SPEECHES
MR. KILGOUR - ADDRESS AT THE TOWARDS A COMMUNITY OF DEMOCRACIES CONFERENCE THREATS TO DEMOCRACY - WARSAW, POLAND
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY
THE HONOURABLE DAVID KILGOUR
SECRETARY OF STATE (LATIN AMERICA AND AFRICA)
AT THE TOWARDS A COMMUNITY OF DEMOCRACIES CONFERENCE
"THREATS TO DEMOCRACY"
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 20th 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 21st 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 20 years have 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 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 United Nations, the world literacy rate is only 78
percent. In the world's least-developed countries it is only 50 percent; 38 percent 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
judgements 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 that 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 have 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 to 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 on the continent had been chosen in elections against rivals backed by opposition parties. In
1975, 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 handover of
power by former President Diouf. More and more African governments are turning away from the
military option; they 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 that 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 that 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 of 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 [non-governmental organization] 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 which have democratization as a principal 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, longtime 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 effort 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 Program, 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 comprising 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 in 1995, 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 ongoing 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 20 years ago when
there were only four democratic governments in South America.
The promotion of democracy was a fundamental consideration when Canada joined the Organization of
American States [OAS] 10 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 focussed 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. We are co-operating
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 Affairs 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 focussed 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 and 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 respectively
have 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 we must 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.
Thank you.
|