Local Leadership in Democratic Transition

Competing Paradigms in International Peacebuilding

Kenneth A. Loparo

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137282507
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book provides an in-depth analysis into the ways in which local leaders impact internationally-led democratic transition. Using three key case studies, Burundi, Cambodia and Liberia, it re-evaluates current transition paradigms delivering a new framework for understanding the roles of local leaders in democratic transition and peacebuilding.

1

Local Leaders in Internationally Led Democratic Transitions

The commitment of the UN to liberal institutions has become increasingly evident during the past two decades. In fact, since 1990, more than half of the missions initiated by the UN Department of Peacekeeping have included some form of liberal institution-building. This allegiance to liberal ideology is even more apparent when considering missions undertaken in response to a civil war. More than 90 percent of those missions are mandated to assist in the establishment of liberal institutions. This chapter delves into the theoretical and practical origins of the democratic peace in UN peacebuilding. Since this book is focused on the political, or democratic, side of liberalism, it is necessary to probe into the meaning behind the words “democracy” and “democratic.” While “democracy” most certainly conjures up an understanding for each reader, that understanding is surprisingly vast and varied across individuals and institutions. For this work it is important to understand the meaning of “democracy” and “democratic institutions” from two perspectives: both the UN’s and mine. Understanding the foundations of the missions carried out by the UN will allow for a better understanding of the context of negotiations as well as the processes put in place during institution-building. At the same time, it is important to recognize my definition of the words in order to understand the lens through which I am providing and analyzing information, even if the reader holds a different understanding of “democratic.”

Defining democracy

Developing a universal definition of democracy is a dilemma that has challenged theorists and philosophers throughout decades of political thought. It is difficult to find agreement even as to whether it is a political system or an ideology. I would argue that it is an ideology that has developed from a political system such as that found in ancient Athenian culture. Because of the size and nature of states today, direct democracy as a political system has become obsolete. Instead, democracy is now an ideology that is incorporated into other political systems. Thus it has become a descriptor and we have “democratic” systems, such as representative democracies, as opposed to true democracies. As a descriptor of a political system, democracy means different things to different people. In order to determine the meaning for the purposes of this book, it helps to consider the word’s evolution in political thought as well as its entrance into and development within UN rhetoric.

Modern democratic theory has its foundations in the works of three main figures: Locke, Rousseau and Tocqueville. Incidentally, two of these theorists – Locke and Rousseau – were not endorsing democracy as a form of government in their writings. In fact, Rousseau suggested that it was a form of government only obtainable by gods.¹ Regardless, the characteristics of good governance that these philosophers promoted have become generally accepted elements of democratic government today. Although these individuals were writing in different periods and contexts, similar conclusions can be drawn from their philosophies.

The principle of equality is a central theme throughout the works of the three theorists. This is the foundation upon which any effective government must be based. Consequently, a system that does not ensure equality is bound to fail. Universal suffrage, another necessity for democracy, is closely related to the idea of equality. A government must be elected and approved by the entire population, and a government that is not acting appropriately may be removed by its constituents. From Locke’s property rights to Tocqueville’s freedom of the press, civil liberties are critical to all three writers’ definitions of appropriate government. This equality, liberty and universal suffrage must then be protected by another essential requirement for a functional government – effective legislation or rule of law. The law will not only maintain order but will also ensure that the institutions of democracy are effectively implemented. Lastly, the common good is an important central theme found across the works of Locke, Rousseau and Tocqueville. Where equality is the foundation of government, the common good is the ultimate objective, the raison d’etre. This must be the pursuit of any government that can be considered legitimate according to these writings.

The characteristics and essential elements of government presented by Locke, Rousseau and Tocqueville are maintained in contemporary discussions on the subject of democratic government. However, the twentieth century has seen a shift from theorizing about democracy to specifically defining it as well as measuring it. This has led to much debate about the most correct conceptualization of democracy in order to facilitate its study. Accepted definitions of democracy span a spectrum from the most basic or simplistic to more inclusive ones.

In his seminal work Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter “deconstructs” democracy and takes it to its most basic definition of “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.”² By limiting the definition of democracy, he intends to remove ambiguity created by utilizing a more comprehensive definition. Schumpeter states that no two countries are alike in ideology and need, and therefore it is difficult to compare their levels of democracy. A basic institutional definition allows us to more easily differentiate between democratic and non-democratic regimes. Schumpeter’s definition has survived much debate and is still prominent in current political theory. Samuel Huntington utilizes a similar definition in his work concerning the “wave” of democratization experienced in the latter part of the twentieth century.³ However, Huntington clarifies that this is to facilitate the study of the expansion and notes that the concept of democracy often entails more philosophical or ideological aspects, such as the liberal institutions, which are discussed further below.

Despite the obvious advantages of conceptualizing democracy in a more limited scope, the word often invokes a broader understanding. Robert Dahl describes democracy as a system that allows people to have direct or indirect rule which would allow for the maximization of the common good.⁴ This system would allow equal opportunity for participation, voting and access to the information required to make decisions. He identified eight institutions that would be necessary in order to ensure the above criterion. These include freedom to form and join organizations, freedom of expression, right to vote, right to hold office, right of political leaders to compete for support and votes, various sources of information, free and fair elections, and institutions for making government policies dependent on votes and other expressions of preference.⁵ In his discussions about the mechanisms of a democratic system, Dahl focused heavily on contestation. He proposed that as competitiveness was increased along with the sphere of inclusion, the system moved further along the spectrum of democracy. Another proponent of competition is Seymour Martin Lipset, whose definition of a democracy focuses on opposition. Lipset states that a democratic system provides “regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials … which permits the largest possible part of the population to influence these decisions through their ability to choose among alternative contenders for political offices.”⁶

Perhaps one of the most comprehensive definitions of democratic politics is provided by Larry Diamond.⁷ His definition contains elements focused on power, civil liberties and judiciary protection. In his discussion of authority, he states that power must rest with democratically elected officials who also control the military and must be balanced – for example, by judiciary and legislative bodies. Diamond’s civil liberties include the right to the organization of political parties and electoral competition, freedom of organization and movement, and easy access to information through free media. Furthermore, he states that individual rights, such as speech, assembly, demonstration and petition, must also be extended to the population. Minority groups are not restricted from the political process, and they maintain the right to speak their own languages and practice their own culture. Last is his emphasis on appropriate rule of law that is upheld by an independent judiciary. The law must have its basis in a constitution that upholds the fact that all citizens are equal in the law which protects citizens from injury, exile, detainment, torture and unnecessary interference in their personal lives by the state or any other individuals or associations.

Diamond’s definition incorporates virtually every form of protection and human right commonly accepted today without consideration for simplifying the conceptualization of democracy. This represents the other end of the spectrum from Schumpeter’s very basic definition. The two ends of the spectrum can be identified by the terms “electoral democracy” and “liberal democracy.” Electoral democracy requires a system in which officials are elected by popular vote either as individual candidates or through party lists. This definition focuses on the mechanisms of the political system. Liberal democracy is a more inclusive definition that has the same elements of electoral democracy but also includes components of a more ideological nature. These would include human rights, civil and political liberties, and overall equality. Thus a liberal democracy is always an electoral democracy, but an electoral democracy is not necessarily liberal.

In addition to the theoretical basis of this approach, there is also empirical evidence available which indicates that liberal institutions assist in the stabilization factor of democracy. In Gurr’s research on causes of non-governmental political violence, “persistent deprivation” was the strongest indicator.⁸ This was measured by an index containing six components, three of which were related to some form of discrimination, such as economic, political and educational. The inclusion of liberalized institutions in a democratic government protects the populace from such discrimination. Guillermo and Schmitter maintained that true democracy could not exist without liberalization.⁹ Individual rights that result from liberal institutions prevent the democratic system from being reduced to a simple formal arrangement.

Democracy as constructed by the UN

The UN has been committed to liberal ideas since its inception in 1945. Its charter is designed within a liberal framework based on human rights, self-determination, social justice and freedom, with an overall purpose of building global peace. These ideas were further codified with the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which classified rights into three categories: civil, political and socioeconomic. The universal human rights outlined in the UDHR are extremely comprehensive and representative of liberal democratic systems.

These liberal leanings and the commitment to democracy have continued through the rhetoric and actions of the UN over the past seven decades, and have become even more evident since the breakdown of the Cold War and increased involvement in peacebuilding. In An Agenda for Peace (1992), the then-secretary-general for the UN, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, stated that “democracy at all levels is essential to attain peace for a new era of prosperity and justice” (Article 82). In his discussion concerning the internal affairs of members of the international community, he expounds on his definition of democracy, stating that “Democracy within nations requires respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as set forth in the Charter (Article 81).” This focus on democracy has continued under the leadership of Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon. At the 2005 World Summit the member states reaffirmed their commitment to democracy and stated in the outcome document that

democracy is a universal value [my emphasis] based on the freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of their lives. We also reaffirm that while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy, that it does not belong to any country or region, and reaffirm the necessity of due respect for sovereignty and the right of self-determination. We stress that democracy, development and respect for all human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.

Though the declaration states that there is no “single model” of democracy, it emphasizes democracy as a universal value, self-determination and the inclusion of human rights. In his “Guidance Note” on democracy, Ban Ki-moon clarifies the features of a democratic system which the UN should be promoting, including elections, rule of law, strong civil society, human rights, pluralism and democratic education.¹⁰

The UN’s characterization of democracy is also apparent in the individual mandates for the various peace missions over the past two decades, as over 90 percent of transition processes carried out in post– civil war countries included the construction and/or support of liberal institutions. This includes promoting and protecting human rights, upholding the rule of law and establishing judiciary processes, building electoral institutions and implementing elections, promoting pluralism through political party building and rebuilding, and reinforcing public services. In addition, many of these missions include the drafting and adoption of new constitutions. In most cases these constitutions are some of the most liberal in the world, even more so than many well-established democracies. The design of most peacebuilding missions indicates that international peacebuilding organizations are attempting to create democratic states that are closer to the all-inclusive end of the spectrum.

The UN does not act under a mandate that only includes implementing elections; the mandates also include the establishment of the various institutions necessary to maintain a democracy, such as human rights, rule of law and pluralism. The various aspects of democracy are important because they are mutually reinforcing. If people are to be self-governed, they must have the right to express their preferences. The appropriate systems must exist to avert absolute power regimes, as many autocratic leaders today have in fact been “elected.” Furthermore, they must have processes that allow the population to hold their officials accountable, and the ability to remove them from office if they are unresponsive to constituent needs. Democratic institutions are also necessary for protection, not only from the government but also from others. For instance, a strong judiciary is important to protect minority rights ( Table 1.1).

For this book, measures of democracy are drawn from the ideas presented in classical democratic thought and contemporary definitions, and are employed to adapt the concept to present-day examples in order to create a lens with which to examine the actions of the leadership in this analysis. The common themes found in the writings of Locke, Rousseau and Tocqueville were equality, universal suffrage, civil liberties, effective legislation or rule of law, and the common good. These themes have maintained their validity across the centuries and continue to be the basis of democratic theory today. They are also at the heart of the definition of democracy to be utilized for this study. In order to facilitate analysis, I have deconstructed democracy into the various elements that reflect the previous discussion of democracy, though perhaps under new labels. Table 1.2 presents the list of concepts that are included in my definition of democracy – civil rights, political openness, public interest and rule of law. As discussed earlier, equality is prevalent throughout democratic theory and is the premise on which all other conclusions are drawn in the development of democratic theory. Because of this, equality may be grouped with other elements of democracy, such as civil liberties and political opennes...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables and Figures
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Local Leaders in Internationally Led Democratic Transitions
• 2. Cambodia
• 3. Liberia
• 4. Burundi
• 5. Re-Evaluating the Transition Paradigm
• 6. Shifting the Transition Paradigm
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index