This discussion will be open from 8am - 11pm EST on September 30th; guidelines for the discussion board can be found here. If you experience any technical difficulties, please see our Help/FAQs page or email info@governancevillage.org.

Please visit this page ahead of the discussion date as contributions fron panelists will be added as they are received.

Posted on behalf of Pablo Gutiérrez, Director, Department for Electoral Cooperation and Observation (DECO), Secretary of Political Affairs

"No other phenomenon is as common to our democracies as that of elections, or, in other words, the designation of representatives through an electoral vote. The importance of elections rests in their representation of the democratic "method" of designating the representatives of a people. Competitive elections take place according to different formalized principles and practices. The guarantee of said principles is necessary for the acceptance of electoral outcomes. These principles pursue a single objective: secure the legitimizing capacity of elections while at the same time allowing for its normative importance within democracies. Ultimately, these elements contribute to the guarantee of democratic governance.

The OAS's election observation missions contribute to the expansion of democracy in the region by strengthening democratic values among the citizens who participate in the missions, accompanying election officials and supporting their work in the administration and organization of elections, offering recommendations for improving procedures for administering elections, and informing the inter-American system and international community of the relevant aspects of the process observed."

Posted on behalf of   Dario Soto, Deputy Director, The Trust for the Americas

With respect to the question, "Are other OAS mechanisms that promote democracy effective?", I would suggest that by focusing on strengthening civil society, the OAS, through some of its affiliates such as the Trust for the Americas, can make sure that good practices in democracy and social stability are not only a local government issue, but a regional matter that should not be taken lightly. The involvement of the third sector in OAS and local government activities is essential to guarantee that the voice of the citizens is heard.   Are the efforts of third sector organizations called to replace the work of governments or rather to complement it?

As a third sector organization, The Trust for the Americas is a U.S. based non-profit 501(c)(3) organization created by the Organization of American States in 1998. Its main mission is to strengthen the OAS relationship with Civil Society by implementing capacity building programs for local organizations; raise funds for OAS priority programs by accessing resources only available to NGOs

The Trust works closely with the OAS to promote democracy in the Western Hemisphere. For this purposes, the Trust translates the Organization's mandates into tangible actions that improve the lives of people in the Americas.  It also Implements programs in partnership with OAS Units when they include components designed to strengthen local or national governments. Finally, the Trust promotes private sector support for OAS activities via its Board of Directors, an annual CSR award, and a network of businesspeople that contribute financially and in- kind to Trust and OAS projects.

Dr. Cooper notes in his interview that,

"In some ways, it's good context, because this is the first coup in a long time, the June 28th coup in Honduras. It probably went against the trend for the last 15-20 years. Probably Haiti's the only other country that had had a coup, so we can see that on that level, it's been a good two decades for the Americas. The less positive side is the aspect of the OAS. We saw in the 1990s the OAS moving forward with a lot of new initiatives, but in Honduras, we can see that the OAS has sort of muddled through. It hasn't been a key player, the key players have been much more the states within the OAS system and in some ways this is good as well, but problems, as well. Why is this a problem? Because probably in some ways, it shows that we're going back to sovereignty, state-centric, what we call club "diplomacy". And here, I think we can see that there are a number of countries that really are contributing to that."

Dr. Cooper continues by saying:

"The OAS had a good decade in the 1990s, it intervened in a number of situations. It intervened in a fairly subtle way, not only on coups directly, but even in situations where democracy was being contravened indirectly and this led, I think, to the real triumph within the Americas system and of course, this was the creation of the Charter of Democracy, the Democratic Charter. And here, I think we can see sort of a recipe that could be used in cases like Honduras, if we know that there's going to be problems within democracy. I think what is intriguing about the Democratic Charter is its flexibility, its use of a variety of soft and hard powers. It tries to intervene ahead of time to head off threats to democracy, right through to the other of imposing some sort of sanctions. Once more, in the Honduras case, we see that sanctions have been used, I think, fairly well by the different states. The question, of course, is that this doesn't seem to be so much by the system, but by the individual states themselves and once more the United States seems to be at the center of things."

Do you agree?

Dr. Cooper points out in his interview that although the OAS has played a lead role in promoting democracy over the past decade, on Honduras, the OAS has been supplanted by individual states such as Brazil. The question then becomes, is this really such a negative thing? Perhaps the OAS is better served as a forum for discussion than as a vehicle for opinion. In many ways this relates back to yesterday's discussion about the current dilemma facing the OAS as to whether it should be a critic or mediator on Honduras. If promoting democracy within the region is its goal, what is the proper posture for the OAS to adopt?

Personally, I don't see a problem with individual states taking the lead in promoting democracy in the region. As Jorge Heine pointed out yesterday, Brazil and it's leader, Lula, are well-placed politically to fill the gap. The OAS may speak for the collective will of its members, but it could still be seen as having a history of US domination, punishing leftist regimes, etc. Not to mention the difficulties involved with willing any multi-lateral organization to act. To me, Brazil - with American backing - could be an effective enforcer of the Charter in the case of Honduras.

Hello Bob, great comment. However, if the problem with the OAS is that they are seen as too closely related to American interests, then would Brazil not be similarly stigmatized if they relied on US backing? How important is it, if at all, that Latin American countries resolve this problem themselves? And does it undermine the entrenchment of liberal democracy as a norm within Latin America if the enforcers of democracy continue to rely on external support (ie. US)?

A primary objective to obtaining a more uniform model of governance across the Americas in my opinion must start with an Americas human rights constitution. As a separate and universal constitution across the Americas a more clear understanding of the member states role in possible initiations into intervention that may require a breach of sovereignty would be achieved. In our quest to promote democracy as the single form, I believe a separation from all other levels of governance would be the first of many crucial steps required in achieving this goal. Humanity essentially requires a level of protection from itself. Too often, open ended promises from one administration to the next failing to deliver this promise have overwhelmingly demonstrated this need.

If the intent is to broad and universal with less "club diplomacy" would this be a fair and distinctive step towards bodies such as the OAS having a more firm footing in promoting democracy?

Hi Troy, I guess the effectiveness of a distinct Human Rights declaration in promoting democracy would depend a great deal on whether democracy is considered a "human right". Of course this is a very interesting question but is probably outside the scope of this e-conference. Although you are quite right that the more states work together, the less likely it is for "club diplomacy" to dominate. But as is the case with any agreement or multilateral organization, they are only as strong as their enforcement mechanisms. If individual or groups of states feel that they cannot get the desired outcome from working within these frameworks, then they have more incentive to work outside of it in smaller, less constrained groups.

Flowrence: How far would you have Brazil go in enforcing the democratic charter?

Michael: I did not mean to imply that Brazil would need to rely on the Americans for support vis a vis enforcing the charter in Honduras, simply that the US would quietly condone and not impede their actions. More importantly, I think it is in the interests of both countries to have Brazil take the lead. As was discussed yesterday, the US has been slowly retreating from exerting its sphere of influence in the hemisphere (thankfully, considering its numerous dubious interventions) with its natural successor being the second-most power in the region, Brazil. Even though there are elements with in the States that would hate to see diplomatic ground lost to a leftist regime (even a responsible one like Lula's), I think the Obama administration is practical enough to allow it. It would be a great victory for Latin American diplomacy.

Troy: I like the idea of 'Hemispheric Bill of Rights'. While it may not be a tool to entrench democracy per se, it could be used as a tool against authoritarian crackdowns of liberties like what we have seen in Honduras in the past week. It would give the OAS member states more ammunition to go after the Micheletti regime.

Hello everyone, I have been following the discussion today and it reminded me of a recent article in the Economist that may provide some good insight: Whose side is Brazil on?

Troy,

While Mike may be correct that a discussion on human rights may be beyond the scope of this particular session the e-Conference, it is certainly on the table for our fourth theme - Fighting for Human Rights in the Americas, running from Nov 10-12. Hope you stay with us for that.

- The CIGI e-Conference Team

I have some questions about :

What is democracy? What is regional democracy? and what is national democracy?

Since World War II America (all America not just states) is talking about Hemispheric defense, one month ago UNASUR was talking about something similar BUTit´s  in these regional scenarios where small citizen who elects has been forgotten and this small citizen never decides about important government topics. His faith says: "in government we trust". This smal citizen only has one way to defend "democracy" and it is protesting at streets. My thought is "this small citizen must be democratic empowered, not just governments"

For me there is two kind of tiranny, tiranny from small groups over big groups of people and tiranny from big groups over small groups of people. There is some risk when is talked about a a Bill of Rights for the Americas, even worse if a democratic right is included into it . For example, democracy definition differs from country to country, only  elections doesn´t make a good democracy; a good democracy always has been made by responsible citizenship, a citizenship that respects all groups, specially those with social or physical disabilities.

Just a thought and some questions

Thanks everyone for the comments. An "Americas Bill of Rights" is a separate debate to which I will be looking for in November. I was looking at it as the level governance that is the base of humanities protection and confidence that higher levels of governance can not manipulate. With this level of governance secured the confidence to look at supplanting democracy across the Americas would most likely be looked at more objectively with out fear of losing those rights.

Hello all.  Before we send Troy and his concern for human rights to another future e-conference, I think that it is worth noting that, while democracy is probably not an inviolable human right, the violation of other human rights presents a massive challenge to democracy throughout the region.

I would like to read what people have to say about contemporary endemic violence outside of the formal sphere (often referred to in the literature as 'microstructural').  I refer to the prevalence of crime through the activity of gangs, paramilitaries, and cartels, as well as community-based violence (including peasant tribunals in the Andean region and spontaneous community-endorsed lynching) and reactionary violence (police brutality and mano dura, as well as the worrisome growth of the sombra negra).

As Andrew Cooper correctly points out, the Honduran crisis is exceptional in that it comes after what could be presented as almost a generation of relative political stability in Latin America.  We traditionally explain violence in the region through the weakness of governments' ability to offer democratic assurances, to control itself and to protect its people.  So today, when Latin Americans ostensibly has less to fight for than ever before, and norms of representative decision-making are structurally enshrined in every country except Cuba, how can we explain rapidly rising levels of informal/parasitic violence?

It seems to me that this violence, and the consistent violation of human rights that comes with it, presents a direct challenge to democratic consolidation.  It also casts doubt on our ability to say that democracy in Latin America is alive and well.  I have a suspicion that its prevalence relates to the unwillingness of states to engage effectively with many 'marginal' groups, and that these groups participate in it somewhat strategically because they have no other way of creating dialogue -- it is the quintessential weapon of the weak.

Any thoughts?

The focus of the Democratic Charter seems very much to be on what it refers to as "an unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order or an unconstitutional alteration of the constitutional regime that seriously impairs the democratic order in a member state"  -- even though this is set within a broader context that refers to human rights,  poverty reduction priorities and environmental concerns (inter alia.)    But the Charter does seem to reflect its period of origin,  in that a document drafted now would surely put more emphasis on civil society's role in democratic regimes,   and would deal in more detail with the need for independent electoral authorities and a free and diversified media.  

This suggests that there is an important role,   beyond the OAS,   for interaction amongst such civil society groups to strengthen and safeguard democracy.   How best could such an increased civil society role be supported?

The comments about the role of citizenry in democray (to be heard) are interesting. It is clear that democracy as such (and the promotion, defense, etc, of it) does not depend only on the governments.  OAS is very aware of this having set new mechanisms to ensure its work benefits/targets citizens and not just the governments.  Through the role of its foundations, OAS is increasingly working to empower citizens, as well as local and regional NGOs. It is also looking forward to a more active participation of the media and private sector at the regional and domestic levels to create a more inclussive political processes.  Civil society has been given a specific role in the summits and during each year's general assemblies. And OAS has made the point to add a strong component of capacity building for NGOs and community in its own development programs. For instance, during the negotiations of the CAFTA and FTA agreements, OAS through its foundations  worked as a neutral broker to provide information about the trade negotiations as well as to create a channel of communication that worked "upward" from the citizens to the governments. The OAS is taking similar actions in issues related to transparency and accountability. Indeed,  the recent influx of access to information laws in the regions (Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, etc), was the result in part, of a strong push from civil society supported by the OAS.  The OAS is working directly with citizens to achieve full recognition/promotion of the rights of peoples with disabilities, and is taking actions directly aiming at encouraging more engaged youth in democracy issues, through training and educational activities.

This OAS emphasis on civil society is very encouraging.   Are there other mechanisms that can spur civil society interaction across the Americas to help build and improve democratic institutions?   A broader set of voices can have more ongoing influence and perhaps reach a wider diversity of constituencies.  

In discussing the mechanisms that the OAS or its citizens across the hemisphere may use in helping to create a broader voice for civil society, it strikes me that open, online events such as this offer an equitable chance for individuals and organization to have their voices heard. Other than that, civil society forums (that usually congregate alongside large, high-level gatherings such as the Summit of the Americas) can be an effective mechanism as well.

To Pablo's point: I agree fully that the OAS has done an impressive job on election monitoring - activity that deserves kudos. The problem is that the nature of democracy is increasingly contested, moving beyond the traditional notion of representation.

To Troy and others: one of the problems is that democracy and human rights are placed in separate categories. One of the big needs is to see how some degree of integration can be developed between them, arguably through the elevation of the concept of citizenship. This privileges not only the OAS, but bodies such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as well.

On Florence and other's points about the comparative dimensions: it is clear that the US is no longer hegemonic in the region. What is less clear is how the US is adapting to this new situation. So far we are seeing lots of awkwardness in terms of its response, a point accentuated by its reactions to the Honduras crisis.

To the point by Michael and Bob about the images of other big states such as Brazil: there does some to be a risk of stigmatization. It will be interesting to see if other commentators pick up on this theme in the discussion on Haiti.

I agree that institutions that reflect the broader consensus of civil society on an ongoing basis are what give the people a voice at the table. These type institutions where they have been allowed to flourish demonstrate that when merged within a system of democratic governance, the ingenuity of all the people from the "grassroots" level to the leadership level play a productive role in the pursuit of prosperity and an admired quality of life. The forum to forge consensus when widely available is the source of political education civil society requires. To make sensible, knowledgeable decisions requires access to transparent information. The availability of transparent opportunity within civil society to engage in the political process is yet another premier advantage within advanced democratic governance models. This direction as described by Dario Soto is very encouraging. Accelerating the ability of civil society to engage in political process within a similar context of advanced democracies will go a long way in promoting democracy across the Americas.

I share Steven's question -- in political science we often underplay the need for normative theory, and I am very interested in discussing how civil society should be engaged with.  I appreciate Dario's suggestion that empowerment of citizens and NGOs is key, but I am having difficulty grappling with this empirically.

The violence that I mentioned above clearly indicates the willingness of civil society to engage in decision-making, even when it is outside the confines of legality and may put the participants' wellbeing at risk.  This parastatal violence seems to attest to the resiliency of civil society in the face of democratic deficit.  Basically, I have the impression that lynch mobs and armed gangs are feeling pretty empowered.  How do we ensure that empowering citizens encourages productive, cooperative engagement with the state rather than competitive and even substitutive engagement?

To what extent can we target and shape empowerment?  Can we effectively separate positive and parasitic factions of civil society?

Jaimie - interesting distinction when it comes to both the negaitive and positive elements of civil society. Indeed when groups within civil society have exhausted positive mechanisms for involvement, a natural inclination can trend towards the negative. Hondurans who voted for Zelaya and who are now being repressed, come to mind. The obvious solution for an  organization like the OAS is to ensure that civil society groups are both protected (as they may well be in the IADC) and have available avenues of positive engagment with the state.

In yesterday's discussion, somebody mentioned the African Peer Review Mechanism that the African Union employs to try and keep its members in line. Are there any thoughts on how/if the OAS could adopt a similar mechanism for the Americas?

Dave,   it's interesting,   the way in which the APRM is utilized in Africa relies heavily on drawing civil society into the internal review process which takes place of governance systems within the various states being assessed.    So that this becomes a means of strengthening civil society and (to use Jaime's distinctions) giving it a positive and constructive orientation.   Part of the reason that the APRM seems (so far) to be working is that it is not too ambitious -- it aims to prod the countries being reviewed into setting better performance targets and then achieving these,   rather than utilizing sanctions to enforce democratic norms.   The involvement of civil society groups in the process becomes one basis of ongoing internal pressures to take the newly established targets seriously.

The OAS has precisely opened spaces of dialogue for all groups from Civil NGOs. There are many examples, but signficative, the dialogue with the Secretary General of the OAS and with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs every year during the general assembly. There, NGOs and civic leaders from different backgrounds (not only human rights) engage in productive dialogue and present proposals and suggestions to OAS and country leaders. Another example are the consultations that were held with civil society prior to the Summit of the Americas, in which OAS shared with civic leaders the main issues that were going to be part of the discussion of the Presidents/Prime Ministers and got feedback aforehand so that the views from civil society were considered in the meeting of dignataries.

But OAS goes beyond fostering dialogue with civil society. OAS is actually working with NGOs from throughout the region building their capacity to effectively advocate for their causes while giving tools on negotiation and conflict resolutions. An example worth mentioning is an ongoing effort to promote a culture of compliance with labor rights in the CAFTA DR countries. This effort is focussed towards civil society (including companies, unions and NGOs).  While many NGOs and unions opposed the treaty and were wary about potentially challenging effects on labor rights; OAS got them to work together being more propositive. The end result has been opening lines of communication between governments and civil society in an issue to which both parties migth not agree in principle. 

Jamie – I think you’ve raised a very important question – yes, we have stable governments in terms of continuing to hold elections and elections are a very important component of democracy). Yet, when we dig a little deeper, there are shortcomings in the democratic process, be it limited citizen participation, representation, lack of education and poverty which all work to undermine the “quality” of democratic governance. These shortcomings have lead to low levels of confidence in governing institutions and even to the introduction of new forms of democracy (participatory, Bolivarian, etc as Dr. Coopoer notes in the audio recording).

Many people have picked up on the need for greater civil society involvement—my question is the most effective way to do this. The OAS taken many steps to include civil society (as Dario notes) and Focal has long worked with civil society in the Summit of the Americas process. Following the 5 ^th Summit in April of this year there was a growing fear among representatives from civil society that I have spoken with, that their involvement in the summitry process is not as effective as it could be. Considering this, what mechanisms are out there to improve civil society engagement in the Inter-American system?

Lesley:

You bring up some very important points. As has been discussed the OAS does ensure the involvement of civil society but you also point out that more could be done. What can the civil society actors do to bring up this concern that was shared? Can civil society prompt developments of mechanisms for their concerns to be heard?

Is this civil society support that is needed going to be achieved through the OAS system? Or is it a matter of various civil society groups forming networks based on issue areas and strengthening their voice?

Also, is the answer as Dr. Cooper insightfully suggests "the elevation of the concept of citizenship." Will notions of citizenship inspire individuals to become political? How can we hear the voices that are not usually heard even through various NGOs and other groups?

Susan Strange pointed out that “all those who already feel that globalization does nothing for them and are inclined to look to warlords, Mafias or extreme right fascist politicians for protection”.

What can be done to prevent this? How can civil society empower individuals and support democracy?

Thanks to all of our panelists and participants who continued the e-Conference discussion today. Tomorrow's topic is  Cuba and the Inter-American System  and features the following panelist contributions:

• Wanted: A Marriage Counselor, by  Daniel P. Erikson, Senior Associate for US Policy and Director of Caribbean programs, Inter-American Dialogue [READ]  [DOWNLOAD]
• Building on Canada's Relationship with Cuba, by  Lana Wylie, Research Associate, Canadian International Council [READ]  [DOWNLOAD]
• Cuba is Simply Different, by  Ramon Daubon, President, The Esquel Group  [READ]  [DOWNLOAD]

We hope to see you there!

The CIGI e-Conference Team