To vote or not to vote, that is the question. Is allowing elections in fragile states a formula for giving power and legitimacy to extremists, or is it instead an essential requirement to develop democratic systems and ultimately advance countries’ well-being? Will free elections bring to power those factions that are against the U.S. and Western democracies, which are ironically the main sponsors of electoral consultations?
Twenty plus years of American democracy promotion have brought these efforts to a crossroads as elections in places like Lebanon and Palestine have resulted in electoral gains for groups the U.S. opposes. The contradiction between standing against authoritarian rule and opening governments’ doors to groups that are less prone to dialogue with the West than the governments themselves has given credence to the unpopular thesis that a benign dictatorship may be better than an anti-American democracy.
Following September 11, 2001, the Bush Administration’s policy of pushing democratic change through elections in the greater Middle East seemed puzzling. Pressuring authoritarian states to allow free and fair elections resulted in many anti-U.S. parties to come to power and led to growing domestic instability within fragile and divided countries— the clearest example being the January 2006 victory of Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza elections.
Nevertheless, the arising dilemma illustrates the tension between means and ends, between ideals and security concerns. “Politics is the art of the possible” as Bismark was known to say, and on this respect, great possibilities have been realized. According to IFES, in 1974 only 39 countries could define themselves as electoral democracies, whereas by 2006 more than 120 of them engaged in multi-party elections.
Experts in the field of electoral assistance say that the first step in the process of electoral assistance is political will. “Developing countries do realize that maybe they do not have the necessary expertise in election administration,” says David Mikosz, Associate Director at the American University-based Center for Democracy and Election Management in Washington D.C. Thus they bring in NGOs and organizations working in this field that “usually receive an invitation by domestically-run central electoral commissions.”
The president of the Pollworker Institute, Jennifer Collins-Foley, agreed, adding that sometimes “specific governments or NGOs in developing countries request models from places where they have established democracies. She said that sometimes organizations like IFES, the National Democratic Institute or the International Republican Institute “go into a country and offer to share their models in conferences and technical assistance programs.”
The choice of electoral system is one of the most important institutional decisions for any democracy, as it is one of the primary factors of resulting government stability or instability. Especially in fragile countries where institutions lack legitimacy and democracy is not yet solidified, electoral systems become particularly important because they contribute to institution-building. If the proper electoral system is adopted parties and factions — which are the expression of ethnic/religious/ideological differences — are more likely to recognize and legitimize the other side’s victory.
The process of running elections is, nevertheless, inextricably linked to the promotion of wide institutional and legal reforms as well as educating civil society. Elections are necessary but not sufficient for democratic systems. Other measures are needed simultaneously, such as political party development, good governance, accountability, education of civil society, and strengthening of the rule of law.
“The link between elections and civil society is very strong,” says Greg Stephenson, country director in Tajikistan for Relief International – Schools Online, who has ten years experience as a civil society specialist in Central Asia. “There is a lot of planning and preparation that goes into elections; part of that is ‘knowledge’ that the typical voter must have about the election system.” He admits that in many developing countries, as well as in many Western democracies people lack knowledge about their electoral system. For this reason, Mr. Stephenson says, “any type of rule of law or civic education activities that can be conducted for the public or for political parties” represent a milestone in the electoral assistance effort.
Given his experience in Central Asia, Mr. Stephenson notes that “people here have even a difficult time in giving a clear definition of the word ‘democracy’. Many give a definition of democracy which is very naïve, based upon either what somebody else told them, or what they might have heard on the news or from a movie. The concept of democracy is totally misguided.” As a result, he says that “the type of programs that organizations and NGOs conduct can expose people to a more proper definition of words like democracy, and any other terms that are connected to running a free and fair election.”
For these reasons, elections should be seen as a long-term process that does not simply come to an end the day after voting. Likewise, they need a long-term commitment by the international community. “One of the biggest challenges is convincing donors that elections are a marathon of at least three or four years,” according to Mr. Mikosz, though several donors think achievements can come more quickly. “For example, for you to have good voters’ lists requires three to four years of sustained efforts, especially if they start off in bad conditions,” he notes. “Countries often need many years of programs to help them put their voters’ lists in a good shape, to help update district teams, and population change. Thus, it is a process that never really ends.”
No comments:
Post a Comment