•  Home
•  Who We Are
•  What We Do
•  Media Centre
•  Publications
•  Humphrey Award
•  Reference
•  Links
•  Contact Us

Promotion and Protection of Democracy: Policies and Perspectives for the 21st Century

            As an independent Canadian public institution created by an Act of Parliament in 1988, we are very grateful that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has selected to discuss a subject so close to our mandate, certainly one of the most important challenges that Canada and the international community is facing today: promotion and protection of democracy and human rights.

The objects of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development [1] (Rights and Democracy) are to initiate, encourage and support cooperation between Canada and other countries in the promotion, development and strengthening of democratic and human rights institutions and programs that give effect to the rights and freedoms enshrined in the International Bill of Human Rights.

We hope that our submission will be useful in the Standing Committee’s study of present and future Canadian policies, objectives and priorities in the field of democracy promotion and assistance.

I. The Universality of the Democratic Construct

Democracy is not a fleeting concept. It is not just another system among other viable political options.

In our time, democracy has changed the geopolitical landscape of the world.

According to Freedom House, over the last-quarter century, the number of States considered democratic has doubled while the proportion of States not considered free has shrunk.  This “wave of democratization” is still vibrant and powerful.  Democracy is still the declared goal in many countries working to adjust to its basic requirements.  Even those who oppose democracy find it necessary to reappropriate the term. Among the seven major countries that will most probably influence the direction of global development in the 21^st century: the United States of America, the European Union, the Russian Federation, India, Japan and China and Brazil, five of these blocs are full-fledged democracies.

The decision taken by India six decades ago took democracy beyond its Euro-Atlantic confines and gave it a universal character. It has since flourished within a great variety of spiritual, cultural, social heritages, including within Islam, becoming the common goal for all the individuals and communities in the North, in the South, in the East and in the West who are a testament to the universality of democratic values.  

 Democracy is a common search to give effect to the underlying values of participation, equality and justice in a manner that takes into account the constitutive diversity of humanity.

Canada shares with the world a common responsibility toward their full recognition and implementation.  In our time, people, including Canadians, have fought and died for democracy and still do in many other countries. In our public discourse and support for democracy, we should fully recognize its astonishing attraction to people all around the world.  But we should take serious notice of the “loss of confidence” in recent surveys in Latin America and in other parts of the world.  As it was recently stated, “the credibility of democracy as a political system increasingly depends both on how it works and what it delivers.”  We must take these two related imperatives into account. They imply a new vision for the 21^st century that strengthens democracy where it exists and nurtures it where it is lacking. With confidence, we should envision the new century as the era of democracy.

A democratic system recognizes the power of citizens to determine their collective destiny through mechanisms of consent, political pluralism, peaceful political competition, the legitimacy of opposition, the full right to challenge incumbent leaders and a framework for peaceful transfer of power between successive governments that are elected through universal suffrage.  

From these basic characteristics flow judicial and institutional requirements such as the rule of law and the protection of human rights.  

In democracy, the concept of equality is central.  Fully understood and recognized, it expands the scope of the rights that need to be promoted and protected from basic political rights to civil, social, economic and cultural rights.

A myriad of successes and failures have marked the on-going expansion of democracy from a formal construct to the system that promises the realization of all human rights.  Although our historical experiences are lopsided, it is fair to say that a majority are still convinced of the validity of their cause even though expectations and aspirations have not yet been completely fulfilled.  

To emerge and be sustained, the democratic ethos must translate into concrete political and socio-economical results. The institutional and procedural dimensions of democracy are therefore complementary and inseparable from the realization of human rights.  In other words, the entrenchment of the fundamental, institutional characteristics of democracy becomes sustainable through the implementation of the universal human rights standards enshrined in international human rights treaties and covenants.

This vision expresses the aspirations of millions of women and men in a large number of countries that have put their hopes in a democratic form of government.  They believe that a democratic system will protect them from ethnic, religious, gender discrimination and from arbitrary detention, torture, ill treatment or death while in custody of the State. They believe that this system can deliver access to justice, heath, education, housing, work, food and to water. They also believe that this system can liberate them from poverty and social exclusion.

In the privacy of their souls and minds—as much as in their public protests and proposals—they expect that democracy can reconcile the formal equality of citizenship and the prevailing inequalities of their societies. The future of democracy lies in its answer--or lack of an answer--to the contradiction between “legally equal and socially unequal”.  Why should the poor, the deprived and the hopeless of world trust democracy if it does not deliver both legal and social equality, if it does not deliver freedom from fear and freedom from want?

Is the world moving towards acceptance of universal principles of democracy similar to the development of international human rights standards?

There is no equivalent for democracy as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the broad responsibilities granted in the Charter of the United Nations to the principal organs and specialized bodies in the field of human rights.  Nonetheless, the Universal Declaration proclaims “common standards of achievement for all people and all nations” which includes the core principles of democracy:

• The will of the people as the basis of the authority of government, universal and equal suffrage held by secret vote in periodic and genuine elections (art. 21);
• Equality and equal protection before the law (art. 7);
• The right to a fair and public hearing by an impartial and independent tribunal (art.10);
• Right to an adequate standard of living (art. 25).

These principles have been reinforced by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 and notably the “equal rights of men and women for the enjoyment of all civil and political rights”. (art.3)

Specific references to the principles of democracy are numerous and recurrent in the proceedings and documents relating to the family of institutions associated with the United Nations. More recently, the United Nations have created and sustained a Conference of new and restored democracies (that will hold its sixth session next October in Doha); established a Democracy Fund; taken a leading role in electoral assistance; and, contributed substantially to the construction of democracy through numerous UNDP programmes.  The plan of action of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the activities of many Special Rapporteurs also constitute noteworthy contributions to democratic development.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan has constantly alluded to urgent actions to help sustain global peace and security, particularly:

• The negotiation of a comprehensive convention outlawing terrorism in all its forms;
• The need to breathe new life into the multilateral framework for the management and non-proliferation of biological, chemical and especially nuclear weapons.

Hence, collective security is an essential feature designed “to prevent the latest threats from becoming imminent and imminent threats from becoming actual” and for building democracy.

From the global system, the principles of democracy have been adopted and referred to by almost all continental, regional and cultural organizations:

• Long recognized and approved by numerous constitutional documents of the European Union (EU), democracy was proclaimed as a “ common value” of all member states in the Maastricht Treaty adopted in 1992 and within the proposed framework of the European Constitution of 2003 (art.2).

• Established as “indispensable for stability, peace and development” in the Organization of American States (OAS) Charter of 1948, democracy was further recognized as a “common goal” essential for social, political, economic development for the people of the Americas by the adoption of an “Inter-American Democratic Charter” in 2001.

• Two year later, the African States transformed their first continental organization into the African Union (AU).  In the constitution of the Union, they pledged “to promote and protect human rights, strengthen democratic institutions and democratic culture and to promote good governance and the rule of law”.

• In 2003, in Kuala Lumpur, the Association of South East Asian States (ASEAN) adopted a Declaration on the Establishment of the ASEAN Charter Initiative recognizing “common principles, goals and ideals” including promotion of democracy, human rights, transparency, good governance and the strengthening of democratic institutions. This may one day produce a regional framework for “both aspirational and operating principles and values”.

Apart from the enumeration of principles, regional approaches to democracy building should expand to include monitoring and quick response initiatives in case of any democratic crisis.  This role has been given to the OSCE in Europe, to the OAS secretariat in 1990 and, similarly, the African Union Peer Review Mechanism was useful in defusing the recent transition crisis in Togo.  These recent trends for the protection of democracy at the regional level need to be further developed in conformity with the global principles of democracy.

In our numerous foreign policy statements and in other official pronouncements, we Canadians proudly refer to our democratic system and achievements in promoting and protecting human rights, our compliance with the rule of law and the quality of our governance.

We draw from our long list of accomplishments a high degree of satisfaction and the profound belief that our democratic experience should guide us in promoting and protecting democracy around the world.

While we must be proud of the Canadian experience, we should also take into account the flexibility of the democratic construct and its status as a universal aspiration. Therefore, the particularities of every democratic experience should also be of interest for us.  Previously, we have described the road to democracy as a common search.  This implies that partners can learn from us and that we can learn from them.

We normally provide a long list of specific concepts (federalism, linguistic duality, multiculturalism, minority rights) for what we believe Canadians and the Canadian model represents for the establishment and strengthening of democracy around the world.

It may be useful to reflect on our democratic experience to qualify and perhaps temper our pride with a measure of modesty to understand what is required given the complexity of other situations.

What is the essence of the Canadian democratic experience over four centuries?

• First, a complex and ongoing process to accommodate our fundamental diversity: the First Nations with their ancestral and treaty rights as recognized and guaranteed in Section II of the 1982 Constitution Act; the provinces that decided to construct a federal union in 1867; and, the other communities who have joined the Union with their own experiences and realities.  At the heart of our federal system, there is a complex and evolving distribution of constitutional power.

• Second, our bi-juridical system rooted in the two dominant western legal traditions with its timid references to elements of aboriginal legal culture.

• Third, a complex and strong system to protect the fundamental rights of Canadians, including:

a)      specific provisions in the “Code civil” and the evolving jurisprudence of the common law;

b)      specific human rights statutes adopted by the Federal Parliament, the National Assembly of Quebec and the provincial and territorial legislatures such as the Ontario Human Rights Code and la Charte québécoise des droits et libertés;

 

c)      insertion of the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms in the Canadian constitution in 1982. 

• Lastly, the Canadian equalization system is worth mentioning. It has been established to promote “equal opportunities for the well-being of all Canadians”.  Enshrined in the constitution, it has created a federal obligation to transfer equalization payments to help governments provide “essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians”.

In line with these core and multifaceted elements, we have created a variety of institutions in accordance with our constitutional, parliamentary and judicial traditions. Canadians expect them to deliver nothing less than equity and justice.

Our democratic experience is not finished.  It will never be. Each of the elements identified above without exception is an attempt to find the appropriate balance between the individual, society and the State.  This balance is always evolving and constantly debated.  Democratic governance depends on the belief and trust of citizens in the fairness of this balance and their capacity to freely debate, propose and influence the balance for the future.

This brief incursion into some of the elements of our own democratic development should help Canadians understand the challenges for others in the midst of their unique contexts.  Democracy-building is a long and arduous process marked by success and failures.  It is not “a once and for all event”.  It has to accommodate historical and social realities, just as Burke reminds us, in the following spirit, “Society is a partnership not only between those who are living but between those who are dead and those who are to be born”.

III.  Advancing Democracy in the World in the 21^st century.

All aspects of our foreign policy, including development assistance, should serve as a springboard for our engagement in the 21^st century as the age of democracy.  Canada should champion this perspective to greatly increase the momentum of such a sweeping revolution.  Our national interests and the current international challenges to development, security and peace call for such a commitment.  Time is short as other forces are emerging and other coalitions are forming.  A new and bold vision is needed for the 21^st century.

o       First, we have to fully recognize and act consistently with the fact that democracy is the monopoly of no country, no fragment of humanity and no era of civilization.  As we mentioned earlier, democracy can flourish within all spiritual, cultural and social heritages. Our policy has to experience a “Copernican revolution” and redefine its various engagements to advance democracy as a common search to give effect to the universality of democratic values and their implementation by encapsulating the diversity of all countries in the world.

 

o       Second, we have to understand, accept and value the singularity of the democratic ideal but the plurality of democratic systems. Secularism, to take a single example, differs dramatically in Western society with its interpretation in India. Democracy can accommodate both the non-religious connotations of many Western countries and the equal respect for all religions in India.  We have to be careful not to propose an artificial template but rather ensure that local realities and needs are reconciled with complex and specific spiritual, cultural and social heritages. Democratization is not Westernization. This myth needs to be debunked. Our open world links convergent but diverse democratic ideals.  Cross-cultural differences and cross-cultural similarities are both undeniable realities.

 

o       Third, an understanding of the human family as it is and as it will become should convince us that the narrow identification of democracy with civil and political rights is an insufficient formula.  A privileged country like ours should promote a conception of democracy that is linked with the realization of social and economic rights.

As we have demonstrated for Canada, a system of democratic governance exists in a world of multiple stimuli and pressures.  It takes its energy from the complex spiritual, cultural and societal needs of all its components—including all individual human beings and all collective entities—and processes them to produce an equilibrium that confronts  the tensions between legal equality and social inequality.

Two billion people will be born in the next 20 years, 90 percent of them in the south of the world. Democracy now and democracy in 2020 must include the “social substance” in order to sustain stability, peace and development.

The time has come to reconcile and harmonize civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. Stephen Angle put it in a clear formula: “Political rights without subsistence rights are empty, but effective subsistence rights seem likely to depend on political rights”. Both sets of rights are indissociable from each other; they should be justiciable and enforced equally. Canada should be leading an international coalition to support the reconciliation and harmonization of these rights around the world.

A commitment to a common search, the singularity of the democratic ideal but the plurality of democratic systems and the inclusion of “social substance” should inform our actions to advance democracy in the 21^st century.

More concretely, our effort to promote democracy also requires innovative thinking, research and programmes aimed towards civil society, corporations and the youth of the world.

Civil society has just recently emerged in our world as a transnational force.  It is still considered undesirable in a majority of countries or as an insignificant collection of disingenuous interest groups. A key feature of authoritarian regimes is the serious attention they pay to civil society by repressing their activities.

Democracy depends on a strong civil society that is capable of both criticizing policies, making constructive proposals and encouraging alternative thinking; that can influence the deliberations and choices of public institutions; and that is a full partner in sustainable human development. After all, democracy is about citizens’ rights, citizens’ dissent, and citizens’ participation. Democracy is also about women’s rights. Progress has been accomplished to promote and protect those rights but the global situation is still deeply disturbing and alarming. Long-term political commitment to include gender equality in all we do is imperative to advance democracy in the 21^st century. Clear and binding standards and obligations should be established at the national and international levels to help implement a policy of equality and equity.

In our own practice of democracy and in our policies to advance democracy abroad in the 21^st century, we should develop and support effective models for civil society engagement.  In many countries where democracy is fragile or lacking, no force other than civil society can move the agenda forward and put democracy principles at the center of the development debate.  

 It is insufficient to simply include civil society organizations in our development assistance programs. They should be involved along with government representatives in all negotiations related to democratic governance.  We should revolutionize our approach and include them in all planning stages of our democratic governance portfolios.  By doing so, we will accelerate the establishment of an accountable, transparent and democratic culture with long-term legitimacy. 

In our strategies for international trade and investment in all markets, we must incorporate global economic trends within the paradigm of democracy and the framework of international human rights.

As we enter the 21^st century, it is imperative to understand that human rights are firmly entrenched in international law and a substantive component of truly democratic governance. They are also an essential reference for investors, directors, managers, workers, pensioners, suppliers, customers, regulators and the other stakeholders of the modern corporation.  Therefore, a robust and enduring strategy for international trade and investment will systematically integrate the values, interests and legal obligations of human rights.  Just as our government has legitimate role in supporting Canadian interests in trade and investment, it also has legitimate role in promoting new initiatives in the field of corporate social accountability and responsibility to ensure that the business community contributes to our international reputation as model citizens and that our nation’s commercial activities and profits do not contradict our efforts to advance democracy abroad.

International commerce; trade and sales promotion; bilateral and multilateral trade and investment agreements; export support mechanisms; labor standards and employment practices; securities regulations and investment review processes are important features of this global age. Government has a responsibility to ensure human rights, as a substantive component of democracy, are taken into account in all these phases of planning and decision-making concerning our trade and investment in foreign markets. In consequence, we need to encourage greater collaboration between the government, business community and the human rights community.

Human rights also imply democracy, the rule of law, independence of the judiciary, a fair and transparent public administration, an active civil society. These are the fundamentals of “good governance” and are in the interest of the business community and many business people realize it clearly.

We therefore need to define human rights responsibilities for all international actors, including the business community. This requires progress in establishing clear and binding standards at the national and international levels. We must ensure that mechanisms that promote and protect human rights are part of the normative, regulatory and economic framework within which we conduct our trade and investment activities.

A troubling and exciting figure will suffice to illustrate the top priority of engaging youth in our policy to advance democracy abroad.

By 2020, between 55 to 60 percent of the combined population of North Africa and the Middle East will be below 25 years of age. There will be 250 million of them.  Demographic trends predict that the 21^st century will be an age of youth. All that we refer to in this section – the common search, the singularity of the democratic ideal but the plurality of democratic systems, the economic and social rights along with political rights as substantive components of democracy, civil society capacity, the link between economic goal, human rights and development – all those are relevant to attract the interest of the youth of the world. If the universal principles of democracy and human rights are going to be strengthened, we must succeed in attracting the ideals, idealism and expertise of youth.  Otherwise, our present effort to advance democracy and human rights will ultimately be in vain.

We just mentioned the expertise of youth.  Part of the “Copernican revolution” that we have to engage in, is about the recognition of this expertise.

At Rights & Democracy, we have focused in the last 3 years on a “gap” in international human rights education efforts in Canada which existed at the university and college levels. Since then, we have developed a project called the Rights & Democracy Network through which we engaged students in designing and implementing concrete and action-oriented projects on more than 40 campuses from coast to coast during each academic year.  Currently, each of our Canadian “Delegations” is in the process of initiating “twinnings” with their counterparts in developing countries.  Together, Canadian students will work with youth from around the world to define and initiate projects that promote human rights and democracy within their communities.  Eventually, we hope to build an international network of 150 Rights & Democracy Delegations with the hub in Canada and links to all parts of the world.

This is an example of what we have to do to include the youth in the world and bring their expertise to advance democracy in the 21^st century. Many other initiatives have to be developed as a substantial part of our external support for democratic development in light of contemporary challenges.

Rights & Democracy has been part of the Canadian international democratic development offering for 15 years.  In our capacity as an arm’s length institution and in order to execute our mandate, we have developed a wealth of partnerships across Canada and around world at the international, regional and national levels. These partnerships constitute a very precious asset for the institution and for our country.  They constitute also a strategic response to the question of the “nature of external support to democratic development in light of contemporary international challenges.”

1) Rights & Democracy has developed a network of relationships with both houses of Parliament and the key government departments that work in the international arena.

2) We also have partners with a great number of Canadian institutions playing a role in international support for democratic development around the world: Elections Canada, the National Judicial Institute, the Forum of Federations, the Parliamentary Centre, IDRC, Equitas, the Asia-Pacific Foundation and others. We have also developed significant links with the Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies and with the individual federal and provincial human rights agencies.

3) Canadian civil society organizations and coalitions play a central and multifaceted role in Canadian support to democracy in the world.  At Rights & Democracy, we greatly value their expertise and experience. We have partnerships with many of them, including through “consultative groups” on specific countries such as Haiti, Indonesia, Mexico, Guatemala, China, etc., as well as on thematic issues such as human rights and security, business and human rights, women’s rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, emerging human rights issues, fundamentalism and human rights, etc…

4) Lastly, we have built solid ties with Canadian universities through our research activities, the previously-mentioned Rights & Democracy Network and through organizations such as the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.  For example, our support to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights is a joint venture with McGill University and l’Université de Montréal.  Our last annual conference devoted to “Strengthening Democracy in Asia” benefited greatly of the expertise and support from University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. In the last two years, we have been part of the International Week at the University of Alberta.  These are a few examples of a large partnership with Canadian universities.

1)                  Rights and Democracy is closely associated with the United Nations system for the promotion and protection of human rights. We have official observer status from ECOSOC, joint activities with the UNDP, a recent agreement with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, a long standing participation at the UN Human Rights Commission (and now the Human Rights Council), providing input with respect to a great number of country situations and thematics issues, as well as participating in the work of subcommittees and supporting the work of Special Rapporteurs.

2) At the regional level, we strongly support human rights institutions, the African Commission where we support the presence of four Canadian jurists for 2 years (2006-2007, 2007-2008), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and numerous regional and sub-regional coalitions that are working towards the creation of an Asian human rights mechanism.

Moreover, at the international and regional level, we have partnered with a significant number of NGO coalitions. Among them, to refer to just one close association is the “Women living under Muslim laws”.

As the members of the Standing Committee know, due to a strong recommendation of this committee in late 2004, Rights & Democracy’s Parliamentary allocation was substantially increased last year after 15 years of frozen budgets.  We want to thank this Committee again to have helped us restore our capacity to intervene and create partnerships around the world.

Part of what we have done with the new financial resources is referred to in this brief.  It has also permitted us to partner with other national institutions which have a mandate close to our own. I mentioned previously the United Nations High Commissioner. I am pleased to also inform you that we signed an agreement for joint activities with the Danish Institute for Human Rights, explored essential joint action with the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in Sweden. We are working with the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and the Commonwealth to see how we can assist their democracy offering as strongly expressed in the Declaration of Bamako and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group.

This Committee’s work would be incomplete if it did not take on the task of monitoring the formulas and levels of public financing of institutions such as ours so that they are never left in a situation where their budget is frozen for numbers of years, depriving them of their capacity to fulfill their mission. For Rights & Democracy, at least this situation has changed following the allocation of new resources to our institution. We strongly believe that Rights & Democracy has now the capacity to play a leading role in Canada’s offering to support democracy building around the world.

What precedes vividly illustrates the complex and rich architecture both at the national, regional and international levels that supports “the Canadian participation to the overall international effort of democratic development”, to quote one of your questions.

At the political level, what is needed is a clear view of Canadian policies, objectives and priorities in the field of democracy promotion and assistance. Our country is part--a respected part--of almost all significant international and regional institutions.  It should take all occasions to maintain democratic governance and democracy promotion on the international agenda. Many fear that the “waves” of democratization from the last decades may slowly wane. Some believe that democracy worldwide is “on fire”.  These fears are not without foundation, but we strongly believe that we should persevere towards a universal conception of democracy that includes all members of the human family.

If we fail to sustain the “waves”, to defend the high notion of humanity as a whole, we have to be prepared to experience a regression of all we have built in international law, including human rights and international humanitarian law, and the institutions that sustain and support those laws.  We also have to be prepared to lose democracy as an answer to global challenges such as security and development.

Universal principles of democracy include human rights promotion and protection and all that flows from human dignity and security. It encompasses the rule of law to avoid all alternatives based on violence, repression and gross discrimination. It is a concept for peace, national peace and peace among nations. In the words of Karl Popper, “the key point of democracy is the avoidance of dictatorship, the avoidance of unfreedom, the avoidance of a rule that is not the rule of law…a way of preserving the rule of law”.

In the first part of this chapter, we have described the capabilities that Canada has today to provide democratic assistance. In our last section, we will try to answer other substantive questions that you directed to us.

Could and should Canada do more? If so, what additional resources and democracy promotion instruments should be considered? Where should Canada concentrate its efforts in the future?

                   We mentioned previously what is needed at the political level: a clear view of Canadian policies, objectives, and priorities in the field of democracy promotion and assistance. At the level of managing these policies, objectives and priorities, the Standing Committee in Foreign Affairs and International Development should examine the nature and efficiency of all actual mechanisms between the concerned departments of the federal government and of all federal-provincial and territorial mechanisms dedicated to give effect to those policies, objectives and priorities.

Do we have the interdepartmental structure that we need?

Should Foreign Affairs and International Development be more closely or structurally connected?

On what mechanisms do we depend on to react in real time when a country enters into the process of democratization?  The example of Morocco and Mauritania spontaneously come to mind.

What should be maintained or changed in our experience or dialogue between governments and civil society? As Canadians, we should be proud of our experience in this vital domain, proud and at the same time concerned to find new ways to enrich our actual system.

Some important questions have been raised in the last years in reference to the plurality of Canadian institutions working for democratic development around the globe.

It was proposed that a new Canadian institution be created. The proponents of this policy want to correct what they perceive as (1) a lack of understanding of their peers and colleagues in the field; (2) a lack of coherence; and (3) in the case of Rights & Democracy and the Forum of Federations, the fact, according to the same proponents, that both downplay their Canadian genesis and are governed by an international board of directors which dilutes their Canadian character and specificity.  

The first and third arguments are without any foundation.  Rights & Democracy Board of Directors is largely composed of eminent Canadians citizens including three international members. Concerning the dilution of our Canadian character, it is utterly false and unsubstantiated.

As for the argument concerning the lack of coherence, the question is a valid one…but, diversity should not be grossly reduced to a lack of coherence. What makes Canada unique in this arena is the multi-faceted nature of our efforts to promote democracy.

Firstly, our international cooperation efforts reflect the plurality of our society, which is the living substance of democracy itself. This explains our strength, our effectiveness and our results. Our country possesses independent or arm’s length institutions that play a convergent role in international democratic development. Our pluralism results in a multiplicity of dialogues and partnerships in any given country and nourishes and reinforces shared democratic values through concrete actions. This also projects a positive image of Canadians’ international engagement: many different individuals, groups and institutions working in partnerships, rather than in the implementation of a central plan that could so easily run amok whenever circumstances change.

Secondly, our democratic development efforts reflect the necessary multiplicity of objectives in the establishment of a democratic system of government: fostering civil society involvement; strengthening institutions that allow citizens to participate in the decisions that affect their lives; and, promoting the full respect for human rights. For instance, Elections Canada, the Judicial Institute and Rights and Democracy among others, have specific mandates, experience, national and international networks. When needed, they partner between themselves. They have made substantial contributions to the democratic construct in the world. Their expertise and networks are strong. They are well-respected by their peers and colleagues in the field, and their diversity, to a great extent, contributes to Canada’s credit on the world stage

This approach may lack the imperial zeal of other nations “cooperation” efforts.  But it benefits from the respect and engagement of our partners.

Some point out the necessity of creating spaces for greater cooperation and synergies between Canadian actors working in a given country.  We completely agree.

At the same time, we strongly believe that a centralized system could become a bureaucratic monster, could undermine the existing plurality of approaches, dialogues and activities that together produce significant results with our partners and, ultimately, could undermine Canada’s credit and credibility around the globe.  I know no other country that has adopted such a centralized system.  Before creating new institutions, existing mandates should be completely assessed and fully supported.

Thirdly, civil society building, state building and democracy strengthening in the next decades will succeed or not in complex and sensitive corners of the world: in China; in the Muslim world (including North Africa, the Middle East, in Central, East and Southern Asia); and, in failed states mostly in Africa.  In the long run, an important part of our activities will occur in those complex and sensitive areas.

How do we build trust with partners in these countries?  Should we go there with cookie-cutter proposals involving the arrival of all Canadian institutions at once? Or rather should we support the nuanced actions of existing Canadian institutions to build trust, share expertise and develop programs of cooperation with counterpart institutions and different segments of the local population to appreciate and endorse the Canadian contribution?

In the case of failed states, reconstruction and democracy building require a strengthened and effective multilateral framework within which Canadian institutions can play a concerted role.

A grand plan to reshape fragments of our world, an integrated proposal to push an ideological promotion of democracy, high lectures on the necessity of changing others’ cultures and values are debilitating, divisive and are condemned to fail.  But at the same time, our determination to help expand acceptance and implementation of universal principles of democracy in the world should be resolute and our systems for sustaining the institutions and groups that adhere to these principles should be improved.

Between the status quo and the creation of a centralized system of democracy promotion, there is a place and need for dialogue and convergence between the Canadian government and  independent or arm’s length institutions devoted to international democratic development. In the last year, such an initiative was put forward: the Democracy Council. Over time, this Council could be expanded, refined and developed along the following lines:

1.      A consortium of independent and arm’s length Canadian institutions created by Parliament should meet two times a year with the following objectives:

·        To share information on their respective plan of action, research needs, best practices in knowledge creation and transfer, policy and institution development in order to further consolidate a common knowledge base, build strategic partnerships and convergence of action;

·        To define, when politically desirable and possible, convergent or joint programs for a given country or region;

·        To share information concerning national, regional and international development that may affect Canadian institutions or orient their activities;

·        To reflect on Canadian policies, objectives and priorities in the area of international democratic development and introduce joint proposals to the Canadian government.

2. Two times a year, we propose that this consortium of independent or arm’s length institutions meet with Canadian authorities (interdepartmental committee or any other formula) with the following objectives:

·        To share with government authorities the content of their work and recommendations;

·        To be informed or planned governmental policies, objectives and priorities;

·        To identify specific initiatives that call for urgent action;

·        To contribute to policy coherence.

Given its mandate, expertise and global network of partners, Rights & Democracy is naturally interested in playing a key role within this consortium, provided that there is the requisite political will to support its existence and, when necessary, the financial resources to support its international activities.

This formula will build on our achievements, preserve the status of independence of arm’s length Canadian institutions as established by their respective acts of Parliament, provide a mechanism for convergent analysis and initiatives and a space for information-sharing and synergy-creation between those institutions and government authorities.

This mechanism should contribute to enhance the coherence and effectiveness of our support for democratic development around the world and extend acceptance of global principles of democracy for humanity.