FAAE Committee Report

[Donors should] recognise that ultimately all outsiders have serious limitations when it comes to advancing the democracy cause. Ultimately, as democracy activists usually acknowledge, the struggle has to be fought primarily from within: until that internal opposition reaches some kind of active critical mass, with its own momentum, external support is likely to be of only marginal impact… I am not normally in the business of advocating caution in pursuit of anything worth doing internationally. But this is an area in which many fingers have been burnt, and where modesty really is the best policy.

Gareth Evans, President, International Crisis Group,
“Promoting Democracy, What We Have Learned”[385]

[I]t’s not just enough to have democracy or democratization as one of the three Ds [diplomacy, development, defence], or part of the joined-up approach, whatever title we’re going to give it. As a leader on these issues Canada could work towards developing greater awareness of the nuances and complexities involved in this process, and lead or commission a study that would undertake that long, in-depth examination of the importance of context specificity, and what works when. A certain model of democracy and democratization might work in one instance, but in a second instance, which is not necessarily dramatically different, only somewhat different, have a completely different impact, including, … in fact sowing the seeds for long-term instability and even a return to conflict.

Jane Boulden, Canada Research Chair in
International Relations and Security Studies,
Royal Military College of Canada[386]

[W]e cannot push a single solution for all evolving democracies. Context is everything.

Lisa Sundstrom,
“Hard Choices, Good Causes: Exploring Options
for Canada’s Overseas Democracy Assistance”[387]

The Committee returns to these necessary cautions, and the need for greater context-specific knowledge, as raised in Part I of our report, because we believe that realistic expectations and improved practices based on learned experience are required if support for democratic development is to lead to long-term positive, and not perverse or unsustainable, outcomes. Moreover, as Thomas Carothers remarked to the Committee in Washington, we are now down to the hard cases that resist easy answers, even as democracy assistance becomes an increasingly crowded field.[388]

All of this argues, as did some witnesses, for a concerted long-term Canadian approach that attempts to know the particular country recipients of democratic development assistance as well as we can, and to stay in for the long haul. Canada’s bilateral funding of democratic development is unlikely to make a significant difference if it is scattered across a lot of small or short-term projects in many countries to little cumulative effect. If we want to have impact, it will be necessary to focus our efforts. That does not necessarily involve huge amounts of money. As Kevin Deveaux suggested to the Committee: “For $25 million a year, for example, Canada could be a serious player in ten countries around the world. If we pick those countries appropriately, based on our history, based on our diversity, I think we can have a lot of impact in those countries.”[389] Lisa Sundstrom concludes: “Setting appropriate criteria will allow Canada to decide upon a group of ‘democracy partner’ countries where we can best target Canadian democracy assistance to have a noticeable positive impact on democratic outcomes.”[390]

The setting of appropriate criteria of concentration could be a matter for consideration by the Government of Canada and non-government members of the Democracy Council, in cooperation with the Canada foundation for international democratic development that we have proposed. Such criteria might include:

·        Importance of the country to broad Canadian international policy interests;

·        Importance of the country as indicated by the level of existing aid and other investments;

·        Demonstrable need and demand from the country for democracy assistance, combined with the country’s ability to benefit from what Canada is capable of offering.

The Committee has already suggested in Recommendation 8 of Chapter 5, that the independent evaluation of all existing Canadian support for democratic development include an evaluation of where best Canada should concentrate its efforts in future.

Beyond that assessment, both Canadian governmental and non-governmental actors in this field need to have the best available, and constantly updated, detailed knowledge of local circumstances, in any chosen countries of assistance. The production and refreshing of objective independent democratic development country assessments may be a task that could be assigned to a centre for policy in democratic development as funded by the Canada foundation. Such assessments should include the identification of credible and accountable local partners for Canadian democracy support since local leadership and participation are essential for a sustainable democratization process.

Recommendation 24

Canada should ensure that it engages in democratic development assistance with the benefit of detailed realistic country assessments that include the identification of credible and accountable local partners who must drive forward the democratization process within their countries. The preparation and updating of such objective assessments could be undertaken by an arms-length centre for policy in democratic development (as discussed in Recommendations 2 and 14) funded through the Canada foundation.

In the following sections, the Committee will comment briefly on three broad contexts where Canada may become more involved in advancing the goals of democratic development: those of authoritarian or semi-authoritarian states; those of emerging democracies and post-conflict societies; those of “failed” or “fragile states.” These categories are not fixed, and may indeed overlap as we will see. Before proceeding further, let us consider the concrete examples of two countries that will surely be among the list of Canada’s long-term democracy partners, Haiti and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and Haiti are respectively the largest recipients of Canada’s international assistance. Much is at stake for Canada in both. The complexities of working on development, and notably democratic development, in both contexts are also daunting. We have already noted this in our 2006 study of Haiti and December 2006 Report, Canada’s International Policy Put to the Test in Haiti, which urged a very long-term commitment to Haiti’s development and included among its recommendations:

Beyond continued electoral assistance, the Committee strongly supports long-term Canadian involvement in building sustainable institutions of democracy and good governance in Haiti. In particular, Canada should strive to strengthen Haiti’s parliamentary system to help enhance true voter representation of constituent communities in the national Parliament.[391]

Haiti is a long way from being out of the woods and faces a long rocky road ahead in terms of democratic development even after relatively successful elections in 2006. We note that, in terms of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s “democracy index 2006” which we utilized in Chapter 1, Haiti is still assessed as a “hybrid regime” (i.e., containing some democratic but also many non-democratic elements), ranking 109 out of 167 countries surveyed.[392]

If the situation on the ground and the context for external interventions is complex in the case of Haiti, that is even more true of Afghanistan — the subject of the Committee’s ongoing study — where large-scale military conflict is still taking place alongside efforts at reconstruction and development. Elections Canada has assisted with the Afghan elections, CANADEM has deployed Canadian expertise to Afghanistan, and the Committee has heard several proposals from witnesses on the kinds of democratic development activities that might be supported by Canada, notably from David Donovan and in the submission of Grant Kippen.[393] We take note of these, but we think that much greater knowledge of the highly varied local circumstances in Afghanistan is essential for a long-term democratic development program for that country to have a chance to succeed.[394] The Committee also recalls the caution expressed to us by our High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, James Wright, in London that: “We need to be careful to apply Western concepts of democracy to a country like Afghanistan.” Our interventions in this area must be adapted to their long traditions.[395]

Barnett Rubin, of the New York University Centre on International Cooperation, also emphasized to the Committee in New York, and during subsequent testimony in Ottawa, that Afghanistan remains one the world’s poorest countries with one of its weakest governments.[396] In fact, it might be discussed under each of the contexts for democratic development interventions that we will consider below. Emerging from the ravages of decades of war and the extremist rule of the Taliban, it has been considered to be a “failed” or “fragile” state. It is still a state in conflict although it is struggling to start down the path towards becoming a democracy (with distinctive Afghan characteristics). An indication of how long this path will be is that, notwithstanding several elections, Afghanistan is still in the “authoritarian regime” category of The Economist Intelligence Unit’s “democracy index 2006”, ranking 135 out of 167 countries surveyed, and with a score of zero in terms of “functioning of government.”[397]

The point the Committee is making is that Canadians need to assess each situation of democratic development intervention with our eyes open, on the basis of the best available knowledge of what might work under the particular circumstances being faced. We need to have the resolve to make long-term commitments, with realistic expectations of what can be achieved, accompanied by a tolerance of risk. Put bluntly, there will be no easy solutions for the hard cases. The goals of democratic development will not be advanced by wishful thinking. Rigorous analysis is required of specific cases that are beyond the scope of this report. But we offer the following as some initial reflections to take into account.

9.1       Canada’s Potential Role in Authoritarian or Semi-Authoritarian Contexts

As it trades with and engages dictators in less-than-democratic regimes, Canada should continue to back NGOs and civic groups abroad in those same countries, especially in the Arab-Muslim world and in backsliding democracies… Canada should continue to foster contact between the citizens of our country and democracies at risk in the Balkans, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union.

Professor Jeffrey Kopstein[398]

One of the most disturbing trends that the Committee has already noted in Chapter 2 is the pushback against democracy and rise of authoritarianism is some parts of the world. It is also a fact that the world’s most populous country and rising power, China,remains a non-democracy, accounting for fully 60% of the global population living under autocratic rule. Canada should carefully consider how it might support democratic transition in China, the stirrings of which are already apparent. We are aware of existing CIDA support for human rights, democratic development and good governance programs in China — including by the Canadian Bar Association, the Parliamentary Centre and others — the aim of which is to build capacity for internal change within China. However, there are China scholars, such as Bruce Gilley, who believe that Canada can and should take a stronger pro-democracy stand towards China. As part of that he argues:

[Canada’s] overall relations with China should be citizen-centered not regime-centered. We must talk to the regime as necessary, but we should feel free to talk past it to the people of China, who for the time being are the only true representatives of the Chinese citizenry. We should cultivate and favor discussions with reform-oriented figures in the party and the military, and focus our efforts on the ground in talking directly to the leading journalists, civil activists, lawyers, public intellectuals, independent scholars, interest group leaders, entrepreneurs, and ethnic minority leaders of that country. The domestic counterpart to this diversification of its partners in China should be the diversification of our agents on behalf of Canada. In particular, Members of Parliament should play a much more active role in our relationship with China through official delegations, hearings, and inclusion on government delegations.[399]

Dr. Gilley further argues that support for democratic forces in China would be bolstered by the creation of an independent Canadian foundation focused on the promotion of democratic development. [400]

The Middle East is another particularly democracy-challenged region. Indeed, as Rex Brynen of McGill University told the February 15 “Dialogue on Canada’s Approach to Democratic Development” — “… it is safe to say that the process of democratization in the Middle East is comatose, for now at least.”[401] The Committee has already heard the critical assessment of Marina Ottaway during our meeting in Washington D.C. She observed the disappearing Western pressures on Arab autocracies and the need to find ways to engage grass-roots Islamist movements which enjoy popular support.[402] Brynen stated that: “Efforts to support democratization must be tailored to the nuances of individual political systems.” He added: The media revolution in the Middle East will not bring about democratization. It has, however, profoundly pluralized political discourse in the region. Yet it has not yet been effectively engaged by Western donors or foreign ministries.”[403]

Egyptian democracy activist, Saad Eddin Ibrahim, observes that their could be parallels to the outside support for human rights and democracy that helped to overcome Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe, but he wonders if the political will is there —

Today the Arab world needs similar support from the free world. Conditional aid and putting teeth into expectations for minimal adherence to human rights standards in Arab countries would give heart to struggling democracy forces. Sadly, the fears surrounding terrorism and Islamist political movements have dampened even the few occasional impulses of western leaders to stand up to Arab dictators.[404]

Moreover, as we noted, there has been backsliding in regions of incipient democratization, including the authoritarian trends in Venezuela affecting Latin America[405] and cases like Zimbabwe in Africa that continue to affront the international conscience.[406] The apparent rise of authoritarianism in Russia is especially troubling as it affects the whole post-Soviet area. Speaker of the Georgian Parliament, Nino Burjanadze, with whom the Committee met in Ottawa on February 15, 2007, told the Democracy Council’s Dialogue on Canada’s Approach to Democratic Development: “Assistance to Russia in order to transform it into a genuine democracy will be the best kind of assistance to Georgia by [the] international community.”[407]

But how, especially given trends in Russia and its region of influence? One study by Canadian scholar of democratization Lisa Sundstrom, concludes optimistically that “the recent cases of mass movements to defend democracy in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine, with foreign-funded NGOS providing organizational backbone to those movements, indicate that foreign assistance can emerge as a crucial element protecting democratic values at crucial junctures when that assistance has been sustained.”[408] But there are more ominous recent signs. A February 2007 poll by the EU-Russia Centre revealed that the 1,600 Russians surveyed favoured a pre-1990 Soviet system to a Western liberal type of democracy by a margin of 35% to 16%.[409] According to a March 2007 analysis by The Economist: “The foreign funded non-governmental organizations that prepared and organized the colour revolutions now face big obstacles in the ex-Soviet Union where they would most like to work.”[410] It went on to conclude provocatively:

Indeed the West seems to have lost the stomach for promoting democracy in post-Soviet Europe almost entirely. And if it ever regains it, it will have to reach further back than 1989 for its inspiration. With Russia getting stronger again, though perhaps not sustainably so, the more relevant precedent may be the long hard slog of the cold-war decades.[411]

The Committee does not claim to have answers to these varied and sometimes dispiriting situations. As we have said, hard cases do not have easy solutions. But we do know that successful strategies of democratic development intervention at all levels (from that of high diplomacy to that of the smallest local aid project) require sophisticated knowledge of the particularities of each situation, and continued political resolve to make long-term commitments to promoting democratic development even when circumstances become more difficult than they already are.

Recommendation 25

Canadian support for legitimate local democratic efforts within authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes will require detailed and updated knowledge of the circumstances for democracy assistance in the countries in which Canada chooses to focus its efforts. Objective country assessments could be undertaken by an independent centre for policy in democratic development as funded through the Canada foundation for international democratic development that we have proposed.

9.2       Canada’s Potential Role in Emerging Democracies and Post-Conflict Societies

Despite a vast literature on democratic transitions, what Thomas Carothers calls “transitology,”[412] once again there are more questions than answers when it comes down to the country specifics of ensuring that outside interventions are actually helpful to the cause of sustainable democratization. Jane Boulden, Canada Research Chair in International Relations and Security Studies at the Royal Military College of Canada, cautioned the Committee that “democratization in post-conflict situations is different.”[413] This applies even to supporting such basic elements of democracy as elections. Richard Hass told the Committee in New York that too much emphasis is placed on elections — what he calls “electocracy” — which are often introduced too early in the process of democratization.[414] This agrees with Jane Boulden’s analysis that: “One outcome that early elections can generate is further instability. … We have a tendency to judge elections, when they happen, on the basis of whether they’re free and fair, rather than a tendency to judge whether or not they are playing a positive role in the post-conflict environment.”[415]

Professor Boulden elaborated in testimony that deserves citing at length:

At what point is it correct or is it useful to have elections? When should those elections occur with respect to what we do with respect to rights? … Is it possible to engage in democratization in a situation that is less than fully secure, or does democratization contribute to making the situation more secure over time? Again, these are questions that we now understand are important, but we still don’t have a lot of answers about what matters and when.

[D]emocratization can be conflict-inducing. One way in which this happens relates to the question of how minorities or other groups in society are treated. We need to build in greater recognition that democratization can both empower and disempower. It can disempower groups that are used to having exclusive access to power before the conflict or the post-conflict situation, and it can empower groups that have longstanding grievances with other groups in society and that will then use the process as a way to deal with those grievances. …

We have a much greater requirement, I think, to understand the importance of context specificity… we have not yet engaged in either the academic literature or at the policy level in an in-depth lessons-learned process that looks at all of this experience in an effort to determine how the nature of certain contexts affects the democratization and post-conflict peace process.[416]

The hard case of achieving an increasingly democratic, post-conflict Afghanistan, which has adopted a new constitution and held several elections, with more to come, is illustrative of the need for context-specific knowledge, realism and patience. David Donovan, research director of the Queen’s University Centre for the Study of Democracy, observed that: “There have probably been very few cases that have had the amount of international support Afghanistan has right now.”[417] But as to its progress towards democracy, he told the Committee: “I don’t know how long it would take, but in Taiwan it took 50 years. Who knows how long it will take in Afghanistan?”[418] His published study of democratic transition in Afghanistan concludes: “Given its history, tribalism, and poverty, achieving sustainable democracy in Afghanistan is one of the most complex and difficult problems in the world. We should measure our expectations against that reality.”[419]

Grant Kippen, with three years of direct experience in Afghanistan including on elections, noted in his submission to the Committee that there are over 80 registered political parties in Afghanistan.[420] He presented the following challenge to the Committee:

[W]here Canada can play an important role is to work with both parliamentarians and political parties in order to enhance the capacity of both these important communities. At the moment there is enormous public skepticism within Afghanistan towards the role and function of political parties because many are seen as simply branches of former military organizations. This skepticism extends to members of the Wolesi Jirga, where according to some reports over half of the members have some affiliation to former armed militias. While valuable work is currently being undertaken to improve the knowledge and skill sets of parliamentarians so that they can become more effective legislators, much more work needs to be done to prepare them for their role as elected representatives.[421]

These citations, although they may sound discouraging, are from two Canadians who want Canada to do much more to promote the emergence of democratic development in societies suffering from conflict, notably including Afghanistan. They underscore the need to have no illusions about what that entails.

Recommendation 26

Canada should work towards effective strategies that link democracy-building and peace-building in emerging democracies under situations of conflict or post-conflict. These strategies should pay particular attention to Canada’s role in supporting the development of sustainable governance institutions and processes, including those of sound public administration, functional political parties and parliaments.

9.3       Canada’s Potential Role in “Failed” or “Fragile” States

Failed states pose among the most difficult challenges for democratization.

Larry Diamond[422]

A disturbing trend of recent years is the rise in the number of “failed” or “fragile” states. According to a recent World Bank report, the number of fragile states, or “low-income countries under stress,” has risen over the past three years from 17 to 26.[423] Haiti and Afghanistan, the two largest recipients of Canadian international assistance over this period, continue to be prominently listed in this category. The goal of democratic development in such cases requires long-term commitments from international donors, as the Committee stressed in our December 2006 report on Haiti.[424]

Assisting democratic development in these hardest of circumstances entails a combination of poverty alleviation, peace-building and state-building. In the wake of state failure, many of the points noted in the above section on emerging democracies and post-conflict societies apply even more forcefully. As Gareth Evans observes: “We know that the period of transition to democracy is in many ways one of the most dangerous and fragile of all”, citing Timothy Garton Ash that this is especially so “in countries divided along religious and ethnic lines, and where you rush to the party-political competition for power without first having a functioning state with well-defined borders, a near monopoly of force, the rule of law, independent media and a strong civil society.”[425]

While the Committee did not hear much detailed evidence on the exigencies of supporting democratic development in specific failed or fragile states, we note that the critical issues facing democratic development assistance as a whole are particularly acute in these states, starting with acquiring an in-depth understanding of the local context. A report prepared for the Canadian Consortium on Human Security underlines that: “Canada must begin at the grassroots level by working with local structures and initiatives while engaging and including the majority of the people in the process. With regards to local structures and local based initiatives, Canada must have a concrete understanding of local power relationships”.[426] In Afghanistan, for example, reference has been made to devolving development decision-making down to the village council level. However, there is obviously a problem if that only ends up reinforcing traditional or tribal power structures that are patriarchal and anti-democratic. Outsiders need to be able to foster local democratic leadership in ways that take account of prevailing power structures without allowing them to obstruct the processes of democracy building.

Beyond the trappings of modern democracy — elections, political parties, parliaments, accountable public administrations, independent judicial institutions, police forces, etc. — there is the question of basic democratic values becoming embedded in the social and cultural fabric of the society. Without that, there is no solid base for democratic development to take place, while still recognizing that it must be adapted as appropriate to the particular local circumstances. Governance practices containing strong anti-democratic elements cannot be expected to evolve into the development of a sustainable democracy that respects human rights. On Afghanistan, David Donovan of the Queen’s University Centre for the Study of Democracy told the Committee that:

[W]e’d like to see more done in the role of democratic education in Afghanistan. The military aspect is necessary, of course, to provide security for humanitarian aid, but there could be a lot more work done on instilling democratic values, on making sure that’s done with regard to the local context, and on developing a democratic values curriculum with local officials on the ground, with local academics and local universities.[427]

The Committee has only started its examination of Canada’s overall role in Afghanistan. So we do not want to prejudge what is most feasible for Canada to do at this stage. However, it is obvious from these preliminary references, that much remains to be done, both in learning from past mistakes of donor interventions — as we described in some detail in our earlier report on the case of Haiti — but also in devising democratic development strategies that have a realistic chance of success over the long, and probably very long, term.

In undertaking this task, we note that the distinguished American scholar of democratization Larry Diamond has usefully come up with nine relevant “tentative general lessons and guidelines” after surveying democracy building and stabilization experiences in post-conflict and failed states.[428]

1.      Understand the local context in its historical, cultural, political and sociological dimensions.…

2.      Mobilize and commit adequate military and financial resources.…

3.      Establish international legitimacy and active support for the post-conflict intervention.…

4.      Generate legitimacy and trust within the post-conflict country.…

5.      Hold local elections first.…

6.      Promote knowledge of institutional choices for democracy, and of democratic principles and norms.…

7.      Disperse economic reconstruction funds and democratic assistance as widely as possible.…

8.      Promote local participation, and proceed with humility and respect for the opinions of the people in whose interest the intervention is supposedly staged.…

9.      Institutionalize the capacity for effective intervention and democracy promotion in post-conflict settings. [Diamond underlines the establishment of the United Nations Peace-building Commission as a step forward in this regard. A Canadian, UN Assistant Secretary-General Carolyn McAskie, with whom the Committee met in New York on 7 February 2007, currently heads the Peacebuilding Support Office that supports the new Commission.

Tall orders indeed. What is apparent to the Committee is that democratic development interventions in fragile or failed states that are dealing with, in some cases, decades of conflict, will necessarily be complex and multi-dimensional, involving many players, and demanding large-scale commitments sustained over long periods of time. This means that even in cases, such as Haiti and Afghanistan, where Canada is already heavily invested, there is also still much to be learned and applied.

Recommendation 27

Recognizing that the circumstances of “failed” or “fragile” states are the most difficult and complex for democratic development interventions, Canada should concentrate its efforts in countries where it is already heavily invested with much at stake, and where it is capable of making a difference by sustaining high levels of democracy- and peace-building assistance over long periods of time.

Recommendation 28

There is at the same time a consequent need for more and better applied knowledge and learning based on independent realistic and updated country assessments. The Canada foundation for international democratic development through the centre for policy on democratic development that the Committee has suggested should be involved in the preparation of such assessments.