Lecture "Democracy, Human Rights and Dialogue between Civilisations"

Doha, 10.1.2010  |  speech

Lecture by Dr Danilo Türk, President of the Republic of Slovenia, at the Georgetown University – Qatar in Doha: "Democracy, Human Rights and Dialogue between Civilisations"
Doha, 10 January 2010


Thank you very much, Dean Kamrava, for this very pleasant and detailed introduction. I hope it is being recorded because I can use it in my political work back home and everywhere else and take advantage of your nicely chosen words.

Now, dear friends, as you know, as you were told, I am a professor who happens to be in politics, who was involved in diplomacy and in the United Nations. So I will be available to you for questions on a variety of subjects. Don’t feel obliged to ask questions only within the framework of my opening remarks. Those opening remarks will be devoted to a particular subject, which are democracy, human rights and dialogue among civilisations. And I would like to explain why I suggested that title when I was asked if I would be willing to come to Georgetown University here at Doha, Qatar.

The reason is very specific. The last time I was here in Doha was in November 2006 when Qatar was hosting the 6th International Conference on New or Restored Democracies. That was one in a series of conferences and it was an interesting one. At that time I was not yet President of Slovenia. I was working as professor and was asked by the United Nations to prepare a paper for the conference. At the conference I met a group of students from this university who came to interact with participants and I was quite fascinated by the vigour and determination, which these young ladies and one young gentleman showed. So I thought that democracy and human rights is a subject, which you are discussing here, at the University, and something that has to be discussed further. And it is also a topic, which is bound to bring with it problems because democracy is an organised, peaceful conflict. Democracy is not harmony. Democracy is about variety and diversity of interests and about handling and negotiating those different interests. So I thought that for young people, for students of political science this is always an interesting subject.

Another aspect, which makes this subject interesting, is the fact that we live in a globalised world. The world is globalised in many ways: in terms of communications, in terms of technology, economy, finance but it is not global in terms of democracy or political organisation. People tend to continue to organise themselves in nation states and in Asia we often hear that Asia is, at present, the most "Westphfalian" of all regions of the world. So nation state is very much alive and democracy within nation states continues to be very much alive as well. At the global level, however, we have very little democracy and the question then arises: what is a proper organisation of global community. Should democracy be one of the global values? Now, of course, we have the United Nations, which is the only political and global organisation but United Nations has its deficiencies, its faults and it needs to be reformed. Strengthening democratic principles within the UN should be part of the reform. So there are subjects that come into the picture also at the level of international relations and are closely linked to the question of democracy.

Given this background, we have to think about democracy internationally. Democracy has spread very widely in the last three decades or so. If one looks at what the world looked like in 1970s and what is looks like today one can clearly see a big difference. There was a progressive expansion of the number of states, which can be described as democratic. Looking at this process of change from a European perspective one can see that the changes started in the Mediterranean part of Europe: Spain, Portugal in mid 1970s. Then later things changed in Eastern Europe, which has also become democratic. Things have changed in Asia. I am old enough to remember the drama of changes in the Philippines in mid 1980s. I’m sure everybody has read about this. I think that your generation is now following the developments in Iran, which show the struggle, which has to do with democracy, the concepts of democracy and the difficulties in establishing a full democracy. Democracy is progressing globally and one can speak about a situation today, in which almost three quarters of nation states around the world are democratic. That is at least what the specialised and non-governmental organisations say. So we have a global spread of democratic systems within nation - states whereas at the same time we do not have democracy at the level of international organisation.

In this process we have learnt certain things. One of them is that democracy always comes from within. Democracy cannot be imposed from abroad. But, on the other hand, it can be assisted from abroad. Now, that of course is a very sensitive matter: to what extent and in what manner should that international assistance take place. There are certain forms of assistance, which are quite natural. For example international legal standards, which relate to human rights and certain basic legal propositions, which are universally accepted and which can be promoted internationally. There are also various advisory forms. But there are other forms of international assistance, which are really not as simple: to what extent should international political influence play a role in a democratic transformation? Is a democratic transformation of society really well established and solid, if extensively assisted from abroad? These are quite serious questions which will get the answers in a historical process, which is not yet completed. And then, obviously, international principles and standards of democracy continue to be important. They are there at least since 1948 since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has established a certain number of basic principles and norms of human rights, which are important for democratic processes.

Now, we have to know that the international framework for cooperation in favour of democracy has changed and has developed in the past. I mentioned at the very outset that I participated at the 6th International Conference on New or Restored Democracies in Doha in November 2006. That conference came after a process, which started back in 1988 in the Philippines, following the democratic transformation of the Philippines. And when the process started there was only one simple principle, which guided that initiative: democracy has to be promoted internationally and without adjectives. It was said that whatever is labelled as the so-called "people’s democracy "or has another adjective is immediately suspicious. Democracy should be seen as a value in itself and should be promoted as such. That was the wisdom of the time.

Later on it was discovered, or it was rediscovered, if you wish, that things are not that simple, that one needs to assist democracy in ways, which call for adjectives. And let me suggest two, which would help in our discussion today. First, democracy has to deliver. Democracy has to be effective in delivering certain goods. There is a need to assist the effectiveness of democracy. If one looks around the world we can clearly see that democratic transformations happened with an expectation. People did not support democracy for the beauty of the concept. They support democracy because they wanted change and they wished higher levels of economic and social prosperity. This has been the driving force behind most of the democratic change that we have seen around the world and therefore effectiveness, effective democracy is something that one or must think about. The adjective of "effective" has to be put into the picture together with the concept of democracy.

Expectations of democratic change are not easy to fulfil and there are many parts of the world where they were not fulfilled. When I worked for the United Nations I have spent quite some time in consultation with friends from Latin America. They were telling me that democratic transformations, which have changed the earlier authoritarian regimes into new type of governance, democratic governance, have been accompanied by a degree of dissatisfaction and sometimes deep disappointment. Many people feel: "Well, we now have a better say, we have more to contribute, but we still do not see the kind of social and economic progress we were expecting." The feeling that the socially relevant, economically relevant decisions are eluding the democratic mechanisms, that, in fact, decisions, which are vital for economic and social progress of people depend of centres, which are outside control of democratic institutions leads to serious disillusionment with democracy. So here we have a problem, which has to be dealt with. The effectiveness of democracy in terms of delivering economic and social progress has to be part of the discussion of democracy today.

We see this problem in a very dramatic form in developing countries, obviously, where the need for social progress is very high. But we see a similar problem in very affluent societies also because in affluent societies people have started to behave more and more like consumers less than interested or active citizens. And when consumers become dissatisfied with their situation they are usually critical. They do not necessarily bring the right, well-informed kind of criticism to the fore but they are critical. So we have dissatisfaction with democracy in many affluent societies, not necessarily based on a critical reflection of citizens but rather as a result of dissatisfaction of consumers. The current recession has also added new problems to that: unemployment in Europe for example has become a serious source of concern and again that has an impact on the quality of democracy that we now see. My hope is that Europe will be able to manage these processes successfully. But we cannot be entirely sure of that because as I said at the beginning democracy remains an open-ended concept. It depends on realities, it is not something that one puts in place and then that concept lives on its own. The need for on "effective democracy" remains very strong. Political leaders in democratic societies have to demonstrate they the democratic process continues to be able to deliver solutions to the problems brought about by the current recession.

The second adjective, which I would like to suggest for your reflection is the legal quality of democracy. Democracy and rule of law are always closely connected. Democracy cannot flourish without respect for the rule of law. So, in addition of to being effective in terms of economic and social development, democracy has to constantly improve its quality through an improved and relevant respect for the rule of law. The rule of law, obviously, has many faces. But let us think just about one of them, which is particularly relevant to democratic processes - the problems of corruption. If a society is unable to combat corruption it is likely to suffer, in the long run, from rather negative effects that corruption has on the social fabric and that will not be felt only in terms of less than perfect results in economic and social development. This will also be felt in the form of dissatisfaction of people with the form of governance simply because corruption exists. Therefore quality of democracy is measured by the absence of corruption, which is one of the most fundamental aspects of the permanent relevance of the rule of law to democracy.

So these are the two adjectives, which I wanted to put before you simply for you to reflect in terms of current democratic processes, which is seen in different countries and, obviously, to draw your own conclusions. The struggle for effectiveness of democracy and for improvement of the rule of law never ends. Participants in the democratic process must develop policies for that purpose. Obviously, I have no prescriptions except those, which are already found in international instruments, which govern the international cooperation with regard to both economic and social progress and the rule of law. But I’m perfectly willing to take your questions and discuss your points on this matter.

Now, coming back to human rights, a part of the picture, which I wanted to paint for you, I would like to say that human rights are part of the legal fabric of democracy because human rights are defined in legal terms. But the importance of human rights goes beyond that and it goes in two directions. One direction is that human rights will continue to represent the foundation of democracy. One has to think about such concepts like the right to physical integrity and personal security, which is a human right, very fundamental for democracy. Just look at some of the most dramatic pictures from the neighbourhood, would see physical safety, personal security, as important basic rights, which need to be ensured in order for democracy to flourish. Freedom of expression, assembly and association, again, is a fundament upon which democracy is built. Participation in government either directly or through freely chosen representatives is another fundamental concept of democratic governance. And all these concepts are defined in terms of human rights, in other words in terms of hard law, which exists in a variety of international treaties.

So, human rights represent a foundation for democracy. But obviously human rights as foundation are fairly general and one has to read and interpret them in context. I’m in favour of a contextualised interpretation of human rights. Human rights do not mean exactly the same thing in every environment. Admittedly, this is a rather risky proposition. I’m sure that you are already opening your critical thought. Human rights do not mean exactly the same thing in every circumstance. One has to look at how political traditions and different cultures influence the interpretation and application of human rights. I have referred to some basic human rights concepts, but then, for example, freedom of expression can be practised in a variety of ways. Here we have a need for contextualisation and a need for taking into account political traditions, cultures and religions in a democratic process.

How do we know that a particular form of expression is acceptable because it is compatible with tradition of the country or culture while being still within the framework of the international standard of freedom of expression? That’s usually difficult to ascertain, this is not something that comes out automatically. There is a need for a discussion. And this is precisely where the need for understanding of the specific circumstances of the situation at hand and the need for proper discussion come into place.

Let me be more specific. I remember a time, a little more than 10 years ago when there was a lot of talk in international literature on what is going to happen in Indonesia. Indonesia is a large and complex country, a country, which had a various forum of authoritarian rule until late 1990s and it became clear at that time that there will be transition. And commentators did not know what that transition would bring. If we look into the past decade, roughly in the period between 1998 and 2010 one can see that Indonesia has done rather well. It has had four presidents, each of whom has added something new to the democratic transformation of the country. Each of them has added something to the way in which such fundamental concepts as freedom of expression were realized. President Habibie in 1998, 1999 opened up a debate on the sensitive matter of East Timor. He allowed that East Timor became free as a result of a referendum, which was euphuistically called a "popular consultation". So, the terminology was chosen very carefully not to arouse unnecessary further complications but it ended with independence, which was a painful outcome for many Indonesians. Of course, I do not wish to enter into all the debates on what was right and what was wrong prior or then or after. But the debate on East Timor was an opening.

The next Indonesian president, Abdurrahman Wahid, a very wise person, opened the new avenues of freedom of expression in Indonesia. Something that was not taken for granted. He did not rule very long. A man of great distinction and a man who was respected worldwide because the opened a discussion of pluralism of opinion within Islam in Indonesia. He showed that openness works.

Megawati Sukarnoputri brought a sense of predictability into the process, which did not stop the democratic transformation and finally the current president Yudhoyono, who is president since 2004, consolidated that process.

Now, I’m reminding you of the example of Indonesia to remind you of all the aspects of democracy, which I mentioned before. The need for democracy to deliver, the need for democracy to strengthen the rule of law, the need for democracy to be within the realm of law and realm of human rights. This kind of transformation can happen. It’s a complicated one, it’s a controversial one. It is one, which is always challenged by critique, but it can happen. And it has happened in one of the most complicated countries in the world. Just think about what this means if you compare the transformation of Indonesia with the fate of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the former Yugoslavia, which was not a success, but, to the contrary, led to a huge conflict and many victims.

I’m saying this because I wanted you to remain optimistic when it comes to democracy. And think about Indonesia every time one talks about democracy, human rights, on about dialogue among the civilisations, on the need to integrate local cultures and traditions into the democratic process. And, of course, let us not forget that these questions arise in different places in the world in different ways. Obviously, the model of Indonesia is Indonesian. It was not perfect and cannot be replicated elsewhere. Nobody would credibly say that this kind of experience is transportable, that it can be used in other parts of the world. Other parts of the world have to find their own solutions. Furthermore, nobody would credibly suggest that the Indonesia experience was without fault, let alone ideal. But the process is never-ending. The process of democracy has no end point.

Finally, let me give another, last example, the example relevant to democracy in contemporary Europe. Europe is seen as an old continent, it has a long history. It also has a long tradition of democracy, although not everywhere in Europe. However, democracy has found its expression in Europe through history and is prevailing in Europe nowadays. This was not the case half a century ago or more. But this is the situation now. And sometimes one gets an impression that Europe feels that we have reached the end point that we are actually democratic irreversibly and that problems are more or less resolved. But, obviously, Europe also has its share of problems and one of them is the problem of integration of immigrant communities. This is something that Europe is dealing with great sensitivity and sometimes with a serious degree of fear. Europe is not comfortable with the current levels of immigration. This difficulty that has to be recognised. Integration of immigrant communities into the European mainstream includes the immigrants coming from Islamic countries, i.e. countries where Islam is both religion and social tradition.

Policy making of integration requires serious thought. Let me refer only to a few elements of such policy-making for Europe, which are relevant today and are likely to be relevant in the future. First, Europe has to ensure success in education and employment, that that’s a precondition, because if immigrant communities are left uneducated and unemployed they are much more likely to be conflict-prone. Secondly, Europe has to ensure upward social mobility of immigrants because upward social mobility takes care of a number of problems, which would otherwise arise among people of different cultural origins. And the longer the cultural distance the more likely the conflict. But if one sees that people are moving forward, that they are integrated in the sense, not only in the sense of living for a long period in a different environment, but also moving upward on the social ladder, then that creates a completely new dynamic. Whatever they decide to keep from their traditions becomes much more acceptable, much more manageable because their social status depends on their upward mobility, not on their ethnic or religious identity. The issues of identity are much more easily managed if the upward mobility is the determining factor of their social positioning. And, obviously, there is a need for a wise policy of anti-discrimination and making successes visible.

We in Europe live in an environment, in a media environment, which favours bad news. And that’s a problem in itself because stories of positive experience simply do not find their place in the media. And those stories exist. So when United States elects an African American for the president that comes as a huge news to Europe, which is not used to upward social mobility on that kind of dramatic scale. And President Obama then becomes an enormous hero in Europe. Now, of course, that has to do with the story of President Obama as such, this has to do with many factors, which relate to United States and the role of United States in the global environment. But it also has to do, and that’s much less recognised, with an implicit recognition in Europe that Europe is much less flexible in allowing people of other cultures, of other race, if I may put it like that, to move upward. And upward mobility is something of a key importance and something that has to be made visible as well. This is one of the main tests of quality of democracy in Europe today.

I’m mentioning these examples to show how democratic transformation is continuous, how it has to be seen as something that has to evolves further in all environments, including in Europe, and how everywhere one can find elements of an agenda of further democratic improvement. As you have seen, I have tried and hopefully succeeded in being optimistic throughout my talk. I would also like to say that I understand that democracy has periods of set-back, that there are situations where democracy suffers and when it can be stopped, it can be repressed. But that should not detract us from the main feature and that is that democracy in the last three decades has progressed very widely in the world, that that progress has been so powerful that we now have to give the main focus to the question of what to do to make democracy more effective or better quality and more prevalent in the world.

This is the final thought that I wanted to share with you. As I said before, I tried to be disciplined. I think I spoke less than 30 minutes, which is an achievement for a professor. Now, I would be very happy to take questions and try to answer them.

Thank you very much.