"A Dialogue on The Future of Democracy," The Future of Democracy Initiative
Printer Friendly

On April 4th, George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs recently presented The Future of Democracy Initiative on a Dialogue on the Future of Democracy with speakers Barry Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) of the U.S. Department of State and Ken Wollack, President of The National Democracy Institute (NDI).  This event was part of a series of lectures, workshops, seminars, and conferences as part of The George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs' "The Future of Democracy Initiative." to provide multi-faceted view of democracy, the first of which featured CCD Board Member Larry Diamond.

Lowenkron  stated that democracy promotion is an idea that has bipartisan support.  He added that in 2008, no matter who wins the election, democracy promotion will continue because  other actors, such as nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the Congress, and the American people in general will ensure that it does so.

Lowenkron then added that it is important to define what “democracy promotion” is since it can be so easily distorted.  There are three important ingredients in the concept of democracy promotion”:

1. A general level playing field and transparent/free elections, right of  assembly, and freedom of speech.
2. A process that is not over once there has been an election; good governance must be upheld after the election.
3. A fertile ground for an active civil society.

Lowenkron saidthat there is no “one size fits all” democracy.  He also stated that in a democracy there is no room for secrecy.  Secrecy always undermines the transparent nature of democracy.  He  said that it is important that “democracy promotion” is not viewed as linear.  In other words, progress cannot be viewed as a measurable steady process; in any given country where there always are “ups” and “downs”.  Also,  “pushbacks” against democracy must be expected, noting that 2006 was the “Year of the Pushback” around the world -- against NGOs, and also in places where governments attempted to redefine democracy.

Based on these observations, Lowenkron stated that although “Democracy promotion” will never be the sole focus of our foreign policy, it is crucial that it have a strong voice in foreign policy deliberations.

Lowenkron described the Global Human Rights Defenders Fund, which is being supported by U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.  He saw this as an important step in helping advance democracy around the world.  To successfully advance this agenda,  bipartisan support in the US and  vigorous defense of those who are defending human rights on the ground, around the world, is essential.

Ken Wollack said that this seminar is important in today’s context because the media, as well as various policy makers mischaracterize “democracy promotion.”

Wollack stated that “democracy promotion” cannot be exported;instead, through political globalization, good practices are learned from others.  These practices can be useful even if unsuccessful and must be shared rather than imposed.

Wollack stated that there are three difficulties that the U.S. is facing right now with regard to the area of “democracy promotion:”

1. The first  is to disassociate democracy from Iraq, which is perceived as the imposition democracy by use of military force. 
2. This policy has turned Americans and others against a previously popular administration, which now suffers from a loss of public support.
3. Democratic elections don’t always bring the results that the West is looking for (Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Palestine)

The results are unpredictable, but the question is whether the international community supports political systems.  People want the same things: freedom of religion, legislation, a roof over their head, and food on the table.  There is not necessarily one correct system.  We believe there is something we all have in common: human principle. 

Both Lowenkron and Wollack fielded several questions.  Regarding transitions to democracy around the world over time, Lowenkron and Wollack were asked, How much did the U.S. have to do with the world changing?  And how much of it would have happened on its own?

Lowenkron said that there was no question that the West was needed.  He said that if some situations were left to their own devices, at the end of the day democracy would not necessarily triumph.

Wollack said that from his experience, he knows that the South African government came to NDI to look at options, and NDI gave the government informed choices.  He went on to say that in these scenarios the outside world are not prime actors, but are supporting actors.  Ultimately it is a domestic struggle.

Next, they were asked, What is the U.S. is doing right and wrong in democracy promotion?

Lowenkron outlined a couple positive actions that the U.S. is carrying out in democracy promotion:

First, he said that the current administration should receive credit for introducing “democracy promotion” as a central policy.  Lowenkron pointed out that even during the 2000 election barely any foreign policy was mentioned.  This did not change until 9/11.  Lowenkron also added that conventional wisdom stated the globalization process was thought to “lift all boats;” the idea being that openness and good governance by themselves would resolve all issues.  However, maintaining a democracy proves to be just as crucial as electing leaders.

Secondly, Lowenkron said this administration is also responsible for bringing civil society to the forefront in the Middle East.

Lowenkron then listed some of the negatives of U.S. democracy promotion:

First, we need to define exactly what we mean by “democracy promotion.”  This definition has proved to be very elusive.

Secondly, we need to overcome the fact that this administration imposed democracy with a gun.

Third, when considering the first two points, we need to be consistent in our policy decisions.

Wollack took exception to Lowenkron’s statement implying that this administration brought democracy forth a central policy.  He said this is not true.  He used the previous administration as an example.  During the Clinton administration, democracy promotion was a central theme to their policy, especially in the Balkans.

Wollack stated that he felt strongly that much of the work needs to be done by NGOs.  Non-state actors have been successful over the past 20 years.  He said that organizations such as NDI can make an important difference.

He next listed some of the successes in U.S. democracy promotion, such as in the Philippines, Chile, and the Clinton administration successes in South Africa and Kosovo.

Wollack said that he is becoming disillusioned with the continued lax policy the United States has toward Saudi Arabia.  He added that it is imperative that the U.S. pushes Saudi Arabia harder in the areas of democracy and terrorism links.

A questioner asked the two panelists, When giving lectures around the world about U.S. democracy promotion how do you respond to those who criticize the U.S. over the abuses at Abu Graib?

Lowenkron said that he would never claim that democracy is infallible; rather, it is accountable.  This is why it important to have an engaged press and Congress, which are part of the democratic process.  Next Lowenkron said that no country that is perfect.  He described democracy as a journey.

Wollack said that such criticism implies that the U.S. is in promotion by itself.  Democracy is not an America enterprise; it is universal and serves mutual interests.

What should be the U.S. position toward the Russian elections?

Lowenkron said that if the U.S. were to hope for a winner, the winner to pick is a level playing field in the electoral process.  As it is, some parties cannot register.  In general, the right to assembly is impaired.  This, he said, needs to change.

Wollack said that the outcomes are not our business.  Processes are universal, which is what is most important.

Finally, what is your assessment for democracy 10 or 20 years down the road?

Lowenkron said that patience and persistence matters.  We have to anticipate “pushbacks.”  This debate will not go away, and those who seek change will ultimately succeed.

Wollack used Africa as an example.  He said that the number of leaders in Africa who left office when their term ended in the years 1980-1990 was 2, while from 1990-present the number is 40.  He believes that this is a clear sign that democracy has and will prevail.