Opening Address by the President at the 4th Summer University for Democracy, Council of Europe

Strasbourg, 6.7.2009  |  speech

Opening Address by H.E. Dr. Danilo Türk, President of Slovenia, at the 4th Summer University for Democracy, Council of Europe
Strasbourg, 6 July 2009


Thank you, Mr. Secretary General, thank you for this kind introduction,
Ladies and gentlemen,
Distinguished guests,
Excellencies,

It's a great privilege to be invited here to the Council of Europe and to share with you some thoughts on the issue of democracy in a global context. The topic of this 4th Summer University is not only important politically, but it also invites thinking, reflection and perhaps thought of action about some of the most fundamental issues of our time.

Today I intend to discus six challenges to democracy - three of them external or fundamental to democracy as a form of governance and another three which relate to the day-to-day functioning of democratic systems. We live in an era, which brings to the fore a number of challenges with regard to the basic relationship between citizens and the political class. At the time of crisis this relationship is increasingly problematic and calling for a very careful consideration. I hope that my introduction today would help elucidating some of these questions and perhaps also motivate further discussion.

But before I proceed to these six challenges I would like to recall some of the basic and obvious things.

First, within the timeframe of a generation the world has seen an unprecedented and probably irreversible movement towards democracy. Let me recall that the process started in mid 1970s in the Mediterranean Europe and was then followed by the events around the fall of the Berlin wall twenty years ago, which has spread democracy in Europe. At about the same time democracy has spread in another parts of the world as well, in Latin America, Asia and parts of Africa. According to analysts, at present, there are about three quarters of states today who can be described as democracies. The definitions obviously vary, but nevertheless democracy is the order of the day globally. It is the preferred form of governance and given the absence of any credible alternative ideological model, that is likely to remain. But obviously this can change if the current crisis develops to a global economic and environmental disaster, which is not inconceivable. This is not very likely, I hope, but certainly not inconceivable.

Secondly, I think it is worth recalling that democracy always comes from within. It represents an expression of deep aspirations of people to live in freedom, dignity and prosperity and that motivates them for democracy. Democracy cannot be imposed from abroad and cannot be reduced to a particular set of international prescriptions.

But third, democracy can be assisted internationally and the principles and standards, which constitute its basis, are now universally shared. They were expressed starting with Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and have been developed in a system of international instruments concluded within the UN and within various regional organizations. This provided a basis upon which many new forms of international cooperation have developed. Some of them were specifically designed to assist the processes of democratization in different parts of the world.

Let me refer to two such frameworks.

One of them is the movement of new and restored democracies, which started in 1988 in Manila in the Philippines, which brought together fifteen then newly restored democracies from different parts of the world. That group had rather restrictive criteria on participation and only small numbers of countries were invited. This was necessary because democracy meant a certain precisely defined set of standards, which could be captured all together in the phrase of "democracy without adjectives". At that time it was important to speak about democracy as such without adjectives, such as "popular democracy", which was already ideologically corrupt and left behind in a historical sense. So, that was the beginning. Later in that process, the essential elements of democracy – political pluralism and participation of people in government, respect for human rights and the rule of law - have been widely accepted across all the regions. If one looks this process from 1988 onwards one can see that there were six successive conferences of this movement organized and gradually the normative framework has developed to the current standard.

Later, we have seen another international movement organized around what was called the "Community of Democracies" which started in Warsaw in the year 2000. So now we have two parallel movements and we shall see how they help strengthening democracy worldwide. To a large extent the question of which one of the two is more helpful and what will happen depends on how they are going to address the challenges to democracy today. The principles and standards are now developed to a decent extent, but the question is the complexity of the contemporary agenda of democracy.

And here I think this Summer University can be really very useful, because one has to think about democracy today as a problem, not only as a value, not only as a preferred form of governance or an expression of aspirations of people around the world. From here I wish to proceed to the challenges as I see them. Of course, this will not be a complete list, but it will be a list, which I believe is relevant at this time in history.

First, three fundamental challenges, which are resulting from the basic political relationships between democracy on the one hand and certain other basic social phenomena on the other.

Democracy and economic and social prosperity
We have to keep in mind, that democratic change in the past decades was motivated to a large extent with expectations for social and economic improvement, expectations which in many parts of the world were not fulfilled. In many countries where the experience with democracy is new there also have been disappointments when achievements in economic development, social equity and human security are concerned. Expectations were often not matched by subsequent performance. The realization that in the globalised world, more and more decision making power eludes democratic control has contributed to the feeling of powerlessness, and dissatisfaction with democratic institutions and even to the opinion that democracy itself may find itself in the state of crisis. These dangers must not be underestimated although there has always been talk about "the crisis of democracy". That talk in itself is not new, but the feeling is new. It is essential to bear in mind the principle that democratic society must be just and responsible society and that this expectation is not always met.

In the affluent societies for example we see frustrations which are resulting from the alienation of the political class from the citizens. On the other hand citizens have become consumers and they are more and more motivated by the fact that they are consumers. Their criticism is expressed sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly through low participation in elections. Sometimes it is difficult to discern and found out whether citizens are indeed prepared to take up serious reforms which are needed. The political class is expected to lead and to offer answers. But this does not always happen. So we have a disconnect here, a serious one and one which needs to be addressed.

In the developing world obviously the situation is even more dramatic. A critically important test for new and restored democracy has always been the ability to deliver. And in most new democracies this ability is measured by economic and social progress. While economic prosperity helps to sustain and consolidate democracy, the reverse does not hold automatically: Rich societies have the means to sustain democracy while poor societies do not have this opportunity and democracy itself cannot automatically lead to economic growth and development. How does one handle these situations, how does one insure that in absence of growth the issue of social equality doesn't become damaging or devastating for the political structure?

Participation and the rule of law
The second challenge relates to the question of participation and the rule of law. Free, fair and periodic elections obviously constitute the basic principle of participation. But very often we see that additional mechanisms are needed, such as popular consultations, referenda and others to strengthen the legitimacy of decision–making and to develop the sense of ownership of democratic process by the people. Participation of women in democratic processes is generally unsatisfactory both in the developed and developing world and needs to be strengthened. The question is how does one do that? What are the instruments that are needed at this time? Some of them are known, such as popular consultations or referenda, but that in itself does not always yield the right kind of results i.e. the strengthened sense of participation in the real decision-making.

Furthermore, promoting the rule of law, transparency and fight against corruption are amongst the basic elements of democratic governance and have to do with the equitable sharing of the fruits of development. These concepts have been widely accepted and used in the rhetoric in global policy debates. However, the practical use varies and the results remain elusive in many parts of the world. Anti-corruption activities require careful preparation and adequate design and persistence in their use. It is essential that the illusion of quick fixes or reduction to technical aspects of anti-corruption are avoided. Corruption must be rejected as a matter of culture. And this cultural shift is difficult to achieve. Of course only if that is achieved then democracy will flourish to the full.

The principle of the rule of law and the requirement of combating corruption also is high on the agenda of various international fora. I would like to pay tribute to the Council of Europe and its regulation on such matters as the criminalization of corruption, liability and compensation for damage caused by corruption, corruption of public officials and the questions of financing of political parties. All these are issues, which need to be handled persistently and international instruments help. The question is, how far have they succeeded at present and what remains for the future?

Democracy, peace and security
The third element, the third challenge to democracy speaking in this global sense, relates to democracy, peace and security. Obviously the process of global democratic transformation has taken place in an era of turmoil and armed conflict, which characterized the period of 1980s in 1990s and now it is appearing in the time of new threats to international peace and security, characterized by such phenomena as terrorism and organized crime.

In the recent years we have seen reduction of armed conflicts. The number of armed conflict has been on decrease. Democratic change has been both the result of ending of wars and also a factor ensuring post-conflict stability and peace building. So democracy, democratic change has been very closely linked to this change in the international security landscape. It can be said that the world is more peaceful than it was a decade ago, but that security issues remain a challenge. New threats resulting from poverty, infectious diseases, environmental degradation, armed conflicts which still persist, from continued existence of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, transnational organized crime and other threats to peace, all this represents a global security challenge to democracy.

Let me take the two examples, one is terrorism, the other is the post-conflict peace building with a special focus on elections. Terrorism has been recognized as a threat to democracy in various ways. First, there is a direct threat, because democratic societies are often victims of terrorist attacks. But it is important to keep in mind the indirect effect in particular. Counter terrorism, if not designed with the necessary sensibility to the human rights of citizens that counter terrorist activities are expected to protect, may erode the core values of democracy. Restrictions on human rights, which may have to be imposed in the context of counter terrorism, must therefore be temporary and limited in scope. They could upset the delicate balance between democracy and security and undermine democracy by excessive insistence on security. Here again one has to pay tribute to the contribution of the Council of Europe and specially its guidelines for member States on human rights and fight against terrorism, which has been and continues to be a valuable contribution to uphold balance and to protect human rights. Perhaps this very moment in which we speak does not present so much of a drama with regard to terrorism. But let us not be complacent. Terrorism may come back and then again the basic factors included in the Council Europe guidelines will be a great value.

Another area of relationship between democracy and international peace and security relates to post-conflict situations. There are many elements that can be discussed here. The question of establishing peaceful, normal societies after a war is a complex one and it involves a variety of activities including institution-building but they include also elections and I would like to say a few words about that.

It is expected that after wars, and we have seen this in the practice of the United Nations time and again, elections will contribute to peace. It is expected that elections would provide for a legitimate authority which is vital for the realisation of an entire range of tasks which are there to ensure durable stability and peace. However, expectations are sometimes placed too high. The experience in many post-conflict situations has demonstrated that several electoral terms have to be completed before the situation can be considered as normalized. Expecting too much from single post conflict election is something we have to avoid. And also timing of elections is very important. If elections are conducted too early, then they only give a semblance of legitimacy to actors emerging from armed conflict, including to spoilers. But on the other hand, if they are held too late, they might not be able to produce the necessary democratic change. So again, timing is everything and timing is not easy to get right.

In many post-conflict situations the international community needs to assist the process of creation of political parties. Political pluralism is of course necessary as a condition for democratic legitimacy of government. However, it should be developed in a manner, which makes the underlying ethnic and ideological divisions manageable, not an obstacle to stabilize society after an armed conflict.

These are again huge tasks, something that we have to think about very carefully and in the design of elections, electoral preparations and post election activities this type of questions have to be very high on the agenda.

Now, these are three challenges I wanted to address with regard to the basic relationship between democracy and the factors which define the space within democracy within which democracy is being developed, that is economic and social prosperity, the rule of law, as well as peace and security.

Having said this, I would like to proceed to the second part of my presentation today, the challenges that relate to day-to-day functioning of democratic systems.

Challenges related to day-to-day functioning of democratic systems

Building of democratic institutions is part of a larger task of strengthening both national and regional capacity for democracy. And many international and particularly regional organisations have developed normative frameworks and programs for promotion of democracies. But the three challenges which I think have to be consistently addressed in this process are resulting from the phenomena which we see as increasing by important in our world of today. One of them is the inter-relationship between democratic decision making and the media, second, the relationship between the democratic process and electoral institutions and, the third, relations within the democratically elected institutions, in particular between the government and the opposition.

Democracy and the media
We have to recognise that we live in the media dominated world where the around the clock TV news bring information in real time and where internet provides a host of new possibilities both for spreading and receiving news. Political leaders must be able to formulate their political messages in sound bites, normally, we are told, in less then fifteen seconds. Twitter, one of the newest internet based techniques, requires messages not exceeding 140 characters. This makes political communication more lively, more entertaining and also more difficult.

Policy issues are not always easily definable in the form of sound bites, which is something that every politician knows, and policy choices are very rarely entertaining. If you want to entertain voters, talking about policy choices may not be right way to do it. Things other than policy issues and policy choices may appear in this media world as much more interesting. People like to watch how political leaders behave and how they fight their battles and pay much less attention to the substance of policies they advocate.

There is probably no way back to the good old days when quality media dominated the media scene. We have a much more relaxed media scene today and ever-larger proportion of people get their basic information about political issues from internet portals, from tabloids or even from late night shows.

It appears that the only answer that political leaders can offer to this challenge is simply to have more imagination in using the media as they are today and to rely on the common sense of the citizens. The good news in this situation is that people do not believe everything they find in the media and that the critical appreciation of the voters has not been reduced as a result of the evolution of the media society. I'm putting this before you not as a firm conclusion but rather as a hypothesis which requires further discussion and empirical research. Nevertheless, I believe that the recent electoral results in the societies with the most advanced media technologies show that the rationality of voters has not been diminished and this is good news. But of course the problem remains and this is a problem which requires attention, discussion and probably new solutions as well.

Democracy and the electoral institutions
Elections are closely related to the political culture of every country concerned. Obviously, there are certain common requirements for free and fair elections - such as credible voter lists, absence of violence and intimidation in the pre-election period and during the elections and availability of impartial and effective complaint mechanisms to deal with the allegations of violations of electoral rules. But even these requirements are dealt with in a variety of institutional arrangements and in different societies they function in different ways.

In particular, standards of the actual conduct of elections still vary and there are no international instruments in this area. Consequently, an assessment of the conduct of an election involves a large margin of appreciation, political judgement and that has to be done by the election observers, the general international public and by political leaders in the world. Judging elections in a foreign country is not an easy question.

The challenges arising in this context are related to the fact that international standards in this area are not well developed. Additional international standards are needed to assist and strengthen the international electoral assistance and monitoring and obviously the resulting judgement on the quality of a particular election.

In the past decade or so the World has witnessed an exponential growth of international assistance and monitoring of elections. When I was working for the UN in the department of political affairs, the electoral assistance unit was our growth industry and it was quite interesting to see how more and more countries have received electoral assistance as a form of technical cooperation, something they accept easily. But then of course, this was a period of growth and did not answer some of the questions, such as how to judge the quality of a particular election and the outcome. That was left deliberately open and that was necessary in the last ten, fifteen years. But the question now is, whether we have to go beyond that. Perhaps the time has come to take stock of the experience gained and to identify the areas of further normative development. This will probably not be possible at the level of the UN but it may prove useful for the purpose of regional organizations such as the Council of Europe or the OSCE which will conduct election monitoring in countries of different political cultures yet similar political aspirations. I think that this is an interesting subject that perhaps also can be addressed at this summer University and on other occasions.

Governments and oppositions
Finally, the third example of challenges coming from within democracies is an old one, concerning the question of relationship between the governments and the oppositions. It relates to one of the most exciting features of democracy and that is the non-permanent character of political majorities and political minorities, governments and oppositions. The political parties may be in government one day but they may spend several years in the opposition afterwards. The parties which have been in the opposition for a period of time may find themselves in the enjoyable, obviously, but demanding position of government responsibility. These transitions are not simple and are particularly demanding in countries with relatively short democratic tradition.

In a time of global economic crisis like the present one, this relationship has to be looked at very carefully. On the one hand people need a sense of common purpose in a crisis situation. They expect that political parties will work together for common good. On the other hand, this practically never happens. Democracy is not about mobilization for common goals or common good. It is rather an organized, non-violent political conflict over social priorities, over policy choices. It is a non-violent political conflict over material means to implement policy choices, an organized conflict, and therefore to bring all the parties together behind the sense of common purpose is extremely difficult. This applies in the time of crisis and in all other circumstances. For the government it is never easy to accept the views of the opposition - even if opposition may actually be correct. For the opposition it is practically impossible to abandon criticism of the government - even when the criticism itself is considered counterproductive.

So we have a problem. A particular problem arises when the government knows what is needed but the people don't want what is needed - reforms, in particular huge reforms, pension reforms, social sector reforms and so forth. Cooperation between government and opposition is in such circumstances particularly needed. It is actually part of the answer to such a problem when very fundamental reforms have to be conducted, because they can be conducted if there is a degree of common purpose and common platform in this relationship. Now the question is, whether this should be seen as a problem requiring an international discussion. Obviously these issues are always discussed nationally. For the Council of Europe I think the question is whether mature role-playing between government and opposition can be developed over a period of time. It seems to me that the Council of Europe and particularly its Parliamentary Assembly can be a place for a serious discussion of this question, is a place to exchange experience of this matter. And obviously, this Summer University is another place where this kind of discussions are very welcome and probably also necessary. Exchange of experience never harms and it can be use useful to national policy makers and political leaders.

So this are the three challenges which I see as relevant as the challenges from within the democratic process. One is, as I said, relating to the democracy and the media, the second, democracy and electoral institutions and the third, the relationship between the government and the opposition.

In Conclusion
Let me make a brief conclusion. I'm convinced that you will address these and other challenges as you proceed with your discussion. Democracy is a never ended edifice. It involves internal tensions and discontent. Sometimes, let me quote Robert Dahl, a great theoretician of democracy, it is explained that tensions within democracy can reach the level of what he called "antagonistic cohabitation", which I find a very charming description. This is how Robert Dahl described the tension between economic needs and democratic principles. And it is precisely this peaceful organization of political conflict around economic needs and democratic principles which is most promising and which makes democracy real. But it is also makes democracy difficult and it makes it vulnerable. This is why we need discussions; this is why we need a Summer University like this. I understand that this meeting has started with a necessary vigour and energy. I congratulate you for that and I'm sure that the rest of your discussions will be equally interesting and vigorous.

Mr. Secretary general,

I have spent my time for presentation of challenges, which I see as worthy of further discussion. Should there be any questions I'm obviously ready to answer, but I'm also aware of the constraints of time. I'm in your hands, I rely on your judgement, and I am convinced that you will exercise democracy in the best and the wisest manner possible. Thank you very much.