|
|
 |
1 of 3 - Canada’s distinctive approach to democratic development - Duration: 3:49
(scroll down for more clips)
Other video formats - Windows Media | QuickTime Transcript:
I am Robert Miller, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Parliamentary Centre of Canada. The Centre is a Canadian non-governmental organization that was established in 1968 to support the international work of the Parliament of Canada. About 15 years ago, we reinvented ourselves as an organization cooperating with parliaments elsewhere in the world, strengthening parliamentary democracy in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe. And at the present time, we are reinventing ourselves once again as Parliamentary Centre International, an organization of parliamentary centres in Africa, Asia and elsewhere in the world that will work increasingly from the ground, led by the people of Africa, Asia, and so on, to strengthen parliamentary democracy. I think Canada has a distinctive approach to democratic development. I would say two things in particular are distinguishing about that approach. First of all, I think, partly because of our own political history, we are very sensitive not to make democratic development be about forcing our ways on other people around the world, but assisting, facilitating and supporting the development of democracy within Southern countries, whether it is Africa or Asia. So I think that is a very important characteristics of the Canadian approach and it is one that is, in our experience, appreciated by many other countries in the world. The fear of hidden agendas, of using democracy as a lever to manipulate countries, has been much less with Canada than with some other countries. The second thing which I think distinguishes our approach is that we have always viewed it as part of a wider development agenda. So we have not treated democratic development as if it were a bumper sticker, this separate cause, but it is related to a broader agenda of sustainable development. And I am a strong advocate of both those approaches. I think we need to take them further, but I think they are two things which distinguish what we do in this field. Canada, I think, could be more of a leader in the international debate about democratic development than it has been in the past. There are a lot of different approaches to democratic development. To some degree, we have seen recently the militarization of this whole thing. The example of Iraq is the most obvious one, where democratic development follows military occupation. But there is a great debate; a lot of people feel that has been an abysmal failure. And Canada needs to be a voice, a leader in the international community in developing alternative ideas and dialogue, with its partners around the world. To do that effectively, you need to have Canadian organizations with real expertise; organizations that themselves are world-class organizations, able to engage with other institutions like the Parliamentary Centre around the world. To do that, we have to be much more solidly knowledge-based in our work, which requires some resources that we do not now have. And, in turn, we have to be able to engage much more actively than we have in the policy debate. By no means is that the only thing that I think Canada needs in this field, but I think it is one element in a policy that would strengthen the Canadian role. 2 of 3 - Democratic development - problems and successes - Duration: 4:40 Other video formats - Windows Media | QuickTime Transcript:
Well, the most obvious problem for civil society is just this overwhelming executive or state power, and particularly the tendency in those situations for the use of the military or quasi-military or police methods to resolve differences and to essentially eliminate debate about political reform. So political space is very restricted. And civil society needs space in which to operate. It contributes to the expansion of space, but it needs space. One of our arguments, all along, has been that parliament and civil society are natural partners because parliamentarians also need space in order to operate, in order to perform their functions, as civil society does. So in many of our programs—in all of our programs, in fact—one of our central objectives is to try to build partnerships between civil society and parliament. In the work, for example, of parliamentary committees on poverty reduction or anti-corruption or gender equality or any of these areas, what we try to do on the parliamentary side is say, “Your natural allies are in civil society and they are also a huge source of information and knowledge and so on. You need to do your jobs.” And conversely, to civil society we say, “Instead of just thinking of parliament as part of the state, as an adversary, as an opponent, think of the possible alliances you can build with parliament in order to expand the space available to both of you.” The things that I found most rewarding, personally rewarding, in all of this are the examples of people within these societies who are struggling and the opportunity for us to become partners of theirs and facilitate their work. An example: Kem Sokha is this wonderful Cambodian who for the last 25 to 30 years has been struggling for human rights and democratic development in Cambodia. When we first knew him, he was outside the Parliament, then we knew him as a parliamentarian both in the Senate and in the National Assembly. And it has not only been a privilege for us to work with someone like that but it has been tremendously exciting, because we have learned a great deal about what the real nature of struggling for democracy is in a country like that. And it has been very rewarding for us to be able to bring resources, to make them available to him, to create an opening for him internationally and occasionally confer on him a measure of protection—because he is associated with our work, and with international work—that otherwise might not have been available, and it might have been a more dangerous situation for him. So the examples that come to my mind are often individuals, extraordinary individuals. I see faces and they are almost entirely of people in the South who undertake this work, often at great risk to themselves because it is unpopular... and their generosity and their welcoming of international assistance and their welcoming of us as partners. Let me just tell you one last little story, one of the most exciting experiences for me. The first time I went to South Africa, in 1994, it was before the transition had taken place by a few months, and I travelled around to four or five of the provincial governments. Everywhere I went, the caucus of the African National Congress invited me to sit and talk to their caucus meetings, and it was just an incredibly exciting time because they were filled with the possibilities of these changes that they were making. They were excited and I just felt that it was an incredible privilege, as an outsider, for them to say, “Come in and talk to us about what you are doing about democratic development and what you have learned from elsewhere in the world.” So for me, the great satisfaction of the work is usually the faces I see, the people I see. 3 of 3 - Key challenges and historical background - Duration 4:24 Other video formats - Windows Media | QuickTime Transcript: The key challenge is the imbalance of power that exists in most countries between governments and parliaments. Most of the countries in which we work are characterized by strong executives, large governments and relatively weak parliaments. The central objective of much of this work is to rebalance power to some degree, so that parliament can play an effective role in the legislative process and in overseeing government, and in all of that, better representing the people and serving as a kind of bridge between the people and government in their countries. As far as the role of outsiders, this goes back to something I may have said earlier: the key thing is to strengthen the work of people on the ground who are already engaged in trying to strengthen their democracy. These are people in parliaments; these are people in civil society; these are people in various kinds of research institutes. So our role is to facilitate support and aid the work they are already doing. Much of the work of the Parliamentary Centre is of that kind. Whenever we go and work with a parliament, the first question we ask is, “What are your plans? What are the mechanisms you have within the parliament to strengthen your own operations? How can we contribute to that?” In the early days of this work, when we first began to do this work in the early 1990s, often we were approached through the Canadian government. It might be the Canadian International Development Agency, it might be Foreign Affairs that approaches us and says, “Country X has expressed interest in strengthening its parliament.” In some cases, CIDA has said, “We want to do something to strengthen democracy in a country where we have a development program. Can you help us?” Increasingly, the communication is a direct one between our partners on the ground—parliaments, or in some cases organizations like the Centre, independent civil society, NGO organizations of various kinds—who are working on these agendas and want us as partners. So I would say it has changed. There is still a mixture of sources from which these requests come, but increasingly it is direct communication with our partners on the ground. It is clear if you look historically at democratic development that it is far more than an American invention. In fact, the history of this kind of thing is about 100 years old. We saw a great deal of it in the 1960s, at the time of decolonization, with the British, the French and others, it was very much a North-South thing. To me, the most exciting recent development is that it is increasingly becoming a South-South thing. It is becoming a dialogue and an enterprise within the South. For example, the Indians are much more active in this field than they have been. The Malaysians are much more active. The South Africans are much more active. One of the ablest organizations in the world in doing this kind of work is an NGO in South Africa called ADASA [Institute of Democracy in South Africa]. There is a counterpart organization in Thailand called King Prajadhipok’s Institute. We have to stop thinking of this as an export from us, and think it is a world endeavour in which we participate as a partner. I think that if that is our philosophy, it will quickly become clear that we are not just following the American lead. Our approach is quite different in many ways. We are engaged at another level; we have been active in the Commonwealth, for example, where the United States is not present. So it is not just an American endeavour. It has a longer and much richer history than that, and the most exciting current development is the growth of Southern capacity to promote democratic and governance reforms.
(Video players are available here: QuickTime | Windows Media)
|
