Third Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy, "Building Democracy for Peace, Development, and Human Rights"

REGIONAL WORKSHOPS

Africa

Organizer:
Africa Democracy Forum (ADF)
Moderators: Ayesha Imam – Nigeria
Ayo Obe – Nigeria
Chris Landsberg – South Africa
Livingstone Sewanyana – Uganda Rapporteur: Ryota Jonen – Japan

This workshop, organized by the Africa Democracy Forum (ADF), a network of over 120 democracy activists in Africa, was divided into three sessions focused on the overall development of the ADF, discussion of an ADF Constitution, and the election of an ADF Management Committee (formerly called the Steering Committee). The workshop began with a general introduction of the ADF and members of the Management Committee, which reported on past, current, and future ADF activities, including the ADF’s e-mail “listserv”; ADF meetings in Accra, Ghana, in February 2003 and in Durban, South Africa, in April 2003; and a youth training program on democratic leadership that the ADF is organizing with the World Movement’s Youth Movement for Democracy. The Committee also announced its designation of the Nairobi-based Kenyan Human Rights Commission (KHRC) as the ADF Secretariat.

The Committee introduced a draft ADF Constitution that describes ADF membership and organizational structure. As a result of the workshop discussion, a committee was established to review the draft Constitution, which was accepted as a working document. Discussion of the draft would continue via the ADF’s e-mail listserv before its final adoption.
The workshop concluded with the election of a new Management Committee. Special attention was paid to the gender balance on the Committee, as well as regional and linguistic representation (Central Africa, East Africa, North Africa, Southern Africa, West Africa, African Diaspora, Anglophone, Francophone, and Lusophone). The new Committee includes the following members:

Leopaldo Amado – Guinea-Bissau
Carine Kabasele Bapita – Democratic Republic of Congo
Lucie Coulibaly – Côte d’Ivoire
Margaret Dongo – Zimbabwe
Ayesha Imam – Nigeria
Durria Mansour Al Hussein – Sudan
Ernest Mparo – Democratic Republic of Congo (Norway-based)
Khabele Matlosa – Lesotho
Ayo Obe – Nigeria
Thierno Sow – Guinea
Wanjala Yona – Uganda
Dieudonne Zognong – Cameroon

Before the close of the Assembly, the new Management Committee held its first meeting and set the priorities of ADF activities, including the development of a membership database, holding the youth training program for East Africa in Nairobi in late 2004 with the Youth Movement for Democracy, holding future training programs in other sub-regions of the continent, and recruiting a permanent coordinator for the ADF based at the secretariat in Nairobi.

The ADF has since developed its own Web site, www.africademocracyforum.org, with the information about its Management Committee and reports on ADF meetings in English and French. In collaboration with the Youth Movement for Democracy, the ADF will hold the youth training program in Nairobi, Kenya, on December 12–17, 2004.

Asia

Organizers:
Forum Democracy Asia
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia)
South Asia Human Rights Documentation Centre
Rapporteur:
Penelope Faulkner, UK

The Asia regional workshop gathered over 70 participants from Bhutan, Burma, Cambodia, China, East Turkestan, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Tibet, and Vietnam. The first half of the workshop was divided into three sub-regional groups—East Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia—during which participants identified the main challenges to democracy movements in their respective sub-regions. During the second half of the workshop the sub-regional groups reported on their discussions and the workshop turned to the ways in which the identified challenges can be addressed.

Recommendations:
Reports from the sub-regional discussions included the following:

East Asia

Support for incipient grassroots efforts to create local democracy in China should be enhanced.
Democracy activists working in China should recognize the oppression of different nationalities, such as Tibetans and Uyghurs.
It would be useful for democracy organizations to learn from Mongolia’s contribution to research on societies in transition.
Future World Movement assemblies should include discussion specifically on North Korea.
The increased involvement of Taiwanese organizations in pro-democracy efforts in the region should be more widely acknowledged.
A forum should be organized on the impact of Chinese democratization or lack thereof on the region

South Asia

Pro-democracy efforts should go beyond electoral democracy and build substantive democratic institutions through devolution and decentralization.
There is a need to recognize that the absence of democratic norms leads to internal conflicts, and that democracy can only be enhanced when states act as guarantors of social justice from a rights perspective.
While recognizing the need to protect democracies from the scourge of terrorism, there is concern that many states are using the war against terrorism to depart from democratic norms and standards and are only helping those who seek to deviate from democracy.
There is a need to highlight the plight of minorities and to give women a major share in democratic legislative institutions and other decision-making processes. The constitution of each country should be reviewed to address these needs.
A forum should be created to resolve regional issues, such as water distribution, migration and work permits, and refugee movements. Although it is a governmental institution, the South Asian Regional Community (SARC) was considered as one framework for such a forum. Southeast Asia.
Civil society organizations need to encourage Western governments and international donor agencies to implement human rights clauses and take other action to stem the grave human rights abuses in Southeast Asian countries, such as Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.
Like participants from South Asia, the Southeast Asia group was also concerned that ASEAN governments are using the war against terrorism as justification for undemocratic behavior, and participants from the sub-region should be encouraged to issue statements on the threats being faced by democracy and human rights activists.
Some participants argued that democracy must go beyond being the preserve of local elites, and that this can be achieved only through a process of broader participation.
Links between region-based and exile NGOs should be strengthened in totalitarian countries where democracy groups and independent NGOs are prohibited.
The creation of an alternative regional cooperation platform that might be called the “Southeast Asia Democracy Forum” or the “People’s Assembly for Democracy” should be considered.
A conference on closed societies in Southeast Asia should also be convened. Following the reports from the sub-regional groups, participants engaged in a wider discussion on the region. Among the points on which there was agreement are the following:
There was consensus that in addition to the totalitarian states, including China, Laos, North Korea, and Vietnam, some authoritarian states, such as Bhutan, the Maldives, and Singapore should be considered “closed societies.”
There was also consensus that Asian participants should strengthen links and set up a network for advancing democracy in Asia. However, since no consensus was reached on what form this network should take, it was decided to launch a regional consultation whereby participants could circulate policy papers on their countries and elicit opinions on ways to create this network and address the challenges identified in the sub-regional discussions.
The participants agreed to create an e-mail discussion list to facilitate the sharing of ideas and the policy papers.

Central Eastern Europe/New Independent States: Media Monitoring and Alternative Media
Organizers: Caucasus Institute for the Media – Armenia Ukrains’ka Pravda – Ukraine MEMO – Slovakia National Endowment for Democracy – USA	Moderator: Miriam Lanskoy – USA Rapporteur: Shahin Abbasov – Azerbaijan	Presenters: Mark Grigoryan – Armenia Olena Prytula – Ukraine Rasto Kuzel – Slovakia

Challenges:
Participants identified several key features of the regression in freedoms of speech and press:

The media system in the region is mainly opinion journalism (or propaganda) rather than news reporting as it exists in the West; opposition journalism, for instance, takes the form of political propaganda rather than news reporting. Television is government controlled, and newspapers, which have small circulations and are not for profit (there is no “news industry”), are really just political party leaflets. Can journalists who work within this system change if the political environment changes? Can the media begin to report the truth after a regime changes and permits the media to publish freely?
Concerning government coercion and violence, censorship is enforced in informal ways. Journalists try to report the truth as they see it, but currently the most serious impediments are those imposed through government repression. Journalists are human and are thus susceptible to bias and corruption as are other professionals.
Guidelines for media monitoring developed by MEMO in Slovakia have been adopted by the OSCE for election monitoring, and can serve as a form of external leverage for improvement. The most important criteria are media pluralism and autonomy, and there are specific quantitative ways of measuring these factors. Media monitoring can be used not only for the purposes of methodology and advocacy, but also for educating journalists. There must be both internal and external pressure to bring about improvement; international solidarity among journalists is one way to achieve this. Of course, press freedom can be enhanced by the overall strengthening of democratic institutions.

Recommendations:

Support broadcasts from abroad to ensure pluralism. From within the NIS, one possibility is using Internet radio, even though it would reach only a small audience. From the outside, television and radio broadcasting should be sponsored so it can provide balanced reporting from abroad, without being susceptible to the same kinds of pressures on media working within the system. For instance, television broadcasting in Russian from Central Europe can play a very significant role since Russian television is under total state control throughout the NIS region.
Concerning corruption and partiality among journalists within the NIS, ethical standards should be promoted by adopting codes of ethics and by holding journalists accountable to them (by rewarding professional journalism and condemning corrupt or biased journalism). From outside the region, training programs and ways of sharing experiences should be developed.
Concerning the defense of journalists against repression within the NIS, unity among journalists should be fostered by forming a journalists’ union. In addition, legal assistance should be provided to journalists to reveal the political character of the cases against them as well as the procedural violations. From the outside, international pressure should be employed (for instance, from the OSCE and the Council of Europe, which should enforce the obligations of their member governments.
Inter-regional cooperation should be supported so that experiences and skills from Central Europe might be used in the NIS region. Moreover, the publics and governments of Central European countries should become advocates in international forums of promoting accountability and change within the NIS.

Central Eastern Europe/New Independent States: Opportunities for Think Tank Networking in the Balkan-Black Sea Region
Organizers: Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development – Georgia Center for Liberal Strategies – Bulgaria National Endowment for Democracy – USA	Moderator: Paul McCarthy – USA Rapporteur: Inna Pidluska – Ukriane	Presenters: Ghia Nodia – Georgia Ivan Krastev – Bulgaria

This workshop was intended to identify issues that bind the region together (i.e., issues that are common to the countries throughout the region); to note the opportunities for think tanks to contribute to addressing those issues; and to explore the possibilities for establishing a network and/or for enhancing existing networks.

Challenges:

The countries in the region were described as “troubled democracies” that share a great deal of history and culture. Most of them are “post-Communist” and “post-Ottoman” states that are neither the “front-runners” toward democracy nor, obviously, established tyrannies. A number of countries in the region show some deeply-rooted democracy deficits that cause concern about the quality and sustainability of democracy. There have also been conflicts in Europe and in the post-Soviet area for years due to difficult and even hostile relations among neighbors and failures to manage ethnic and cultural diversity respectfully. In addition, many people in the Black Sea region countries have the sense that they are living “on the margins of Europe” and see a special connection between domestic reform and international agendas.
It is important to define the agendas of think tanks and networks; to identify the “customers” and “final beneficiaries” of think tank work and the opportunities for exchange and the sharing of experiences; to address the problem of language and communication, both direct and indirect; and to establish the legitimacy, accountability, and credibility of think tanks and their networks.
A common feature of the region is the relative weakness of other civil society institutions and the role that think tanks can play in improving political discourse. As a “classical US-UK import” to the region, think tanks have built on a huge pool of intellectual resources and have contributed to the hugely decentralized policy process by serving initially as a “shelter for retired politicians” and as “translators” between the government and foreign actors, and, later, between government and society. Gradually, through cooperation and competition, the diverse think tank community became the bearer of local policy knowledge and the agent of influence that helped convert ideas from the intellectual community into policies of practical governance. The role of think tanks and their networks is thus to contribute to research and analysis, in order to increase the capacity of political parties to draft legislation; to contribute to shaping, influencing, and informing public opinion on policy issues; to unite efforts of different groups and countries in promoting democratic values; and to serve as a link between civil society and the state by making citizens aware of what institutions do and by informing the government of the people’s opinions and preferences.

Recommendations:

The similarities among countries in the region suggest that when addressing a problem in a particular country the think tank community should look at the experiences of other countries that have addressed that problem. Setting examples and demonstrating possibilities for similar experiences is therefore important. Think tanks throughout the region can respond to the need for interaction and cooperation at the professional level by developing a framework for mutual learning, exchanging information, comparative research.
Networks that exist independent of projects are at risk; therefore, there is a need for networks that look at specific projects with specific actors, customers, and purposes of influence. There is therefore room for issue-focused or functional networks within the region (for instance, on human rights, media, or elections) not just to facilitate the replication of experiences, but also to help avoid mistakes made by others. Learning from others’ experiences can also help to save funds, avoid delays and set-backs, and to maintain the speed of the transition.
Networks can generate greater publicity and international support to strengthen the efforts of pro-democracy NGOs; they can increase the role and visibility of NGOs domestically and can provide support through petitions, letter-writing campaigns, and other means, thus serving as a “democracy solidarity network.” However, no kind of international cooperation can compensate for the lack of influence of think tanks within their own countries.
There should be greater “quality control” of policy advice and analysis produced by think tanks.
For any network, communication and information exchange is critical. It is therefore important to develop a network’s communications via a variety of vehicles, from Internet publications to e-mail discussion lists.

Central Eastern Europe/New Independent States: Legislative Oversight, Accountability, and Transparency
Organizers: Center for Independent Journalism – Romania Institute for Human Rights – Russia National Endowment for Democracy – USA	Moderator: John Squire – USA Rapporteur: Inese Voika – Latvia	Presenters: Ioana Avadani – Romania Valentin Gefter – Russia

About 30 participants from Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Latvia, Netherlands, Russia, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the USA participated in the workshop.

Challenge:

The participants emphasized that in most of the countries in the region, regardless of the level of democracy, there is very little public demand for accountability and transparency. This is often connected to a lack of trust in elected representatives and democratic institutions.

Recommendations:

NGOs working in the field of accountability and transparency need to develop their professional capacity to explain to the public why their activities are taking place and why citizens should take an active role in pressing government for greater openness.
NGOs should be provided with specific training in the area of public outreach.
Where access to the mass media is limited, NGOs should promote openness by working through NGO networks that cultivate demand for openness within their particular constituencies.
Civic education efforts are important for overcoming historical legacies of a lack of citizen engagement; these efforts should be especially encouraged in schools.
One of the most important functions of NGOs working for accountability and transparency is to serve as a “bridge” between government and society. This can be accomplished in three ways:
NGOs should help translate complex and technical government policy proposals into language that will raise citizens’ awareness of the issues at hand.
NGOs should encourage parliamentarians and government officials to adopt simpler procedures when writing and implementing legislation.
NGOs should not consider simple adoption of a law to be a final success; they should work continuously to ensure that implementation reflects the spirit of the laws. Finally, participants expressed concern about recent political developments in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union. Given the need to strike a balance between the fight for democracy in general and the work that must be done to increase understanding and awareness of accountability and transparency, greater NGO cooperation was emphasized.

Central Eastern Europe/New Independent States: Increasing Youth Participation in the Political Process
Organizer: National Endowment for Democracy	Moderator: Rodger Potocki – USA Rapporteur: Rodger Potocki – USA	Presenters: Balasz Jarabik – Slovakia Andrei Yurov – Russia Iryna Vidanova – Belarus

Challenges:

There is a general lack of interest in youth issues among democracy activists in Eastern Europe and Eurasia. Although young people are the future leaders of the region, they are becoming more apathetic and disengaged from the democratic struggle.
Several participants noted that rather than becoming more apathetic, young activists are becoming more radical.
Many of the leading youth movements in the region have failed to survive transitions to democracy or have become ineffective “professional” structures.

The workshop was designed to provide new thinking and innovative techniques to encourage young people to be more active, and featured three presentations: Balasz Jarabik of Slovakia’s Pontis Foundation provided an analysis of how to change the focus of youth programs to make them more specific to the actual needs of young people. The best types of programs are those that are issue-based. Andrei Yurov of Russia’s Youth Human Rights Network spoke of the need to make the style of youth programs more interesting and appealing to young people. Rather than providing training on idealistic “democracy” or “human rights” themes, training should provide practical and useful skills.

Iryna Vidanova of the Belarusian magazine, Student’s Thought, described the planning and execution of a successful media campaign that increased youth activism and that could be replicated in other countries.

Recommendations:

Young activists must be invited to participate in international networks and conferences, such as the assemblies of the World Movement.
An international network of youth activists should be established and supported to increase solidarity among youth.
Democracy-building organizations should put more focus on youth programs and they should be a priority in terms of investment.
Youth programs should be run by and for young people, not by and for older activists.
Youth programs should be fun, interesting, irreverent, stylish, and tailored to the interests of young people.
Youth programs in Eurasia can benefit from earlier experiences and programs for young people in Central Europe. Support for cross-border youth programs should be a priority.

These recommendations were discussed at a meeting of the World Movement’s Youth Movement for Democracy.

Latin America and the Caribbean
Organizer: Congreso Visible – Colombia Participa – Chile Colegio de la Frontera Norte – Mexico	Moderator: Cirila Quintero – Mexico Rapporteur: Ricardo Uceda – Peru	Presenters: Elisabeth Ungar – Colombia Andrea Sanhueza – Chile Carlos Mena – Chile

Participants in the workshop examined the challenges facing democracy in Latin America and explored with each other the possible development of joint projects to address them. Representatives of many of the groups currently active in specific areas of democracy promotion discussed the key elements of, and multiple challenges to, democratic governance. A report from a regional preparatory meeting, held in November 2003 at the Universidad de los Andes in Bogota, Colombia, on “Gobernabilidad Democratica: Intercambio de Sectores” (“Democratic Governance: Exchange Among Sectors) was presented, and participants also discussed a paper from the Organization of American States’ experts meeting on “Strengthening Democratic Governance.”

Challenges:

The participants emphasized that while each of the papers under discussion focused on the political obstacles to improving democratic governance, the papers underestimated the role of socio-economic factors.
Participants from different sectors of society expressed concern that many Latin Americans do not identify with democracy.

Recommendations:

There is a need to invigorate the democratic system in general and political parties in particular.
The question of wide income inequality must be an important consideration in thinking about democracy promotion.
There is a need to highlight the ethical components of Latin American democracy so that Latin American democracy is recognized as a community of values, and there must be greater efforts to increase social capital and include ethnic minorities in the democratic process.
It is important to include the entire region, especially countries in the Caribbean, in thinking about democratization in the region.
It is necessary to emphasize and integrate the “micro” elements of governance such as the political, economic, social, and cultural components. There is a need to incorporate democracy into the daily lives citizens.
Greater solidarity should be developed with citizens in oppressive situations, such as in Cuba.

Following the Assembly, participants have engaged in discussion via an e-mail listserv, called the “Intercambio Interamericano” (Inter-American Exchange), focusing on the objectives of a potential “network of networks” aimed at strengthening various civil society activities and supporting democratic governance. Efforts that have been suggested include circulating newsletters on various activities in the region; engaging participants in discussions on current challenges; holding sub-regional or sector-specific seminars; continuing exchanges of information and experiences via e-mail.

Middle East and North Africa
Moderator: Riad Malki – Palestine Rapporteur: Antoine Nasri Messarra – Lebanon

More than 65 people, representing both NGOs and foundations working in the region, attended the workshop, which focused on the following:

Common challenges in the region
How to assist democracy activists in post-conflict societies, with emphasis on Iraq, Palestine, and Afghanistan
Peace processes in the region.

The workshop participants then divided themselves into groups focusing on the following issues:

Issues related to gender, children, youth, and poverty
Issues related to state control of NGOs and weak or non-democratic political parties
The role of culture and the need for education
The role of the community.

The workshop then moved to discussion of the situation in Iraq. All 12 Iraqi participants spoke about their organizations and basic needs and about their fields of work. They identified the following areas of concern:

Women’s needs
Human rights and the rights of prisoners
Democracy awareness and education, including mobile democracy schools
NGO capacity building and skills development
Youth rights and programs
Issues of social and political stability
Education about elections
Current use of the media;
Training
Minority rights and ethnic and religious tolerance.

Participants agreed that a follow-up meeting with the Iraqi participants should be organized to further the discussion and to connect with similar Arab NGOs to share expertise and to build capacity among Iraqi civil society representatives and organizations.

The workshop also included discussion of the formation of a regional network, and it was agreed that a preparatory committee be established to formulate the basic concept and to develop through consultation the fundamental issues to be addressed.

Transatlantic Network for Democracy
Organizers: Michael Allen – UK Freedom House – USA People in Need Foundation – Czech Republic	Moderator: Michael Allen – UK Rapporteur: Paul McCarthy – USA	Presenters: Penn Kemble – USA Tomas Pojar – Czech Republic

This workshop focused on an initiative to build transatlantic cooperation in the promotion of democracy. Establishing a network of cooperation is necessitated by the current difficulties in transatlantic relations and by the need to rediscover common values that played a role in the fall of communism a decade and a half ago. The basic premise underlying the initiative is that democracy promotion around the globe would be better facilitated in an atmosphere of improved transatlantic relations. Recent tensions have made such work more difficult. Where the U.S. and Europe have cooperated together (e.g., in the Balkans), positive things have been achieved. There is now a need to create a space for democrats in North America and Europe to discuss and debate in an open and constructive manner ways to develop cooperation and new projects that will further democratic goals.

The initiative presented for discussion would have three elements:

A Web site, including an online discussion forum;
A weekly “Democracy Digest” featuring sections on “Issues” and “Information”; and
Symposia, debates, and exchanges involving Europeans and North Americans who are interested in democracy issues.

It was noted that the activities outlined above would serve both to inform democracy constituencies and to advocate for making democracy promotion more central to the foreign policies of governments in the Euro-Atlantic region. It was also emphasized that the initiative at this stage is exploratory in order to determine whether such activities would be useful for organizations active in democracy promotion on both sides of the Atlantic. To refine the initial idea, it was considered necessary to consult with experts from the region attending the Assembly in Durban. At its inception, the initiative would simply be a vehicle for building a loose transatlantic network for democracy. It was emphasized that to succeed in the long run, sufficient funding would have to be raised.

Recommendations:

The initiative should not simply be a dialogue between the United States and the European Union, but should include new and aspiring members of the Euro-Atlantic community in Eastern Europe and the NIS.
The initiative should focus not only on identifying common values, but also on identifying common projects and modes of cooperation.
The project should not try to be overly ambitious or try to “reinvent the wheel”; it should not be about creating new structures where they already exist, but about creating a loose community of democrats working towards common goals.
The initiative should be pro-active, not reactive or defensive. It should offer positive, workable solutions to the transatlantic problems of democracy promotion.
The goal of the initiative should be to underscore the historic challenge faced by countries on both sides of the Atlantic in advocating the spread of democracy worldwide.

Since the Assembly in Durban, the Network has made considerable progress in advancing each of the three elements the workshop anticipated. “Democracy Digest” is now published on a weekly basis and distributed around the world. A Web site for the Network and plans for symposia, forums, and debates are being developed.

World Movement for Democracy || National Endowment for Democracy || 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 800 || Washington, D.C. 20005 USA
world@ned.org || webmaster@ned.org