European Union’s role in Democracy building in South Asia

This is an excerpt from a book entitled, Democracy in Development: Global consultations on the EU’s role in democracy building, which was recently launched by International IDEA during the annual European Development Days, in Stockholm on 23rd October 2009. The article also serves as an umbrella chapter for another volume on EU’s role in democracy building in South Asia that includes nine studies on this theme.

The EU evokes mixed feelings in South Asia. Some ask whether it speaks with a collective voice, or only reflects the cacophony of its 27 member states. Even if the EU does in fact have a collective voice, others question its ability to intervene in a meaningful way in the name of the EU to contribute to the sustainability of democratic institutions. Observers in the region note that the EU is not usually consistent in supporting democratic countries and frequently backs countries that lack democratic institutions for reasons related to the EU’s own convenience. The EU has a weakness for playing second fiddle to the USA, especially where security and economic policies are concerned. However, it is generally recognized that although South Asia has not been in the frontline of policy for the EU, it has ‘a clean slate to begin with and can help greatly without the prejudices of history on development issues and democracy building in the region’.In this regard, the EU should therefore consider not only how to build democracy, but also ‘how not to build democracy’, based on its own past experience in the region and elsewhere. The responsibility for initiating and implementing decisions to institutionalize democracy lies with South Asia. External actors can play only a supportive role, and their capacity to bring about fundamental change in the region, except in the case of smaller countries in special circumstances, is severely limited.

Another issue that frequently emerges is the need for the EU to be clear about the premise on which it bases its engagement in democracy building in South Asia. Does the EU want to promote ‘democracy and development’? Or is it interested in promoting ‘democracy in development’? It was emphasized during the International IDEA consultations that the difference between the two is fundamental. While the first sees the problem as a public administration issue, the latter recognizes the fact that the democratization of the development process is in itself an integral element of the promotion of democracy and establishing democracy with a real link to development. Furthermore, unless you ‘make the broad constituencies of people into stakeholders in the democratic process you are in fact going to face serious difficulties in the sustainability of democracy.’

As Kant Bhargava and Ananya Mukherjee Reed observe, these points have not yet been clearly incorporated by the EU into its policy for democracy building in other regions. The Human Development Report, developed by Amartya Sen and Mahbub ul Haq, tried to link these ideas and the Millennium Development Goals developed the notion further by setting targets to be achieved within specified timeframes. The Swedish perspective suggests that in democracy building ‘all decisions and measures must be taken with respect for universally accepted human rights and democratic principles’ and that the ‘interests and priorities of poor individuals themselves should be the point of departure for these decisions and measures’. 

The recommendations coming out of the International IDEA consultations in South Asia strongly endorse the development in democracy model, on which the EU’s support for democracy building programmes in South Asia should be based. The main premise is to empower the people of the region and make political leaders and institutions more accountable to the people. The recommendations of this chapter are also made with an understanding that South Asia includes eight countries that are diverse and that a ‘one size fits all’ approach by the EU may not be conducive for democracy building in the region. Sri Lanka and India are at the high end of democratic evolution while many others are “nascent democracies” still struggling to establish a democratic order. There is still much scope for intra-regional sharing of experience and best practices. The EU, at best, can be supportive and a facilitator in a non-intrusive way, while South Asia has to find its own answers consistent with its genius and ethos. The recommendations are grouped in three categories: those that are common to all the countries of the region; those that are country-specific; and those steps that may be taken by the EU to strengthen democracy building through the SAARC process.

The recommendations that apply to all the countries are as follows:

Democratization of political parties: The common problem in South Asia is that even though political parties are very active in preaching democracy in their respective countries, many do not function in a democratic manner in either the selection of key leaders or their decision-making processes. The EU should consider programmes to encourage reform of the political parties in the region, preferably with the involvement of members of the European Parliament, in order to increase accountability and transparency. The EU is also in a good position to support programmes that enhance inter-party dialogue, which is sorely lacking in many countries in South Asia, in order to build consensus among different political forces.

Capacity building for state institutions to establish proper checks and balances: The patronage system in South Asia has spill-over effects for the way in which governments operate in the region, where the excesses of the executive branch often go unchecked. The EU should initiate programmes on democratic practices and procedures to ensure that the state institutions that have a crucial role in establishing good governance in the country function in a meaningful way. The major institutions in need of reform include the judiciary and the police, to name only two. To support this, training modules should be prepared by the EU in collaboration with the host countries so that officials learn operational methods from the best practices of European institutions, which allow them to stay above politics and beyond corruption. The EU should also provide technical support to upgrade logistical frameworks in key institutions, computerize public records and modernize the election commissions as well as providing support to national human rights commissions to improve access to justice, particularly for groups that have been neglected in the past.

Strengthening the legislative branch of government: Many elected representatives in South Asian countries enter the legislative branch of government unaware of the role they are expected to play in order to meet the needs of their constituents. The EU should devise programmes that would bring them up-to-the-mark on crucial issues, such as consensus-building, forming an effective opposition, methods of working in different parliamentary committees and the standards of behaviour needed for the effective functioning of parliamentary democracy.

Programmes to make civil society more effective: Compared to the role of civil society in the EU, civil society in South Asia is only beginning to organize itself in order to contribute to a more effective and accountable democratic process. Civil society has registered successes in some countries, but has not yet been able to act in a cohesive manner to have a long-term impact on democracy building in the region. The EU should play an important role in democracy building by promoting activities that foster dialogue and knowledge-sharing among civil society groups within and between the countries in South Asia. Such a network could pursue programmes jointly to promote democracy, encourage coexistence among political parties and support institution building in South Asian countries. In addition, as some country strategy papers of the EU have acknowledged recently, there is a need for the EU to properly balance the involvement of civil society and government in its programmes, including in development programmes, so that there is a higher degree of ownership from the key stakeholders in the country.

Media training: The media in South Asia has developed significantly in recent decades and has been able to play a relatively effective role in sensitizing people on political developments and making political leaders and governments more accountable to the public. A regional network of media experts under the South Asian Media Net (SAFMA) has played a crucial role in bringing together experts in this field. The EU, in particular, should support media programmes in order to create a better understanding of concepts and issues and to strengthen the democratic process, improve reporting skills and parliamentary coverage, improve the reporting of political activities, and help to improve skills in the area of investigative reporting.

Centres of Excellence for the Study of Democracy: The contemporary debate on democracy building in South Asia lacks a solid grounding of social and scientific research in many of the countries in the region. The EU should set up centres of excellence for the study of democracy in each of the SAARC member states. These centres could become catalysts for disseminating information on democratic practices and on how democracy functions, including how it affects the average citizen.

In addition to the above recommendations, some specific measures that the EU might wish to take in individual countries are suggested.

In Pakistan, the USA and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies have prioritized military efforts and the so-called war on terror, while the social causes of extremism that feed terrorism and instability are not adequately addressed. The EU should play an important role in the fields of education, social awareness and employment generation programmes. Similarly, EU aid is targeted to Pakistan’s remote border areas to deal with the threat of terrorism, but as Nadia Mushtaq Abbasi suggests such programmes should be extended to the larger cities, such as Karachi, Multan and Quetta, where similar threats also exist.

In Nepal, the EU should focus its energy on bringing to its logical conclusion the peace process that moved a step further after the second people’s movement in 2006. S. D. Muni observes that democratic consolidation through state restructuring with a new constitution will be difficult until security sector reform, reconstruction and rehabilitation of the conflict-torn society have been accomplished. Nepal is in the process of a radical political transformation, so the EU should take additional initiatives to ‘build democracy from below’. The 2007 Nepal democracy survey noted that uneven development, which produces economic disparities and inequality among people in different groups and areas, makes people indifferent to the nature of the political system – be it democracy or dictatorship. Krishna Hachhethu recommends that the EU could play a lead role in getting the international community to refocus on development issues, which will benefit marginalized groups and reach out to the remote areas in order to help ensure an inclusive approach to democracy building in Nepal.

In Bangladesh, the EU could be a valuable partner in the process of consolidating democracy, which has oscillated dramatically in recent decades. Farooq Sobhan notes that capacity building and the strengthening of institutions are essential if Bangladesh is to function and achieve stability. The EU should also play an important role in strengthening local governance by establishing a programme for participatory planning, and introducing efficient budgeting procedures and effective monitoring and control mechanisms for performance assessment.

The recommendations on the complex issue of how the EU and SAARC might collaborate to promote democracy at the regional level represent a major breakthrough. Godfrey Gunatilleke suggests that the EU has a major role to play in strengthening the ‘social component of democracy‘ by providing support and sharing experience in a number of areas, such as:

Providing assistance to the National Coordination Committees of SAARC member states to develop and strengthen the institutional framework for planning and monitoring the implementation of programmes under the SAARC Social Charter;

Supporting civil society to strengthen the participatory process and structures for implementation and monitoring of national plans of action;

Assisting the other local stakeholders with monitoring the national plans of action in selected areas where participatory structures for monitoring and accountability are developed and sustained;

Sharing the EU’s own experience and assisting in the development of structures for participatory governance and local level democracy to implement the objectives of the Social Charter; and

Using the social window of the South Asian Development Fund and collaborating with SAARC to select and finance activities under the Social Charter.

While building on the seminal work that has been done on the SAARC Social Charter, all these activities should happen in parallel with a comprehensive programme to develop a Bill of Rights and Obligations for democracies in South Asia, preferably through a South Asian Democratic Charter. The EU has a significant role to play in this effort by bringing together experts and stakeholders in the region to chalk out a programme on how the Bill might be drafted and eventually adopted. The best practices of the EU, the Organization of American States (OAS), the African Union (AU) and other regions could all be considered when preparing the document.

Posted on : 2009-11-04 06:30:45

Comments (0)