1.1 Democratisation Aid with Multiple Actors and Diverse Policies, Strategies and Priorities

Transcription

1 Chapter 1: Setting the Context 1.1 Democratisation Aid with Multiple Actors and Diverse Policies, Strategies and Priorities Even among some of the now established democracies, paths to democratisation have historically had an international dimension. 1 This has, inter alia, included direct imposition of democracy after military defeat (for instance Germany and Japan), or direct external military intervention with the view of (re)installing a democratic government (as was the case in Grenada and Panama) (Whitehead, 1996). However, democracy promotion was never as central in international development discourse as it is now. There appears to be an emerging international consensus and legitimisation of the (positive) role that the so-called international community can play in not only facilitating but also consolidating democratisation processes in other countries (Nolting, 2003; Burnell, 2000; Carothers, 1999; Hartmann, 1999). Today, three general approaches are commonly employed by aid donors in an effort to promote democracy (Santiso, 2001). One approach is through political conditionalities - the tying of aid to demands for specific political and institutional reforms deemed by the providers as fundamental to the attainment of a democratic system of governance (Sørensen, 1993). Democracy is also promoted indirectly through measures that aim at economic development. Beside these sanction-oriented and/or indirect approaches, donors also adopt positive measures by directly providing aid for democracy as part of their official development assistance (ODA). 2 In the recent past, there has been an increased preference towards providing this specific aid for democracy. 3 As Phillipe C. Schmitter and Imco Brouwer observe, it is the quantitative growth and qualitative diversification of democracy assistance that has been a major novelty of 1 For a historical record on this, see Whitehead, Laurence (1996): Three International Dimensions of Democratisation in same (ed.), The International Dimensions of Democratisation. Europe and the Americas, New York: Oxford University Press, pp On the question of paths to (re)democratisation, which also include a discussion on externally installed democracies, see:, Stephan, Alfred (1986): Paths Toward Redemocratisation: Theoretical and Comparative Considerations in Guillermo O Donnel, et al (eds.) Transition from Authoritarian Rule. Prospect for Democracy, Vol. III, Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press pp The term Official Development Assistance (ODA) is used here in line with the OECD/DAC definition. In this case, ODA are all grants or loans to countries and all territories which are undertaken by the official sector with the promotion of economic development and welfare as the main objective and at concessional financial terms (if it is a loan, having a grant element of at least 25 percent. See OECD (1999): Development Co-operation 1998 Report, Paris: OECD). 3 Cf. DAC/OECD (1995): Participatory Development and Good Governance, Paris:OECD p

2 the 1990s. 4 It is, therefore, not uncommon in any emerging democracy to find that more than one international actor is actively involved in implementing these so-called positive measures. Indeed, aiding democracy has today become what Thomas Carothers (1999) describes as another growth industry in international development. 1.2 The Research Problem and Research Questions The increasing number of actors has resulted in diversity not only in the way democracy itself is conceptualised but also in a multiplicity of policies and implementation strategies that are adopted in democracy aid. In his seminal contribution on the subject, Gordon Crawford (1995) observes that despite some similarities in the factors that have influenced the evolution of democracy as an international policy agenda, marked differences do exist in what donors regard as the core elements of democracy in their respective policies. Furthermore, differences also exist in the way those core elements are conceived and prioritised. As he puts it, Different agencies tend to have addressed different aspects of the overall agenda with varying degrees of detail and clarity, indicating in part their own priorities. 5 Peter Burnell (1997) observes, for instance, that while the United States of America (USA) encourages formation of advocacy groups, the World Bank puts emphasis on public sector reform. In his study, Richard Youngs (2001) claims that the European approaches towards democracy promotion have, in contrast with those of the US, exhibited less geo-strategic dynamic while the European approaches appear to be more development oriented. However, while it appears to have been relatively easy to identify the differences, not much has been done to explore and explain those differences and what they may mean for the emerging democracies that are being supported by those international actors. Thus, as Carlos 4 Schmitter, Phillip C. and Imco Brouwer, Conceptualising, Researching and Evaluating Democracy Promotion and Protection, European University Institute Working Paper SPS No. 99/9 p.17. C.f. also Burnell, Peter, ed. (2000): Democracy Assistance. International Co-operation for Democratisation, London/ Portland: Frank Cass Co &Ltd. 5 Crawford, Gordon (1995): Promoting Democracy, Human Rights and Good Governance Through Development Aid: A Comparative Study of Four Northern Donors, Leeds: Centre for Democratisation Studies, University of Leeds, p. x. In his study, Crawford examined the policies of Britain, European Union, Sweden and United States. 20

3 Santiso rightly observes, despite the fact that democracy aid has become a remarkably extensive field of activity, it remains opaque to outsiders and poorly understood. 6 This study contributes to this emerging debate and hopes that in the process, it will shed more light to that which remains opaque to outsiders and poorly understood. It seeks not only to identify the policy and strategy differences among democracy promoters but also explores explanations behind those differences and their possible implications on the very process of democratisation that is being supported. The study intends to address the following questions: a) What are the major similarities and/or differences in terms of policies, strategies and priorities of donors with regard to democratisation aid? b) How can these similarities and/or differences be explained? c) What are the implications of the multiplicity of these donor policies, strategies and priorities on: i) the very process of democratisation that is being supported in a particular country? ii) the partners on the recipient side who are co-operating with these international actors in this field? The necessity of raising these questions becomes apparent and the need to address them is imperative when one considers potential implications that these questions may have on today s international development debate. Furthermore, not only is aiding democracy a new entrant in contemporary development co-operation, it is, in relative terms, also the most politically sensitive area being dealt with within the framework of development co-operation in comparison to what one could consider as traditional areas such as infrastructural development, agriculture, water development, education among others. Would democratisation aid in the end entail re-conceptualisation of the way development co-operation is being conducted? If yes, in which way? 6 Santiso, Carlos, (2001): International Co-operation for Democracy and Good Governance: Moving Towards a Second Generation? The European Journal of Development Research, Vol.13. No.1. June 2001, pp

4 In an attempt to address these questions, the study compares policies and strategies - meaning specific project/programme interventions of four of the many international actors that are increasingly playing an active role in aiding democratisation processes in Southern countries. 7 Two of these are multilateral (European Union- EU and United Nations Development Programme- UNDP) and the other two are bilateral (Germany represented by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit - GTZ and the USA represented by United States Agency for International Development- USAID). With regard to actual strategies, the study analyses a selection of specific positive measures that these actors are taking in supporting the democratisation process in Malawi. Levels of analysis in this study, therefore, include both the macro a comparison of policies of the actors with regard to the question of aiding democracy, and micro - an analysis of the actual strategies in form of democracy projects or programmes that the different actors are implementing in Malawi. In so doing, this study makes a unique contribution to the current debate, for in addition to confining itself largely to identification of policy differences, research in this field has been characterised by two further deficiencies or biases. Either it has tended to focus on one single donor 8, or, where it tries to take a comparative approach, it has been limited to the supply side of the democratisation aid equation 9. 7 I use the term Southern to mean developing countries which belong to what is commonly conceived as the Third World. 8 For studies focusing exclusively on the United States, see for instance: Robinson, William I. (1996): Promoting Polyarchy. Globalisation, US Intervention, and Hegemony New York: Cambridge University Press; Carothers, Thomas (1999): Aiding Democracy Abroad. The Learning Curve, Washington D.C: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Cox, Michael et al (eds.) (2000): American Democracy Promotion. Impulses, Strategies and Impacts, New York: Oxford University Press. For EU oriented analyses, see: Nolting, Armin K. (2003): Die Demokratieförderung der EU: Eine Untersuchung am Beispiel von Positivmaßbahmen in Malawi und Simbabwe, Bochum: Ruhr Universitität Bochum; Youngs, Richard (2003): European approaches to democracy assistance: learning the right lessons? Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, No. 1, pp ; Crawford, Gordon (2000): European Union Development Co-operation and the Promotion of Democracy in Burnell, Peter, (ed.), Democracy Assistance. International Co-operation for Democratisation, London/ Portland/ Or: Frank Cass, pp ; For United Nations, see: White, Nigel D. (2000): The United Nations and Democracy Assistance: Developing Practice with a Constitutional Framework, in Burnell, Peter (ed.), Democracy Assistance. International Co-operation for Democratisation, London/ Portland/ Or: Frank Cass, pp.67-89; For Germany (limited to the role of German political foundations), see: Mair, Stefan (2000): Germany s Stiftungen and Democracy Assistance: Comparative Advantages, New Challenges, in Peter Burnell, (ed.), Democracy Assistance. International Co-operation for Democratisation, London/ Portland/ Or: Frank Cass, pp Examples are: Whitehead, Laurence (1986): International Aspects of Democratisation, in O Donnel et al (eds.) Transition from Authoritarian Rule. Prospect for Democracy, Vol. III, Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, pp.3-46 (comparing policies of the US and EC); Crawford, Gordon, (1995): Promoting Democracy, Human Rights and Good Governance Through Development Aid: A Comparative Study of Policies of Four Northern Donors, Leeds: Centre for Democratisation Studies, University of Leeds, 1995 (comparing policies of US, Britain, EU and Sweden); Youngs, R. (2001): Democracy Promotion: The Case of European Union Strategy, Centre For European Policy Studies, Working Document, No. 167 (although special focus is on the EU, Youngs attempts in the end to juxtapose EU democracy promotion policies to those of the US). 22

5 1.3 Organisation of the Thesis In terms of structure, this thesis has sixteen chapters that have been grouped into four parts as follows Part I- Chapters 1-4: Introduction and theoretical framework This part has started with the introduction to this study by stating the problem and raising the key research questions to be addressed (Chapter 1). It is also in this part that we discuss the two key concepts of democracy and democratisation aid (Chapter 2) that keep on resonating in this study. The core theoretical framework for this study is discussed in chapter 3. This chapter first makes a case for the need to adopt an eclectic theoretical approach, meaning integration of various theoretical perspectives to address the research questions raised in chapter 1. It then introduces and discusses the four theoretical perspectives proposed: political realism, constructivism, bureaucratic politics and mode of co-operation. Chapter 3 sums up with a presentation of an integrated overview of the theoretical perspectives with the view to discuss how these theoretical approaches are related to the research problem. Concluding the first part of this thesis is chapter 4, which presents the research design and research methods. 23

6 1.3.2 Part II- Chapters 5-9: Democratisation Aid and International Development Cooperation- A Policy Discourse In this part, the discussion dwells on the general and specific policies of the four actors with regard to democracy and democratisation in their respective development co-operation frameworks. Thus, in the context of this study, this second part constitutes the first empirical part where we present, discuss and analyse the research findings at a policy or macro level. For analytical convenience, each donor is discussed under a separate chapter (Chapters 5 to 8) but following the same order. Thus, a brief discussion of the organisation/ institution as an actor in international development co-operation is done first. This is followed by a discussion on evolution of aiding democracy as a field of action in development co-operation of the respective actor. Having traced the emergence of aiding democracy as a policy issue, we then survey the major reasons that have been advanced by each of the four actors in question to justify that emergence. This is followed by a presentation on how democracy and democratisation aid has been conceptualised. Following these largely descriptive presentations is chapter 9, which first presents a comparative overview of the discernible similarities and differences in the policies reviewed and then explains them. The theoretical perspectives introduced and discussed in chapter 3 are brought into action here but as it transpires (and also as expected), not all of them are proving useful at all times. Thus, the most important theoretical approaches that are employed at this policy level are political realism and constructivism Part III- Chapters 10-15: Translating Policies into Action This part brings the discussion to a particular country context (Malawi). Here the policies of the actors as reviewed in chapters 5-8, and comparatively analysed in chapter 9, are translated into specific measures to support the democratisation process in a particular country (Malawi). Opening up this part is chapter 10, which reviews the democratisation process in Malawi, particularly with the view of situating the discussion that follows in context. Chapters 11 to 14 then discuss the specific democracy aid programmes of the four actors. Like in the case of the preceding part, the actors respective strategies and/ or measures to aid democracy by means of providing official development assistance are discussed in separate chapters based on a 24

7 standardised outline. An overview of the actor s development co-operation with and in Malawi is presented first. This is a brief overview of a historical background to and a discussion of the contemporary key focal areas of the co-operation. This is followed by a detailed discussion of the selected case study. Our interest in the case study is mainly centred on the process of formulation of the programme / project, objectives, programme setup, other institutional arrangements, and the strategy for implementation. Like in the case of the discussion done in the previous part, chapters 11 to 14 are also largely descriptive. A comparative analysis is done in chapter Part IV Chapter 16: Conclusion In this part, which comprises of only chapter 16, the research questions are reconsidered in the light of the findings as presented and discussed in the previous chapters and against the background of the theoretical perspectives that were employed. As part of the conclusion, (democratic) theoretical and (development co-operation) policy implications arising from this study are discussed in this chapter. 1.4 Summary This chapter has demonstrated that although aiding democracy appears to have come of age in contemporary international development co-operation, a number of key questions remain unclarified. Such questions include not only the differences in policies and strategies, but also explanations behind those differences and their implications on both the democratisation process intended to be supported and the recipient co-operating partners. As it has been pointed out, these are the central questions that are being addressed in this study. In addition to presenting the research questions, we have, in this chapter, also outlined the overall organisational structure of this dissertation. In the chapter that follows, a conceptual discussion on democracy and democratisation aid is done as a prelude to the theoretical framework that is presented in chapter 3. 25