FAAE Committee Report

[B]ecause Canada lacks a central democracy assistance organization, Canadians contribute to other organizations and other countries’ aid and foreign policy objectives. This means that Canada is losing some of its best and brightest democracy practitioners, who therefore contribute primarily to U.S. or European foreign policy priorities…

A Canadian-based democracy institution, with its experience in a federal, ethnically diverse, multilateral, and bilingual country, would be welcome into the international democracy promotion community and would have a significant impact in assisting developing countries.

David Donovan, Research Director,
Queen’s University Centre for the Study of Democracy[271]

Canada has many unique things to offer. However, despite the wealth of talent… despite Canada’s unique contributions, Canada’s actual efforts remain disparate, underfunded and anonymous. Perhaps more importantly, there is little sense of Canadianness and almost no effort to promote [a] Canadian contribution to democracy promotion as part of Canada’s international identity. … I do not find that I have many Canadian counterparts. While it is admirable that Canada has exported so many individuals who thrive within international organizations, little or no credit accrues to Canada as a result of their activities.

Leslie Campbell, Senior Associate and Regional Director,
Middle East and North Africa Programs,
U.S. National Democratic Institute for International Affairs[272]

The Committee believes that Canada should be a major-league player in the provision of international democratic development assistance. Yet, while Canada’s disparate efforts are often recognized by others, Canada is still not the large-scale actor that it should and could be in this field. As Professor Lisa Sundstrom of the University of British Columbia has put it:

Canada’s role in support for democratic development overseas has been timid and small, but where it has been attempted, recipients of Canadian assistance have generally come away with positive impressions and an increased capacity to strengthen democracy in their local contexts. … The key task before the Canadian government is to render that role distinctive, clear and less hesitant.[273]

The Committee has come to the conclusion that more is needed than incremental increases in support to an array of small organizations already operating in the area of democratic development, usually with CIDA funding. Furthermore, we believe that Canada should become active in sectors such as political party development where we have not been engaged to date, and should be more involved in expanded initiatives in other areas of democratic development through a funding channel that is at arms length from government.

The Committee acknowledges that many existing organizations are doing good work and that some witnesses have expressed reservations about the creation of any large new entity. For example, Rights and Democracy, which has an existing Parliamentary mandate as discussed in Chapter 4, argued:

[W]e strongly believe that a centralized system could become a bureaucratic monster, could undermine the existing plurality of approaches, dialogues and activities that together produce significant results with our partners and, ultimately, could undermine Canada’s credit and credibility around the globe. I know no other country that has adopted such a centralized system. Before creating new institutions, existing mandates should be completely assessed and fully supported.[274]

In a further submission to the Committee in early April 2007, the current president of Rights and Democracy, Jean-Louis Roy, referred to a next statutory review of the organization in 2008 which he hoped would result in the “recognition of our institution as the central Canadian instrument for the promotion of human rights and democracy in the world.” But at the same time he acknowledged: “In the past, I believe that our institution had dangerously neglected the democratic development portion of its mandate.”[275]

Rights and Democracy’s first president Edward Broadbent told the Committee that, instead of a new institution, more resources should be given to this arms-length institution with all-party support, and noted that during his tenure as president each of the political parties was represented on its board.[276] In a subsequent November 2007 submission to the Committee, Rights and Democracy proposed to create a “special Political Party Development Unit” on a trial basis.[277] Referring to both Rights and Democracy and CIDA’s new Office of Democratic Governance, Ian Smillie stated that: “I’ve never understood why we need more institutions when we have institutions that are already there. If it’s not doing the work that’s wanted or needed, then it should be given the mandate and the marching orders to do it.”[278]

Similarly, the Parliamentary Centre, a body with a long relationship to the Canadian Parliament, argued in a January 2007 submission to the Committee that the government should “invest carefully and strategically in strengthening the work already being done by Canadian governmental and non-governmental organizations. Better an improved policy than a new organization.” At the same time, the Centre proposed a series of policy initiatives: an expanded Democracy Council; a linkage of CIDA’s democratic governance work to sustainable human development; a Democracy Partners Research and Study Program; the establishment of “Democracy Canada Centres attached to some Canadian Embassies in countries or regions where the struggle for democracy is deemed to be especially important to Canadian interests”; making the Parliamentary Centre a “centre of excellence in parliamentary development”; creating a “Centre for Political Party Exchange” that would have its own board of directors while maintaining “a close working relationship with the Parliamentary Centre.”[279]

The Canadian Bar Association also argued in its submission to the Committee that: “No one organization can or should deliver international assistance in every field. In this respect, the best means for Canada to contribute to the overall international effort of democratic development would be to enhance the capacity of existing Canadian organizations to take on a greater role internationally. This also includes improving the knowledge and expertise within the Canadian government to produce effective programming in the rule of law area.”[280]

The Committee is mindful of these concerns and cautions that have been expressed. We certainly do not want to create some kind of all-encompassing “bureaucratic monster” that overlooks or replaces the work of existing Canadian organizations.[281] But, as part of increasing Canada’s overall international assistance, we do want to add significant new capacity to Canada’s contribution to international democratic development. Frankly, we are not convinced that minor modifications and additions to the status quo will do the job. As we have already noted, it concerns us greatly when we hear the following from a witness like Kevin Deveaux, a Canadian legislator with both extensive experience working internationally with non-Canadian organizations and familiarity with the Canadian organizations — “One of the things I want to say from being in the field is that Canada is not a serious player in the area of democratization development.”[282]

The Committee does not believe that an incremental sprinkling of resources across an array of small organizations will be good enough to make Canada a “serious player”, nor do we want to pick and choose among a plethora of proposals from different organizations asking for additional funding. We think that the allocation of resources for additional initiatives is best done through an independent expert assessment process carried out by a substantial new arms-length Canada foundation which we will propose specifically for the purpose of supporting democratic development in the field. We believe now is the time to move Canada’s efforts to this higher level.

Before elaborating on that, the Committee has received important related testimony observing that something is missing in Canada’s instruments to advance democracy, and that this something extra should be independent from government. In one of our earliest hearings, Professor Jeffrey Kopstein told the Committee:

The government should probably not get involved directly in promoting democracy. It should probably get involved through the creation of something like a Canadian endowment for democracy, an arm’s-length organization that would be… in effect, a crown corporation that would be separate from the ministries per se.[283]

The same day, the Committee heard detailed testimony from Thomas Axworthy arguing that: “Canada lacks a central democracy assistance organization. But Canada has a wealth of knowledge and professional expertise grounded in Canadian values that could make a real and meaningful contribution to democracy assistance initiatives.” Mr. Axworthy’s explained his proposal as follows:

A Canadian-based democracy institution — Democracy Canada — grounded in a federal, ethnically diverse, multilateral and bilingual country would be welcomed by the international democracy promotion community. This new institution should have the following features:

-     Democracy Canada should be an independent organization reporting to and accountable to Parliament and a Minister. It should not be part of any department.

-     The mission of Democracy Canada would be to promote and enhance democracy abroad. Democracy Canada would employ a network of experts to provide practical experience in areas of democratic development to their counterparts in partner countries. Democracy Canada’s activities would focus on political party assistance, including training in campaigns, electioneering, and media relations, which would introduce a tool largely absent from Canadian foreign policy. Programs would also include enhancing democratic transparency, election monitoring, promoting civic participation (especially among women), and assisting in the building of democratic institutions.

-     The focus on political party assistance, election preparation, training and mechanics would distinguish the Institute from the legislature mission of the Parliamentary Centre and the civic education mission of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development.

-     The Board would consist of 12-15 members drawn from nominees of parties sitting in Parliament, international partners, and experts in democracy promotion. Replicating a successful aspect of the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), one third of Democracy Canada’s board would from international partners. The Board would have the fiduciary responsibility for Democracy Canada.

-     The Institute would also be governed by an advisory Democracy Canada Council consisting of members from the democracy and governance community of Canada. An annual Democracy Canada conference would be held to bring
together the Canadian and international democracy assistance community to promote mutual learning, the dissemination of best practices, and to help coordinate Democracy Canada’s future objectives and priorities.

-     The Institute would develop its own programs and staff but also partner with others in the field. It should have an annual budget of $50 million, both to fund worthwhile projects by its partners and to undertake its own activities. Democracy Canada would also be allowed to fund proposals for international work submitted by Canada’s political parties, but it would not automatically allocate a portion of its funding through the existing party structure.

-     Democracy Canada’s permanent bureau staff, in addition to program coordination and management, would undertake a research function to gain an understanding of the local context of Democracy Canada’s partner countries. To enhance its effectiveness, Democracy Canada would work with existing Canadian and international organizations such as the IDRC, as well as with organizations within its partner countries to inform its programs.

-     Democracy Canada would coordinate Team Canada Democracy delegations around a key Canadian foreign policy objective. With Democracy Canada, coordinated assistance could be provided to a partner country, including elements of political party assistance provided by the parties, legislative assistance from the Parliamentary Centre, electoral assistance from Elections Canada, and so on. Democracy Canada would maintain the overall focus of the delegation, and would be responsible for democratization programs in the partner country.[284]

It should be noted that the “Democracy Canada” proposal was made with full knowledge of what is being done by existing Canadian organizations including Rights and Democracy and the Parliamentary Centre.[285]

On the rationale for creating a new institution with all-party support, Mr. Kevin Deveaux first acknowledged that “there are a lot of organizations within Canada that are receiving money from CIDA and from the government and that are doing good work.” [286] He then went on to argue forcefully:

Canada needs a funding agency that specifically deals with democratization, that would provide grants and funding to organizations, much as the National Endowment for Democracy in the United States, the NED, does….

I’d like to see something like the Westminster Foundation in the UK. Whereas the Germans and the Americans have moved to partisan-based groups, I would recommend a multi-partisan group like the Westminster Foundation, one that would create a situation whereby all the parties could come together to do executive, judicial, and parliamentary development, and election monitoring and political party development.

[Canada]needs a made-in-Canada approach to foreign policy. If we’re going to do that, then we need democratization development. We need to be able to have the funding that gives us access to the higher levels within government, civil society, political parties, and the judiciary.

Finally, I would like to say that there are a lot of Canadians who are doing this work on a full-time basis. They’re doing it for British organizations. They’re doing it for American organizations. They’re doing it for the UN. They’re doing it for the Commonwealth. There is a vast array of Canadians who’ve built up a lot of experience in this area, and listening to them, talking to them, I know that they often say they wish they could do this for a Canadian organization, that they wish we could have a Canadian version of NDI or the Westminster Foundation.[287]

Mr. Deveaux added that there would be a role for “smaller contractors or subcontractors as well who could be involved in the process. And I think that is also something that would create competition and would allow for smaller organizations to have an opportunity to provide their expertise as well.”[288] In other words, the best proposals put forward from the non-governmental sector should be able to get support through this new funding agency.

Having reflected on this matter, the Committee does not suggest either simply following the Democracy Canada idea or simply copying a version of some other country’s organization. But we do agree that a made-in-Canada approach to assisting democratic development requires that a major new arms-length funding instrument be established that is devoted specifically to that purpose. We are not firmly set on a particular name for it, but for the purposes of this report, we will refer to it as a Canada foundation for international democratic development (the “Canada foundation”).

It is essential that the Canada foundation be fully independent of government, established by Act of Parliament after consultation with all political parties represented in the House of Commons. The Committee recognizes that the foundation will necessarily be primarily funded by public money (although it could also be permitted to raise money from other sources). Given that, along the lines of the IDRC, it should be accountable to Parliament through a minister — in this case the Minister of Foreign Affairs — who would table its annual report in Parliament. While we do not have a set amount of funding in mind (the world-renowned IDRC receives over $100 million annually), we believe that it should be an amount sufficient to establish Canada as a world leader in the area of democratic development which, as we have underlined in Chapter 1, is integrally linked to the human development agenda as a whole. As far as the Committee is aware, other countries fund their democracy assistance organizations on the basis of annual appropriations. At the same time there should be a multi-year commitment made to the foundation, and the option should also be open to establish the foundation through a large one-time endowment.

As to the foundation’s structure, it should be governed by a board of directors appointed by government on the basis of all-party consultations. In addition to being representative of the Canadian community of practice on democratic development, the board should include representatives of Canada’s democratic institutions and political parties, which could be current or former Members of Parliament. As well, recognizing the international nature of this activity, as is the case with IDRC and Rights and Democracy,
the board could include some representatives from countries in which Canada has major democratic development assistance programs. The chair of the board and the president of the foundation should be chosen by the board itself not the government.

The foundation obviously should be a participant in the enlarged Democracy Council discussed in the previous chapter. It should co-sponsor with the Council at least annually a public conference on Canada’s approach to democratic development. (The foundation could, of course, also convene other forums as appropriate on specific aspects of democratic development.) In addition, the foundation and the Council should collaborate on a public website which would make available to Canadians information resources on important issues in democratic development, the results of relevant research findings, country strategies, and evaluations of the effectiveness of Canadian democratic development assistance. In regard to generating better knowledge and evaluation that can assist the work of the community of practice, the Canada foundation could provide funding to a centre for policy in democratic development as suggested in Chapter 2, preferably operating as a subsidiary of the foundation.

Recommendation 12

The government in consultation with all parties in the House of Commons should establish an arms-length Canada foundation for international democratic development or equivalent having the following key elements:

·        The foundation should be established by Act of Parliament and, while maintaining its independence from government, should report to Parliament annually through the Minister of Foreign Affairs;

·        There should be a multi-year commitment of resources to the foundation sufficient to put Canada among the world leaders in the field, with funding provided either by annual appropriations or as a one-time endowment;

·        The foundation should be governed by a board of directors appointed by government on the basis of all-party consultations;

·        The foundation’s board should be representative of the Canadian community of practice on democratic development, should include representatives of Canada’s democratic institutions and political parties, which could be current or former Members of Parliament, and could include some representatives from countries in which Canada has major democratic development assistance programs;

·        The president of the foundation and the chair of its board should be chosen by the board itself not by the government.

Recommendation 13

The Canada foundation for international democratic development should be a participant in the enlarged Democracy Council as discussed in Chapter 6 and should co-sponsor with the Council at least annually a public conference on Canada’s approach to democratic development.

Recommendation 14

The Canada foundation for international democratic development should also be the means to support the generation of better knowledge and evaluation to assist the work of the community of practice. It would provide funding to a centre for policy in democratic development as suggested in chapter 2, preferably operating as a subsidiary part of the foundation. Furthermore, the Canada foundation for international democratic development and the Democracy Council should collaborate on a public website which would make available to Canadians information resources on important issues in democratic development, the results of relevant research findings, country strategies, and evaluations of the effectiveness of Canadian democratic development assistance.

In the Committee’s view, the foundation should have a broad mandate to assist new democratic development initiatives, based on the Canadian approach to democratic development that we have recommended in Chapter 1. In particular, the foundation should address several 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.

7.1       Developing a Role for Political Parties and Strengthening the Contribution of Parliamentarians — Creating a Canadian Centre for Multiparty and Parliamentary Democracy funded through the Canada Foundation

Political parties have long been considered essential to the process of democratic development, yet Canada has never been involved in aiding political party development. The Committee believes that this should change, with a new all-party instrument being created supported by the independent Canada foundation we have recommended. At the same time, we are fully aware of the challenges of political party aid. Even as parties have proliferated in emerging democracies, Thomas Carothers observes in a new book, Confronting the Weakest Link, that: “Throughout the developing and postcommunist worlds, political parties are held in extremely low regard; in most of these countries they are the least respected or trusted of any public institution.”[289]

John Graham told the Committee:

Very troubling in Latin America is evidence that popular confidence in the democratic system is eroding. That has little to do with the electoral process and much to do with the failure of expectations engendered by the promotion of democracy in the eighties and the collapse of respect for political parties — a bad situation, as political parties are of course the indispensable machinery of democracies. Canada, especially through parliamentary networking and through the OAS, can do more to help parties and parliaments rebuild.[290]

Former Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, noted: “It is important to have coherent and well-considered approaches. The growing interest in supporting political parties, for example, needs to be considered carefully.”[291] He added in testimony: “The word of caution I was trying to sound is that others have attempted and others continue to support particular political parties when they’re abroad. …If there’s a general approach and you get the expertise, but it’s shared equally amongst all of those who wish to participate, then that is what I would suggest might be the way to go.”[292]

Mr. Carother’s, with whom the Committee met in Washington, refers in his book to an evolution in party aid away from traditional single-party efforts towards a multiparty focus often involving “more systematic efforts to affect the overall party system in a country. These take the form of initiatives to foster horizontal learning among parties, to spread norms about good party behaviour within the political elite, to bridge the gap between parties and civil society, and to increase the role of women in politics. The growing field of programs aimed at party systems includes support for reforms in the basic rules and regulations that govern party life, such as political party laws and laws relating to party finance.”[293] While urging reasonable expectations on the part of donors, Mr. Carothers argues: “The various lines of improvement and innovation that party aid providers have begun experimenting with need to be embraced and taken forward by a wider range of party aid providers. This means many things:

·        Abandoning cosy party-to-party cooperative relationships that lack any real focus on how party reform can be stimulated, supported, and sustained.

·        Avoiding the tendency to devote substantial amounts of program resources to party exchanges, especially poorly planned study tours, dignitary-rich conferences, and short-term parliamentary delegations in either direction.

·        Incorporating and expanding the many possible improvements in training methods, with a focus on creating sustained learning experiences and the opportunity for genuine follow-up and practical application.

·        Devoting more resources to serious on-going assessments of the political parties and overall political life in a country before setting up party aid program there.

·        Ceasing to send to complex foreign contexts Western campaign experts who know little about the local scene and reflexively prescribe a stock set of ideas about high-octane campaigning as a recipe for party strengthening and reform.

·        Going deeper and further with programs to bolster the representational character of parties, by broadening efforts to bridge the gap between parties and civil society (beyond just NGOs), taking more steps to understand the rise of new social movements and their potential ties to the party domain, continuing to support the inclusion of women in parties, and supporting new forms of citizen representation at the local level.

·        Taking forward the new efforts to strengthen party systems, by learning more about how to make multiparty dialogues effective, help new legal frameworks on party finance gain teeth, and stimulate useful progress on party law reform.

·        Carrying out many more independent, searching evaluations of party aid programs that question basic assumptions about methods, assess long-term effects on parties, and relate the effects to the recipient country’s overall political development.[294]

Asked about what Canada might do in light of this challenges facing party assistance, Mr. Carothers told the Committee that it is “very important that other countries step forward” and that “Canada has a unique role to play” in part because it may have an advantage in being able to learn from the mistakes of others’ experience. It need not be stuck in what he referred to as the old model of party aid, and a good example to follow might be that of the Netherlands Institute of Multiparty Democracy (NIMD).[295]

Before turning to possible European models, the Committee also takes note of what Mr. Roger Hällag, Head of Programme for Political Parties at IDEA told us in Stockholm. Because parties are seen as both necessary to and “the weakest links” in democratization, and because there is a knowledge/evaluation gap, IDEA has been involved in research and dialogue with parties in some 50 developing countries with the aim of making international assistance to parties more effective.[296] Among IDEA’s findings are that:

·        “Too often it is donor interests that are dictating the terms”, rather than an assessment of the needs in the recipient country.

·        Party aid is getting to be a growing and increasingly crowded field, with many players, tiny budgets, and considerable overlap. Multi-party aid is becoming more common than party-to-party aid channels to “sister” parties.

·        There is not enough learning from experiences and serious evaluation of results is the exception.[297]

Notwithstanding this critical context, Mr. Hällhag affirmed that “there is probably far too little aid targeting parties and party systems.” It remains an overlooked area and donors should be prepared to take the risk of entering it.[298] The Secretary-General of IDEA Vidar Helgesen confirmed the importance of strengthening political parties in an address to IDRC in Ottawa in February 2007 on “Strengthening Political Parties and Party Systems”. According to Mr. Helgesen, “What is evident is that needs exceed supply”, and he expressed the view that Canada could take a leadership role in this area given its “immense multilateral credibility.”[299]

While in Europe, the Committee heard from representatives of the UK’s Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) and the Norwegian Centre for Democracy Support as already alluded to in Chapter 3. Each operates with public money, but at arms-length from government, and each employs both single-party and multi-party forms of assistance.

David French, Chief Executive of the WFD, which has operated since 1992, explained that although its creation was government-sponsored, the initiative to involve political parties came from backbench parliamentarians, and the WFD allows currently active politicians to participate in its activities. Of the funding which it receives from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 50% goes to the parties to undertake party-to-party assistance. The Foundation has a distinctive model in which politicians work with other politicians. This is different from the German model of the Stiftungen where it is party staff that are directly involved more than the politicians themselves. The Foundation is governed by a 14-member board, of which eight are nominated by the parties. Apart from the party-to party-aid, the other 50% of funds goes toward long-term projects in a number of countries. Typically, this will involve assembling packages of democracy assistance with partner organizations using British expertise. Issues include how to tackle voter disengagement and creating democratic models of ethics for local officials. There is always the challenge of making local partnership work. But the Foundation can sometimes act as a catalyst to create local dialogue among parties. For example, in Cairo, it was able to bring together Egyptian parliamentarians from all parties to be able to talk to each other. At present, the WFD does not have any field offices.[300]

The Chair of WFD’s Board, Labour, MP Hugh Bayley, told the Committee in a separate meeting that although the WFD’s annual funding (approximately $8.7 million in 2005-2006) is a small fraction of what the British government spends on democratic governance, it is set to increase. Conservative MP, James Duddridge, added that “a lot can be done with very little money”. The 50% of WFD funds that are grants to parties are allocated according to the votes received by the parties in general elections. The WFD has a projects committee which reviews and approves all project submissions, and recognizes that proper public scrutiny of all funding is required.[301]

The Norwegian Centre for Democracy Support, as explained to the Committee by Mr. John Inge Lovdal, Chair of its Board, and Astrid Thomassen, its Project Coordinator, is much more recent (created at the request of the parties as a pilot project in 2002; made permanent in 2006), and has funded only small projects so far (from a budget of less than $1 million in 2006). In terms of organization, there is a council made up of the general secretary and two more representatives from each party which meets every second year. The parties nominate one member each to the Centre’s Board and the council nominates three independent representatives.[302]

It was observed that the largest parties with international connections find it easiest to find suitable partners. In 2006, six parties applied for funding of projects in eight different countries, mainly in East Africa, but also in Asia and Latin America. Benefits for Norwegian parties include increased awareness and knowledge about the political situation in partner countries and a better understanding of North-South questions in general. The types of projects supported include: capacity building and organizational development within the partner political parties, internal communication, grassroots engagement, and women and youth participation. While several projects have not worked out (e.g., a multi-party project in Malawi) and it is difficult to measure results, there are examples of “small stories of success.”[303]

The Centre has learned that there can be a two-way approach to party assistance. Some takes place on a party-to-party basis, but more is happening on a multi-party basis, using the Norwegian experience with coalition governments. The Centre represents a “unique combination” of both bilateral and multi-party approaches to assistance. While the Centre’s secretariat coordinates and can initiate interest in projects, it is very important at all times that the parties feel ownership of the Centre’s activities. The Centre collaborates with other institutions like the WFD, but unlike the WFD, project funding is not allocated according to the representation of the parties in parliament. The criteria for project selection are defined by the Centre’s board, “looking at the quality of applications” in terms of promoting the desired goals of participation, transparency, and accountability. Interestingly, criticism of the centre has not come from civil society in Norway, but mostly from academic researchers who worry that party aid can constitute a form of political interference in other countries.[304]

Although the Committee was unable to meet directly with representatives of the NIMD, as noted above, it has been suggested as a good multi-party example for Canada, and we have taken into account the approach presented by its executive director Roel von Meijenfeldt during a visit to Canada in January 2007.[305] As he put it:

The multiparty approach was chosen as reflection that political parties will not intervene in a biased manner within the internal dynamics of fragile states, respecting the adagio that democracy can not be exported from abroad. Furthermore, it projects the joint responsibility of political parties to assist young democracies with their democratic development on the basis of trusted peer relations. The joint approach by parties across the Dutch political spectrum also allows for the professionalism and continuity that is required in operating in politically sensitive and risky environments.[306]

The NIMD was formally established by seven participating parties represented in the Dutch Parliament in 2000, with each party having one representative on its board of directors, chaired by an impartial president who is an elder statesman. The NIMD “is registered as a foundation under Dutch law and as such qualifies as a non-governmental organization, part of Dutch civil society.”[307] The NIMD receives core funding from the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs — its budget allocation was €10 million (about C$15.4 million) in 2005-2006 — on the basis of a “four-year strategic programme” which allows it “to use a multi-annual programmatic approach to its relations with and support for its counterparts.”[308] The NIMD submits regular reports on its work programme and meets semi-annually with the Ministry “to discuss the results of the programmes and the lesson learned.”[309]

According to von Meijenfeldt:

Over the past four years, NIMD has established partnership relations with 152 parties in 15 countries at four continents and, in addition, regional cooperation progammes of political parties in East and Southern Africa and West Africa. At the end of 2006, NIMD completed its first four year cycle, with a full external institutional evaluation (conducted in the third year) to assess the trends in our impact. This year [2007] NIMD starts its second four year programme, core funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs from the development cooperation budget. In the new multi-annual programme 2007-2010, NIMD projects an increase in programme funding from our bi- and multilateral programme partners.[310]

With the exception of one office in Guatemala and regional representation in Johannesburg, South Africa, the IMD does not have overseas field offices, preferring instead “to work through locally available capacity or encourage the establishment of such capacity.”[311] As von Meijenfeldt elaborates:

The cooperation with political parties in the programme countries is inclusive meaning that all parties represented in the parliaments and/or officially registered take part in the cooperation. If the political parties in a particular country are interested in cooperation, NIMD invites them to come together to make an analysis of the common challenges in the democratic development of their country and prepare a strategic programme on how to address these challenges. Our role is to facilitate these processes and to fund the implementation of the identified reforms or broker assistance from other interested international partners…

Of the 15 counties in our programme, 9 have meanwhile established Centers for Multiparty Democracy (CMD’s) through which they seek to institutionalize their cooperation on national issues. … These centers come under various names but have in common that they are fully run by the [local] political parties themselves. They focus on two main issues:

·        Develop a national agenda and oversee its implementation;

·        Find agreement about the modalities for support to institutional development of political parties.[312]

In terms of encouraging national inter-party dialogues in partner countries, von Meijenfeldt noted that these “are moving to district levels while there is also an increasing emphasis on active participation of women, youth and other underrepresented groups, such as the indigenous population, in the political process.”[313]

David Donovan of the Queen’s University Centre for the Study of Democracy and Leslie Campbell of the U.S. National Democratic Institute (NDI) both mentioned positively the NIMD as an approach that would be congenial for Canada in recent testimony to a Canadian Senate Committee. In doing so, Mr. Campbell argued that NDI tries to be multi-partisan. “We do not want seek like-minded party partners. We will work with all parties across the spectrum. We are very international in how we present ourselves. The majority of people working for NDI abroad are non-American… it is important to show that we are not promoting one particular system and particularly the American system because there would be a lot of resistance to that.”[314]

Mr. Campbell pointed out that NDI currently “employs 30 Canadians in senior capacities overseas”, including six former parliamentarians, and that “more than 350 prominent Canadians in political life have been involved in NDI programs at one time or another, including virtually all of the former party leaders of Canada.”[315] He added that using parliamentarians should be “a huge priority for a new Canadian institution.”[316] According to Mr. Campbell, Canada has a lot to offer in this area:

Canada’s political parties have highly developed grassroots organizing models that are relevant to many developing countries. Unlike the large, publicly funded European parties, or the private, money‑reliant American parties, Canadian parties are decentralized, volunteer driven, have modest budgets with public and private funding and operate under strict spending limits. … Canada’s parliamentary system and the experiences of current and former Canadian parliamentarians are relevant around the world. Most emerging democracies have parliamentary systems, and the Canadian model is more applicable in nascent parliaments than the unique, expensive and unwieldy American system. Quebec’s national assembly can also provide an example in countries where the political system resembles the French model; and Canadian provincial legislatures are similar in scale and budget to the legislatures in many developing nations.[317]

Thomas Axworthy told the Committee: “The model that I would like and think would be appropriate for our country would be the multi-party model, based on the Dutch or Westminster models. Whatever divides us in Canadian politics at home on the issues, the men and women who work in our parties and are in Parliament at least believe that democracy is a system worth promoting and they are expert at because they are practitioners in it. … I also think our own parties are oriented domestically so heavily that it would do the parties themselves some good to think about issues abroad.”[318]

The Committee strongly favors a system-wide multi-party approach because it is more inclusive and also less likely to lead to accusations of inappropriate partisan foreign interference in domestic political processes. A Dutch report of a seminar on the subject held in Africa put it this way: “A key challenge for donors is to come up with an appropriate way of assisting political parties, while avoiding to be labelled partisan. Channeling donor assistance via independent foundations might be a suitable alternative for donors supporting political parties. Also, support to political parties should be designed in such a way that it makes political parties sustainable.”[319]

In citing these examples and this testimony, the Committee has not overlooked the submissions of existing organizations wanting to become more involved in political party and parliamentary development work. Indeed, Mr. Campbell agreed that “more resources for the existing organizations make sense. I think the Parliamentary Centre and Rights and Democracy do great work. They have had very small funding levels.” His argument is that such organizations struggle for funding which could come from a new independent umbrella organization that could do more to support their work than the current government-dependent structure.

Rights and Democracy submitted a seven-page proposal to the Committee in November 2007 arguing that, although it has not worked on political party development in the past, it did not have the resources to do so. The submission continued:

If the Canadian government is prepared to invest in this field, it is our belief that Rights & Democracy — as an existing, operational and networked institution — can develop and implement a strategic political party development programme in a much shorter time-frame and at significantly less cost than the creation of a new institution for this purpose.[320]

The submission proposed that the government fund its proposal for a “3-year trial period”, giving a detailed outline of the objectives and approaches that would be followed and accomplished through a “Political Party Development Unit” set up within Rights and Democracy and through the convening of a “Canadian Consultative Group” that would meet four times a year. The anticipated cost would be $2.5 million annually, or $7.5 million over the three-year trial period, after which an evaluation would be done and “a longer-term decision taken.”[321]

The Parliamentary Centre submitted a completely separate set of proposals in January 2007 which addressed both parliamentary strengthening and political party development. With regard to the latter, the Centre acknowledged that there has been no established Canadian vehicle for this purpose. It then proposed the following:

·        To rectify this situation, the Centre for Legislative Exchange (CLE), a registered Canadian charity established by the Parliamentary Centre, is planning changes to its mandate and governance that will enable it to serve as a facilitator of exchange between Canadian political parties and their counterparts in developing countries. To manage the process of reorganising CLE as the Centre for Political Party Exchange, a founding committee has been struck chaired by Douglas Rowland, President of the Association of Former Parliamentarians. The Association and its members will be important collaborators in achieving the objectives of the Centre for Political Party Exchange.

·        The goal of the Centre for Political Party Exchange is to promote multi-party democracy, not this or that political party. Its governance will include representatives of different Canadian political parties that support the objectives of the Centre and wish to participate in its programs. The Centre will be designed and developed in close cooperation with Canadian political parties, drawing upon lessons learned by the international community in promoting political party development.

·        To limit overhead and administrative costs, as well as benefit from collaboration with an experienced organisation in international democracy promotion, the Centre for Political Party Exchange will maintain a close working relationship with the Parliamentary Centre, while having its own Board of Directors.[322]

The Parliamentary Centre recommended that its proposal be directly funded by the Government. Furthermore, with respect to parliamentary development, it noted: “Strong parliaments that represent all their citizens and have the capacity to hold governments to account are essential to democracy. Despite this, parliamentary development has not received the attention or support from the international community that it deserves. Given our values and institutions of parliamentary democracy, Canada can and should be a global leader in parliamentary development.”[323] On that point, the Committee agrees. The Centre then proposed the following:

·        The Parliament of Canada adopt a resolution expressing support for the Parliamentary Centre as a centre of excellence in democratic development;

·        The Government of Canada provide a matching contribution to the privately established endowment for the Parliamentary Centre;

·        In supporting political party development… CIDA give priority to strengthening the role and organization of political parties within parliament, with the objective of promoting constructive inter-party competition.[324]

The Committee fully recognizes the existing statutory mandate of Rights and Democracy and the important work being done by the Parliamentary Centre, which has also established some international field offices. However, we do not want to be put in a position of having to choose between conflicting proposals. Moreover, in the case of Rights and Democracy, it may be best for it to concentrate on what it already does best. Increased funding for that could come from the arms-length Canada foundation we have proposed rather than directly from government. Similarly, in the case of the second and third points of the Parliamentary Centre’s proposals cited above, we are concerned about the reliance for everything being put on direct government funding. And do we really want CIDA to be responsible for the sensitive political work of political party development?

The Committee’s preference is that additional support in these areas be kept at arms length from government, even if public money is involved. The ideal would be that funding come through the Canada foundation that we have proposed earlier in this chapter. We note as well, that in the international cases we have referred to of the United States, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway and Finland, the initiative for a body supporting political party development as part of democratic development has come from the legislators and political parties themselves. Indeed, as Leslie Campbell told the Senate committee, the “arm’s length relationship should be with the Canadian Parliament and not with the Canadian government.”[325]

With that in mind, the Committee believes that the Parliament of Canada, supported of course by the government, and after consultations with all parties represented in the House of Commons, should consider setting up a centre for multi-party and parliamentary democracy, with a parliamentary mandate. Funding would be provided through the arms-length Canada foundation for international democratic development. Such a centre could start with modest funding and be re-evaluated after two years. Following that, the centre might be able to program on a multi-year basis similar to that of the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy. Ultimately it would aim to reach a level comparable to the NIMD. The board of the centre would include representatives from all parties represented in Parliament.

The proposed centre should be able to benefit from the research findings and comparative experience of Canadians and others in this complex risky area. In the case of support for parliamentary strengthening, the Committee takes note of a major report on the subject, “Parliamentary strengthening in developing countries”, that was released in February 2007. It was prepared for the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) by two British NGOs and included the following helpful “Guidelines for effective parliamentary strengthening:”

·        Respond to demand: Parliamentary strengthening should be demand-led, and responsive to local needs, rather than externally-driven.

·        Address causes: Parliamentary strengthening should seek to address the causes of poor parliamentary performance, rather than addressing solely the symptoms.

·        Take account of context: Parliamentary strengthening must take full account of the local context — including the political context — within which parliaments function.

·        Involve recipients: Parliamentary strengthening should involve a range of local organizations, and interest groups, including opposition MPs and parties as well as members of the government.

·        Focus on issues: Parliamentary strengthening should use particular issues such as budget oversight, anti-corruption, HIV/AIDS and poverty reduction as vehicles to improve parliamentary performance, rather than focusing solely on parliamentary procedures.

·        Coordinate and deliver organize appropriate activities: Agencies involved in parliamentary strengthening must do more to coordinate their work, and to ensure that their activities are appropriate to the objectives of parliamentary strengthening. Think twice before setting up or supporting study visits and seminars.

·        Provide long-term sustainable support.[326]

Recommendation 15

The Parliament of Canada, following consultations with all parties represented in the House of Commons, should consider setting up a centre for multi-party and parliamentary democracy, with a parliamentary mandate and with funding provided through the arms-length Canada foundation for international democratic development. Such a centre should start with modest funding and be re-evaluated after two years. Following that, the centre might be able to program on a multi-year basis similar to that of the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, ultimately aiming to reach a level comparable to the NIMD. The board of the centre would include representatives from all parties represented in Parliament.

7.2       Expanding Support for Civil Society, Education and Free Media

[W]e already work with civil society, but too often it is the civil society of well-educated and well-heeled elites. We must connect more effectively below these levels.

John Graham[327]

Supporting the work of civil society in democratic development has been less controversial than that of providing support for political party development, even if it is agreed that non-governmental or civil-society organizations (NGOs or CSOs) cannot replace the necessary functions that political parties play in representative democracy. The role of civil society in democratization from the local to the global level was not disputed by any of our Canadian and international witnesses. It was the main focus of several presentations to the Committee, in particular those of Gerry Barr of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation and John Foster of the North-South Institute, who also stressed the importance of international civil-society networks such as Social Watch.

As we have previously noted, Mr. Barr linked the civil-society role in democratic development to issues of how effective aid is in really reaching the poor and mobilizing them to address their own development aspirations: “It’s when we get to this development vision side of things that issues such as the role of citizens, their social movements, the way in which aid can be used to mobilize people’s participation, come increasingly to the fore; it’s where democratic development arises.”[328] Mr. Foster observed that “civil society has strategic importance in democratization. North-South and South-South partnerships are a crucial element therein. Canadian aid policy needs to be enhanced with greater attention and support for these partnerships. Among his recommendations was that “specific priority be given to enhance material support for Canadian and international NGOs working on democratic reform of global, regional, national and sub-national instances, particularly those utilizing a comprehensive human rights framework”.[329] The submission of Rights and Democracy also called for broader civil-society engagement in democratic development and governance processes, affirming: “After all, democracy is about citizens’ rights, citizens’ dissent, and citizens’ participation. … In many countries where democracy is fragile or lacking, no force other than civil society can move the agenda forward and put democratic principles at the centre for the development debate.”[330]

At the same time, as examined in the work of leading experts like Thomas Carothers among others, critical questions still need to be asked about the civil-society dimensions of democracy support. The enthusiasm for civil-society aid needs to be tempered by the same realistic examination and evaluation that apply to democratic development assistance as a whole.[331] A recent Wilton Park conference report posed the following questions: “Can voluntary associations ensure inclusive decision-making and the space for discussion of public affairs necessary in all democracies? With the growth in power and influence of civil society organisations or non-governmental organisations in recent decades, their legitimacy and accountability are also being challenged. Can civil society strengthen itself and breathe new life into formal democracy?”[332]

In a presentation to the Democracy Council’s February 15 2007 “Dialogue on Canada’s Approach to Democratic Development”, Nancy Thede, who used to work on democracy issues for Rights and Democracy, observed:

Democratisation and the availability of funding from international donors have led to an exponential increase in the number of civil society organisations in developing countries. But donor trends tend to hone in on a very limited set of activities (highly visible one-off events, capacity-building in the form of training seminars, publications) with a limited range of types of civil society organisations (mainly NGOs or media organisations). The long-term impact of such trends can be counter-productive in that the shape of civil society and the thrust of its activities in a given country may be skewed by the resources provided from external sources.[333]

While stating that civil society is essential to democracy promotion, not an “optional add-on”, she urged that donors be able and willing to listen better to civil society in particular recipient country contexts, and have the patience to “get involved for the long haul.”[334] We have already cited John Graham above to the effect that civil society aid needs to make an effort to reach ordinary people, not just select NGOs or elite spokespersons. While he concentrated on conditions in Latin America[335], the same problems can be seen in cases such as Russia. As a major new study of civil-society aid to that country states:

To remedy the problem of foreign assistance leading NGOs away from the concerns of local citizens, a much higher proportion of foreign grant projects should be directed at reaching significant numbers of average citizens. Thus far, only a minimal increase has occurred in citizens, awareness of the existence of NGOs and the role of civil society, and only in select locations where foreign assistance has been intensive.[336]

Taking such concerns into account, there is a strong case to be made for increased Canadian support for civil society-based initiatives as part of democratic development. Moreover, Canada has considerable capabilities and potential comparative advantages to bring to this area. Nancy Thede is worth citing at length on this issue:

Canada has a vast number of civil society organisations with significant expertise in specific areas of democratic development, and support to civil society is generally most effective and strategic when delivered by them. To do that, though, they need sufficient resources from government … and the political and administrative autonomy to be able to put them to the best use in a given context. … Canadian efforts can make a distinctive
mark in the field of civil society support for democracy on the basis of the strengths and originality of our own institutions — while at the same time avoiding the pitfall of attempting to ‘export’ our own institutional model.

-     Civil society is a non-partisan arena for democracy support. A strong emphasis on this field distinguishes Canada from the majority of other governments working principally through and towards the formal institutions of democracy.

-     Canada has traditionally been sensitive to the fact that democratic institutions must reflect the unique character of a society, and it has therefore not attempted to impose a single model or specific institutions of democracy elsewhere. This attitude lends itself particularly well to working with civil society in multiple contexts.

-     The dynamism and variety of organisations, approaches and issues in Canadian civil society provide a wealth of experience which, although it can’t be directly transferred to other societies, can serve as the basis for a constructive relationship with civil society in developing democracies.[337]

Recommendation 16

As part of advancing democratic development, Canada should provide more support for civil society-based initiatives from the local to the global level that utilize Canadian civil-society experience and that aim to increase grass-roots citizens’ participation and strengthen democratic accountability.

Another dimension of democratic development that was addressed by some witnesses and in submissions was that of democracy education and training. In one of the Committee’s early public hearings, George Perlin provided us with information on his CIDA-funded Ukraine project, the goal of which “is to provide Ukraine with the capacity to deliver a self-sustaining program of education that will foster and strengthen commitment to liberal-democratic values and the processes of liberal-democratic governance among citizens and elites.” Although much of the project so far has focused on democracy courses in Ukrainian universities and government ministries, when completed it will also have “created a course in pedagogical institutions that will train new in-service secondary school teachers to deliver a curriculum in civic education.”[338]

The project has been conducted under the auspices of the Queen’s University Centre for the Study of Democracy, whose research director David Donovan elaborated on it to the Committee as follows:

The Ukraine project targeted all sorts of areas: universities, colleges, police academies, military training, and the regular education system. And a lot of academics and teachers and government officials were brought to Queen’s University in the mid-1990s and were given training seminars on democracy and democratic government, and then went back, and experts from Queen’s and elsewhere… helped them develop locally democratic values curricula in all sorts of areas.[339]

Mr. Donovan argued that there could be a lot more done on democracy education, including in difficult contexts like Afghanistan, making the point that the “establishment of a democratic values curriculum” is “something Canada could take a leading role in”.[340] In his testimony, Professor Perlin suggested that another opportunity for Canada could be “to establish a training program for practitioners, or for people who want to make careers in this field, in the delivery of democracy assistance. I don’t mean this just for Canadians; there is a need for a program of this kind on an international basis. Think about the large number of donors and practitioners. What I’m suggesting is that they need some help, some special training to do their work well.”[341]

International youth and student internships, scholarships, study programs, educational and professional exchanges were among other ideas presented to the Committee for consideration as part of Canada’s democratic development effort. Jeffrey Kopstein argued that internships represent “the kind of long-term spade-work that must continue and should be part of Canada’s democracy promotion tool kit.”[342] He added:

Canada has nothing like the Fulbright scholar program through which hundreds of leading intellectuals from authoritarian countries have managed to spend time in the United States. This is most unfortunate, because it would be so easy to implement, very cheap to run, and the long-term benefits are proven. First-hand experience with Canadian multiculturalism is not something that foreign scholars soon forget. That is our strength and we should play to it.[343]

Both Mr. Donovan, and an October 2006 submission to the Committee from Canadian Grant Kippen — who was NDI Country Director for Afghanistan in 2003-2004 and Chairman of Afghanistan’s Electoral Complaints Commission in 2005 — referred to Professor Perlin’s “Building Democracy in Ukraine” (BDU) project as a possible model for developing democracy education in Afghanistan. According to Mr. Kippen: “Given the existing gap in professional development programmes and the fact that corruption by government officials is one of the most significant issues affecting the credibility and legitimacy of the Government of Afghanistan I believe that a project with similar objectives to the BDU, though tailored to the realities of Afghanistan, would be of significant benefit to the long-term democratic development process there.”[344]

Beyond these specific cases, Mr. Kippen suggested a series of other education-related ideas, including:

·        Establish a scholarship programme, say 50 per year, for young political leaders to study in Canada and earn advanced academic degrees. Applications could be advertised within the targeted countries and initial screening of candidates could be undertaken by our foreign missions. These special scholarships could be called something like The Governor General’s International Scholarship or the Canadian International Fellowship Award….

·        Establishing a regular series of study programmes to Canada lasting anywhere from a week in length to half a year. These tailored programmes would specifically target elected representatives, senior and middle level public officials from the national to municipal levels, judges, military and law enforcement officials.[345]

The Committee supports further work by Canada in the areas of education at all levels, exchanges and training for the purposes of democratic development, provided that the specific programs can demonstrate their effectiveness and sustainability over the longer term. We believe that this sector for expanded activity should be looked at further by the independent Canada foundation for international democratic development that we have proposed. In that regard, the Committee presents the above proposals, not by way of endorsing any particular one over others, but as ideas worthy of consideration by and potential funding support through the Canada foundation.

Recommendation 17

Canada should support expanded democratic development initiatives in 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. Further examination and funding should come through the independent Canada foundation for international democratic development that we have proposed.

In the Committee’s view, another important sector of democratic development that deserves increased Canadian attention is support for free and independent media, which we note are under pressure in many parts of the world. As Jennifer Windsor and Arch Puddington of Freedom House observe:

What accounts for the current period of democracy stagnation? One factor is an erosion of press freedom. In Russia, Mexico and the Philippines the murder of journalists has become almost routine. Greater, if subtler, long-term threats lie in the smothering of free media by regime-directed economic pressure, the denial of licenses to privately-owned television stations, state takeovers and criminal slander charges against reporters who criticize the leadership.

By muzzling the press, authoritarian regimes also exacerbate a second serious threat to democracy: pervasive corruption. In democracies, the press is an essential instrument in the fight against graft; in authoritarian settings where the state and business often function as interlocking directorates, the press cannot perform this function.[346]

Moreover, there is a link between media suppression and other areas of democratic development including political party development. In his book on political party aid, Thomas Carothers makes the following sobering point:

As one Russian opposition party activist emphasized in an interview — the near-elimination of independent radio and television in Russia has been devastating to political party development. If Western governments wish to support Russian party development, he emphasized, they would do better to concentrate on exerting pressure for independent media than continuing with conventional training programs that do nothing to increase the limited political space available to parties.[347]

John Githongo is a former journalist who became founder and director of Transparency International’s Kenya branch and in 2003 became permanent secretary for ethics and governance in the office of Kenya’s president, before being forced to resign and leave his country in the face of strong political resistance. He told the Democracy Council’s February 2007 “Dialogue on Canada’s Approach to Democratic Development” about the importance of supporting independent media from the ground up in Africa, where there are now 888 FM radio stations that the state cannot censor and 177 million mobile phones (a 19% penetration rate but growing fast).[348] A 2005 Nairobi seminar report pointed out:

Independent and properly functioning media are an essential aspect of democratic systems. Media have a role to play in disseminating information to citizens. Moreover, they are a useful vehicle to create a culture of accountability and transparency. As a concrete suggestion, donors’ current focus on urban-based print media should shift to community based radios, since they can reach a wider public, especially in the rural areas. In this field donors can provide much needed expertise, training and resources.[349]

At the same time, looking to the future, there is also much potential promise globally in the spread of Internet-based communications, even in unlikely places like Turkmenistan.[350] All forms of independent media for democratic development should be explored.

A submission to the Committee from the Media & Democracy Group argued forcefully that Canada could be doing more in this area:

As a secure democracy with an exceptionally professional media, it is the right time for Canada to bring its strengths to this field which is now recognized as a necessary condition of democracy development.…

Media development is a necessary element of the institutionalizing of democracy. Canada has had an inexplicably modest engagement in media development. … there is no over-arching and sustained assertion of media development as essential to peacebuilding and democratization which would inform all foreign policy and development aid considerations and make best use of exceptional Canadian capacity to deliver more and diverse initiatives.

There is less than a handful of Canadian NGOs present in the field of media development. It is of note that there is no substantial Canadian corporate or foundation funding and support of Canadian initiatives in international media development…

Canada can play a significantly larger role in media development for democratization, particularly because of its exceptional media resources. Canada is one of the most media-saturated countries in the world.[351]

The Committee agrees. Yet we also inject a note of caution as we have in other sensitive areas of democracy assistance. Well-intentioned project ideas must also prove to be effective and sustainable. We take note of the failure of a $3 million CIDA-supported program run by the Vancouver-based Institute for Media Policy and Civil Society to teach Afghanistan women about journalism and the law, the deficiencies of which were only revealed when CIDA internal audits were released under the Access to Information law.[352] We hope this is an exception. But it may also indicate that such initiatives might be better served through being considered by an independent foundation that can fully devote itself to democratic development assistance and that has rigorous assessment and evaluation procedures in place.

Recommendation 18

Canada should provide more support for freedom of the press through the development of free and independent media as part of democratic development, paying particular attention to strategies for, among others: assisting such media in contexts where they are under pressure; reaching as many people as possible including in rural and under-served areas; harnessing Canadian expertise in this area and exploring the potential of new affordable communications technologies. Increased funding should come through the Canada foundation for international democratic development on the basis of a rigorous assessment of project proposals as to their effectiveness and sustainability.