The Commonwealth and Democracy
Date: 14 Dec 1999
Speaker: Secretary-General Chief Emeka Anyaoku
Location: Lagos, Nigeria
Less than four months ago, I had the privilege of addressing the World Members Conference of the English Speaking Union in Sydney, Australia. As I said then, I have long been a supporter of the English-Speaking Union and, indeed, served for a while as a Governor of the English-Speaking Union in the United Kingdom. I have long believed in the promotion of the English language as a key instrument of the global networks of which the Commonwealth is an important one.
My chosen subject is the Commonwealth and Democracy; since the choice is entirely mine, I suppose I owe you an explanation.
In my ten years as Secretary-General, I have devoted much of my time and energy to the promotion and consolidation of democracy in member countries of the Commonwealth. It was a decision of Heads of Government to make the promotion of democracy a central preoccupation of the Commonwealth. Before taking up office, I had had some time in my home town, Obosi, to reflect on the future of the Commonwealth and I too had come to the conclusion that democracy ought to be the way of the Commonwealth in the 1990s and beyond.
My second reason is that I wanted a subject which would be both topical and relevant to a Nigerian audience especially at this time. But I must begin by giving you the background to the decision in Harare in October 1991 to make the promotion of democracy a priority objective of the Commonwealth in the 1990s
Part I
The year 1989, when I was elected Secretary-General at the Kuala Lumpur Heads of Government Meeting, marked the 40th anniversary of the founding of the modern Commonwealth. They had been forty years of very considerable achievement in the course of which the Commonwealth had contributed decisively to the ending of racist minority rule in Zimbabwe. It had emerged as an undisputed effective leader in the international campaign to end apartheid, having been the first international organisation to expel the apartheid regime from its ranks in 1961. It was also clear by 1989 that the apartheid system of South Africa, which an earlier Commonwealth summit had described as the root cause of war and instability in Southern Africa, was showing signs of collapse. By then, too, the independence of Namibia had come into view.
Wider afield, the Commonwealth was making a real contribution to the economic development of its member countries and, through the building of international consensus, was working to narrow the gap between rich and poor. It was giving a lead to the world in other areas. It had made the promotion of the interests of small vulnerable states particularly its own and brought the development concerns of these specially disadvantaged states to the agenda of the international community. The incorporation of women into the development process and the protection of the environment were among a host of other issues which had become central concerns of the association.
But at the heart of the Commonwealth which was making all these important contributions lay a contradiction. While preaching democracy and fighting for it in Southern Africa, it contained within its own ranks governments which were either military regimes or one-party dictatorships. It appeared as if the Commonwealth had come to accept the bad with the good tolerating everything and everyone. Why was this state of affairs tolerated for so long?
In the three decades following the expulsion of apartheid South Africa from the Commonwealth, the watchword within the association was unity. Although the apartheid regime had been compelled to leave the Commonwealth, international disapproval had done nothing to make the regime mend its ways. On the contrary, for the best part of the intervening decades, the regime had taken its internal repression of the black majority to unprecedented levels of barbarity and severity. Externally it had launched a vicious war of destabilisation against its neighbours.
Apartheid South Africa held Namibia hostage and sponsored dissident movements in Angola and Mozambique, to say nothing of covert operations to bend other governments in the region to its will. More than ever before, the Commonwealth needed maximum unity in its ranks if the opposition to apartheid was to be effective. A one party dictatorship may have been an evil but it paled into nothingness beside the incomparably greater evil of apartheid now declared a crime against humanity by the world community. It was a question of fighting the greater evil first.
In another important respect, the time was hardly propitious or opportune for a single-minded campaign to convert the Commonwealth into a community of democracies. In the first flush of independence, many developing member countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean had embarked on all sorts of political experiments. Some had taken to various versions of socialism; others were pursuing varieties of "guided democracies". All these political experiments promised accelerated social and economic development and, with it, social justice and harmony. And, while the verdict of history on all these experiments had still to come in, it would have been practically impossible to convince the advocates of these experiments of the errors of their ways.
But, by 1989, the jury had come in; and the verdict was that, whether it was a one-party state, military rule or any other form of undemocratic government, they had all failed to deliver on their major promises. They delivered no justice, hardly any development and in a number of cases especially, in Africa, they had even contributed to the disintegration of the institutions of state. The fall of the Berlin Wall only completed the discrediting of all forms of undemocratic rule. The stage was thus set for the Commonwealth to embark on the promotion of democracy within its member countries. And the Harare Heads of Government Meeting of October 1991 provided the opportunity for this.
Part II
All Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings are famed for their intimacy and for their frankness, and the discussions at Harare were in the best of Commonwealth traditions. The clear consensus of the Meeting embodied in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration was that democracy was the way of the future. Of course, the Harare Declaration committed the Commonwealth to other causes as well: equality for women, universal education, the promotion of sustainable development; assistance to small states; support for the United Nations in the pursuit of world peace and security and much else besides. But it is the commitment to democracy and human rights, good governance and the rule of law which, more than any other provision, has attracted international interest and, I would argue, endowed the Declaration with its present status in the world community. It is also this part of the Declaration which is of immediate relevance to this meeting.
Having agreed to make the promotion of democracy the priority concern of the Commonwealth in the 1990s, the summit had to agree on what kind of democracy the Commonwealth would be promoting in its member states. The discussion generated a variety of views and feelings on the matter; but those differences turned not so much on the substance of democracy as on its forms. In the event, they agreed on two important points.
The first was that democracy in the Commonwealth would have to reflect national circumstances. But whatever those national variations, and this was the second point, certain essential ingredients would need to be present in any genuine democracy. These would include the right of a people to choose freely the men and women who would govern them and to dismiss them if need be; the primacy of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; freedom of expression and association; and continuing transparency and accountability of government.
In 1995, the Commonwealth took a further major step to consolidate democracy in its member countries. The Harare Declaration had committed the association to a democratic vocation but had provided no mechanism for the achievement of the objectives of the Declaration. That omission was to be repaired at Millbrook in New Zealand in November 1995.
The Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme is in three parts. The first part sets out the measures in support of processes and institutions for the practice of the Harare principles and include assistance in the electoral field, in constitutional and legal matters, and in capacity building generally. The second part defines the measures to be taken in response to violations of the Harare principles, including in particular the unconstitutional overthrow of a democratically elected government. It is a graduated response beginning with a collective disapproval of any infringement of the Harare principles, leading to suspension in the absence of acceptable progress towards the restoration of constitutional and democratic government and ending with expulsion when all else fails. In many ways, this is the most important aspect of the Millbrook process. The third part contains the mechanism - the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group - to invigilate the performance of member states and implement whatever measures are agreed in response to serious violations of the Harare principles.
The Millbrook Action Programme had been conceived earlier but its introduction was necessitated in November 1995 by the turn of events in Nigeria. The continuation of a military regime in Nigeria and the gross violation of human rights which went with it had already opened a serious rift between Nigeria and the Commonwealth. In spite of that, the Commonwealth through me had initiated a dialogue with the regime of General Abacha in the hope of persuading it to release political prisoners, observe human rights and launch a meaningful process that would lead to credible democratic elections and the transfer of power.
At the bilateral level, other Commonwealth leaders were in contact with the regime to persuade it to embark on a more humane course, especially in the treatment of the civilian opposition. In fact, some of these leaders had been led to expect no less. Then, on the very day of the opening of the Heads of Government Meeting in Auckland in November 1995, news came through that the regime had executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight of his fellow Ogoni political activists.
Those executions provoked universal revulsion and led to the decision by Heads of Government to suspend Nigeria from membership of the Commonwealth "pending the return to compliance with the principles of the Harare Declaration, with provision for expulsion if no demonstrable progress had been made towards the fulfilment of these conditions within a timeframe to be stipulated".
For the Commonwealth and for me personally, no decision could have been more difficult to take. Until the advent of the Abacha regime in November 1993, Nigeria had played an inspiring front-line role in support of all the causes to which the Commonwealth was committed. It had provided principled and consistent leadership in the campaign against apartheid, both within the Commonwealth and outside. More generally, Nigeria had supported all the Commonwealth initiatives to achieve a more just and equal world. And, of course, its attachment to the Commonwealth itself was beyond question.
For me personally, as a Nigerian national, having to preside over the suspension of my own country from the Commonwealth was a particularly painful moment. On the other hand, to have done nothing in the face of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Nigeria, would have been even more damaging. It would have called into question the seriousness of the Commonwealth's commitment to democracy and human rights and would certainly have led to an erosion of faith and confidence in the Commonwealth within Nigeria itself and perhaps further afield. Indeed, it would have been to stimulate despair and cynicism within the country. Subsequent events have fully justified the wisdom of that course. Nigeria is the better for that decision and the Commonwealth is the stronger for it.
Nigeria is one example but there are many others where the application of the Harare principles has made all the difference. Thanks to Harare, the Commonwealth is no longer in the awkward position of preaching democracy and democratic principles but living with regimes which are clearly undemocratic. That contradiction has finally been resolved and we are today in the happy situation where military regimes are excluded from the councils of the Commonwealth. Harare has transformed the moral atmosphere within the Commonwealth and there is now a different feel to the association. This brings me to the issue of Pakistan.
The overthrow of the Government of Nawaz Sharif in October 1999 was a clear instance of a serious violation of the Harare principles. I know that arguments have since been advanced to justify the coup, including the ephemeral argument that it has popular support within Pakistan. But all those arguments are really beside the point. Nawaz Sharif's Government was democratically elected in an election which the Commonwealth observers I sent there pronounced to be free, fair and credible. There was nothing to suggest that the Government intended to exceed the term of its mandate by not holding elections when they fell due. As a government, it may not have been popular with every Pakistani but there was always the opportunity to get rid of it at an election. Its overthrow by the army was therefore nothing short of a subversion of the sovereign will of the people of Pakistan. That is why Heads of Government at Durban endorsed the decision by CMAG to suspend the military regime in Pakistan from the councils of the Commonwealth pending the restoration of democracy in that country. Pakistan is another instance of the Commonwealth's determination to defend its fundamental political values.
Part III
The return of military rule in Pakistan, however, serves to point up once more a well known lesson in political science: that democracy is not and cannot in the nature of things be a once and for all electoral conquest. Building democracy, like nation building itself, is a continuing chore, calling for vigilance and commitment to tackle effectively whatever impediments may exist in the way of consolidating democracy in individual countries.
Here in Nigeria, democracy faces special challenges arising from our special circumstances. Among the main challenges facing the country as it begins the consolidation of its democracy is how to come to terms and live with its vast and complex plurality. In whatever form we conceive it, differences of tribe, religion, language and culture have for a long time had considerable impact in the way we have conducted national business and perceived each other. Often its dangers have brought our nation to the brink. It has done even worse to other …6/ parts of the world. Consider, for examples, in Europe - Kosovo, Bosnia, and Northern Ireland, which thankfully, is healing; in Asia - Sri Lanka; and in Africa - Rwanda, Burundi and Sudan. All these instances illustrate how pluralism, ie ethnic, religious or other differences, if not carefully managed, can destabilise or spawn conflicts in states.
I therefore believe that pluralistic states, such as Nigeria, should strive for what I have called constructive pluralism. And what do I mean by this? Constructive pluralism seeks to utilize society's diversity towards its greater good. To achieve this, it is necessary to go beyond merely instituting mechanisms to help the components of a country to hang together in tolerant harmony. This may mean instituting governance structures and processes which enhance equitable involvement and participation in the affairs of the country by the component parts.
This would also mean giving states that are viable in size and local communities more say in the running of their own affairs, especially through strong elected local government, not susceptible to manipulation by the centre.
We must acknowledge that after nearly 40 years of independence and the creation of so many states, there is still audible disquiet about what is generally regarded as the structural imbalance of the country and the perception that, inherent in this imbalance, is the tendency to the marginalisation of sections of the community from the centres of power, influence and material well-being. The present dispensation is clearly seeking to dispel this fear. As a nation we must have the courage to grapple with this challenge at this time.
Another challenge facing Nigeria as it consolidates its new democratic gains is that of rooting out corruption in public life. This can only be achieved if, throughout our public and private institutions, we consistently nurture a culture of integrity and instil the work ethic of earning only on the basis of our real efforts and output. For a long time, corruption has defaced Nigeria and has prevented maximum utilisation of our national resources for the public good.
The Government of President Obasanjo has demonstrated an acute awareness of this problem and, in my judgment, has been very courageous in tackling it. But it is important that everybody is aware that this evil is pervasive and not only calls for its eradication but also joins in determined action at every level of our society to achieve that objective.
Finally, the process of democratisation, development and rehabilitation of national pride will neither be effectively tackled nor confidently completed until we meet the outstanding challenge of restructuring and re-motivating our national institutions and services. It should be a source of much national discomfort that our national institutions have been rotting away at a time of an accelerated pace in global technological reach and efficiency. Public services, national institutions of education, health, transport and communications, and many others have over the years declined as their counterparts have improved in most of the other parts of the world.
To give an example, 30 years ago, Malaysia was in many ways behind Nigeria in respect of a number of social and economic development indices. Today, Malaysia is years in advance of Nigeria in many aspects of development. The experience of countries such as Malaysia shows how national development can gain from making public institutions and services target chasing and achievement-oriented.
Part IV
This address is on the subject of the Commonwealth and Democracy and it is on a Commonwealth note that I wish to end. Notwithstanding the setback in Pakistan, the Commonwealth is now essentially a club of democracies and the challenge before Commonwealth leaders is to ensure that this democratic resolve so evident and so strong in all the member countries, is not allowed to waver.
The peoples of the Commonwealth now look to the association for other things. At the top of that list is their social and economic welfare.
In my last Report to the Durban Heads of Government Meeting in November, I put the issue in the following terms:
Throughout the Commonwealth, democracy and good governance have been accepted as the course of political wisdom. In the main, the member countries of the Commonwealth have got the democratic processes and institutions which reflect their respective national circumstances. What they now ask for, to borrow the language of Sir Winston Churchill's Romanes Lecture of 1930 at Oxford, is "more money, better times, regular employment, expanding comfort and material prosperity". Will they get it? For the 1.3 billion in the Third World who subsist on a dollar a day in the shadows, the issue is not even one of expanding prosperity but of mere survival. Will they be provided the opportunity to better their lives?
It will now be for my successor who takes over next April as Secretary-General working with the leadership of the Commonwealth to ensure that these hopes and expectations are not disappointed.
14 December 1999
delicious
digg
reddit
facebook
stumbleupon
News feeds