Global challenges to democracy
Opening Address by H.E. Dr. Danilo Türk, President of Slovenia at the 4th Summer University for Democracy
Strasbourg, 6 July 2009
Mr. Secretary General,
Distinguished guests,
Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen
It is a great privilege to be invited to share with you my thoughts on the issue of democracy in the global context. The topic of this 4th Summer University is not only important politically; it also invites thinking about some of the most fundamental issues of our time. I intend to discus six challenges to democracy today - three among them external and fundamental to democracy as a form of governance and another three which relate to the day - to day functioning of democratic systems.
But before I proceed further, let me recall something basic and obvious.
First, within the timeframe of a generation the world has seen an unprecedented and probably irreversible movement towards democracy. The process started in mid 1970s in Mediterranean Europe, following the fall of the Berlin wall twenty years ago it has spread to all parts of the globe: to Latin America, Central and Eastern Europe as well as to large parts of Asia and Africa. According to analysts, three near to quarters of all states of the world are democracies today. The definitions and categorizations may vary, but the general picture is obvious – democracy is the preferred form of governance today and, given the absence of any alternative ideological model, that is likely to remain so in the future.
Second, democracy comes from within. It represents an expression of deep aspirations of people to live in freedom, dignity and prosperity. It cannot be imposed from abroad and cannot be reduced to a particular set of prescriptions.
Third, democracy can be assisted internationally and the principles and standards, which constitute its basis, are universally shared. They were expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and have been developed in a system of international instruments concluded within the UN or within various regional organizations. This provided the basis upon which many new forms of international cooperation were developed. Some among them were specifically designed to assist the process of democratisation.
One of these new forms of international mobilization for democracy started before the fall of the Berlin wall. The movement of new and restored democracies convened with the conference in Manila, Philippines, in 1988 at which fifteen newly restored democracies participated. Due to restrictive criteria the conference brought together only a small number of newly restored democracies. This was necessary to make it clear that democracy meant the same set of principles and standards in all the regions represented at the meeting. The phrase, which captured the spirit of the meeting, was “democracy without adjectives,” which strongly rejected the notion that democracy has regional or other variations. This was a natural priority at the time. Later, the essential elements of democracy – political pluralism and participation of people in government, respect for human rights and the rule of law - have been accepted widely, across all the regions The subsequent conferences of new and restored democracies - six until now - reiterated the essentials of democracy and emphasized the legitimacy of democratic change worldwide.
In addition to new and restored democracies the last decade gave rise to a parallel series of conferences, in the group of the "Community of Democracies" which started in Warsaw in 2000.
The global movement of democracies has reached the stage at which there is little doubt about the basic values, principles and standards of democracy in general. Today, the problems lie in the complexity of the contemporary agenda for the strengthening of democracy, in the variety of priorities within an already large and diverse group of democratic states, and in the need to define an adequate institutional structure which will move the process of democratisation forward and assist in monitoring and implementing commitments made.
Fundamental challenges to democracy today
I wish to refer to three fundamental challenges to democracy resulting from the basic political relationships, first, between democracy and socio-economic prosperity; second, democracy and participation and the rule of law; and, third, democracy and peace and security.
Democracy and economic and social prosperity
Democratic change of the past decades has led to expectations some of which have not been fulfilled. In many countries where the experience with democracy is new there have been disappointments when achievements in economic development, social equity and human security did not match expectations. The realization that in the globalized world, more and more decision making power eludes democratic control has contributed to the feeling of powerlessness, and dissatisfaction with the democratic institutions and even to the opinion that democracy itself may find itself in a state of crisis. These dangers must not be underestimated. It is essential to bear in mind the principle that democratic society must be a just and responsible society.
A critically important test in many new or restored democracies is their ability to deliver. In most of the new democracies that ability is measured by economic and social progress. While economic prosperity helps to sustain and consolidate democracy, the reverse does not hold automatically: Rich societies have the means to sustain democracy while poor societies cannot automatically expect democracy to lead to economic growth and development. However, social equality and developmental welfare policies are critical for the durability of democracy. Moreover, it can be expected that democratic governance will strengthen human development when the necessary political will exists and state capacity improves.
Participation and the rule of law
Another key ingredient is the participatory character of democracy. Free, fair and periodic elections constitute the basic principle of participation. However, additional mechanisms, such as popular consultations and referenda are often necessary, to strengthen the legitimacy of decision–making and develop the sense of ownership of the democratic process by the people. Participation of women in the democratic processes is unsatisfactory in many societies and needs to be strengthened.
Promoting the rule of law, transparency and the fight against corruption are among the basic elements of democratic governance in view of the equitable sharing of the fruits of development. These concepts are widely accepted and used in the rhetoric of the global policy debates. However, their practical use varies and their results remain elusive in many parts of the world. Anti - corruption activities require careful preparation and adequate design as well as persistence in their use. It is essential that the illusion of quick fixes or reduction to their technical aspects be avoided. Corruption must be rejected as a matter of culture. Only them will democracy flourish to the full.
The principle of the rule of law and the requirement of combating corruption has to be high on the agenda of democracy and they require international discussion. The legal instrument developed within the Council of Europe are helpful relating to such matters as the criminalization of corruption, liability and compensation for damage caused by corruption, corruption of public officials and financing of political parties.
Democracy, peace and security
The process of global democratic transformations has taken place in an era of turmoil and armed conflict as well as of new threats to international peace and security such as terrorism and organized crime. However, the number of armed conflicts has been reduced in the past decade. Democratic change has been both a result of the ending of wars and a factor of ensuring post conflict stability and peace building. Nevertheless, while it can be said that the world is more peaceful now than it was a decade ago, the issue of security remains. New threats are resulting from poverty, infectious diseases and environmental degradation, from armed conflicts between states and within states, from continued existence and the dangers of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, from terrorism and from transactional organized crime.
In the past years, the international community has paid particular attention to the threats to international peace resulting from terrorist activities. The threats of terrorism to democracy are threefold: The first types are the direct threats. Terrorism undermines democracy deliberately and directly, and attacks the security of citizens that is democracy's central asset.
The second threat of terrorism is indirect. Counter terrorism, if not designed with the necessary sensitivity to human rights of citizens it is expected to protect, may erode the core values of democracy. Restrictions on human rights, which might have to be imposed in the context of counter terrorism, must be temporary and limited in scope. They could upset the delicate balance between democracy and security and undermine the former by excessive insistence on the latter. The Council of Europe´s guidelines for member States on human rights and the fight against terrorism has been a most valuable contribution to uphold that balance and to protect human rights.
Third, when democratisation is pursued as a part of strategy of counter terrorism it has to be sensitive to the actual needs of the society in question. If democratisation became perceived as an imposition of alien concepts and values, it could easily backfire into a backlash against democracy promotion initiatives and the idea of democracy itself.
Another set of issues where the interface between democracy and security is central arises in post-conflict situations. In these situations democratic transformation has proven to be essential for the establishment of long-term stability and durable peace. In addition to such obvious ingredients as the rule of law, respect for human rights and good governance, the policies of post-conflict stabilization have to give particular attention to accountability and justice. As the example of Afghanistan shows, the issues of accountability and responsibility for past violations might not be easily addressed in the immediate aftermath of armed conflict. However, they will have to be addressed as part of post-conflict peace building to ensure the durability of peace.
A particular focus in post-conflict peace building is placed on elections. It is expected that elections provide for a legitimate authority, which is vital for the realization of an entire range of measures necessary to ensure durable stability and peace. However, the expectations should not be placed too high. A single election cannot by itself generate a durable authority. The experience in many post-conflict situations has demonstrated that several electoral terms have to be completed before the situation can be considered as normalized. The timing of elections is extremely important. If conducted too early, elections might only give the semblance of legitimacy to actors emerging from armed conflict (including spoilers). If they are held too late, they might not be able to produce the necessary democratic change.
In many post-conflict situations the international community needs to assist in the process of creation of political parties. Political pluralism is necessary as a condition for democratic legitimacy of government. However, it should not be developed in a manner, which makes the underlying ethnic and ideological divisions an obstacle to stabilize society after an armed conflict.
In short: democracy needs to promote economic and social prosperity, the rule of law as well as peace and security. On the other hand, progress in these three areas helps makes democracy and its institutions more robust.
Challenges related to day-to-day functioning of democratic systems
Building democratic institutions is a part of the larger task of strengthening both national and regional capacity for democracy. This is, obviously, not a new observation. Many international and, in particular, regional organizations have developed normative frameworks and programs for the promotion of democracy. This brings me to three specific challenges to democracy, which seem to be of particular importance to the functioning of democracy in the countries of the Council of Europe and are parts of the Council´s agenda. They are resulting from the close relationship between the process of democracy and the media, second, the relationship between the democratic process and electoral institutions and, third, the relations within the democratically elected institutions, i.e. between the government and the opposition. Obviously the experiences in all these contexts vary from one country to another but the Council of Europe countries, in particular the new democracies within the Council are gaining important experience in that regard. There is every reason to discus these at this summer University as well.
Democracy and the media
We live in media dominated world where the around the clock TV news bring information in real time and internet provided a host of new possibilities for spreading and receiving news. Political leaders must be able to formulate their messages in sound bites, normally in about fifteen seconds. Twitter, one of the newest Internet based techniques, requires messages not exceeding 140 characters. This makes political communication more entertaining but also more difficult. Policy issues are not always easily definable in the form of sound bites and policy choices are rarely entertaining. Things other than policy issues and policy choices may appear more interesting. People like to watch how political leaders behave and how they fight their battles and pay less attention to the substance of policies they advocate. There is probably no way back to the good old days when quality media dominated the media scene. Today an ever-larger proportion of people get their basic information about political issues from internet portals, tabloids or even late night shows.
It appears that the only answer that political figures can offer to this challenge is to have more imagination in using the media as they are - and to rely on common sense of the citizens. The good news is that people do not believe everything they find in the media and that the critical appreciation of the voters has not been reduced as a result of the evolution of the media society. Admittedly this last point is made as a hypothesis rather than as a firm conclusion and could be pursued further by way of empirical research. Nevertheless the electoral results in the societies with the most advanced media technologies suggest that the rationality of the voters has not been diminished.
Democracy and the electoral institutions
Elections are closely related to the political culture of the country concerned. Obviously, there are certain common requirements for the free and fair elections - such as credible voter lists, absence of violence and intimidation in the pre-election period and during the election and availability of impartial and effective complaint mechanisms to deal with the allegations of violations of electoral rules. But even these requirements are dealt with in a variety of institutional arrangements. In particular, standards of the actual conduct of elections still vary and there are no international legal instruments in this area. Consequently, assessment of the conduct of an election involves a large margin of appreciation by the election observers and the general international public.
The challenge arising in this context is whether additional international standards are needed to assist and strengthen the international electoral assistance and monitoring. In the past decade or so the World has witnessed an exponential growth of international assistance and monitoring of elections. Perhaps the time has come to take stock of the experience gained and to identify the areas of further normative development. While this kind of approach may not yet be possible at the universal level, within the UN, it may prove useful for the purpose of regional organizations such as the Council of Europe or OSCE which conduct election monitoring in countries of different political cultures yet similar political aspirations.
Governments and oppositions
One of the most exciting features of democracy is in the non-permanent character of political majorities and minorities and governments and oppositions. The political parties are in the government one day but then they may spend several years in the opposition. The parties, which have been in the opposition for a period of time, may find themselves in the enjoyable yet demanding position of government responsibility. These transitions are not simple and are particularly demanding in countries with relatively short democratic tradition.
In a time of crisis like ours it appears natural that people need a sense of common purpose and that the political parties are expected to work together for common good. But this happens very rarely. Democracy is not about mobilization for common goals but rather an organized, non violent, political conflict over social priorities, policy choices and material means. This applies in time of economic or other crisis and in all other circumstances. For the government it is never easy to accept the views of the opposition - even if they are clearly correct. For the opposition it is impossible to abandon criticism of the government - even if criticism is perceived as counterproductive.
The question is whether this should be seen as a problem requiring an international discussion. Rules of mature "role-playing" can be developed only over a period of time. The Council of Europe with its Parliamentary Assembly appears a natural place for a serious discussion. Exchange of experience never harms and can be helpful to national policy makers and political leaders.
In Conclusion
I spoke about six challenges to democracy as a global phenomenon. I am convinced that you will address many more as you proceed with your discussion. Democracy is a never ended edifice. It involves internal tensions and discontent. Sometimes, as Robert Dahl, a great theoretician of democracy explained, the tensions within democracy can reach the level of "antagonistic cohabitation". This is how he described the tension between economic needs and democratic principles. It is precisely the peaceful organization of political conflict, which makes democracy real, at the same time, and most promising as a form of governance. Hence the need to discuss it and to understand its working. I wish you every success in your work at this 4th Summer University on Democracy.
