Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear Friends,
Allow me first of all to congratulate Liberal International, its President Lord Alderdice and its staff, led by Jasper Veen, for the beautiful organisation of their 2006 congress.
Congratulations and thanks are also in order for our host party, the Moroccan Union Constitutionnelle. I have been visiting Morocco yearly for more than fifteen years and am therefore familiar with the generous hospitality of it’s people, but let me tell you, our friends of l’Union Constitutionnelle have really gone out of their way to share with us the warmth and quality of their culture and traditions. They have however done more: by hosting a congress dedicated to cultural and political tolerance and openness, they have demonstrated their own dedication to these pursuits, which is far from evident in today’s increasingly polarised world.
I am proud that the first contacts with our Moroccan member parties date back to my presidency of Liberal International, and am very glad to see that these contacts continue in an even higher gear.
I am not however addressing you as your past president; I have been invited to speak at this rostrum in my capacity of president of ELDR, the European Liberal Democratic and Reform Party.
Since our last congress, which took place barely four weeks ago in Bucharest, Rumania, ELDR counts over fifty member parties from more than thirty European countries, which is to say that our membership is not confined to parties from the 25 and tomorrow 27 member states of the European Union.
Most of our parties are associated with LI, either as full members or as observers, but it is a happy development indeed that LI’s membership expands far beyond Europe and what we used to call the West.
It is a happy development because it is testimony to the fact that LI’s (and ELDR’s) ideals and aspirations are universally valid and appeal to women and men all over the world.
I for one have always believed this to be the case. I have never believed that the ideals of liberalism only suited western capitalists, as was the tacit assumption for the better part of the last sixty years.
This assumption was shattered by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the self-liberation of the peoples of Eastern and Central Europe who, one by one, freed themselves from the yoke of communism.
For a few years, it looked like liberalism had won so much so that Francis Fukuyama decreed The End of History.
Actually, Fukuyama did not decreed that liberalism had won; he decreed that capitalism had gained victory and in this he was entirely correct. Capitalism has indeed won, including in the Peoples Republic of China which should suffice to indicate that capitalism and liberalism don’t exactly coincide.
Besides the demise of communism in Europe, the last two decades of the twentieth century have also witnessed the irresistible exponential development of globalisation. Liberal International has produced a liberal analysis of this phenomenon, and liberal responses to it during three consecutive congresses starting in 1999.
Capitalism is a means of economic organisation, not an end; globalisation is not even a means, it is a complex phenomenon resulting from the conjunction of technological, political and economic phenomena; liberalism is a political ideology founded on the principle that human beings have the inalienable right to pursue happiness as they see fit and that they should be free to do so as long as they don’t harm others.
Freedom, individual liberty is of course the connection between capitalism, globalisation and liberalism, but while liberalism is totally unthinkable without it, capitalism and globalisation can thrive with limitations of freedom and liberty as again the example of the People’s Republic of China demonstrates.
They cannot however thrive without a good measure of individual freedom and liberty.
One of the biggest challenges facing the PRC (and Vietnam) is the tension between growing economic and financial freedom on the one hand and continued political submission on the other hand. That tension is bound to increase and only the introduction of (gradual) political liberalisation will prevent it from erupting in upheaval.
Individual freedom is at the core of liberalism, it constitutes its essence, it is also one of the strongest levers of human development as the congress report convincingly demonstrates.
In order to operate as a lever for development, individual freedom is best served by a reasonably safe and predictable environment that is by a reasonably democratic environment.
Representatives from Africa, the Middle East, Asia, Central and Latin America have made this case all along the last few days, and have done so with greater power of persuasion than I could muster.
It is up to me to make the case for Europe, Europe being larger than the European Union and encompassing Russia and all the nations east of the Union. Democracy is not faring well in those parts of Europe; democracy is not faring well in the Caucasus and democracy isn’t faring well either in the south easternmost regions that spread in to central Asia.
Russia grows more and more authoritarian both internally and externally, as freedom of the media is increasingly restricted, as the growing number of murders of journalists remains unpunished, and as the state owned energy supplying companies use their utilities for political means. It is incidentally a our shame that the former chancellor of Germany remains on the board of a Gazprom subsidiary.
As democracy is rolled back, Russia becomes a threat to her neighbours and to the whole of Europe. Developments in Ukraine and Georgia are also a matter of concern because the hopes raised by the orange and rose revolutions are not as yet corroborated by reality. In the case of Belarus, it is the utter lack of developments, i.e. the continuation of extreme authoritarian rule which is disquieting to us and a cause of desperation for its population.
Closer to my home, I could point at the situation in Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Macedonia and Armenia all of which are far from consolidated, and must continue to be closely monitored.
Closer still, I might point at developments in Slovakia and Poland, where weird extreme right parties have been accepted into the governing coalitions. There are lessons to be learnt here and I will spell out the most important ones because they might serve in other parts of the world as well.
Lesson nr. 1
Elections are indispensable in a democracy, but elections don’t suffice to provide for a truly democratic environment.
Lesson nr. 2
The consolidation of a democratic system takes more time than we originally thought. One election conducted in an acceptable manner does not in itself constitute sufficient proof of the democratic legitimacy of a regime. Even after more than a decade of successive, undemocratic developments are still possible.
The weakness of most political parties in those lands is one explanation for this state of affairs, the lack of long democratic traditions is another (which again shows that democracies need time to take root), and the absence of mature, independent media might offer on more explanation.
Neither should one underestimate the effects of the lack of active engagement by the outside world, and in the first place by the European Union.
The European Union, its institutions and its member states demonstrate an appalling lack of seriousness in these issues. With all due respect, it is not by inviting Vladimir Putin to dine with the 27 Heads of State and of Government that the Union will succeed in pressing upon him the need to amend his ways.
Much the less so if the member states have only painstakingly and at the very last moment succeeded in agreeing upon a common approach. Okay, Europe is the champion of soft power, but this is too soft by far.
If we want these situations to change for the better, the European Union will need to grow up fast, and to develop a substantial foreign policy which consists of more than a list of declarations akin to the urgency resolutions of one of our congresses. (With all due respect for our urgency resolutions).
Needless to say, the queuing up of the European chancellors, prime ministers and various other ministers in the Kremlin, in the Ministries of Economy and Energy does not strengthen the seriousness of EU policies towards Russia and the region. It would be laughable if there wasn’t so much at stake.
Finally, what about democracy in our own states, the states of Old Europe as an American secretary infamously said.
Well, some of them are doing well. Others seem like tired, tired of their current leaders who are the way out anyway, tired of the constant competition, the perpetual need to change; and scared, scared of the changed demographics, scared of multiculturalism, scared of terrorism, scared of other religions.
In two nations, these facts and a number of others have led the electorates to reject the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union. The European Union, from a motive for pride, has been morphed into a motive for fatigue and scare. And what are our democratically elected leaders doing and what are our media doing?
To begin with, a number of them have changed from leaders into followers. They no longer lead the way; they follow the flock of voters. Voters have become mature, so the saying goes and therefore elected representatives must follow them, and do as the voters say. In France, a socialist candidate for the Presidency goes even further by proposing to create citizens’ juries to assess the performance of MP’s and ministers. And those who object are immediately accused of being either cowards our elitists.
The media generally love such developments, as they have no qualms to celebrate today and savage tomorrow whoever they choose for whatever reason they choose.
Of course elected mandate holder must be fully accountable, but the fact that they are elected should not be held against them, as now is too often the case.
All of this indicates that our democracies are in dire need of rejuvenation, and that the relationship between voters and representatives must be revisited and renewed.
Lest we do this, we won’t no longer be in a position to discuss the state of democracy on Europe with any semblance of legitimacy.
Liberalism is a political ideology founded on the principle that human beings have the inalienable right to pursue happiness as they see fit and that they should be free to do so as long as they don't harm others.
Annemie Neyts – Marrakech, November 2006
Belgium
