With the celebrations of the Liberal International’s first half century behind us, an opportunity offers itself to draw conclusions on the development of the organisation in its first 50 years, and to reflect upon future developments.
The question that should legitimately put after 50 years of organised international Liberalism is: Does Liberal International still have something to say? And Does Liberal International still have something to do?
The Deputy President, Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, in Oxford accurately summed up the development by emphasising how LI was in its origin an organisation of individuals and became a federation of political parties (and groups). Count Lambsdorff defined the task of Liberal International during his presidency as “becoming more effective and more efficient”; and this policy continued under his successors Lord Steel and Frits Bolkestein. Liberal International has become truly a world organisation and the world’s political situation offers many opportunities and challenges for the further development of the organisation. This is true both for the role that LI plays in enhancing the cohesion between different Liberal parties (internal tasks) and in its function of the global promotion of Liberalism (external tasks).
As was pointed out at the Oxford Congress by the President and other speakers, the emphasis in the political geography of Liberal International has shifted away from Western Europe. This was underlined by the holding of the first ever Executive Committee meeting outside Europe (in Dakar in 1996) and the proposal to organise a future meeting in Latin America.
The position of Liberal International in Latin America has improved in recent years. There are now four significant member parties (Paraguay, Brazil, Nicaragua and Honduras) and promising contacts with parties or with significant groups and individuals in such countries as Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Mexico. The PFL (Brazil) is putting an effort into getting regional co-operation of Latin American liberals off the ground. Liberal International should continue to be supportive of these developments. The presence of a prominent Latin American Liberal, President Alemán at the Oxford Congress was significant. Count Lambsdorff, Lord Steel and Frits Bolkestein have all visited Latin America and this has contributed to an awareness of the possibilities that co-operation with other liberal parties offers. Although the cost of this is somewhat prohibitive, Liberal International should increase working relations with their Latin American partners, in co-operation with the FNSt and the ELDR Group in the European Parliament.
As regards our partnership with the Federation of Liberal Parties in Central America and the Caribbean (FELICA): all signs are that FELICA has folded and should be taken off our list of affiliates.
The political development in Africa is different. In some countries, most notably South Africa and Senegal and up to a point Malawi and Tanzania, political parties are identifiable and form the basis of the political systems. Of these, the future developments in South Africa will be crucial for the development of democracy in Africa. The formation of political parties is at an earlier stage in most other countries that are developing towards a fully fledged democracy. Liberal International will have to display a degree of flexibility in adapting to changing political constellations. Nevertheless, the development of relations with Liberal parties in Africa, beginning in earnest during Lord Steel’s Presidency, has been more successful than could be expected.
Most African parties are poor, which inhibits their active participation in Liberal International. Regional co-operation can be an answer to this, and the establishment of the Organisation of the African Liberal Parties (OALP) is therefore very welcome. Thus far the OALP has met, financed by European institutions, and it is unlikely that these funds will continue to be forthcoming on a regular basis. The ultimate responsibility for the development of their own regional organisation lies therefore with the African parties themselves. The role of Liberal International will increasingly become that of an active supporter, rather than initiator. However, it is unlikely that the OALP will be able to find funds in the same way as is possible on other continents, a problem that is compounded by the size of the continent and the difficult travel connections. In the short run, the option of “sub-regional” co-operation (for example in Western Africa, Eastern Africa, Southern Africa), if possible within the framework of OALP, must be given serious consideration. Naturally it is up to the African parties to decide whether they wish to follow such a path.
The development of Liberalism in Asia, particularly in East and South-East Asia is encouraging. Liberal International maintains relations with liberals and liberal groups and parties, and in some cases institutionalised relations. The awareness of the existence of international Liberal co-operation is specially strong in our affiliated parties in the Philippines and Taiwan, and also in Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Hong Kong. The development towards more democracy in Indonesia also offers opportunities for international liberalism.
The Asian Liberals and Democrats have their own regional organisation (CALD). In co-operation with the FNSt, Liberal International can continue to build on existing contacts. We cannot expect a dramatic increase in affiliation from this region in the near future, but should nevertheless seek ways to involve Asian liberals in our work.
The continuing failure of Liberal International to attract interest of substance in the worlds largest democracy, India, is worrying and an effort should be put into increasing the awareness of the existence of our organisation in that country.
As regards the Middle East, apart from our well known membership in Israel there have been contacts with parties and groups in Jordan and the Lebanon and with Palestinian groups. The affiliation of Tunisian Liberals could assist in developing relations with liberals in the Islamic world. This is an important challenge for LI in years to come.
In Australia and New Zealand contacts were developed in recent years which have led to applications for affiliation. Another visit may be useful to build on this. These are two established democracies with a long-standing democratic tradition and LI can not afford to neglect these.
In Europe, the development of liberal parties in the new democracies, and the relations of Liberal International with them has become more steady. Liberal International has partners in Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia, Macedonia, Estonia and Montenegro. We can now add Rumania, the Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania and Albania and possibly the Czech Republic to this list. Both in Bulgaria and Croatia organised liberalism has a difficult time, however there is no doubt that in both countries liberalism has a potential. Further afield there are promising developments in such countries such as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The two big challenges for Liberal International are the development of relations with Russian and Polish liberals. The presence of Grigori Yavlinsky at the Oxford Congress and the commitment which he made to Liberal International are a positive development. It is essential that Liberal International in co-operation with FNSt and liberal groups in the European Parliament and in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe swiftly builds on this. Liberal International should send a study visit to Russia in the course of 1998, and in due course should consider the organisation of an event, perhaps in co-operation with others such as the aforementioned organisations or the NDI. Another challenge remains the development of relations with Poland. Although there are undoubtedly many liberals in this large country, they are preoccupied with the developments within Poland and neither ourselves nor any other liberal organisation has been able to interest them in (let alone establish) international relations. The organisation of a seminar, similar to the one organised by the LI Bureau in Italy in 1997, could be a first step.
In the EU and EFTA region the position of liberal parties is generally healthy, particularly with reference to the United Kingdom, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Andorra, Luxembourg, Iceland and Catalunya. They have a strong regional organisation, in the ELDR Party. In Norway liberals returned to government. Sweden and Germany face elections later this year, where it is crucial that the liberal parties have a satisfactory result.
The end of 1997 also saw a positive turn for the development of relations with liberals in Italy and France, both of which require a serious follow up in 1998.
Moreover, in addition to the relations with the liberals in the Parliamentary of the Council of Europe and ELDR Party, with whom relations were already good, the ELDR Group in the European Parliament have re-activated their membership of Liberal International and this offers many opportunities for co-operation in the field of international relations and Human Rights.
Apart from Catalunia, the Iberian Peninsula remains a difficult area. A new liberal organisation in Portugal established contact with Liberal International late in 1997, and it remains to be seen how this will develop. As regards Spain, Liberal International should consider organising a seminar in Madrid similar to the one organised in Rome in 1997.
As regards North America we welcome the increased emphasis that the Liberal Party of Canada puts on its work with Liberal International, including Prime Minister Chrétien. The Liberal Party of Canada, being the government of a G-7 country, builds the image of international liberalism.
It is also encouraging to note that the relations with the NDI (USA) are excellent, which is important since much of their work lies in promoting democracy and civil society outside the United States and is thus of relevance for our work. Nevertheless, what one of my predecessors, Urs Schoetli, once described as our greatest challenge remains – the finding of a political party or group of significance in national politics in the United States. Only the Conservatives succeeded in finding such a partner in the USA, the Republican Party, and no other International has. Good relations exists on an individual level, but none of this is institutionalised. Whilst it is unlikely that we shall succeed in this overnight, Liberal International should send a study visit to the United States, or organise an activity in co-operation with some of our friends in that country, or both, in order to increase the profile of Liberal International at a time when many politicians in that country seem receptive to the ideas that Liberal Parties are promoting across the globe.
As the number of regional liberal organisations increases, LI will have to consider the relationships it entertains with them. LI will continue as an organisation of individual parties, and at the same time it could be useful to develop a special line of communication with the regional organisations. For example, in due course they could be given the status of Cooperating Organisation or a similar status, so that they have a non-voting seat on the LI Executive Committee.
Liberal International will only sustain its current growth, if we remain (and become more) meaningful for the daily work of our affiliated parties. With the adoption of “The Liberal Agenda for the 21st Century” LI put flesh on the bone of its role to promote liberal thinking. The new manifesto was extensively discussed for over a year, and the outcome is a document of clarity and with a relevance for industrialised as well as developing countries. The document can only be judged in conjunction with the Oxford Manifesto of 1947, and it has built on that document by being more assertive about the liberal identity, and by being more uncompromising on issues that are essential to liberalism such as the building of pluralism and a civil society, and the role of human rights and free trade. Throughout the new manifesto as adopted by the Congress, we find the notion that before anything else individual liberty and responsibility are our core values. At the same time, by (narrowly) defeating the important amendment 32, the Congress indicated that while putting the emphasis on the role of the individual, it did not wish Liberalism to be seen as a purely anti-state philosophy. Once the dust on the battlefield of the manifesto debate has settled, we shall see that the text has indeed something fresh to offer.
Congress also adopted the resolution “The World Today”, the comprehensive resolution on foreign policy issues. This resolution is adopted at every congress, and is an important barometer for the thinking in the international liberal movement about contemporary foreign policy issues. Again, there is a strong emphasis on the promotion of free trade and on human rights, particularly the abolishment of capital punishment and the establishment of an international criminal court, which are issues of increasing international significance. Another issue that has received much attention is the fight against international crime. On all these issues Liberal International and liberal parties have something meaningful to say.
There was a general view at the Congress in Oxford that Liberal International should do more by way of networking members of parliament. The office in London currently builds a database to be used for communication in writing and on the Internet. In due course we may be able to do something similar for local and regional politicians. Particularly in the field of promoting liberal democracy and human rights Liberal International should develop and carry out more concrete activities. What is needed is not so much the development of grand schemes, but the implementation of existing ideas. The office in London cannot do this alone, and will have to co-operate with the staff of member parties and moreover with ELDR, SILC, NDI and FNSt.
Liberal International is an important source of information on the development of global liberalism. All too often this source remains untapped. The office in London must actively disseminate this information, and thus promote LI as a service and information centre for the affiliated parties.
In future years Liberal International should also keep an open eye for new developments and ensure that there is a liberal viewpoint on this. This includes the further development of global cooperation (“the new world order”)and the future of the concept of the ‘nation state’, the development of the global information society, and the problem of poverty not only in developing countries but also in the industrialised world. In all these fields specific liberal answers are needed, and we can build on ideas that were formulated in the past.
LI also offers a platform, where politicians can develop new ideas without being bound by the compromises that national politics so often forces upon them. Therefore LI remains uniquely suited for the development of new fundamental and ideological ideas.
Fringe meetings and study sessions at Congresses and seminars organised in conjunction with Executive Committee meetings are excellent opportunities to further develop these ideas.
Finally, we continue to receive requests from individuals across the world whether they can join Liberal International. Individual Membership is no longer used, and does not fit very well in the development towards a federation of parties and groups. At the same time, it could be useful to channel the enthusiasm of individuals (many of whom are from countries where LI does not have an affiliate) by supporting a separate structure for them, loosely attached to Liberal International. There is no need for LI to initiate such a structure, but it could have its benefits for the long-term development of global liberalism – therefore if an initiative were taken LI should give consideration to supporting it.
Networking, co-ordination and the development of ideas are without doubt important tasks of Liberal International. These are internal tasks. At the same time Liberal International works as an international Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO). LI has consultative status with both the United Nations (ECOSOC) and the Council of Europe. We have some doubt about the effectiveness of the NGO structures of these organisations, and with some exceptions (such as the Women’s conference in Beijing and the Human Rights conference in Vienna) their usefulness for an organisation such as Liberal International is limited. The practical problems involved in participating as an NGO in UN meetings, which often last several weeks, make it virtually impossible for Liberal International, and politicians wishing to represent Liberal International, to effectively participate in these meetings. At the same time Liberal International can use its official status to bring viewpoints to the attention of governments, and to increase its external profile. This does not always require a physical presence at meetings.
As an NGO Liberal International can also perform a role in promoting democracy in those countries where we do not have affiliates. This is a costly matter, and depends on co-operation with others and on finding additional funding. The independent income of Liberal International is limited, and this is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. However, Liberal International has a pool of intellectual resources that should be put to more use.
Liberal International has something to say that would not be said without us. LI has something to do that cannot be done as well by others. LI must continue to change, towards becoming more efficient and more effective.
Important challenges lie ahead for Liberal International:
At the same time the resources of the organisation will, on the whole, remain limited. However, by emphasising that the organisation has a dual role, namely the promotion of ideas and the implementation of activities, Liberal International can increase its effectiveness in years to come. The annual Prize for Freedom and the new Hall of Freedom (in Switzerland) are focus points on which we can build in our further activities.
Jules Maaten,
February 1998
