A representative of ENoP at the World Movement for Democracy Sixth Assembly Solidarity Across Cultures: Working Together for Democracy - Jakarta, 12-14 April

This year’s meeting took place in Jakarta, capital city of Indonesia, generally considered as an emerging and struggling but relatively successfully democratizing country. Debatable perhaps, but Indonesia presents itself as the third largest democracy in the world (in terms of inhabitants), as well as the largest predominantly Muslim democracy. The WMD is functioning under the guidance of the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy or NED, one of the most prominent democracy promotion agencies in the United States. Apart from conducting its own projects (including the Journal of Democracy and the World Assembly), the NED co-sponsors the country’s two major international party assistance organizations: the National Democratic Institute (affiliated with the Democratic Party) and the International Republican Institute (with the Republicans). The AMS has occasionally cooperated with both institutions, though more intensively with NDI.

The motto of this years Assembly was ‘Solidarity Across Cultures: Working Together for Democracy’. The title was broad and non-political enough for a wide range of institutions to participate, mostly non-governmental donors and recipients in the international democracy promotion business. Around 600 people were present, from tens of countries around the world. The delegations from Indonesia and the United States were particularly large. Workshop topics ranged from discussing a NED-led assessment of democracy assistance to labour and migrant workers’ rights and civil society implementation of transitional justice. Despite the fact that NED is responsible for sponsoring the activities of America’s two major political party associations, political parties and political party assistance were conspicuously absent during the Assembly. The WMD was carefully avoiding the party political dimension of democratization. This may have been understandable from a tactical point of view (party politics tend to divide rather than unite under the conditions of democratization) but it gave many discussions a kind of artificiality. It is practically impossible to discuss NGO activities in emerging or endangered democracies without going into the issue of party politics or the relation with parties.

The workshops I participated in were on democracy promotion assessment, on democratization and democratic regression in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, on the relationship between democracy research and democracy promotion, and on the activities of international democracy promotion institutions. Introductions and discussions were generally okay, informative, but also rather predictable. These assemblies are frequented by a relatively loyal group of people, on the donor as well as on the recipients’ side. One might occasionally run into someone new or indeed an old friend, but surprises are rare – in terms of people and in terms of ideas. Generally, the same issues were discussed by often the very same people that were present at earlier meetings two of four years ago, in Istanbul and Kiev.

Of particular interest was the workshop which discussed the WMD project on ‘Assessing Democracy’, based on a survey among more than one thousand individuals receiving democracy assistance, and a number of in-depth country studies. The conclusions of the survey and the country-studies showed some inner inconsistencies, but largely concurred. One, local stakeholders would want a greater say in the thematic priorities of donors, while appreciating a more hands-on involvement (particularly regarding monitoring of NGO activities) by these same donors. Two, the practical and the political relevance of projects should be more balanced. Three, democracy promotion projects may occasionally deepen rivalry among political actors. The risk of polarization may be taken more seriously. Fourth, donors should be less risk-averse. Governments have too often been able to neutralize the positive effects of democracy promotion activities. International democratization efforts need to be more strongly backed by other political means (diplomacy in particular). A more holistic approach is needed.

The survey among the one thousand democracy promoters (among whom only two percent represented political parties), showed that more than 48 percent of all local organizations depend on international donors for 75 to 100 percent. It can therefore not come as a surprise that 64 percent of all respondents named financial assistance as the most valued type of assistance. The financial dependency on international donors of civil society organizations in the democratization business has always been and remains alarmingly high.

Generally, the sphere was slightly less optimistic than during earlier assemblies. Democracy is no longer global concern # 1. Democracy has run into problems in a series of countries, either because it is no longer considered in the interests of the elite to respect the democratic rules of the game, or because democracy did not deliver and the population at large lost confidence, or because of a combination of both. Democracy promotion and civil society organizations frankly admitted that conveying the message of democracy to the general population was difficult, increasingly problematic. 18 percent of the survey respondents asserted that their own citizens do not value democracy enough. Although the dimension of democratic regression should not be exaggerated (despite worrisome example such as Russia and various countries in the Middle East, of which most have never even liberalized), the focus during this Assembly was more on human rights and the rule of law than during earlier world meetings, when democracy was still considered ‘on the rise’.

André Gerrits

Chairman Alfred Mozer Stichting/ ENoP member