Democracy and International Organizations

Expanding democracy around the world is one of America’s most cherished goals. It is a pillar of U.S. foreign policy—one that President Bush recently re-emphasized in remarks at the 20th anniversary celebration for the National Endowment for Democracy. He characterized the advance of freedom and democracy as “the calling of our times...the calling of our country.” Few would disagree.

We are, today, witnessing the advance of freedom, in East Timor, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and elsewhere. People who just a few years ago had no voice are now writing their own constitutions, electing their own leaders, and creating real democratic institutions. They are not doing this alone. Countries, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations like the United Nations are offering resources, security, and expertise. And international organizations are welcoming these new governments into their folds.

It is a scenario we have seen repeated many times in our lifetime—in Europe after the Soviet Union dissolved, and in Asia, South America, and Africa. Nevertheless, this advance of democracy globally has not happened without challenges, and without setbacks.

Today, our challenge is to understand how international organizations could better aid this global advance of democracy. We are asked to consider how their decisions could better represent the will of the people of the world—who all seek freedom, peace, human rights, and the opportunity to prosper. Let me begin with a few principles.

First, true democracy rests in popular sovereignty—the voice and will of the people expressed through elections, and reflected in the maintenance of democratic institutions. The closer government is to the people, then, the more democratic it will be and the more legitimate. The further the centers of power are from the people—and the less accountable those centers are to the people—the less democratic they will be.

Second, liberty and human rights may be universal values, but you need democratic self-government—a social contract between people and their government—to protect them. If the power of government is expanded too much, human rights will inevitably be in danger. Democratic self-governance, then, cannot be separated from human rights. It is the main instrument by which human rights are preserved and advanced.

Third, international organizations are most effective in advancing human rights and development when they focus on advancing democratic self-governance. Advancing democracy, therefore, should be the goal of every international organization. But by this, I mean democratic self-governance—the democratization of society—the building of democratic institutions and civil society as the foundations of true democracy.

Of course, it is very difficult to convince the leaders of non-democratic countries to change peacefully. It requires them giving power to the people. That is why so many people look to international organizations like the United Nations to take the lead. It is why so much hope is placed in its work. And it is why there is great disappointment when it does not succeed.

We may not all agree here on how to make the United Nations and other international organizations more effective to advance democratic self-governance. But a good place to start is to consider how the organizations themselves adhere to three dynamics of democracy—representation, transparency, and accountability.

The Question of Representation

Nation states seek representation on international organizations to pursue their own interests in the global arena. Of course, not all countries participate in every international organization or affiliated body. Not all countries want to participate in all of them, either.

Still, some say that, for their decisions to be truly democratic, international organizations must have universal membership, just like the United Nations General Assembly. They believe that expanding participation in bodies like the Security Council would vastly enhance the legitimacy of their decisions.

Now, representation is a key element of democracy. But decisions do not become more democratic simply by having more member states involved in making them. What makes a decision more democratic is whether those involved represent the voice and will of their people. The legitimacy of their decisions will be questioned, for good reason, if this is not the case. Governments that do not respect the rule of law at home find it very easy to ignore the rule of law internationally. Witness North Korea.

That is why we believe that, if international bodies are based on democratic principles, those principles should infuse every deliberation and decision. Giving equal status to democratic countries and to non-democratic countries—whose decisions rarely reflect consent from those they govern—creates an inherent tension in these bodies that can make implementing decisions quite challenging.

We see this played out most dramatically in the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). This year, members of the Commission included Cuba, Congo, China, Libya, Syria, and Zimbabwe—widely recognized human rights abusers who care less about improving human rights than about preventing themselves from being sanctioned.

Needless to say, it is extremely difficult to discuss with such countries a “democracy deficit” in the CHR. They have invested too much in the status quo. We should not expect them to want to change the dynamics of decision-making if it will heap more criticism on them.

If we want the Commission’s decisions to be more democratic—more important, if we want its decisions to mean something for the suffering people who look to it for help—then the democratic members of the UN must take the lead. Countries that uphold the purposes and principles of the CHR should see that more democratic countries get elected to serve on it.

Similarly, the General Assembly’s decisions would carry more moral weight if more of its 191 members upheld the principles of human rights and democracy enshrined in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That is, after all, what the founders of the United Nations envisioned, and what the members of the UN each pledged to uphold.

The Charter gives all nations an equal voice in the General Assembly, regardless of the size of their population or territory, the magnitude of their resources, and their human rights record. Not all members of the General Assembly share the same democratic values or vision. Not all are like-minded about good governance and the rule of law.

So while this “one-nation, one-vote” principle sounds entirely democratic, in practice, we find countries voting with regional blocs, often quite differently than if they were voting on their own domestic practices. All too often, the end goal is simply consensus.

The General Assembly has been, unfortunately, ineffective. Many of the same resolutions are debated every year. Too many are politically motivated, against Israel, for example, a democratic state that came about after the General Assembly itself called for its establishment.

When the decisions of an international body are out of step with its original purpose, when its members ignore the principles on which it was founded, then the desire for consensus can become the tyranny of consensus. One of two things can happen. The body becomes mired in meaningless activity, or it expands its reach to new areas unrelated to its original purpose.

We applaud General Assembly president Julian Hunte for his determination to make that body more effective. Streamlining its agenda will be a good first step. But increasing the democratic quotient among its members, and focusing efforts on promoting democracy and the rule of law, would have greater long-term benefits for the globalization of democracy.

The Security Council deserves mention here as well. Among its members are non-democratic states like Syria.

Now, many believe the Council’s structure needs to change because of its inability to come together over a “second resolution” on Iraq last spring. Certainly, many of us would have preferred a different outcome to that debate; but what happened last spring was not surprising. It has always been the case that when the Permanent Five members do not agree on a course of action, the Council does not work well. This was true during the Cold War; it is true today.

In fact, the P-5 members have disagreed for years over how to proceed in Iraq. Particularly acute were disagreements over UN sanctions on Iraq. These disagreements reflect larger political realities. The Council was merely the forum in which these disagreements were played out. It is impossible to say whether the outcome would have been different—and more democratic—had more countries been members of the Security Council.

The Council may well need to be modernized to reflect new realities. But it is important to stress that the Council did not become obsolete because of its inability to find consensus on that second resolution. Three times after that, in Resolutions 1483, 1500, and 1511, its members came together to lift sanctions on Iraq, to authorize the coalition forces, and to lay the groundwork for international cooperation and a multinational force. These were all adopted, in unanimous decisions, to help the Iraqi people. The will and voice of the international community was clear. It did not need additional members to make it clearer.

The Issue of Transparency

The legitimacy of international organizations, and their decisions, suffers when they are not transparent. That’s true for the United Nations, for international financial institutions, and for international organizations like the World Trade Organization. We believe that the UN’s budget processes are transparent, for example, even as we are striving to improve budget discipline.

However, this does not mean that every aspect of the UN’s work should be made public. In deliberations, there must be an opportunity for private discussions between member states before their positions are made public. If not, compromises become hard to achieve; too much sunshine can freeze positions and reduce flexibility.

Moreover, the more sensitive deliberations of governments in the Security Council should be held in private. When it comes to discussions about peace and security, weapons of mass destruction, and peacekeeping, governments need to work in private, without pressure from special interests as positions are worked out. Governments can be more candid behind closed doors, assured that what they say in private will not be front-page news the next day. I do believe that the Council’s formal negotiations and final decisions must be transparent and that members of the Council should justify their votes to the world.

In the General Assembly, measures can be adopted by acclamation, which means there is no recorded vote, and no one to be held accountable for voting contrary to expectations. But this is standard practice in many democratic fora. Recording every vote in the United Nations system would not be feasible.

In many subsidiary bodies like the CHR, countries are elected to leadership positions by secret ballot. They are put forth as candidates based on regional rotations, not because they are the very best standard-bearers for that particular body. We took a public and principled stand against this practice last January, when it appeared Libya would get the silent nod to chair the CHR. Our calling for a vote was unprecedented. And, frankly, it made some of our colleagues uncomfortable. We lost that vote, but we did shine a light on a commission that has allowed a country still under the cloud of UN sanctions and still facing criticism as a human rights abuser to chair its most important human rights body.

The Importance of Accountability

Another factor that is essential to democratic governance is accountability. International organizations are criticized when the decision-makers bear little accountability for their decisions. Here too we agree.

The Security Council was designed specifically with accountability in mind. Those who would be responsible for carrying out its decisions in matters of war were given the authority to make those decisions. Because they would deal in crisis interventions, they would have to come together quickly to authorize expensive, and possibly deadly, force. The stakes were high; the veto was seen as the glue that would keep the great powers in the bargain.

Democracy and accountability suffer when we accept as members of the Security Council countries that threaten their neighbors, oppress their people, and break international laws and treaties. I believe the Council’s decisions would have more moral authority if every member elected to it governs justly and abides by the rule of law.

Accountability is at risk in regional institutions as well, such as the European Union. This troubling potential for a “democracy deficit” in Europe was pointed out some 12 years ago by Harvard professor Shirley Williams, a founder of the British Social Democratic Party. She wrote, “if the European Community is to be what it claims to be, the hub of Europe and the democratic model for Europeans, then its decisionmaking institutions must become truly accountable, not to Europe’s governments or its bureaucrats, but to its people.”[1]  We agree.

Making Decisions More Democratic

As I have tried to explain, the decisions of international organizations become more democratic – more representative of the people affected, more transparent, and more accountable – when more democracies are involved. Those democracies should strive to make sure their work is bolstering democracy among member states. The UN does good work in monitoring elections and helping countries like East Timor craft democratic constitutions. But to sustain a peaceful democracy, the Timorese will need help to strengthen the democratic foundations of their institutions.

In fact, much of our effort in the UN system focuses on building the democratic underpinnings of civil society. We are pleased that the outcome of deliberations in 2002, in Monterrey, Mexico, and Johannesburg, South Africa, mean that more of the UN’s development work will focus on good governance and the rule of law—necessary conditions for economic growth. We look forward to working in UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, to help bring a “democratic dominant” focus to its activities, such as in civics education, literacy, and the promotion of press freedom.

Helping to build or reinforce democratic institutions should be a goal of every UN development program. It should be a touchstone for reform aimed at reducing corruption, protecting political and civil rights, increasing investor confidence, and generating financing for development.

Finally, another way to improve the democratic deficit is to increase cooperation among the real democracies at the UN. It is a stark reality that those who subvert the rule of law at home will seek to undermine the rule of law globally. We have only to look at North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s legacy for deeply troubling examples. Such regimes fear nothing more than democratic nations coming together to stand up for the principles enshrined in the UN Charter—principles they abuse at home everyday.

The idea of a democracy caucus is not new. The World Federalist Association publicized this idea in a newsletter last year.[2] A cross-regional group of democracies should join their vision, their values, and their vitality to change the culture of the United Nations and other international organizations. Such a caucus would make it easier for many countries, such as India, South Africa, Brazil, and many small nations, to offer leadership at the UN.

In fact, democratic countries are already combining their energies to advance freedom. Chile hosted a meeting of foreign ministers of the Community of Democracies (CD) Convening Group at the start of this year’s General Assembly. In Geneva, our ambassador has joined meetings with members of this group and other countries who are on the Commission on Human Rights, to discuss our shared concerns. Here in Washington, we are hosting a series of lunches with large and small, new and not-so-new democracies to hear their ideas and concerns.

We are also listening to the concerns of civil society. Non-governmental organizations frequent my bureau to discuss the UN’s difficulties in protecting and promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms. Everyone has a stake in helping the UN and international organizations work better in these areas.

But it is ultimately up to the member states of international organizations, and especially the United Nations, to exert more self-discipline in their decision-making. This is true whether they are involved in establishing program and budget priorities, electing countries to leadership positions and commissions, voting for sanctions, or passing resolutions. Democratic principles should underpin all that they do. Because what they decide will reflect on the credibility of the entire institution, which so many people hope can be a source of moral authority in the world.

The United States remains firmly committed to the global expansion of democracy and, as President Bush puts it, “the hope and progress it brings as the alternative to instability and hatred and terror.” “Lasting peace is gained,” he added, “as justice and democracy advance.”

We carry this strategy into all our work in international organizations. One of our resolutions aimed at strengthening UN technical assistance for elections was adopted by the UN Third Committee by a vote of 156-0-7. Interestingly, the seven who abstained were Brunei, Burma, China, Cuba, Libya, Syria, and Vietnam. We also put forth another successful resolution aimed at expanding women’s participation in the political process. It was adopted by the Third Committee with 110 cosponsors.

These resolutions make strong statements about the importance of giving people a voice in decision-making. We will always stand up for the right of people to determine their own future. And we will continue to make this case in every international organization to which we belong. For popular sovereignty is the only way to dry up democracy deficits and unleash the forces of freedom worldwide.

---------------------

[1] Shirley Williams, “Sovereignty and Accountability in the EC,” in Robert Keohane and Stanley Hoffmann, The New European Community: Decisionmaking and Institutional Change (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991), p. 175.
[2] Menko Rose, “Three Pillars of Peace,” World Federalist, Fall 2002, p. 10.
[End]