Transatlantic Initiatives For Installing Democracy
By Farooque Chowdhury
29 January, 2011
Countercurrents.org
At times in history conflicting interests merge, and conflicting goals move together only to settle accounts at a later stage. Maturity and balance of forces of conflicting interests in respective historical conditions ultimately determine the outcome. Campaigns for responsive, transparent, accountable and non-repressive ruling system in peripheral countries now show this.
In the face of the decadent reality of ruling system in peripheral societies, initiatives for installing “democracy” are there now. The initiatives are from both sides of the Atlantic.
The annual report, 2008 of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IIDEA), Stockholm provides an account of the dominating stream’s “democracy building efforts” in countries far away from the metropolis of the present system. IIDEA’s “democracy building efforts”, the report claims, “have proved to be credible at a time when other means of promoting democracy have been discredited.” It informs that its resources and expertise are in “higher demand”, and its “credibility has ensured an ongoing role … as a convenor or honest broker between opposing political forces.” It maintains relationships with UN agencies.
In collaboration with the African Union (AU) IIDEA has launched a Joint Activity Plan for democracy building in Africa involving more than €15 million euros over five years. In Latin America, it collaborated with the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Carter Centre in implementing the Inter-American Charter.
The institute has re-established a presence in Brussels “as the lead organization in the EU funded Network for Enhanced Electoral and Democracy Support (NEEDS) project.” The report says: “[O]ur member states have given us the mission to support sustainable democratic change by … influencing policies and politics.”
The IIDEA is closely engaged with the Inter-American Development Bank on the issue of democracy and development, with a particular spotlight on the Andean region. In 2008, with the UNDP and the UN Department of Political Affairs it organized two roundtable discussions on democracy and development in New Delhi and New York. With the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and the Overseas Development Institute it co-hosted conference for donors in London in June 2008. The key partners include the AU, the ASEAN, the SAARC, the OAS, and the League of Arab States (LAS), and think tanks like the South Asia Center for Policy Studies (SACEPS) in South Asia and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in South East Asia.
“In the Arab world,” the report observes, “there are limited resources available to support electoral systems and democratic development.” Signing of the Madrid Agreement to review the law governing political parties in Colombia, capacity building for political parties in Peru since 2004, and training more than 300 political leaders were some of its activities in Latin America. Its total funding for 2008 amounted to €17.49 million. Members providing fund included Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. The Australian Agency for International Development, Canadian International Development Agency, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, International Development Research Centre, the European Commission, the European Parliament, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technishe Zusammenarbeit, Inter American Development Bank, Hiroshima University in Japan, the ministries of foreign affairs of Belgium, Chile, Italy, Norway, Sweden, and Switzerland, the Netherlands ministry for development cooperation, the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation, Swedish International Development Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, DFID and Foreign and Commonwealth Office in UK, and the United Nations Development Fund also made contributions.
“[T]he current global situation”, the report says, “does not signal an inevitable trend of democratic consolidation. ... Several events … point to the fragility of democratic gains…. [D]emocracy is experiencing a series of significant…challenges. In some countries democratic aspirations have been engaged in a grim struggle with authoritarian rulers …. In some countries democracy is faltering … and in others it appears to be yielding to nationalist sentiment and nostalgia…. In some countries of the North … democracy … has not yet been able to significantly reduce gender inequality, or to eradicate racism, xenophobia and similar undemocratic social behaviours. And in both the North and the global South … political parties and parliaments, which all too often are seen as alienated from the people” are “lacking inclusiveness and representativeness …. most conspicuously with regard to gender – ineffective and unresponsive…. Yet, with an uncertain international environment, there is increasing recognition that democracy building is a long term process that can only be led from within, and which benefits from the experiences of others.”
Fundamentally similar initiative is there in the US. In 2008, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the wing of the USAID for fostering democracy in the world around, made 260 grants in more than 30 African countries that contributed to many “democratic gains and resisted some of democracy’s reversals.” The continent experienced elections, disputed and peaceful, government overthrown by soldiers, legislation restricting NGO activities, interventions, anarchy, famine, piracy, flaring up of fighting, and postponement of election. NED made grants to 25 organizations working in both northern and southern Sudan, and organized a conference in Washington “Towards Democratic Elections in Sudan.” In Somalia, NED’s 20 partners documented abuses, broadcast radio programs promoting human rights and democracy, etc. Scores of NED partners in Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, and Mauritania worked for democracy. In Asia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Malaysia, Maldives, Nepal, and Pakistan with more than 400 million people went through electoral process. But, according to the NED publication, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, and Thailand experienced setback in 2008.
“In 2008, the Endowment continued to concentrate resources in one or two critical countries in each sub-region of Asia, while also expanding its programming in a handful of countries where democracy is losing ground.” In Myanmar, the Endowment provided support that allowed individuals and groups to rebuild networks inside the country, etc. The NED extended support to Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and. Vietnam in Asia.
Europe was not free from problems related to democracy. Countries/regions in Europe and central Asia that had NED assistance included Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. The democracy assistance efforts were conducted among the students, teachers, youth, women, journalists, judges, and lawyers.
The NED considers that “in Latin America and the Caribbean, important democratic deficits still exist” and five countries there “experienced democratic declines.” According to the NED, Bolivia, Colombia, Nicaragua, Mexico, and Venezuela were having problems – polarization, etc. “[A]lmost half of NED-supported core institute and discretionary programs were carried out in the Andean region.” It initiated programs in Bolivia, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mexico. NED supported programs in Cuba and Haiti. It also awarded grants in Argentina and Paraguay.
Throughout 2008, the NED said, “governments of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have been aggressive and methodical in their attempts to silence persistent public demands for more political space, participation, transparency, and accountability.” NED increased its support to democracy in the MENA region. NED strengthened the capacity and infrastructure of Iraqi workers’ organizations and business associations. Palestine, Morocco, Turkey, and Afghanistan also received NED support.
These, appearing Napoleonic campaign, are designed to make peripheral ruling system efficiently functional to ensure strategic interests in a period of peak oil and increasing crises and competition. The grand actors’ hands, however, are exposed through their covert role.
[This is the slightly modified version of a part of a chapter from The Age of Crisis]
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
