“Democratic Consolidation and its Challenges”

I confess that I do not regard the morning as the most congenial time, in which to engage in enlightened discourse.

People, unhappily wrenched from the warm protective comfort of their beds, are instinctively resistant to anything radical or new or even mildly provocative! My favorite cartoon character, Garfield the Cat, once remarked,… “I would like mornings better if they started later” . Even before that piece of sage feline comment was articulated, I am told that Confucius – the well of wisdom – once remarked… “Man who makes speech in morning, takes himself too seriously”.

However, I am lucky. I have been preceded by Annette Lu, whose constructive, hopeful but perceptive, speech, belied that conclusion, quite evidently invigorated all with her thought, and set a standard hard for me to match.

Also it will be impossible to avoid some repetition: I am after all treading the same ground.

Let me start with some definitions: democracy, no more than human rights, is not static; it is an evolving concept. Quite evidently it is not only about regular, free, elections, providing an opportunity for the population of a state to change its rulers; though that is the start. It is much more than simple majoritarianism. Indeed it can be said that unalloyed majoritarianism can be undemocratic which is one of the reasons I personally have reservations about referenda. While perhaps needed to play a confirmatory role early in the transition process becoming integral to government, long term.

Let me be clear about this and, for a moment, depart from my written text. I accept that there are particular circumstances where it may be necessary to establish a people’s will and a people’s solidarity.

And that, in Taiwan, this is such a moment.

May I also recommend to you a long article in the International Herald Tribune, of some weeks ago, by a refugee from the Tiananmen Square massacre, now resident in Taiwan. He dealt more poignantly with President Chirac’s remarks than ever I could.

I would only say as a convinced European, proud of our shared inheritance, which includes the enormous contribution made by French thinkers, I was ashamed of what President Chirac said.

I would identify five principal features of a settled or consolidated democracy though, even if these were achieved, the interplay between the right and the left and the liberals while better facilitated, will not only, not discontinue, but will be enriched.

Firstly, the population should be offered political choice, resting on accepted political structures. This is where the political parties come in. this will be addressed directly in the next session so I would only say that there are dangers on the international flight from ideology. If the choice presented to the people has not emotional component and become simply a competition between management groups it is unlikely to engender passion. And passion is needed – passion with justice – to fight one’s way through the pudding of inertia, or passive acceptance, which remains the dominant characteristic of most societies in their response to political argument. We should never forget in our proper enthusiasm for democracy that a substantive number of people place security, financial and personal, well ahead of theoretical considerations of freedom! Integral to the political structure must also be that most difficult concept for a new democracy: the idea of a “loyal opposition” which, while opposing governmental propositions, defends the political structure, which gave it the power to make them.

Secondly, there must be an, at least relatively free, media with TV, and the new technology of the Internet, more and more important each day. I found it commonplace in former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe for those in power to point to the print media as evidence of their dedication to free speech and pluralism despite the normally very limited newspapers circulation. At the same time they did not hesitate to exercise a controlling influence on T.V. with national coverage and hugely greater impact. I witnessed this, most recently during observation of the Russian elections, where, United Russia, President Putin’s Party, were given an immense advantage, reflected in the outcome. My reaction to that experience was to assert that no elections could be really free and fair unless a consciously impartial public-service broadcasting system existed.

Even in the more settled- though gravely flawed- circumstances of the United States, one has just witnessed the awesome power of the medium when the governor of California, Arnold Schwarznegger, by means of the series of TV broadcast changed support for certain financial proposal from 27 % to 50% …in ONE week. Controlling the Internet I am told is much more difficult, though I understand the People’s Republic of China is diligently trying!

Thirdly, a reliable bureaucracy, able on the one hand, at the higher level, to serve governments of the different political persuasions with equal loyalty, and in the work-place, to deal continuously and properly with the public.

Fourthly, that the law is respected; that judges are impartial; that the prosecution service and the Police proceed only within the law. In former authoritarian regimes where justice was often- and in respect of so-called political crimes always – arbitrary, the change has, and continuous to be, difficult. Much of the unpublicized but most important work of the Council of Europe has focused on training of judges and police.

Fifthly, the existence of a civil society; unregulated NGO’s; trade unions; professional associations; interest groups; should be regarded as complementing rather than competing with political structures. International Human Rights Groups such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and Memorial have also been invaluable.

Taken together, those features will produce what the political scientists, Linz and Stepan called a “constraint-embedded state”, which means a state that cares for its people and also cares what they think.

It sounds ideal and consequently is not often realized, while it must always be reached after. Perhaps the Scandinavian countries have approached it.

If established, what challenges might threaten its balance?

Here the list is short but potent.

The first and most significant is economic failure, with which I couple corruption, crime and security.

The second are ethnic or nationalist and/or religious differences.

The third is media information distortion which, if manipulated skillfully, as it was in Rwanda & Yugoslavia and, long ago, in Hitler’s Germany, can do devastating damage. But I have already spoken about this, so I won’t repeat myself.

Ethnic and religious questions, in my impression, are less virulent in Asia then in the Middle East, Europe and Africa, although there are many areas of concern: I don’t forget India and Pakistan and Kashmir, or the Malaysian Chinese crisis or Australia and the Aborigines or of course the People’s Republic…Falun Gong, Tibet and so on.

So I will only say that in this respect, you are fortunate in Taiwan though I feel required to remark that the continuance of this good fortune is related to the opportunities and voice afforded to the Indigenous Formosan population.

In Europe, we were appalled by the vicious, unforgiving savagery, which accompanied the break up of the former Yugoslavia. What gives special reason for alarm was the sheer atavism of it. Srebrenica and other terrible acts did not derive from economic desperation but from ferocious nationalist and religious prejudices. The liberal democrat must never underestimate the latent power of these emotion-fuelled attitudes or ignore the need to counter them.

To this section I would add that perhaps self-evident but necessary comment that democracy cannot survive, unless there is a clear separation between Church and State. Theocracy is not a democracy.

The most recent example of this, in practice is Iran and its sad sham elections.

I turn lastly to Economics, which I sometimes feel is more closely aligned to necromancy than science but which provides or denies the conditions for a good life, … or, even, a bearable life, although it remains, at best, an uncertain activity which, for individual states – especially small ones or indeed any not protected by a cooperative umbrella like the EU – globalization has made it even harder to regulate. I would take the opportunity to remark, en passant, that the doctrines of the World Bank do not always have a benign effect on nascent democracies although I will not pursue the issue of the behavior of the economically developed to the economically underdeveloped, important as it is and despite its influence on all we are talking about this weekend.

What is clear is that economic failure always threatens democracy. It is seen as a contrast to the situation, under the command economies of authoritarianism, which concealed their lack of growth – and therefore lack of health – but subsidization beyond the capacity of their budget. For example, the DDR (East Germany) held bus, tram plus rail fares to 1939 levels and house rents! It breeds discontents and marks a space for populist to pedal simple solutions, which may often, include targeting of an ethnic identifiable group as Hitler did with the Jews. Linz and Stepan remark in their joint essay “when people’s assessments about policies are positive they can provide a valuable cushion for painful economic restructuring” but if this is not so; if the elements, and earlier listed are not in place and the whole situation is further exacerbated by widespread and evident corruption; bribery at every level of the bureaucratic process; contracts won by criminal connections; privatizations which made a few extraordinary rich (as the Russian oligarchs) and impoverished the of national Treasury, then the risk of break down is high. These conditions existed in Moldova and Georgia: both will find it difficult to emerge to reliable stability.

Countering these challenges cannot be said to be easy but the methodology is straightforward. Where the state is involved in commerce there must be transparency. So, any asset sale or tendering for public works must be conducted openly. The legislators, like Caesar’s wife, must be above reproach and should have an enforceable code of conduct. The Scandinavian idea of an Ombudsman has proved valuable, wherever introduced.

A speech of 20 minutes or so on so diverse a subject, with so many facets: each with its own shining face, inevitably ends up as a kind of laundry list of assertions, which is what I have given you.

Most of them are in the practical field of what should be done and what should be avoided.

But, if you are dedicated liberals, you need more. Good managerial systems are necessary and to be applauded but the whole will not come together in harmony without belief, enduring, courage and conviction.

In past times, when I felt downcast, I always recalled the wonderful words of William the Silent of the Netherlands during the long, seemingly interminable war with Spain in the late sixteenth century.

He was asked what was the point of going on, when the chance of success was so slim and the challenges and obstacles so intimidating.

He replied – and since I heard it first in French, I will quote it in French, and then translate it into English – with just a little poetic license.

He said…

“Il n’est pas necessaire d’espérer à faire,

It is not necessary to hope, to do what is right,

“ …ni de réussir, à persister.

Nor to succeed to persist.”

And, finally, he won.

__________________