FAAE Rapport du Comité

From its Greek origins[3] to modern times, democracy has been both an evolving and quintessentially contested concept in the history of political thought.[4] Apart from the brief Athenian example from antiquity, it is only since the 18^th and 19^th centuries (the French and American revolutions) that democracy has been considered in a positive light[5], only since the 20^th century that universal suffrage became the standard for electoral democracy[6], only since the mid-20^th century that democracy has been linked to universal rights[7], and only in the 21^st century that democracy in at least a minimal sense has been enjoyed by a majority of the world’s population.[8]

The advance of democracy continues to be an uneven, complex continuing process, sometimes beset by setbacks or retreats. In a seminal formulation, the American political scientist, Samuel Huntington, has postulated that we are in a “third wave” of global democratic expansion that began in the 1970s, and accelerated with the end of the Cold War, but which continues to face challenges in many regions.[9]

Others such as British theorist, Laurence Whitehead, characterise that past half century as one of growing international pressures to democratize by harder or softer means — from varied forms of diplomatic persuasion to democratic conditionalities (on aid, trade, financial concessions, and membership eligibility in some multilateral organizations), to intervention by force (whether UN-mandated or not). He sees four main types of modern internationally influenced democratic transitions: “Democratization through decolonization”; “New democracies eligible to join the European Union (EU)”; “democratization processes following military defeat”; “Democratizations under United Nations or international auspices.”[10]

Professor Diane Éthier of the University of Montreal also pointed the Committee to international factors in identifying three main democratization strategies used by outside actors since the Second World War: “control, that is the imposition of democracy on a country by foreign authorities”; “conditionality”, which can be positive (tied to assistance in some way) or negative (involving sanctions or other measures of censure); and “one based on incentives. Under this strategy, a country might freely receive different forms of assistance or other types of advantages to encourage it to implement or consolidate a democratic system.”[11] She was sceptical of the effectiveness of democratization strategies, noting that “democracy imposed by foreign authorities only developed or flourished in countries which had already achieved an advanced level of social and economic modernization when the foreign powers intervened”[12], that political conditionality has really only worked in the case of accession processes to the European Union, and that the evidence of positive results from other forms of support remains weak. She concluded:

Democracy is a domestic affair par excellence. Although the more forcible strategies, like control and conditionality, are more effective than incentives, their success depends either on favourable economic, social, political and cultural conditions in the target countries or on the creation of those conditions through massive investment and judicious and targeted interventions over a long or very long period of time.[13]

This cautionary scepticism about external interventions on the side of democracy is not unusual among analysts. Professor Bruce Bueno de Mesqita of New York University told the Committee that “the record of exporting democracy since World War II is not a good record”, although his colleague Professor George Downs allowed that, with less baggage than the great powers and more responsive flexibility than large international organizations, “Canada has a better prospect of being successful than the UN or the United States.”[14]

And yet, by all accounts democracy has made remarkable progress since the Second World War. Moreover, the aspiration to genuine democracy is one that is almost universally shared by the world’s peoples. The troubling news in that virtually all analysts also agree that the continued forward march of democracy is no sure thing, and that in the current environment retreat is threatening progress. The annual Freedom House survey “Freedom in the World 2007” released in January 2007 included an essay by Arch Puddington “Freedom Stagnation amid Pushback Against Democracy”, noting that the number of countries designated as “free” has failed to increase for nearly a decade and that authoritarian tendencies have increased in many regions.[15] The Economist’s latest annual review The World in 2007 suggests that “the spread of democracy has stalled”, for reasons including an anti-American backlash since the Iraq war and the fact that “many autocrats preside over energy-rich states and have been strengthened by high oil prices.” Nine of ten countries on its democracy index “watch list” are in the negative category. Yet the Economist conclusion remains hopeful:

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to be too pessimistic. Democracy as a value retains strong universal appeal. Creating democracy by external intervention has not gone smoothly. But trends such as globalisation, increasing education and expanding middle classes favour its organic development. These underlying forces suggest that any retreat from democracy will be temporary.[16]

It is important to recognize at the same time that democracy is at issue within developed countries too, as well as at the global level, hence the talk of “democratic deficits” in many places. The most recent triennial world congress of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) was on the theme “Is Democracy Working?” — a question not a statement. One address to that conference, by Vidar Helgesen, Secretary-General of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), which the Committee met with in Stockholm, Sweden, put the case in the best light:

Today, more people than ever before are governed by elected representatives. Democracy — the idea that people have the right to control their government and that a government is legitimate only if and when it is controlled by the people — has acquired an almost unique global hegemony, hardly matched by any other worldview in modern history. It transcends cultures, religions and languages; it takes multiple forms and survives in the most inhospitable environments. Democracy is an expression of the very basic human quest for freedom and dignity and of the understanding that these values need to be shared.[17]

The democratic aspiration may be worldwide, and democracy may have attained the status of an international normative framework, as Warren Allmand and Fergus Watt argued to the Committee.[18] Yet democracy is always a developing work in progress. Another IPSA presentation by the noted Latin American scholar of democratic transitions Guillermo O’Donnell captured an essential aspect of all democracy as a constant progressive striving:

[D]emocracy always projects both hope and dissatisfaction. Because it is founded on various dimensions of citizenship and the intrinsic dignity of human beings that these dimensions bring about, democracy always, remains an open horizon. This projection toward the future, toward a better future, is the genie that has come out of the bottle and has spread throughout the world as never before. This projection toward an unending and undefined, yet always promising and risky future, runs essentially contrary to all forms of authoritarian rule. … we must consider that democracy is and always will be in some kind of crisis. It is constantly straining its citizens from a more or less satisfactory present towards a future of yet unfulfilled promises and capabilities.[19]

George Perlin, citing O’Donnell in a similar vein in an opening paper presented to the February 15 “Dialogue on Canada’s Approach to Democratic Development”, also observes that: “There is no overarching theory of democratic development against which to measure progress.”[20]

How then to define democracy and democratic development? For the purposes of democracy support policy, that should also mean giving attention to the quality, consolidation and sustainability of democracy, if the goals of long-term democratic development are to be reached.

Professor Perlin argues that a fully developed democracy represents a normative ideal, and it is clear that we wish to support “liberal” forms of democracy. He provides detailed tables of elements and indicators of liberal democracy and of the conditions necessary to achieve and sustain liberal democracy. Using a narrower definition, democracy scholar Larry Diamond defines the key elements of liberal democracy in brief as encompassing “not only electoral competition for power but also:

·        Freedom of belief, expression, organization, and demonstration;

·        Protection from political terror and unjustified imprisonment;

·        A rule of law under which all citizens are treated equally and due process is secure;

·        Political independence and neutrality of the judiciary and of other institutions of “horizontal accountability” that check the abuse of power;

·        An open, pluralistic civil society;

·        Civilian control over the military.”[21]

More ambitiously, Warren Allmand referred the Committee to the ten indicators for evaluating democracies developed by Canada’s International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (ICHRDD, now known as Rights and Democracy), of which he was president: “firstly, free, fair, and regular elections, including a multi-party system; second, full respect for all human rights, including minority rights and gender equality; three, full respect for the rule of law; four, an independent judiciary; five, an independent legislature; six, an equitable distribution of wealth; seven, control of the military and police by the civil authority; eight, public accountability and an ongoing process for consultation; nine, transparency and access to information; and ten, a free and active civil society.”[22] In Stockholm, Sweden, headquarters of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), the Committee heard from IDEA staff about the methodology of its democracy assessments which are not just externally formulated but attempt to arrive at a shared understanding that involves civil society in the countries concerned and that gauges citizens’ perceptions. This is as part of its mandate to contribute to sustainable democracy around the world by improving the quality and effectiveness of democratic practices worldwide.[23]

Mr. Allmand added: “It is our view that you can’t have democracy without human rights, and you can’t have human rights without democracy. Human rights and democracy always advance together.”[24] Gareth Evans, President of the International Crisis Group, has argued that “democracy is best conceptualized as a human rights issue”, in part because: “This enables the promotion of democracy world-wide to be credibly portrayed as a genuinely universal value, rather than just a Western hang-up, and (while not pretending that “universal human rights” is an easy sell in many parts of the world) that is helpful in terms of getting buy-in.”[25]

It is worth recalling that the report which led up to the Canadian government’s creation of ICHRDD in 1988 used an emphatically participatory and rights-based concept of democracy:

The notion of democracy we have adopted, and which we believe must define and inspire Canadian assistance in this area, is quite simply the participation of citizens in decision-making which affects their lives.  The ultimate objective is to assist the population to develop the ability to intervene on its own behalf in the decision-making process at the local, regional and national level and to assist the public powers to create institutions to safeguard the rights and liberties of citizens.[26]

According to a discussion paper prepared for Canada’s Democracy Council in 2006:

The decision to focus on the rights and political engagement of citizens was anchored not in the promotion of a particular Canadian brand or model of democracy or development, but rather in principles contained in the International Bill of Rights. This unites the two principal strands of the liberal democratic tradition: on one side, the centrality of participation in shaping and legitimating decision-making processes and the formation of government itself; on the other, a rights “platform” to support and protect the role of individuals in the democratic process.[27]

This broadly human rights-based approach to democracy goes well beyond Freedom House’s criteria for an “electoral democracy”[28] and also somewhat beyond the “full democracy” postulated by The Economist Intelligence Unit’s 2006 “index of democracy”. The EIU observes that a “key difference in the various measures of democracy is between “thin” or minimalist ones and ”thick” or wider concepts, which may “include aspects of society and political culture in democratic societies.”[29] The EIU’s democracy index is “based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The five categories are interrelated and form a coherent conceptual whole. The condition of having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the basic requirement of all definitions.”

The EIU opts for a relatively “thick” concept for full democracy, arguing that “a healthy democracy requires the active, freely chosen participation of citizens in public life. Democracies flourish when citizens are willing to take part in public debate, elect representatives and join political parties. Without this broad, sustaining participation, democracy begins to wither and become the preserve of small, select groups.”[30] The EIU’s other categories are in descending order, “flawed democracies”, “hybrid regimes”, and “authoritarian regimes”. (Incidentally, Sweden ranks first among the full democracies on the EIU’s index of 167 states and territories[31]; Canada ranks 9^th and the United States 17^th .[32])

Globally, the breakdown can be seen in the following table[33]:

Democracy index 2006 by regime type

While the EIU’s concept of full democracy is broad and deep — “At the same time, even our thicker, more inclusive and wider measure of democracy does not include other aspects — which some authors argue are also crucial components of democracy — such as levels of economic and social wellbeing.”[34]

This is an important consideration when it comes to the parameters of “democratic development” and the boundaries of Canadian support for it. As already noted, the statutory mandate of Rights and Democracy explicitly includes a basis in international human rights standards that includes economic, social and cultural rights. Its president, Jean-Louis Roy, reaffirmed that in his testimony when he noted that members of his institution “have a vision of democracy that has as one of its essential elements all of the human rights that are recognized under international law and by the United Nations, as well as by governments that have signed and ratified the international instruments. … Democracy must from now on be identified with full recognition of political rights and the accountability that goes along with it, of course, but also recognition of social rights and economic rights.”[35]

Other witnesses made similar points. Edward Broadbent, the first president of Rights and Democracy, stated that “our foreign policy must help the development of democracy, and this should be done by persuasion, trade, and aid, and by the development of globally enforceable human rights law.”[36] John Foster of the North-South Institute argued “that democracy is best expressed in a human rights framework, and that those rights included social, economic, and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights.” He urged more donor support for effective civil society organizations and networks in that regard.[37] Gerry Barr, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, directly connected democracy support to poverty reduction: “Democratic development very often goes to the role of citizens’ organizations and social movements in the fight against poverty. … It’s when we get to this development vision side of things that issues such as the role of citizens, their social movements, the way in which aid can be used to mobilize people’s participation, come increasingly to the fore; it’s where democratic development arises.”[38]

Thomas Axworthy, of the Queen’s University Centre for Democracy, referred to both rule of the people and rights of the people as twin principles of democracy, and to a broad developmental transformative agenda beyond basic procedural minimums, citing positively an early Canadian study of democratic development.[39] Other witnesses linked democratic development to an expansive agenda of governance and civic participation. The submission of the Canadian Bar Association argued that: “Canada’s efforts to promote democracy will be most successful if its assistance is centred on supporting good governance, which includes a significant focus on building the rule of law.” It continued that decisions on democracy support should be approached “principally through the lens of development”, citing Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen that “development requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or overactivity of repressive states.”[40] (In his opening presentation to the Committee, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter Mackay also cited Sen to the effect that “the most striking feature of the 20^th century was the rise of democracy as the pre-eminently acceptable form of governance. Democratic governance has been accepted as a universal norm.”[41])

George Perlin of Queen’s University saw a converging consensus around a broad definition for democratic development covering a broad governance, human rights and development agenda:

I understand democratic development to be activity that is aimed at creating systems of governance organized around the values of freedom, equality, and justice that are embedded in the liberal democratic foundations of our own system. I stress that we are talking about an entire system of governance. … the compass for assistance to democratic development has a very wide scope and an a wide array of objectives and types of activities. … I’ve identified 50 different kinds of objectives to which democracy assistance has been applied.[42]

Roel von Meijenfeldt, Executive Director of the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, told an audience at DFAIT in January 2007 that:

Democracy assistance should use a much wider democracy concept than is often the case. … While progress has been achieved in establishing the formal attributes (”hardware”) of democratic societies, key challenges remain to be addressed in terms of consolidating the process and building a “culture” of democracy. This opens a broad agenda for various actors who are directly or indirectly involved in the democratisation process. It implies a focus on the ”legitimacy” of government (beyond elections); the norms and attitudes towards the public good; the political society, including the empowerment of parliaments and political parties; and innovative ways to ensure transparency and accountability.[43]

In her testimony Minister of International Development Cooperation, Josée Verner, indicated that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) sees four essential elements to democratic governance:

The first is the existence of freedom and democracy based upon strong electoral, legislative, and party institutions that are rooted in a supportive democratic culture including an active civil society and vibrant, free media.

The second is the rule of law, with fair and effective laws, accessible and timely legal institutions, and an impartial judiciary.

The third is the presence of human rights practices and institutions within the State and held to account by an active civil society.

And finally, the fourth is public sector institutions that manage the economy and public funds and deliver key social services such as health and education effectively — and without corruption.

This is an enormous project.[44]

The Committee agrees that a broad conception of democratic governance, and of democratic development overall, presents a daunting set of challenges for future Canadian policy in the area of democracy support. We also agree with witnesses, including ministers, that our assistance should consider all aspects of such a wide ranging and forward-looking agenda of democratic development. In this way, the Canadian approach to democracy promotion will be definitively connected to a global development vision consistent with Canadian values and long-term interests.

Recommendation 1

Canada should continue to provide assistance to democratic development abroad, based on a broad conception of democracy that includes attention to the system of governance as a whole, the full range of international human rights — including socio-economic and cultural rights — and the full participation of citizens, including the most disadvantaged, in the processes of democracy. Over the long term, Canadian policy on support for democratic development should also aim to improve the quality and sustainability of democracy in the recipient countries.