED or DRL: Global programs
|