FAAE Committee Report

With this report containing 28 recommendations, the Committee sets out a comprehensive and forward-looking agenda to advance Canada’s role in the promotion of democratic development internationally. We believe that Canada should become among the world leaders in a growing field of international policy that is as necessary to the future of global order as it is challenging in implementation.

To achieve this goal for Canada will take more than just incremental steps — a few add-ons; a little more funding here and there. It will require some new directions and new instruments. Chief among these is an arms-length Canada foundation for international democratic development as proposed in Recommendation 12, the centrepiece of Chapter 7, the longest in the report.

At the same time and as importantly, the Committee has not rushed to this conclusion without taking into consideration the full body of evidence before us, and making the thorough examination that such a complex subject, and Canada’s role therein, deserves. When we propose new directions in Part III, it is on the basis of an analysis that continues to build through each chapter of the report.

In Part I, the Committee addresses the daunting global context for supporting democratic development, acknowledging that this context — and indeed the objective of “democracy” itself — remains historically contested and uncertain terrain. We also underline that, while our focus throughout this report is on democratic development, there is a strong positive relationship to a larger international development vision reflecting Canadian values and long-term interests.

Strengthening Canadian support for democratic development is part of strengthening Canadian international development assistance as a whole. Moreover, our first recommendation argues for a Canadian approach to democratic development that is based on a broad conception encompassing governance systems, international human rights, conditions for the full participation of citizens, and the quality and sustainability of democracy in recipient countries.

Chapter 2 then delves further into the analysis of democratic development assistance and identifies five critical issues that donors must confront: local leadership and governance dimensions; the advancement of democratic development as a global, not Western-imposed endeavour (taking into account recent “pushback” against external support for democratic development in some parts of the world); the relationship of democratic to socio-economic development and poverty alleviation; the lack of coherence and coordination of democracy assistance, both within and among donor countries; the persistent deficit of policy-relevant knowledge and evaluation of the effectiveness of democracy aid.

The Committee argues, in Section 2.1 of this chapter, that Canada can help lead in addressing the knowledge and evaluation gap that pervades the entire field of democratic development. Accordingly, in Recommendation 2, we call for more Canadian investment in this area, and suggest options that could include a new research program under the auspices of the arms-length International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and a centre for policy in democratic development as proposed by Professor George Perlin.

Going to the effectiveness issue, the Committee, in Recommendation 3, calls for an independent evaluation of all existing Canadian public funding for democratic development purposes, and suggests that this evaluation could be undertaken by an independent panel of experts selected following consultations with all parties in the House of Commons and the approval of the Committee.

In Chapter 3, which draws on highlights from the Committee’s extensive international meetings in Europe and the United States, the Committee argues that Canada should make a point of continuously learning from the experiences of other donors, and that we are well placed to do so. We note the remark made to us by one of the world’s leading experts, Thomas Carothers, in Washington D.C., that Canada has an opportunity to benefit from avoiding the mistakes of others. To do so requires the capacity to keep abreast of and analyse what others are doing. In Recommendation 4, we underline the need for continuous learning in this regard.

Before proceeding further to outline new Canadian initiatives, the Committee in Part II of the report takes full account of the existing Canadian role in democratic development. In Chapter 4, we review the evolution of Canadian involvement to date, notably including the parliamentary impetus behind the creation of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development (now known as Rights and Democracy). We also survey Canadian support to democratic development provided both bilaterally and multilaterally. That includes that most recent initiatives of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), which provides the bulk of governmental assistance, although we also observe the difficulty in getting a firm handle on the funding numbers.

In Recommendation 5, therefore, the Committee argues that the independent evaluation of all Canadian funding for democratic development should include a clear complete picture of what is being done, by whom, with what objectives, and according to a common understanding of what constitutes democratic development assistance.

Leading into Part III, Chapter 5 looks at Canadian capabilities and potential comparative advantages that can be applied to the promotion of democratic development. The Committee notes the Canadian strengths that have been developing in such areas as elections, parliamentary strengthening, judicial reform, police training, anti-corruption activities, local governance, among others. We acknowledge the work of the independent, non-profit agency CANADEM in building up a growing roster of Canadian expertise for international assignments.

At the same time, we express concern that the “Deployment for Democratic Development Mechanism”, that CIDA’s new Office of Democratic Governance is currently putting in place, be coherent with CANADEM’s relatively low-cost operations. In Recommendations 6, 7, and 8, the Committee proposes that the independent evaluation of all Canadian support for democratic development we have called for include an assessment of where this support has been most effective and where Canada has the greatest potential to contribute, as well as of the coherence among publicly funded activities by Canada, and of which countries might benefit most from a concentration of Canadian democratic development assistance.

While Chapter 5 acknowledges the good work already being done by Canada, it points to something missing:

It is the question of overall impact and visibility that lingers. On the one hand, we are told that Canada is well-regarded internationally, that Canada has something special to offer, that there are skilled Canadians interested and involved in this field; on the other that Canadian support spread thinly in many places often receives little notice, and that Canada is still punching below its weight in this field.

Part III of the report aims to address this through a series of recommendations that call for significantly upgrading Canadian support for democratic development at the level of policy, funding, and institutional instruments.

In Chapter 6, the Committee calls for making democratic development a key Canadian international policy priority through a comprehensive and coherent “whole of government” and “whole of Canada” policy framework that includes a commitment to multi-year funding. As well, the government should ensure that CIDA provides as much information as possible on results achieved through its Office of Democratic Governance and is scrutinized through the independent evaluation of Canadian aid. This chapter also looks at the future of an enlarged “Democracy Council” process, arguing that it should evolve in connection with the new institutions the Committee proposes in Chapter 7.

Chapter 7 is where the Committee, following attentive analysis of sometimes conflicting testimony, makes several major proposals for establishing new institutions that we believe will make Canada a truly serious, not just a minor, player in international democratic development. We argue that “an incremental sprinkling of resources across an array of small organizations” will not be good enough. In Recommendations 12 through 14, the Committee provides the details for the establishment of an independent Canada foundation for international democratic development following consultations with all parties represented in the House of Commons. Like the IDRC, it should report annually to Parliament through the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and it should also be given resources “sufficient to put Canada among the world leaders in the field.”

In the Committee’s view, the Canada foundation could work as part of a reformed Democracy Council process to provide for regular public input, the wide sharing of information and research findings, and the generation of better knowledge and evaluation of effectiveness through a centre for policy in democratic development as already suggested in Recommendation 2. The centre would operate as a subsidiary of the Canada foundation.

The Committee believes that the new Canada foundation should have a broad mandate to assist increased democratic development initiatives, particularly in “areas where Canadian support to date has been lacking or insufficient: developing a role for political parties and strengthening the contribution of parliamentarians; expanding the role of civil society, education, and of independent, free media.”

To that end, in Section 7.1 of Chapter 7, the Committee provides a way forward for developing a role for Canadian political parties and strengthening the role played by Canadian parliamentarians. We do so taking into full account the critical issues surrounding political party development aid, as well as those related to effective practices in parliamentary strengthening. We examine the examples of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Norwegian Centre for Democracy Support, and the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD), the latter having been positively cited as being one which may be most applicable to Canada.

The Committee also takes note of the quite different proposals for involving political parties and parliamentarians that have been put to us by the Parliamentary Centre and Rights and Democracy. At the same time, we observe that in all the international cases referred to, “the initiative for a body supporting political party development as part of democratic development has come from the legislators and parliamentarians themselves.” In Recommendation 15, we therefore propose that the Parliament of Canada, following consultations with all parties, consider setting up a centre for multi-party and parliamentary democracy funded through the independent Canada foundation for international democratic development. Such a centre would start small and be re-evaluated after two years, but could ultimately aim to reach a level comparable to the well-regarded NIMD.

In Section 7.2 of Chapter 7, the Committee addresses expanded support for Canadian civil-society, educational, and media initiatives which could come through the Canada foundation for international democratic development. In Recommendation 16, we recognize that civil-society initiatives utilizing Canadian experience can take place from the local to the global levels of governance, and that funding criteria should include the objectives of increasing grass-roots citizens’ participation and strengthening democratic accountability.

In Recommendation 17, the Committee calls for additional support to “the areas of education at all levels, exchanges and training, provided that the specific programs can demonstrate their effectiveness and sustainability over the longer term”. In Recommendation 18, the Committee calls for enhanced support to free, independent media, notably in contexts where such media are under pressure, in rural and under-served areas, and in terms of new affordable communications technologies. Again, we express the caution that project proposals be subject to rigorous assessment criteria that consider effectiveness and sustainability factors.

Canada, of course, cannot go it alone in this international field. Chapter 8 therefore considers support for democratic development delivered through international organizations and multilateral channels. In Recommendation 19, the Committee argues that multilateral funding should be part of the comprehensive independent evaluation of the effectiveness of existing Canadian funding that we have called for in Recommendation 3, and that this should guide appropriate funding levels. In Recommendation 20, the Committee recognizes that there are multilateral democratization initiatives also taking place involving Canadian non-governmental and civil-society organizations, and that funding for these should be considered by the independent Canada foundation for international democratic development.

At the global level, Chapter 8 gives particular attention to democratic development within the United Nations system. Part of this involves trying to make the UN itself more accountable to elected representatives and not only state governments. The Committee, in Recommendation 21, therefore supports the concept of establishing a UN Parliamentary Assembly.

The other dimension is UN activities supporting democratic development, notably by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Electoral Assistance Division of the Department of Political Affairs, which are already strongly supported by Canada. However, the Committee observes that Canada has not so far joined most of its G7 partners in contributing to the voluntary UN Democracy Fund (UNDEF), which was created as a UN reform initiative arising from the September 2005 UN Summit. As indicated in Recommendation 22, we believe that Canada should consider whether to become a donor to UNDEF.

A final important point of Chapter 8 is to recognize the striking numbers of Canadians who are working abroad on democratic development through multilateral channels, often in positions of influence. While this is admirable and useful, the Committee, in Recommendation 23, argues that greater effort needs to be made to tap into this pool of knowledge and experience to help further Canada’s own approach to democratic development.

In Chapter 9, the last of the report, the Committee surveys Canada’s role in supporting democratic development in contexts that are both very different and difficult — in the “hard cases” that are facing the international community. We believe that to have a reasonable chance for positive impact, Canada must focus its efforts and acquire detailed knowledge of local circumstances in recipient countries on the basis of objective credible analysis. In Recommendation 24, the Committee suggests that such detailed and realistic country assessments could be prepared by a centre for policy in democratic development funded through the Canada foundation for international democratic development (recalling Recommendations 2 and 14).

The Committee recognizes that Haiti — the subject of a prior Committee report, Canada’s International Policy Put to the Test in Haiti (December 2006) — and Afghanistan, the subject of ongoing Committee study, will be among the recipient countries requiring such assessments, noting the major Canadian investments and interests that are at stake in those two countries, and the fact that they are among the hardest of the hard cases in terms of democratic development assistance.

In Sections 9.1 to 9.3 of this final chapter, the Committee looks briefly at Canada’s potential role in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian contexts, in emerging democracies and post-conflict societies, and in so-called “failed” or “fragile” states, taking into account that these categories may be overlapping and that no easy answers should be expected.

In Recommendation 25 dealing with authoritarian contexts, the Committee argues that Canadian support for legitimate local democratic efforts will require detailed and updated country assessments. In Recommendation 26, dealing with emerging and post-conflict contexts, the Committee calls for strategies that link democracy-building with peace-building, and that give attention to the development of sustainable governance structures, including at the levels of public administration, political parties, and parliaments.

In the most difficult, and unfortunately increasing, contexts of “failed” or “fragile” states, Recommendations 27 and 28 call for concentrated high-level commitments that are sustained over long periods of time. Again, the Committee underlines the need for better, applied context-specific knowledge and learning based on “independent realistic and updated country assessments.” And again there is a role here for the independent Canada foundation for international democratic development that we propose.

In sum, the Committee affirms that Canada can and should become a larger and smarter player in international democratic development, fully recognizing that this is one of the most challenging fields of international engagement today and in the future. We believe that, with the addition of several new instruments, Canadians possess the requisite expertise, experience and resolve to make a leading positive contribution that fully realizes our capabilities and potential comparative advantages. The Committee has come to this conclusion after a thorough considered analysis. All of our recommendations are directed towards the achievement of this goal.