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

WORKSHOP REPORTS: Democratic Governance

Governance, State Capacity, and Democracy in Developing Nations: Establishing Standards and Identifying Impediments
Organizers: Centre for Policy Studies – South Africa Center for Democratic Performance, University of Binghamton – USA	Moderators: Shaun MacKay – South Africa Elizabeth Clark –USA Rapporteur: Edward McMahon – USA	Presenters: E. Gyimah-Boadi – Ghana Carlos Ponce Leon – Venezuela Kingsley Rodrigo – Sri Lanka Irena Lasota – Poland Chris Landsberg – South Africa Elizabeth Clark – USA Anna Sevortian – Russia

Participants in this workshop focused on issues relating to the establishment and enforcement of international democracy standards. There was consensus that in some areas broadly accepted international standards are in already place. Enforcing those standards is the major problem; other problems include the questions of who should set the standards and the relationship between domestic and international organizations in assessing state adherence to these standards. The current international environment is one in which governments are highly sensitive about their reputations and wish to be seen as part of the global democratic “club.”

There was disagreement on how well international organizations, such as the OSCE, are performing their role in assessing compliance with international standards. In some cases where there is considerable international involvement in the enforcement of standards, international organizations have to be careful not to dominate the process and run the risk of de-legitimizing a democratic outcome. Even internally, the fact that standards are developed by elites, regardless of whether the public wants them, reflects the problem of “ownership” of the process of both setting and enforcing standards.

Several participants mentioned areas where the development of new international standards would be helpful in overcoming obstacles to democratization, among them standards for opposition parties, internal party democracy, corporate governance, and civil-military relations. There are also the problems of leaders promoting referenda to extend their terms or otherwise consolidate their power, and dealing with hate speech.

Observations:

The good news is that democracy is viewed as a universal value and that standards are developing, but they can’t simply be imposed. The challenge for emerging democracies is how to internalize them and shape them to reflect regional realities while respecting universal values. In this fashion people can take ownership of them so that they are not seen simply as being imposed.
There is a crucial issue of state-civil relations in many nascent democracies. In many instances, people do not see democracy as delivering material benefits, but often the contrary is true. More public participation is needed in the policy decision-making process, and disadvantaged groups, such as women and other minorities, should be drawn more into the process.
There is a gap between articulated standards accepted by governments and the reality. Leaders often make commitments that they have no intention of honoring, and civil society needs to constantly remind them about standards.

Challenges:
The participants discussed a number of challenges based on country and regional experiences.

The ongoing political crisis in Venezuela demonstrates the difficulty of enforcing commonly accepted democratic standards as a means for solving a political crisis. Because Venezuela held regularly scheduled elections, it was assumed, erroneously, that democracy had set down deep roots. Its institutions have proven to be insufficiently strong, however; the rule of law has also been weak, and corruption is endemic. All of this has de-legitimized political parties and enabled the president to assume and maintain power and to tailor Venezuela’s political institutions to his needs. The opposition has learned that the only real method of solving the problems of democracy in Venezuela is by internal pressure, and NGOs have a continuing responsibility to work with political parties and to understand their roles as observers of political change and monitors of democratization.
The situation in Russia is a case where democratic institutions are under attack. Best characterized as a “guided” democracy with heavy use of administrative resources, there are massive violations of human rights and political manipulation. Broad, sustained international engagement is needed.
The October 2003 elections in Azerbaijan demonstrate the need to enforce existing standards and the failure of international organizations to live up to their responsibilities. The importance of using clear language on standards and making clear distinctions between adherence to core standards and vague subjective judgments must be recognized.
The case of Sri Lanka demonstrates the problem of a lack of democratic political culture. A necessary building block of democracy is to accept disagreements, and only through dissent and diversity of views can democracy advance. Outbreaks of violence result from the inability to disagree peacefully. In Sri Lanka there are 51 parties, and some families are very strong politically, which is true throughout the region. Politics is a matter of family disagreements, rather than competition among different political parties. Civil society in the region is not very strong, and the business community is very influential in funding political leaders. Parties follow hidden agendas and lack internal democracy.
In Africa, perceptions on the utility of standards, and the needed breadth and depth of international standards, depend on whether one is in or out of power. Incumbent governments often argue in favor of contextualized “tropicalized” standards, meaning that they should not be held to the same high standards as more consolidated democracies. Thus, in Africa the regional versus universal standards argument is not yet settled. Other questions abound: Who should set the standards—political parties, governments, civil society, or some combination of these? In addition, in bilateral relations governments often are willing to tone down the universal standards argument if strategic interests are at stake, and multilateral organizations are often weak and hamstrung, bound only by the lowest common denominator of their member states. Are standards regional or universal with respect to economic and corporate governance or civil-military relations, and should they be set in relation to the past or the present?
The Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) foreign assistance initiative is a fund being established by the U.S. government as a new approach to development assistance. As designed, in addition to other criteria, it will use democracy and governance to choose recipient countries. The lack of NGO input into the criteria, however, may have limited the weight that democracy indicators will play in the overall criteria.

Other Challenges and Recommendations:

How can civil society be more effective in setting and enforcing standards, including those for elections and internal party democracy? Within the U.N. system, regional international organizations and documents such as the Copenhagen and Warsaw Declarations all lay out clear standards, including civilian control of the military, electoral standards, and the role of a strong civil society. The question is not so much whether these exist, but how to hold governments accountable to them.
Should standards be viewed in a regional or universal context? While they may be universal, to what extent should they be contextualized according to regional and domestic factors? This issue should not be used, however, as an excuse to avoid universal elements of democracy.
Does the international community take local realities sufficiently into account or does it adopt too much of a “democracy by consultants” or “cookie-cutter” approach? While standards must be based on universal norms, autocrats have used the “local” argument to justify their less-than-democratic practices.
It is important for civil society organizations (CSOs) to hold governments accountable to standards, but there is also a concern about negative reactions of international organizations to CSO criticism of their enforcement of standards. In addition, while formal democracy is more prevalent than substantive democracy, civil society sometimes minimizes the importance of elections and its role in the system of checks and balances. The importance of representative democracy in favor of “participatory” democracy should not be minimized.
Elections must be viewed in the context of a longer-term process, including pre- and post-election periods, and not just in the context of Election Day. The international community has to be more unified, and domestic CSOs should continue to have a critical role in ensuring governmental adherence to democratic norms.
Despite criticism of international organization performance, the overall results have been more positive than negative. Without their focus on this issue there would almost certainly be less democracy in the world today.
Regarding the implementation and enforcement of standards, more emphasis should be placed on post-election follow up. For political parties, work has to go beyond enforcement, and standards for opposition parties should be institutionalized and legitimized. Standards should be designed to promote internal political party democracy and to institutionalize the role of parties.
The use of referenda to extend presidents’ terms in office should also be examined as anti-democratic (as opposed to changes that would take place only after they left office).
Standards should evolve to include constant performance audits of how countries are faring.
CSOs have a role in continually reviewing standards to ensure that they are culturally contextualized and agreed upon. Such organizations must also help build civic understanding of the importance of governmental adherence to standards and be willing to participate in government performance audits.
There should be more emphasis on substantive democratic governance standards, including public participation in decision making, especially by women.
Careful attention should be paid to the process by which democratic institutions are developed; establishing the “rules of the game” should be inclusive and legitimate.
While many people are uncomfortable with “conditionalities,” they do serve an enforcement purpose.
Consideration should be given to recognizing democracy as a right rather than as a universal value, thus acquiring greater weight and legitimacy in international legal terms. In sum, there is an emerging consensus that we already have standards in place, although they clearly continue to evolve, but that the challenge is how to mobilize to ensure their implementation.

For a fuller version of this report, visit the Centre for Policy Studies’ Web site: www.cps.org.za.

Trade Unions in the Vanguard of Democratic Governance
Organizer: American Center for International Labor Solidarity – USA	Moderators: Leon Lynch – USA Andrew Kailembo – Kenya Rapporteur: Lovemore Matombo – Zimbabwe	Presenters: Branislav Canak – Serbia Veronica Kofie – Ghana Cirila Quintero – Mexico Neide Aparecida Fonseca – Brazil

Before unions can participate in democratic governance, they themselves must have internal democracy. To be effective democracy advocates, unions require good constitutions, a system to elect officers, effective leadership structures, and mechanisms to develop and adhere to their own internal policies.

Because of their strategic economic and social presence through collective bargaining and broad-based membership, unions should play important roles in the stability of democratic governments. Where representative governments have been undermined or damaged, unions should be leading activists to restore democracy and institute democratic governance. Unions should be advocates of ethnic pluralism, anti-discrimination reforms, and voter education.

The workshop examined the democracy work of trade unions in specific instances. Sustained emphasis was placed on the importance of international labor solidarity and the need to participate in coalitions with like-minded NGOS and activists to increase political leverage and strengthen participation in public policy debates.

Unions identified their roles in building democracy in countries such as Liberia, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Mexico, Brazil, and Serbia. Challenges to unions globally were summarized along with recommendations for responding to those challenges.

Recommendations:

Union survival. Democratically structured unions must use civic education to continue to emphasize the basics of democracy among their members. Unions must be independent, and free from government influence, political party dominance, and religious association. Unions should rely on international trade union solidarity and coalitions with NGOs for help when they are under siege, whether from multinational conglomerates or dictatorial governments.
Building equitable society. Labor and capital must work together to achieve decent labor laws that set standards for work, fight discrimination, and demand inclusive governments.
Sustaining democracy. Every individual is important and key to collective action. When individuals are members of democratic unions, they get the support they need to continue their struggles. Unions have a responsibility to gather facts, formulate policies, and be fair. Voter education helps unions demand adherence by their governments to basic international worker and human rights.
Clear message. Unions must convey clear messages about themselves—who they are and what they stand for. For example, unions insist on inclusiveness of their membership (for example, the inclusion of women). Union members must hold their unions accountable as representative organizations. Workers and trade union leaders have obligations as citizens and must exercise their political rights and mobilize their grassroots members to action when necessary. Unions must convey to their governments that they expect government institutions to be responsive to worker organizations as important constituents.

The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Participatory Democracy
Organizer: Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA) – South Africa	Moderator: Paul Graham – South Africa Rapporteur: Marietjie Myburg – South Africa	Presenters: Robert Mattes – South Africa Kondwani Chirambo – South Africa

Challenges:
HIV and AIDS impact both the ability of citizens to participate in democratic processes and the ability of governments to fulfill their functions and responsibilities. The impacts can be seen in three areas of governance:

Economic growth is diminished with little reduction of inequality.
Political institutionalization processes of particular importance to young democracies are disrupted.
Popular commitment to and participation in democratic self government is reduced. Participants also raised the following concerns:
Citizens do not participate effectively in existing participatory mechanisms like AIDS Councils. Citizens should be more involved in the design and implementation of these mechanisms to ensure coordination and cooperation on all levels of government, but on local government level in particular.
There is not enough public discussion of HIV/AIDS policy reforms. Such discussion should focus on issues beyond treatment, care, and support to include such issues as the best electoral system and the capacity of government and NGOs to deliver all services effectively and efficiently within the context of HIV/AIDS.
There is currently little empirical evidence to support the link between HIV/AIDS and its negative impact on good governance. There are not enough resources available to enable researchers to collect reliable information that could serve as evidence for policy reform and dialogue.
Strong institutional capacity, vision, and coordination among government, civil society, and the business sector are vital for addressing the challenges of HIV/AIDS.

Recommendations:

There should be greater citizen dialogue, deliberation, organization, and mobilization.
The organization of civil society, especially to facilitate the above recommendation, should be strengthened.
Create public spaces and tools for raising issues around and for responding to HIV and AIDS (e.g., integrated development planning and AIDS councils).
Ensure the replenishment of legislative and public service capacities impacted by HIV/AIDS and plan for ways to meet future obligations.
Take political action to ensure a sufficient focus on funding and policy for mitigating the impacts of HIV/AIDS.
Engage private companies to encourage them to share organizational lessons and to participate in advocacy and leveraging of finances.

Conclusion:
Strategies of intervention on HIV/AIDS are still mostly focused on the health area. While that is, of course, necessary, it is also important to acknowledge the impact of HIV/AIDS on the broader sphere of governance. Governments have the power to change the course of the pandemic, and their citizens have the right and the responsibility to compel them to take up that challenge.

Strengthening Democracy through Decentralization and Local Empowerment
Organizers: Institute for Social Sciences – India Democracy Development Program Local Government Consortium – South Africa	Moderator: Rama Naidu – South Africa Rapporteur: Janine Hicks – South Africa	Presenter: Sthembiso Madlala – South Africa

Underpinning the idea of government decentralization to the local level is the belief among its proponents that it encourages more efficient government that is closer to the people and more responsive to their needs. Although it has been common practice in the developed world for decades, decentralization (to the local government level) in the developing world, which was pre-empted by the dramatic political paradigm shifts of the early 1990s, still presents both scholars and practitioners in these countries with a plethora of growing pains.

This workshop provided an opportunity for a variety of stakeholders from around the world to exchange experiences and best practices. The discussion proved to be a fruitful interaction among the participants from the developing world, but also between this group and the participants from the developed North.

Citizen Participation

Challenges:

Although the devolution of power and decision making have opened the doors to more constructive citizen involvement in local government, many communities are still at a loss to comprehend fully the opportunities that it presents for meaningful citizen participation. Reasons for this include limited access to information, illiteracy, a lack of knowledge in terms of citizen rights, inexperience in mobilizing around particular issues, and the responsibilities of traditional leaders.
Other challenges include power issues, such as the big divide between authorities and citizens, the obstruction of participation by city councillors, and the disproportionate influence of consultants in the development process.

Recommendations:

Civic empowerment programs should place emphasis on participation in local government processes.
The capacity of communities in the drafting and negotiation of local budgets should be strengthened.
Public information centers should be created in partnership with local politicians.

Poverty Alleviation and Service Delivery

Challenges:

It is often difficult to mobilize resources for local development, which often have to be transferred from the central government, leading to unnecessary bureaucracy that consequently obstructs delivery to communities.
There is often a lack of transparency regarding the use of resources allocated for development, which limits the community’s participation in terms of lobbying capacity, and also opens the door for ethnic patronage and personal advancement to the detriment of a community as a whole.

Recommendations:

Increase the devolution of resource control to the local level.
Implement social audits of quality of service delivery, an appropriate legislative framework that governs the administration and allocation of resources at the local level.
Establish local infrastructure to take up development initiatives and strengthen the dissemination of information on available resources.

Devolution of Power and Resources

Observations:
Although decentralization has become official government policy in many developing countries, there are many gaps between the actual policy, the legislation that governs it, and its implementation. Unfortunately, these gaps are often the object of political leverage among the different spheres of government. Some participants pointed to instances where opposition parties that govern in the local sphere have an uphill battle against the central government, which obstructs resource allocation. But this is not only the case where opposition parties control the local sphere; wherever local needs conflict with a national policy agenda the former have had to take a backseat to national interests. This may be accomplished by structural provisions, such as a failure to decentralize financial power to the same extent as implementation power, or through more subtle means, such as accusing those who favor a local cause of being unpatriotic.

Recommendations:

Give broader decision-making powers to local communities; this not only includes the identification of needs, but also the financial discretion to determine particular spending priorities to address context-specific needs.
This requires clear demarcations of competencies among various spheres of government, which provides the necessary discretionary powers to local communities.

Building a Global Network on Local Governance
Organizers: Institute for Social Sciences – India Democracy Development Program Local Government Consortium – South Africa	Moderator: Ash Narain Roy – India Rapporteur: Njabulo Maseko – South Africa	Presenter: George Mathew – India

One outcome of a topical workshop during the Assembly, on “Strengthening Democracy through Decentralization and Local Empowerment” , was a call for the creation of an effective network through which models, approaches, and experiences can be shared. Initially, a local governance network had been suggested at the Second Assembly in 2000, but nothing concrete had yet been established. This functional workshop thus had the intention of establishing the network on local governance through direct participation and guidance from participants from countries around the world.

As a result, the Institute of Social Sciences (ISS), based in New Delhi, India, in cooperation with other organizations, will assume responsibility for anchoring the Global Network on Local Governance and will provide the resources and labor needed to make it operational. The network is an ad-hoc body set up through the action of participants in the Third Assembly.

The Global Network on Local Governance will seek to:

Develop an understanding of local governance and disseminate information across a wide audience
Provide an interface for institutions working on issues of local governance to network and share information
Provide an informal forum to harness ideas and solicit consensus on priority issues of local governance
Promote a culture of good governance at the local level.

The above objectives will be achieved through:

The dissemination of values of participatory local governance
The provision of support for local governance advocacy
Documentation of success stories on local governance
Strengthening local democracy
Inclusion of civil society in decision making at the local level
Ensuring fiscally viable local governance institutions.

Membership in the Network will be open to the following:

Elected representatives, with an emphasis on the inclusion of rural entities
Local government officials and administrators
Activists in the field of local government
Civil society institutions.

The activities of the network will include:

A clearinghouse of information on local governance
Creation and management of a database of organizations working in the local governance area
Development and hosting of a Web site
Publication of a newsletter to disseminate ideas on local governance
Organization of study tours and exchanges of people and ideas around the globe
Access to existing local government networks and the creation of synergy with them.

The Network will function initially by means of electronic communication facilitated by ISS. It is envisaged that the Network’s membership will expand and grow and regional and local initiatives are encouraged.

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