World Movement for Democracy: Third Assembly

View Print-friendly version

Download this Report

Download entire report PDF (2648 KB)

For printed copies of this report contact:

World Movement for Democracy
1025 F Street, NW, Suite 800,
Washington, DC 20004 USA
Tel: (202) 378-9700
Fax: (202) 378-9890
world@ned.org

WORKSHOP REPORTS: International Democracy Assistance and Solidarity

The Role of Nongovernmental Communities in Promoting Democracy Across Borders
Organizers: Centre for Policy Studies – South Africa People in Need Foundation – Czech Republic	Moderator: Tomas Pojar – Czech Republic Rapporteur: David Lowe – USA	Presenters: Orlando Gutierrez – Cuba Slobodan Djinovic – Serbia Chris Landsberg – South Africa Debbie Stothard – Malaysia Riad Malki – Palestine

This workshop, attended by over 100 participants from around the world, focused on the various ways in which support for democratic movements can be extended across borders. Opening presenters reported on assistance efforts to democrats in Burma, Cuba, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, with support provided to the latter three by Serbians, Palestinians, and South Africans, respectively. Although there were clearly circumstances that were unique to each of these situations, there were many commonalities as well. Clearly, there is a need to get essential resources to democrats seeking to open up their societies, such as books, reports in local languages, computers to help download information, cameras, tape recorders, and humanitarian assistance.

Challenges:

Dictators are now working in concert to thwart democratic aspirations, giving them many advantages.
Dictators are exploiting national identity and cultural solidarity (most notably in Latin America and Southern Africa) and bilateral relationships (in the cases of Burma/Thailand and the Koreas) to persuade other countries not to support democrats challenging their rule.
Many democrats are deterred in their work by their fear of post-dictatorial challenges of modernity.

Recommendation: There was strong endorsement of the idea that international support in addressing these challenges is critical, some participants going so far as to assert that without such support democratic advancement will be impossible.

Promoting Democracy Multilaterally: What Can Civil Society Do Through the UN, International Financial Institutions, and the Community of Democracies?
Organizers: Democracy Coalition Project – USA Transnational Radical Party – Italy	Moderator: Ted Piccone – USA Rapporteur: Claudia Caldeirinha – Portugal	Presenters: Percy Medina – Peru Matteo Mecacci – Italy

This workshop focused on civil society efforts to encourage governments to pursue democracy development policies at the national, regional, and global levels. Given the rapid advance of globalization and the spread of democracy, participants recognized that global institutions must adapt to this new reality by accommodating the demands of civil society. However, there is a wide gap between the power of global institutions and the capacity of civil society to influence them. The workshop therefore examined civil society experiences with three global institutions or processes: the UN, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Community of Democracies.

The UN Democracy Caucus
The workshop included a presentation on the process for establishing a permanent group of democracies at the UN as a way to overcome democratic deficits within the organization and to promote human rights and democracy in a more effective way.

Recommendations:

Agree that membership in the UN Democracy Caucus should consist of states formally invited to take part in the Community of Democracies (CD).
Establish procedures through the UN Democracy Caucus to govern its activities.
Meetings of the UN Democracy Caucus should be held at the global and regional levels as an integral part of the implementation of the Seoul Plan of Action adopted by the Community of Democracies in December 2002.
Consider expanding the membership of the Community of Democracies Convening Group to ensure that it is broadly representative.
The CD Convening Group and the UN Democracy Caucus should meet on a regular basis with NGOs.

Questions and Debate:

Which governments should participate in the UN Democracy Caucus; what is the mechanism of decision; how can a country-specific case be taken up for consideration of the Caucus and what should it do?
Debate about the limits of implementation of human rights treaties at the UN (“good laws, weak implementation”) and the limits of civil society participation in decision-making processes of the UN.
The UN Democracy Caucus is still not complete; states do not see the importance of incorporating democracy promotion in their own policies. Civil society must have a strong role in putting together proposals and demanding what they want this Caucus to become, by translating—in very concrete ways—the principles of the Community of Democracies’ Warsaw Declaration into the UN system.
A question about the criteria for state participation in the CD and the UN Caucus led to discussion about the need to implement criteria for participation as it was decided in Seoul—defining transparent rules and mechanisms and making the whole process more open and receptive to NGO input.
It is important that states understand their own self interests in the promotion of democracy, both internally and in international fora.

The IMF
The workshop included an extensive presentation on the problems of democratic deficits of the IMF, the lack of public debate on its criteria and procedures, and its lack of transparency. Information about the Club of Madrid’s initiative on this matter was also considered.

Questions and Debate:

The discussion included presentations of several country cases in which IMF policies have had a negative impact. In the view of some, “in Africa there is no case of success of IMF policies.” The problem of corruption and debt accumulation was also linked.
The IMF should address countries in their individual contexts, not with a policy of “one size fits all.”
The IMF should link its assistance to democracy and use its bargaining power to convince non-democratic regimes to change.
Civil society should have a role in this process. How can they send a strong message to this institution? More cooperation and coordination of strategies within civil society is thus necessary.
Without substantial debt relief, democratization cannot take place.

The Community of Democracies (CD)
The first meeting of the CD was held in Warsaw in June 2000 to launch a new partnership of democratic governments with the aim of facilitating cooperation on democracy promotion both internally and outside their borders. The governmental process is monitored by a nongovernmental process that is attempting to influence the governmental agenda and to forward civil society’s input into the decision-making process. The next CD meeting will take place in Santiago, Chile, in May 2005, and the nongovernmental process is being developed by the Chilean Executive Secretariat, which organized a functional workshop at the Third Assembly as well.

One main question is: How can the CD respond to threats to democracy? In a presentation of Peru’s experience, one mechanism of democracy promotion was described based on Peru’s experience with the Inter-American Democratic Charter. The four most important elements for the success of this process were: the importance of concreteness and simplicity, so that consensus can emerge; working with the media; working with political parties; and identifying diplomats who will put the process into motion.

Recommendations:

Among the several country cases discussed, Zimbabwe emerged as a good illustration of the need for greater pressure from external actors, both governments and civil society. It was thus raised as a particular case that the CD should address.
It is important for NGOs to develop strategies at different levels (national, regional, and global) and to invest in networking. It is crucial to create a national consensus as a basis for democratic development.
The CD countries should identify a “democracy officer” in each of their countries; these people should then be closely in touch via email, etc. This process would also be important for increasing NGO leverage.
Governments should develop effective mechanisms to allow NGOs to play an active role, including in decisions about who should be invited to CD ministerial meetings.
More concrete support (e.g., training, leadership programs, etc.) should be given to NGOs, especially in regions lacking a tradition in democracy activism.
Economic development assistance should be linked to progress in democracy development. Any external aid to non-democratic regimes should be channeled through civil society actors.
The CD should become more transparent and open to civil society participation.

The Nongovernmental Process for the Community of Democracies, Santiago 2005: Promoting Regional Dialogues among Governments and Civil Society
Organizers: Democracy Coalition Project – USA Executive Secretariat of the Nongovernmental Process, Community of Democracies – Chile	Moderator: Genaro Arriagada – Chile Rapporteur: Viviana Giacaman – Chile	Presenters: Andrea Sanhueza – Chile Ted Piccone – USA David French – United Kingdom Sadikou Ayo Alao – Benin Riad Malki – Palestine Yuri Dzhibladze – Russia

The workshop began with a brief overview of the Community of Democracies (CD), the challenges for the nongovernmental process looking ahead to the CD’s Santiago 2005 Ministerial meeting, and an invitation to those participating in the workshop to join the process.

The Governmental Process of the Community of Democracies

The first meeting of the Community of Democracies was held in Warsaw, Poland, in 2000 convened by a group of seven countries (now ten countries), known as the Convening Group: Chile, India, Poland, the Czech Republic, the United States of America, Mali, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa and South Korea. More than 100 states participated, mostly at the foreign minister level. The meeting resulted in adoption of the Warsaw Declaration, which sets forth a set of democratic principles and a joint commitment to promote democracy at home and abroad. The second governmental meeting was held in Seoul, South Korea, in 2002, at which governments agreed on a Plan of Action.

At the workshop, it was noted both that the Community of Democracies is a very good initiative in the present world context and that there is a need to “de-Americanize” it, to strengthen the idea that it is truly a community of nations working on democracy worldwide. The necessity to gain more involvement of European governments in the process was thus noted.

In the process between Warsaw and Seoul, the Convening Group created a new category called “observer countries.” Some states that had participated in the Warsaw ministerial were not invited as full members to the Seoul ministerial but, rather, as observers due to setbacks in their democratic processes. The workshop discussion therefore raised the need to review the criteria that the Convening Group is utilizing for inviting countries to the meeting in Santiago and other future ministerial meetings.

Challenges and Recommendations:

The Community of Democracies is in its early stages, and to be successful the Santiago 2005 meeting should produce some concrete achievements.
The governmental process, especially the Convening Group, should be made more democratic and transparent.
It is important to link this process with other international efforts to democratize global governance, such as the Democracy Caucus at the U.N, reform of the International Monetary Fund, and others.
Civil society organizations should make recommendations regarding the governmental process itself.
The Commonwealth mechanisms were suggested as a potential model for the Community of Democracies.

The Nongovernmental Process
At the Warsaw meeting, a civil society counterpart held a parallel meeting as the first effort to include nongovernmental actors. In Seoul, a separate nongovernmental meeting was also organized that convened more than 250 people from 75 countries. As a result, a civil society declaration for the strengthening of democracy was issued.

Challenges and Recommendations:
The Community of Democracies was recognized as a window of opportunity for civil society organizations to address some of the main democracy issues in their countries and at the regional and global levels. With this aim, an Executive Secretariat is now leading the nongovernmental process for Santiago 2005. This Secretariat is a temporary coordinator that is ready to pass its mission, along with a systematization of the process and lessons learned, to the next country to chair the CD ministerial.

The current Secretariat seeks to address the following Challenges:

There is a need to establish a nongovernmental counterpart to the Community of Democracies composed of diverse social and political actors and broadening the scope of actors involved.
There is a need to provide continuity to the process from Seoul to Santiago and to subsequent meetings of the Community of Democracies, making this a sustainable process.
There is a need to disseminate information about the Community of Democracies to diverse sectors.
Moreover, the workshop emphasized the main goal of the Secretariat: to organize a process through which the regions can discuss democratic deficits and make proposals and recommendations to the governments that will gather in Santiago.

Other Challenges and Recommendations:

There is a need to maintain the government-oriented strategy of the nongovernmental process; putting pressure on governments was seen both as a necessity and as an efficient manner in which to work, although it is necessary to ensure the independence of NGOs from governments.
CD efforts should not duplicate other movements, like the World Movement for Democracy; it was noted that the two movements are distinct but complementary and should thus coordinate their work.
There is a need for better coordination among civil society organizations to avoid inadequate preparation and duplication of efforts faced at the Warsaw and Seoul meetings.
The CD process should be improved (greater transparency, implementation of Seoul Plan of Action, more involvement of civil society); reforms at the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund should be explored.
Parliamentarians, as potential stakeholders in both the governmental and nongovernmental processes, should be included.
Regarding funding, the European Parliament’s approval of a budget guidance that encourages the European Commission to direct resources in support of the Community of Democracies process was noted.

Network of Democracy Assistance Foundations
Moderator: Carl Gershman – USA Rapporteur: Laura Abrahams Schulz – USA	Presenters: Tomas Pojar – Czech Republic Ravi Nair – India Anabel Rodriguez – Cuba

A geographically diverse group of more than 40 participants representing both democracy assistance foundations and donor recipients addressed a wide range of issues and challenges relating to the relationship between donors and implementers, and generated recommendations to help shape the ongoing work of the Network of Democracy Assistance Foundations.

Challenges:
Based on the opening presentations by both donor and implementing organizations, and comments from many other workshop participants, the following were identified as some of the key Challenges:

There are a growing number of examples of foreign governments skillfully blocking and/or restricting the flow of grant funds to NGOs, including through legislation, thereby hindering the ability of NGOs to work. This situation is exacerbated by the fact that donors are not adequately aware of the extent of this problem.
The donor community lacks a collective strategy to support activists in isolated countries, or closed societies (e.g., Laos, Cuba, and China), where financial support may be impossible, but where collective political solidarity can send a powerful message. Such support should be a priority.
Owing to a lack of coordination and communication, donor efforts are often duplicated; moreover, there is also inadequate collective information-sharing about the importance of project evaluation.
Grants that focus solely on the support of activities, rather than core support, do not foster NGO sustainability.
It is difficult for NGOs to engage in long-run strategic and organizational planning when funding is limited to one year.
An approach of giving large grants, particularly to organizations that lack sufficient absorptive capacity, encourages failure as well as corruption.
Without field visits, thorough project evaluation is extremely difficult.

Recommendations:
Participants generated recommendations that can be considered by the Network, including in its yearly meetings, and that can help shape its ongoing evolution. Among the recommendations were the following:

Donors (including those within the Network) should coordinate and share information about projects and programs on a systematic basis; part of this should include an honest assessment of what evaluation tools are the most effective.
Donors should think in terms of “partnership” with local groups rather than in terms of “assistance.”
The Democracy Assistance Network should address topics on an issue basis (e.g., “activists in closed societies”) rather than solely on a geographic basis. Such a focus could translate into mobilized, collective political support for activists in crisis and isolated environments.
The more donors act on a collective and informed basis, and even exert political pressure on authoritarian regimes, the more difficult it will be for such regimes to restrict the work of NGOs and democracy activists in their countries.
Donors should prioritize the awarding of small, flexible grants rather than of large funds that are difficult to spend due to limited capacity and bureaucratic reasons.

Luso-Forum for Democracy
Moderator: Roselma Évora – Cape Verde Rapporteur: Elisabete Azevedo – Portugal	Presenter: Henrique S. Almeida – Portugal

This was a meeting of the Luso-Forum for Democracy (LFD), which included participants from seven lusophone (Portuguese-speaking) countries (Portugal, Brazil, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, São Tome e Principe, Angola, and Mozambique). All the participants were pleased to note that for the first time in a World Movement for Democracy assembly the lusophone countries had a significant number of participants.

The meeting began with a brief description of the LFD idea, its history, and its future objectives. The LFD, based at the Institute for Political Studies at the Catholic University of Lisbon, Portugal, is a network of democracy activists and groups interested in strengthening civil society and promoting democracy in lusophone countries.

Recommendations:
Following the discussion, participants identified several needs and opportunities concerning democratization in lusophone countries and contributions of the LFD. The following recommendations were made concerning the LFD’s work:

Establish the LFD Web site to serve as a means for sharing and exchanging information and ideas among those in lusophone countries working for democracy. The Web site will be linked to those of the World Movement for Democracy and the Institute for Political Studies in Lisbon.
Reinforce channels of communication involving universities and institutes in lusophone countries through various initiatives, such as exchange programs, the distribution of publications and other materials, sharing “best practices,” and other educational initiatives.
Determine how research and higher education institutions can contribute to the reinforcement of capabilities and skills among active politicians and democracy activists in lusophone countries.
Promote and share information databases about lusophone countries, such as the Afrobarometer.
Promote conferences and publications related to democratization in lusophone countries.
Establish partnerships with other networks related to democratization to which the LFD can contribute.

To begin implementing these recommendations, the participants agreed to contribute information, as well as one article by each participant concerning his or her country, for posting on the LFD Web site.

In sum, the meeting was generally characterized by a desire of the participants to help build, and participate in, the LFD and to see its partnership with the World Movement for Democracy strengthened.

Following the Assembly, the coordinators of the LFD established its Web site (http://www.ucp.pt/iep/lfd.html) to serve those working for democracy and strengthening civil society in all lusophone countries. The Web site includes, among other items, an online forum in which participants can publish articles and commentaries about various subjects related to democracy in their countries; a list of participants in the LFD, including their contact information; news about lusophone countries; and a link to the World Movement for Democracy. The Web site is currently in Portuguese, but will soon include an English version.

Youth Movement for Democracy
Moderators: Cristina de Miranda Costa –Brazil Clayton Lillienfeldt – South Africa	Rapporteur: Ryota Jonen – Japan

This workshop gathered more than 25 participants from nearly 20 countries to discuss the importance of networking efforts among young democracy activists and to develop an effective networking structure. The workshop discussion began with a review of the youth workshop at the São Paulo Assembly in November 2000, at which the Network of Young Democracy Activists emerged, and the relative lack of progress that had been made since then, due, in part, to a lack of structure for the Network and, part, to the need for greater efforts and commitment among its participants.

The participants in this workshop agreed on the importance of networking and therefore re-committed themselves to establish a successful youth network. As a result, the original network has been renamed the “Youth Movement for Democracy,” and it will serve as the “youth wing” of the World Movement for Democracy. The Youth Movement will be a platform for young activists to address the important need to promote democratic values and to come together to share information, and will be an action-oriented, solidarity movement. It will seek to provide a space through which young democracy activists can develop contact with others and collaborate on activities.

The workshop participants focused their discussion on the Youth Movement’s structure and activities. On structure, it was suggested that a code of conduct for members be drafted and that a Steering Committee be established. Participants also agreed that members of the Youth Movement should be individuals or organizations, and that it should include not only young activists (students and young adults), but also those who work on and support youth activities. It was also proposed that the Youth Movement have a secretariat, as well as regional, sub-regional, and national chapters.

Participants also identified the main areas for the Youth Movement’s activities, which will include capacity building, solidarity, information exchange, research on “best practices” for youth activities, and advocacy. Specific activities that participants proposed include the development of a Web site to serve these purposes, a summer camp at which training and a seminar on youth political participation would be provided, and an essay contest on youth activism.

To discuss these matters further, a Working Group was established with participants from Brazil, Burma, Cameroon, Japan, Russia, and Zimbabwe. The Working Group is now responsible for drafting the structure of the Youth Movement and the code of conduct for its members, determining the priorities among the Youth Movement’s proposed activities, and fundraising for those activities.

A section of the World Movement Web site has since been created for the Youth Movement for Democracy, to include documents on its structure, its code of conduct for members, the members of the Working Group, and other information.

International Movement of Parliamentarians for Democracy
Moderator: Bi-khim Hsiao – Taiwan Dolma Gyari – Tibet	Rapporteur: Tiffany Lynch – USA

This was the second meeting of the International Movement of Parliamentarians for Democracy (IMPD), which was founded in February 2003. It was intended to formalize the IMPD by discussing the establishment of a structure and its prospective activities. The meeting included both founding and new members. There was broad agreement that even though international networks of parliamentarians already exist, prior to the launch of the IMPD a network dedicated solely to the cause of democracy was lacking.

The parliamentarians present in the workshop, representing 14 countries, reinforced the purpose of the IMPD, namely, to strengthen, re-invigorate, reform, and bolster democracy worldwide, and to defend democratically elected parliamentarians who are denied their seats or who face harassment.

The workshop began with a brief review of the success of the IMPD since its founding meeting. Participants learned that its membership has increased to more than 300 parliamentarians representing nearly 30 countries. The parliamentarians also reviewed the actions the IMPD has undertaken during the past year, including the publication of statements and alerts issued by the Movement condemning instances of violations of democratic rights.

Participants in the workshop stressed the importance of parliamentarians helping their fellow parliamentarians in trouble, with particular reference to how Italian parliamentarians have helped the Tibetan Parliament-in-Exile get recognized internationally despite Chinese pressure. To strengthen IMPD activities, participants suggested that the IMPD unite with groups within parliaments as well as with international groups dedicated to specific causes.

Concerning the structure of the IMPD, members present concluded that an interim executive committee should be created to perform certain activities before the third meeting of the Movement is convened in 2005. These duties include crafting proposals for an official structure, writing a charter or constitution, deciding on membership criteria, and organizing the third meeting. The IMPD interim executive committee will work with the National Endowment for Democracy, which will remain the Movement’s secretariat, to complete these tasks. Regarding membership, the workshop participants agreed to create a committee with regional representation to promote the Movement and to recruit new members.

This second meeting of the IMPD concluded with a discussion of activities in which members and the Movement itself can engage in to promote democracy and protect parliamentarians worldwide. Members agreed to continue to write opinion editorials in support of the cause of democracy and to distribute these editorials to their fellow IMPD members; to issue statements and alerts and to distribute them to fellow members; to recruit new members; and to issue a newsletter with information, including a list of upcoming events that parliamentarians may be interested in attending to promote the IMPD.