The Copenhague meeting was a landmark in international relations. It took place after long years of tensions as a result of the Russian Bolchevic coup d’Etat in October 1917 and the cold war that followed 1945-1948.
The Helsinki meeting of the CSCE in 1975 did not lead to any change and it was only after the December 1, 1988 electoral law of Gorbachev that a new era begun.
Gorbatchev opened the XII session of the IX legislature by saying “Comrades, it can be said without exaggeration that the proposal of the law on the elections of the people’s representatives of the Soviet Union which you will work upon is a radical reform of our electoral system.” Later he added: “The most important factor is that the new law enables the presence of more than one candidate for one seat. So that there will be a choice.” Perestroika and glasnost lead to the Polish 1989 electoral law and enabled the United States to include in the Copenhague document of 1990 the notion of free and regular elections.
We will concentrate on a question which could not have been foreseen not only in the Copenhague document but in the early international documents of the United Nations: those of 1948, 1966, 1976, “The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, article 21 of the implementation says “The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society...”
The Convention 124 of April 24, 1986 of the Council of Europe is often referred to. It deals with the acknowledgement of the legal status of international NGOs . Article 1 states that all members of the convention admit NGOs whose status has been approved by another member state. This convention dates back to 1986 whereas the freedom of association (NGOs) that exists in France dates back to 1901 and is limited to a declaration and no authorization of an administrative body is required. All this is wonderful but the international environment has changed so have the financial aspects of national NGOs.
The United States has a current tax code that gives deductions for the value of donations and is a way to avoid the capital gains tax. Anyone who has assets should take advantage of tax saving opportunities related to charitable giving. This has lead also to a number of huge charitable fund organizations that advise and do the paperwork required. One of these organizations has assets of 98 billion US dollars (December 2007, The Vanguard Press).
Huge sums of money go to US NGOs and these tax exempt savers such as the Ford Foundation, Soros ... go freely into Eastern Europe and the Ex Soviet Union.
The OSCE has followed the Council of Europe in a non comital sort of a way. While studying NGOs participation (Vienna 1995) it accepts as a definition of an NGO “any organization declaring itself as such.” The only attempt at a classification is “cause oriented activist groups” or “specific political interests.”
At the October 3, 1991 Moscow meeting (Article 43.1) the OSCE had declared that the participating states will recognize as NGOs those that declare themselves as such according to existing national procedures and will facilitate the ability of such organizations to conduct their activities freely on their territories.
The OSCE had gone much farther when it said “the right of everyone, individually or in association with others, to seek, receive and impart freely views and information ...”(Copenhague meeting of 29 June 1990, article 10.1) It had also opened the door to “voluntary financial contributions from national and international sources as provided for by law.”
The introduction of a “civil society” independent of state control seemed like a good way of bringing freedom of association to countries where the population had been forced to belong to state-organized institutions. This was fine and should be kept. But time has gone by and after 18 years we can assess what has happened to our “civil society”. “Civil society” can be divided into three categories. The first consists of the humanitarian organizations, those developing individual initiatives in the fields of education, health, trade unions. The second category are the NGOs that are either public or privately funded and that help in organizing governments or political parties, general assistance in drafting laws, regulations. All this can be classified as “assistance”. The third consists of internationally funded domestic NGOs that have political activities, mainly observation or organizing politically related maters such as public speaking, political demonstrations, publications before and, at times, after the election. The first two we mentioned represents the way the old democracies can work with evolving ones, together for the common good.
For the third category of NGOs more information is needed. How much money is involved ? Hos does this rime with national political sovereignty ? Have you heard of OTPOR, KMARA or PORA ? Maybe not but you have seen these “spontaneous” gatherings or well organized youngsters parading in the streets of certain cities in the East of Europe and the ex USSR? Well that’s it!
They are using one of the 198 methods of non violent protest and persuasion published by Gene Sharp in 1973. Gene Sharp is a US scholar who has been writing since the 1960s. For example, he wrote “The Politics of Non Violent Action.” Until the collapse of the Soviet Union his writings were not fully applied in real life. Dictatorships do not allow kids running about the street expressing their opinions. Gene Sharp’s ideas include catchy slogans, wry humour. Detractors will call his media-friendly tactics “civic blackmail”. Since 1990 things have changed. Gene Sharp’s ideas have now been taken up by political NGOs who wish to topple elected leaders who do not satisfy. The first was in Madagascar, then by the youngsters in Yugoslavia’s Milosevitch who were going about the streets crying OTPOR, hence their name, and they got him. After this success the next step was Georgia. This was easy: Shevarnadze was a democrat and the kids in open trucks were able to parade through Tbilissi with white banners carrying the slogan KMARA (enough). The cost of the Georgian effort is said to have been $500,000. Ukraine was also fairly easy as they told Radio Free Europe that they were there two years before the election. The slogan now was PORA (it’s time!). Unfortunately, these marches can get out of hand and the Armenians reacted as well as they could to these “guerillas without guns” and the chosen leader, the ex president from 1996 to 1998, who was again candidate to the job, Ter Petrossian, finished in house arrest. There was no doubt about his election defeat but was he paid, were they paid, how much and by whom ?
Well funded international organisations can be associated in the work of strengthening evolving democracies. Even then there is sometimes doubts as to the quality of the assistance given. International observation, whoever is doing it, is not consistent either. We read about “the lack of confidence the electoral process” while the turnout is 70%. In the same preliminary report we read that there were some critical points which are named but “Most could not be substantiated and in some instances appeared overstated.” What are our internationals observing, facts or hearsay?
International assistance also has a tendency to favor parliamentary systems instead of presidential ones. Is this appropriate when applied to countries that were once governed by an all powerful and non democratic state ? Citizens do not want powerless governments and this is what happens when governments cannot last the time of their mandate. The parliamentary systems of Western Europe can stay months without governments. Is this what we want to export ?
Evolving democracies lack electoral influence structures which can limit the weak party effect of proportional systems. But are our drafters of electoral systems aware of this? Do they now that electoral systems can either integrate at party level (majoritarian systems) or reproduce the segregation that exists at societal level (proportional list systems).
The international organizations to which can be added public-funded NGOs, mostly from the US, have done good work but the performance is not regular (for example, underestimating the difficulties and the time needed to computerize at national level the voter register or a registration and appeals commission that was useless for the first election and had to be completely reorganized.)
What about domestic observation?
For the first two or three elections (parliamentary or presidential) of a nation that is a newcomer to democracy, many nationals who are interested in politics are wary of these new parties. On the other hand, it is obvious that democracy is there, whether in activity of the political parties, in their posters or their varied discourse. It is quite clear in the main cities but in out of way places the old municipality members are still there and there is, of course, the police... Then, why not become an observer. It is considered to be above the fray, it involves you in this new thing called democracy and, last but not least, you are paid.
If national observation becomes a permanent fixture of the democratic environment it drains it of potential political party members. This is too bad because it is political parties which are the pillars of democracy.
No national observation is neutral. Officially it is but all the members are individually biased.
When you interact with these NGOs it becomes obvious that they are not neutral. If there is a change in the elected authorities, you find some of the NGO leaders either part of the new government or in key positions.
So what happens?
We find two consequences. First, the authorities will try to restrain their activities using legal means or a very liberal implementation of the rules . Second: the same authorities will start putting in place their own “civil society” associations.
So what can be expected in the foreseeable future? The NGOs of the authorities fighting it out against the opposition NGOs, report against report, declaration against declaration, demonstration against demonstration. The political arena becomes double:
NGOs VERSUS NGOs
They depend, of course, on ideology but also on funding from local sources and from abroad. It is undeniable that in many countries the international and foreign funding available is vastly superior to domestic possibilities. The fact that civil (political) society can be funded by foreign money make them indebted to them. Just now there is one country that has put itself in a situation where it has become a pawn in international politics while it is sinking in a deepening economic crisis. Can these pawns be taken as examples of furthering democracy?
POLITICAL PARTIES AGAINST POLITICAL PARTIES
They depend on the voters. When they are elected they are in power; when they loose, they are in opposition.
In 1990 there was no trust in the way members of the communist party could deal with democratic elections so the international community stepped in as a substitution.
The OSCE is a recognized and dynamic organisation. The 1975 Helsinki document was a for-runner. The 1990 Copenhague document was there to apply it to a blossoming new world. Now, after 18 years the OSCE states will undoubtedly take the right steps to adapt to evolving conditions. What about suggestions on updating the 1990 Copenhague document?
We have seen that the Copenhague document can be considered as a landmark. It was a new era and no one could have predicted how the document would be implemented but we have to take into account that paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are considered the foundation. Paragraphs 3, 5, 10 and 24 are also often mentioned.
Article 7.5
The word “organizations” would be left out and read thus: “Respect the right of citizens to seek political or public office individually or as representatives of political parties without discrimination.”
Reason: Parties are the pillars of democracy and the word “organizations” could bring confusion.
Article 7.6
The following words would be left out “or other political organization....and organisations.”
Reason : Same reason as for article 7.5 and the fact that 7.7, which deals with political campaigning, does not mention “organization”.
Article 7.6 would read this way: “respect for the right of individuals and groups to establish, in full freedom, their own political parties and provide such political parties with the legal guarantees to enable them to compete with each other on a basis of equal treatment before the law and by the authorities.”
Article 7.8
The words “political groupings” would be replaced by “political parties” “Provide that no legal or administrative obstacle stands in the way of unimpeded access to the media on a non-discriminatory basis for all political parties and individuals wishing to participate in the electoral process.”
Reason: same reason as for 7.5 and 7.6.
Article 8
The whole article should be written thus: “The participating states consider that the presence of foreign and domestic observers can enhance the electoral process of states during the first three elections at whichever level they are being held. Participating states can ask the ODIHR, which has been given the function of election implementation by the supplementary document of the Charter of Paris (November 21, 1990), to organize the observation of elections and in every case provide reports of observation to the government and to the parliament. Such observers will undertake no to interfere with the electoral process.
Instead of systematic observation, which is qualified by many as “monitoring”, we will mention what the domestic institutional controls should be:
The procedural control of the electoral process can be through a central electoral commission, the Ministry of the Interior or a combination of both. In either case they will have specialized departments:
I. Control for the equal access of parties to the media.
II. Control of campaign finance.
III. Control of polling institutes working methodologies.
The judicial control and appeals procedure will either be in the hands of the judiciary or through an appeals system from lower commission to higher commission.
Reason: Eection observation has never been part of the democratic history of old democracies, except in the present days. The control of election procedure is the task of political parties which are either in government or in opposition. Observation is an artificial mechanism and an inroad into a state’s political life which can lead to internal or external strife .
Related commitments which are four other paragraphs
(3) Should be written thus:
“They reaffirm that democracy is an inherent element of the rule of law. They recognise the importance of political pluralism.”
Reason: The word “organizations” is to vague. Parties are at the root of democracy.
Article 10.3
The words “and human rights monitoring groups” which end the sentence should be left out.
Reason: The human rights and fundamental freedoms have already been mentioned in the same sentence. Monitoring has the meaning of authority and control that could create conflict.
Article 10.4
The words “voluntary financial contributions from national and international sources as provided by the law” should be omitted.
Reason: We have already provided arguments about the dangers of having disproportionate funding from international sources. It was considered in the early 90s but it is only now that we can grasp the dangers of effect of these well-intentioned people who lack political competence who can make strategic mistakes and who only depend on those that pay them.
Article 10.4
“Financial contributions from national and international resources shall be limited to the cost of acquiring and keeping on a monthly basis an apartment in the capital city and of paying a staff of two people.” The expenditures will be based on local level prices. The competent authorities will be informed of all extraordinary funding be it national or foreign. All financial questions will be certified by a public accountant.
The turmoil of the late 1980’s lead to the development of democracy in many countries. International organizations have offered a helping hand and we can now look back and see what should be done to continue the good work. For this we have to learn from our mistakes and adapt ourselves to situations which we could not foresee when the pioneers first hit the long and windy road of democracy. In this paper we have not dealt with the achievements but with the rest.
