The Centre for Democratic Institutions DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: A GLOBAL SURVEY OF FOREIGN POLICY TRENDS 1992-2002 A BRIEF SUMMARY Background The Defending Democracy survey, edited by Robert Herman and Theodore Piccone, was produced by the Democracy Coalition Project. The Democracy Coalition Project (DCP) created in June 2001 was set up to build open democratic societies supporting civil society coalitions around the world that promote democratic reforms at home and abroad. The DCP has a distinguished advisory board and receives support from The Open Society Institute. Survey background 1 The foundation for the project was laid in June 2000 at the Warsaw meeting of the Community of Democracies. The Warsaw Declaration, involving over 100 governments of countries holding multi-party elections, commits those governments to abide by the core set of democratic principles and to cooperate with one another to promote and consolidate democratic progress. The new doctrine on international cooperation to encourage democracy, embodied in the Warsaw Declaration, has a long tradition. Similar principles can be found in the core documents of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Council of Europe and the Organization of American States. It is also enshrined in the articles of the Commonwealth, the Organization of African Unity, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Community of Democracies held its second meeting in Seoul in November 2002. The DCP saw this second meeting as an important milestone in the building of an international democratic architecture. To support this process the DCP launched an independent survey to chronicle how governments have adhered to their commitments to promote and defend democracy beyond their national borders over the past ten years - the first global survey of foreign policy trends. 1 This summary draws on the edited hardcopy version of Defending Democracy: A Global Suvey of Foreign Policy Trends 1992-2002, Robert Herman & Theodore Piccone (eds), publis hed by the Democracy Coalition Project, 2002. - 1 -
Methodology The Defending Democracy Survey examines the foreign policy records of a representative sample of 40 countries from every region of the world, at different stages of democratic development, against four principal criteria: 1. Response to the overthrow of democratically elected government 2. Response to manipulation of electoral processes 3. Promotion of international norms and values of democracy and human rights and the institutions that sustain them 4. Policy toward entrenched dictatorships. The survey made several findings: There is a strong correlation between the level of a country s internal democratic development and its support for democracy abroad. While established democracies do a better job than other states of promoting and defending democracy abroad, in practice few regard democracy promotion as in their vital national interests. Most democratic states increasingly are speaking out in favour of democratic norms and against violations of democratic rule, but action does not automatically follow, specially when vital interests are at stake The more powerful or strategically important the state experiencing a democratic crisis, the less likely the international community will intervene. Overall, surveyed states scored higher on their responses to gross violations of democratic norms, and in their efforts to promote democracy through international institutions, and lower on their responses to flawed election and policies toward entrenched dictatorships. Newer democracies are eager to enter into mutually binding commitments to defend democracy, and to support their application to specific situations, in part as a way to deter would-be aggressors of the democratic order. States that belong to multilateral organizations with pro-democracy clauses in their charters are more likely to respond favourably to challenges to democracy abroad. States that belong to multilateral organizations that do not have pro-democracy clauses, like ASEAN or the Arab League, are the least likely to respond to challenges to democracy abroad. Membership in multilateral organizations often serves as a cover for states unable or unwilling to act unilaterally in support of democracy abroad. One reason states with flawed or weak democratic institutions refrain from criticizing undemocratic practices elsewhere is because it would expose their own shortcomings to international scrutiny. Even when countries have few competing interests at stake, giving them greater latitude to criticize other governments without fear of reprisal, they often avoid doing so. - 2 -
Survey results for Australia Australia achieved a Defending Democracy score of good (see Attachment 1), the second of four categories (very good, good, fair, poor). This score placed Australia behind Canada, the Netherlands and Sweden. It placed Australia in the company of countries such as Argentina Brazil, the Czech Republic, Poland, the United Kingdom and the United States (see Attachment 2). On the four principal criteria Australia scored: Response to the overthrow of democratically elected government good Response to manipulation of electoral processes good Promotion of international norms and values of democracy and human rights and the institutions that sustain them very good Policy toward entrenched dictatorships fair The survey compared countries Defending Democracy scores with their Freedom House ratings, informing some of the analysis above. The Defending Democracy survey also included an analysis of the direction in which nations were trending, with relation to defending democracy abroad (see Attachment 1). The majority of countries were steady. Thailand, the United States and Venezuela were tending to do less to defend democracy abroad. Whereas Ghana, India, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Senegal and Spain were tending to do more to defend democracy. Summary of the assessment of Australia The survey also published case studies of the countries within the survey. Each case study describes how that country measured up in terms of the four principal criteria. The survey found that Australia s democracy promotion efforts centre around the Asia-Pacific region, reflecting its security and trade interests. What some commentators might refer to as a soft touch in dealing with antidemocratic events or forces in the region, Australia defends in terms of constructive engagement. Australia tends to use this approach in bilateral fora in the region, but prefers to defend democracy through multilateral fora outside the region, such as the UN or the Commonwealth. Response to the overthrow of democratically elected government The Australia government has repeatedly moved quickly to condemn the assumption of power through military means especially in the Asia-Pacific region or when involving a member state of the Commonwealth. The manner in which it has backed up its rhetoric with action had depended in a large part on an assessment of the impact such action would have on Australian economic and political interests. Fiji, the Solomon Islands and Pakistan are examples of Australian responses to undemocratic activities. The first two situations saw swift, unequivocal action taken, whereas action taken in the third situation was reversed when other interest were at stake. - 3 -
Response to manipulation of electoral processes Australia has typically responded well to suggestions of electoral manipulation. It has also responded well in supporting the conduct of free elections in various settings mainly within the region. Cambodia and East Timor are examples of strong action in support of free elections. Australia s contribution to East Timor is arguably greater and more complex than its contribution to Cambodia, and its strategic cost (in terms of Australia s relations with Indonesia) was considerable. Promotion of international norms and values of democracy and human rights and the institutions that sustain them Australia has a long tradition of constructive involvement in a range of multilateral fora such as the UN, the Commonwealth. Australia also has a strong record of supporting international protocols. As mentioned Australia made substantial contributions to democracy in Cambodia and East Timor at great expense. Australia s democracy promotion efforts have also been enhanced by the creation of the Centre for Democratic Institutions. The survey views CDI as having successfully leveraged the benefits and expertise of the NGO community for the purposes of government policy making, in support of democracy promotion. Policy toward entrenched dictatorships. Australian policy toward authoritarian regimes tends to favour diplomatic and economic engagement. This approach owes much to the economic and security necessities of the region. The website provides various excerpts from the survey including: Full executive summary Table and charts summary information Detailed methodology for the survey Selected country reports (excluding Australia) http://www.demcoalition.org/html/whats.html - 4 -
COUNTRY DEFENDING DEMOCRACY ABROAD ASSESSMENT 1 Defending Democracy Score Trend Response to Overthrow of Democratically Elected Gov ts Response to Electoral Malpractices Promotion of International Democracy Policy toward Entrenched Dictatorships Freedom House Rating (2001-2002) Freedom Trend Rating ARGENTINA Good Good Fair Good Good Partly Free AUSTRALIA Good Good Good Very Good Fair Free BENIN Fair Good Fair Good Fair Free BOTSWANA Good Good Good Good Fair Free BRAZIL Good Good Fair Good Fair Partly Free CANADA Very Good Good Good Very Good Good Free CHILE Good Good Fair Good Fair Free CZECH REPUBLIC Good Good Good Good Good Free FRANCE Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Free GEORGIA Poor Fair Poor Fair Poor Partly Free GERMANY Good Good Good Very Good Good Free GHANA Good Fair Good Good Fair Free HUNGARY Good Good Good Good Good Free INDIA Fair Good Poor Good Fair Free INDONESIA Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor Partly Free JAPAN Fair Good Fair Good Fair Free JORDAN Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Partly Free KENYA Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Not Free KOREA Good Good Fair Good Fair Free MALI Fair Fair Fair Good Poor Free MEXICO Fair Fair Fair Fair Fair Free MOROCCO Poor Poor Poor Fair Poor Partly Free NETHERLANDS Very Good Good Good Very Good Good Free NIGERIA Fair Good Fair Good Fair Partly Free PERU Fair Fair Poor Fair Fair Free PHILIPPINES Fair Fair Fair Fair Poor Free POLAND Good Good Very Good Very Good Fair Free PORTUGAL Good Fair Good Very Good Fair Free RUSSIA Poor Fair Poor Poor Poor Partly Free SENEGAL Good Good Fair Good Fair Partly Free SOUTH AFRICA Fair Good Poor Good Fair Free SPAIN Good Good Good Good Fair Free SWEDEN Very Good Good Very Good Very Good Good Free TANZANIA Fair Good Poor Fair Poor Partly Free THAILAND Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Free TURKEY Fair Fair Fair Good Fair Partly Free UKRAINE Fair Poor Poor Fair Poor Partly Free UNITED KINGDOM Good Good Good Good Fair Free UNITED STATES Good Fair Good Good Fair Free VENEZUELA Fair Good Poor Good Poor Partly Free 1 Trend arrows indicate whether, based on recent evidence of foreign policy decisions and projected trends, a government is moving toward or away from more active defense and promotion of democracy abroad. 17
Defending Democracy Rating 1992-2002 VERY GOOD CANADA NETHERLANDS SWEDEN GOOD ARGENTINA AUSTRALIA BOTSWANA BRAZIL CHILE CZECH REPUBLIC GERMANY GHANA HUNGARY KOREA POLAND PORTUGAL SENEGAL SPAIN UNITED KINGDOM UNITED STATES FAIR BENIN FRANCE INDIA JAPAN MALI MEXICO NIGERIA PERU PHILIPPINES SOUTH AFRICA TANZANIA THAILAND TURKEY UKRAINE VENEZUELA POOR GEORGIA INDONESIA JORDAN KENYA MOROCCO RUSSIA 16