Cultures of Democracy: A Commonwealth Perspective
Date: 21 Jun 1999
Speaker: Secretary-General Chief Emeka Anyaoku
Location: Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, UK
I am delighted to be here this morning at the opening of this conference on the Commonwealth and democracy, organised by the Institute of Commonwealth Studies. This event marks another welcome step towards raising the profile of the Commonwealth on the international stage.
1999 is undoubtedly a milestone in Commonwealth history. It marks the Golden Jubilee of the Commonwealth as we know it today, 50 years on from the adoption by Commonwealth Prime Ministers of the London Declaration of 26 April 1949. But I suspect that not many are aware that it was also in that same year that the Institute of Commonwealth Studies was established at the University of London. It is therefore a shared golden anniversary, shared between this institution and the larger association whose study it seeks to promote.
The Institute of Commonwealth Studies remains the only post-graduate institution in the United Kingdom [and indeed in the entire Commonwealth], devoted to the study of the Commonwealth. Within London University, nationally and internationally, the ICS provides a focus and a forum for teachers and graduate students with Commonwealth research interests by providing impressive library facilities and academic advice, by holding seminars and symposia and by disseminating their results. The ICS is a vital instrument for promoting the Commonwealth.
I am particularly delighted that this conference is also being sponsored by the Ford Foundation and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. That the CPA should do so comes as no surprise. After all, what could be more appropriate than CPA partnership in a conference on democracy in the Commonwealth? The Ford Foundation's sponsorship, however, comes from outside the Commonwealth family but is equally gratifying. I welcome the Foundation's support and take this as a re-affirmation that the Commonwealth continues to be noticed across the Atlantic, as it does, I believe, in many other non-Commonwealth countries.
I cannot help digressing for a moment to share with you the story of the young student who asked whether the United States and Japan were members of the Commonwealth. The professor answered that the Americans left the Commonwealth 200 years ago and that it was an American General who made sure that the Japanese never joined!
Levity aside, I am deeply impressed that such a leading American institution as the Ford Foundation should co-sponsor a conference on the Commonwealth.
The title selected for this conference is Cultures of Democracy: a Commonwealth Perspective. I find the choice intriguing. I note in particular, the use of the plural in 'cultures'. That in itself could spawn an entire debate. I would like to think that while democracy has many forms, the culture, of democracy is a thread that runs through them all. It is the basic ethos which underlies the plethora of processes and institutions with which different countries give expression to democracy. But this is perhaps unnecessary semantics on my part.
Semantics aside, it is hardly surprising that democracy should occupy centre-stage at this conference. For it is in this area of Commonwealth endeavour that the association has left an indelible imprint as the 20th century draws to a close.
Not that democracy as a concept is new to the Commonwealth. Democratic decision-making has been at its heart since its inception. The first Declaration of Commonwealth principles, codified at Singapore in 1971, spoke of "the liberty of the individual, ... equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief, and ... their inalienable right, to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live."
It is not, therefore, as if the Commonwealth has discovered democracy recently. But it is undeniably true that the Commonwealth until much more recently could have been accused of not always living up to its high-sounding principles in making democracy a reality in its member countries. The Commonwealth commitment to democracy was articulated much more purposefully at the Commonwealth summit in Harare in 1991 and developed further at the Millbrook Retreat of the Auckland CHOGM in 1995. As a result of what was then put in train, it can no longer today be said that the Commonwealth pays only lip service to democracy. The insinuation is no longer tenable that while Commonwealth communiqués make pious promises about democracy, dictatorships and autocracies within its ranks are a dime a dozen.
Since 1991, we in the Commonwealth have witnessed and in many cases assisted the transition of nine countries from military or one-party rule to multi-party democracy. Today, there is not one country in the Commonwealth which could be deemed to have remained in those two categories - and no longer would the Commonwealth tolerate any one of its members slipping back into military rule or one-party dictatorship. This is a fantastic achievement by any standards, especially on a global scale, and justifies our expectation that the Commonwealth has indeed become a 'community of democracies'.
I am not claiming that the Commonwealth has achieved perfection in this regard. There is much that could still be done to enable the democratic culture - and I use the singular - to take root in Commonwealth countries. But it is not easy to ignore the fact that the Commonwealth now has a collective code of conduct which allows a member country to be sanctioned if it seriously violates the accepted norms; that there is a ministerial mechanism which acts as a watchdog protecting those fundamental principles; that the unconstitutional overthrow of an elected government now invites automatic exclusion from the councils of the Commonwealth; and that demonstrable adherence to fundamental political values is a sine qua non for any country aspiring to join the Commonwealth.
Many in the audience would have heard me speak before on how the Commonwealth has helped those under military or one-party rule along the road to multi-party democracy. But just let me recall the Commonwealth record in this respect.
Since October 1990, I have constituted over 30 Commonwealth election observer missions including most recently to South Africa, less than a month ago, led as Chairman by Sir David Steel, fresh from his new responsibilities as the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. And only last Thursday, a team from the Secretariat returned from observing the Malawi elections.
These observation missions have involved about 300 distinguished people whose independent judgment would be perceived as carrying considerable weight. They have been drawn from all around the Commonwealth, wherever democracy is a way of life. For my colleagues in the Secretariat, this has meant organising an observer mission on average once every three-to-four months, for the past eight years. You can imagine therefore how much of our energies and our scarce resources have been invested in this effort, and in maintaining the integrity and high standards expected of each of those missions. But I believe the impact has been worth its weight in gold because they have in very many cases enhanced the efficiency and credibility of the electoral process in the countries concerned.
But election observation alone has not been the only way of promoting the democratic ethic. There have been hundreds of training courses, workshops, seminars and conferences for those who are engaged in building democracy in Commonwealth countries. The number of technical experts who have been despatched to help strengthen democratic institutions and processes in member states runs into several hundreds. They cover a vast array of specialisms from constitutional development to legislative drafting, from ombudspersons to public service reform and from electoral assistance to human rights.
Having helped many member countries to make the transition to multi-party democracy, we are now focusing on the consolidation phase. We are doing so through a series of workshops and colloquia on the theme of 'deepening democracy', whose objective is to help ensure that Commonwealth democracy is a matter of substance, not merely of form.
The Harare Declaration does not pretend that 'one size fits all'. Hence the reference in it to supporting democratic processes and institutions "which reflect national circumstances". There can be no standard or uniform format for democracy.
There are good practical reasons for insisting on this. Above all, democracy can hardly be durable if it does not sit easily with indigenous cultures. Democracy must be home-grown, not imported. Hence the different democratic formats which exists in Europe, Asia and America.
In some African societies, for example, the idea of a separation of powers between a constitutional Head of State and the executive Head of Government is entirely alien. In such cultures, the perceived Head must be seen to exercise full authority, and therefore to have an executive as well as a ceremonial and symbolic role.
But national circumstances are not a figleaf to hide behind. There are a number of universal features that must be present in any democracy, regardless of national differences. These are the essential ingredients of what I call a democratic culture.
The first is that the people must be free to choose - and change - their government at credible and regular elections. At every level, democracy is fundamentally about choice.
Free elections, in turn, entail freedom of speech and of association. Without freedom of speech, including freedom of the press, there can be no genuine national debate and no real criticism of government. Without freedom of association, open political party and civil society activity is impossible. None of these freedoms can be secured without the rule of law. That means an independent and impartial judiciary. But above all, it means that the citizen must be guaranteed equality under the law; that all citizens should be subject to the same law; and that both state and society should operate within an agreed legal framework and not be drawn into the arbitrary and the unacceptable.
The remaining ingredients of the democratic ethos are accountability and transparency. The executive must be accountable to the legislature and its operations and operatives subject to scrutiny. Throughout the administration, openness must be the order of the day.
These are what I would call the universal attributes of democracy, to the extent that tight definition is possible. There is, of course, much more to it than that. In the end, a democratic culture goes beyond formal mechanisms and manifests itself in myriad ways, becoming embedded as a way of life. The concepts of consensus, accommodation, tolerance, partnership and civic responsibility are just as important as political mechanisms, ballot boxes and majorities.
I have outlined what I consider to be the universal aspects of democracy. Let me now make a few observations on some particular aspects of each of them. My first comment on the right to choose refers to the systems which many countries have, where 'winner takes all'. There are problems associated with this.
The first of these is that in many societies victory at the polls is still interpreted as an entitlement, or at least an invitation, to capture all the democratic and state structures - not merely the parliament but also the civil service, the election management body and the state media - and to treat the institutions of state as no more than extensions of the ruling party.
My view, of course, is that majority parties must be allowed to rule, but that they must not rule in such a way as to gather to themselves all power and influence within the state or in other ways give in to the temptation to ensure that, having won power, they will never surrender it.
Secondly, because a system of 'winner takes all' involves delivery of power on the basis of a simple majority, it can engender feelings of exclusion on the part of significant sections of society. Such feelings may not be easily contained and can become particularly serious when those on the 'losing side' are predominantly from a different ethnic or religious grouping.
I can readily think of one Commonwealth country, for example, where after a 'winner takes all' election, one of the two main ethnic groups felt that the new government was not a genuinely national government but that it represented only the other main ethnic group and would safeguard only its interests. Thirdly, 'winner takes all' results from the 'first past the post' electoral system. In another Commonwealth country in two successive elections the 'first past the post' system delivered a hopelessly distorted result, threatening the stability of the fledging democracy. In the most recent of those elections, one political party won 98 percent of the seats with just over 60 percent of the popular vote, while another won only one of the 80 seats in spite of securing nearly 25 percent of the vote.
Clearly, there is no panacea. Systems of proportional representation can take many forms, some more desirable than others, and indeed a mix of the 'first past the post' system with that of proportional representation may, in most situations, provide the best answer. I do believe, however, that democrats everywhere need to address the problems which arise when those who are part of the political process feel totally excluded from the outcome and from the power and influence that comes with it. That can be a recipe for disaster.
Another point I wish to make is that larger countries, with substantial populations, need to give serious consideration to decentralisation and devolution of power away from national government. I know that this is not always easy to contemplate but if the required political courage can be summoned, the dividends can be rich. There continues to be evidence from many countries that democratic systems are still not sufficiently participatory and that they are easily controlled by a few. I should add that in my view a flourishing system of local government is the bedrock of an efficient and inclusive democracy.
I return now to democracy's universal ingredients. Because of the 'winner takes all' approach, it has been difficult for some to appreciate not only that the Opposition has a legitimate part to play but also that it should be given a formal place in parliamentary or political arrangements. The idea that the ruling party has responsibilities to the opposition has been slow to take root, especially in societies where the concept of a loyal opposition does not exist and where the political culture distinguishes only between friend and foe.
I must mention at this point the Roundtable of Heads of Government of 18 African Commonwealth countries which I convened in Botswana two years ago to discuss democracy and good governance. The Roundtable itself was preceded by a meeting on the same theme attended by representatives of opposition and governing parties from the same countries. I was informed that in several instances this was the first time that politicians from both sides of the political divide were sitting around the same table and, indeed, to the point where they were able to agree a document. This was then put to the next stage of the process - a gathering of Heads of Government meeting in retreat mode, who in turn reached agreement on the final statement. This included a declaration by the Heads that the opposition has an important and constructive role to fulfill in the sustenance of democracy. Since then we have organised, in co-operation with the CPA, a Commonwealth workshop on the Role of the Opposition, which was attended by parliamentarians and others from 20 Commonwealth countries and which considered the responsibilities not only of government but also of opposition parties.
I come next to civil society and the media. A vigorous civil society, home-grown and indigenous in its orientation, is clearly essential for democracy. But in many countries civil society is weak, often because it lacks resources but sometimes also because it is suspected of pursuing a non-indigenous agenda. There is thus lingering suspicion in the minds of many governments about the bona fides of the non-governmental sector. But it is undoubtedly true to say that all over the world, including the Commonwealth, there is greater acknowledgment of the role of civil society.
The media remains a powerful instrument for educating and promoting the democratic ethic. In an age which is characterised not only by economic but also cultural globalisation and which therefore propels societies towards homogeneity, national media must do as much as possible to preserve and promote what is best in each country's culture.
Freedom of speech and association are still largely conceived by many in terms of the absence of restraint and restriction. But as I have tried to point out, we need to go beyond the legal meaning of the phrase, so that the national dialogue which our politicians, civil society and media conduct with the state, the people and one another, is as rich and fruitful as it can possibly be.
We come then to the rule of law. Rule by decree or other forms of arbitrariness have never been more unfashionable. At the same time, there are countries where the idea that some people are above the law is frighteningly tenacious. We cannot afford to be complacent.
Finally, accountability and transparency. Throughout the world there seems to be a weakening of parliamentary control over the executive, even in countries with long and proud democratic traditions. In such a situation, either the strength of legislative assemblies needs to be reasserted or new ways found to restrain the power of the executive.
It is disturbing that, while there is still great support for democratic politics in many of our societies, there is increasingly damning cynicism about democratic politicians. In many cases, this can be attributed to anxiety over the role of money. In virtually all democratic countries today, there is a growing insistence on higher standards of personal probity and integrity, matched by an eagerness to ensure that those with money cannot buy political positions or influence with politicians and their parties. All round, there is the demand for greater accountability and transparency and more effective regulation. Money has always played an important part in politics but its significance is now increasing everywhere because of what might be called the 'Americanisation' of campaigning styles and methods in particular, through the reliance on television.
Modern media-driven politics, with its dependence on advertising and professional communication and the mandarins that come with it, is expensive. To take an example, it is conservatively estimated that in the 12 months before Britain's 1997 election, the most expensive in post-war history, the two leading political parties spent some £33 million between them. And in the recent elections in Nigeria hundreds of millions of Naira were reported to have been spent by aspiring politicians and their political parties.
Here in the U.K, attention has only recently been given to the levels of national expenditure with the Report last year of Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life and its recommendation of a £20 million ceiling on party campaign budgets at general elections. I was interested to see in this context that limits were placed on spending by each party for the recent elections to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. In Canada, there is already a ceiling on party expenditure at general elections based on the number of constituencies being contested by the party and the number of electors in those constituencies.
One last word on the matter of money and democracy. The growing concern with value for money and cost-effectiveness is entirely correct. Whenever Commonwealth election management bodies meet, for instance, the question of the cost of elections and ways of reducing it is always a key issue for debate. No one would disagree that democratic processes should be conducted more economically, provided this can be done without undermining the integrity of the system. There is a price to pay for democracy. Ultimately, the cost of not being prepared to pay it may be to lose it altogether - and that is a much higher cost indeed!
I would like to conclude by making three other observations relevant to the theme of this conference.
Firstly, no discussion about the culture of democracy could be complete without it being informed by the persistent under-representation of women. Some countries have done admirably in this regard such as South Africa where the new government of President Mbeki, whose inauguration I attended last week, has achieved 30 percent representation of women in Parliament, and 38 percent in the new Cabinet. But some countries still lag behind. Such under-representation is not only wrong in itself but also robs the democratic system of credibility and a major source of its creative energy. The Commonwealth has set for itself the target of 30 percent representation of women in positions of decision-making by the year 2005. I believe that all democracies should endeavour to work towards the Commonwealth target and beyond.
Secondly, I wish to reflect briefly on what I often call the challenge of divisive pluralism. The diversity of our societies is clearly an asset and something to be celebrated. There are those who are prepared to exploit and exacerbate ethnic and other divisions for narrow political purposes, sometimes leading to violence and even full-scale conflict. Societies can never be stable and democracy can never be secure, or indeed complete, without addressing this problem. That is why the Commonwealth Secretariat and UNESCO joined hands earlier this year to convene a major international colloquium in Paris, to consider ways of combating divisive pluralism and building a constructive one for the future. We propose to have a small colloquium with La Francophonie later this year to focus more specifically on democracy in pluralistic societies.
My final observation relates to the link between democracy and development. I have often adapted Napoleon's famous axiom to say that democracy cannot march on an empty stomach. Clearly, at least as much attention needs to be paid to the effects of poverty and under-development and the impact on individual democracies of the effects of global economic forces beyond their control. Political stability and economic stability are, in the long run, two sides of the same coin.
I have spoken at length this morning and do not wish to hold up your deliberations. But I cannot conclude my statement without taking the opportunity to pay tribute to Dr Peter Lyon, who retires from the ICS shortly after 30 years of dedicated work in the service of the Institute and the Commonwealth. I am sure you will all agree that Peter has become a Commonwealth institution and that there are very few in the entire Commonwealth who could claim to know as much about the association and to understand it as well. I wish him well as he looks to his retirement and I hope that his talents and services will remain available to the Commonwealth in other ways.
In conclusion, let me say once again how pleased I am to open this conference. I hope the next two days will be interesting and fruitful. I look forward to learning of the outcome. Thank you.
21 June 1999
London
delicious
digg
reddit
facebook
stumbleupon
News feeds