*Topicality/Definitions Democracy Promotion Includes Military Intervention
AT: “Democracy Promotion Counterproductive”
Download 2.51 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: “Focus on Elections Flawed”
- US Assistance Empirically Effective
- Local Funds Effective
AT: “Democracy Promotion Counterproductive”WRONG TO MAKE BLANKET CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DEMOCRACY PROMOTION WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER IT IS COERCIVE OR ASSISTANCE Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow Hoover Institute, In Search of Democracy, 2016, p. 425 Much of the debate about “democracy promotion” in American foreign policy involves those with opposing views making assumptions and talking past one another. When many Americans see the words “promoting democracy,” they think: “imposing democracy.” Yet the people and organizations that work to strengthen democracy around the world think of “democracy promotion” mainly as “democracy assistance.” Moreover, they understand that to be effective it must be done in partnership with local actors and in response to their stated needs. In truth there is a very wide range of instruments available to the US to extend democracy in the world and help it become more effective and viable. Whether one thinks “democracy promotion” is a worthwhile purpose for the foreign policy of the United States (or of other democracies) may depend not only on the priority one thinks it should be given in competition with other foreign policy goals but also on the means that are used. AT: “Focus on Elections Flawed”ELECTIONS CAN BE A POWERFUL TOOL FOR REFORMING AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES Larry Diamond, Senior Fellow Hoover Institute, In Search of Democracy, 2016, p. 415 The remarkable growth of democracy in the last three decades—reaching nearly all major cultural zones and over a third of the world’s poorest countries – suggests that every country can become a democracy eventually. No country is ruled out because of its history, culture or social structure. Yet, not any country can become a democracy at any particular moment, and certainly not quickly. Failed states pose among the most difficult challenges for democratization. Sometimes democratization—assisted heavily from the outside –will claim to be promoting democracy, when it does not have the stomach or resources for the fight. Even then, the international intervention may leave behind fragments of hope for political pluralism, and at least a less thoroughgoing authoritarianism than what otherwise might have emerged. Authoritarian states do not become democracies just because they hold elections in which opposition parties compete and win some seats. Still, in granting some space for opposition and dissent, they are often preferable to the harder authoritarian alternative, and leave open the possibility of eventual democratization. US Assistance Empirically EffectiveDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE HAS ACHIEVED MANY SUCCESSES Wil Hout, Associate Professor World Development in the Hague, 2007, The Politics of Aid Selectivity: good governance criteria in World Bank, US and Dutch development assistance, p. 3 The report Shaping the 21st Century can be interpreted as an attempt of the donor community, brought together in the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC), to reformulate the objectives of development aid in the light of declining aid levels (Development Assistance Committee 1996). Although the DAC (1996:1) acknowledged that “the efforts of countries and societies to help themselves have been the main ingredients in their success,” the committee emphasized the continuing relevance of development assistance: “The record also shows that development assistance has been an essential complementary factor in many achievements: the green revolution, the fall in birth rates, improved basic infrastructure, a diminished prevalence of disease and dramatically reduced poverty. Properly applied in propitious environments, aid works…. We have learned that development assistance will only work where there is a shared commitment of all the partners…We have seen, on the other hand, the countries in which civil conflict and bad governance have set back development for generations.” (DAC 1996: 1, italics added) US FOREIGN ASSISTANCE HAS HAD MANY SUCCESSES Steven Radelet, Senior Fellow-Center for Global Development, 2007, Security By Other Means: foreign assistance, global poverty, and American leadership, ed. L. Brainard, p. 93-4 While many of these criticisms were valid and there is little doubt that aid could be improved, these problems should not be overstated. It would be incorrect to conclude (as some have) that the entire U.S. aid program has been a failure. There have been several important accomplishments, such as the U.S. Agency for International Development’s contributions to the Green Revolution, its role in developing oral rehydration therapy, involvement in the campaign to reduce river blindness, work on population and family planning, and more recent efforts in support of innovative microfinance and HIV/AIDS programs. Recent research has shown that aid (from all donors) that actually has been aimed at supporting economic growth has largely had a positive impact, and several studies have concluded that aid has worked well in countries with strong policies and good governance, although other research has challenged that result. The strong pessimism about aid expressed by some is unfounded. Aid has been successful in countries like Korea, Botswana, Indonesia, and, more recently, Uganda, Tanzania, and Mozambique, and has had a large impact on improving global health. But there is little doubt that it has been less successful in many other countries—and in some countries has done damage. Local Funds EffectiveLOCAL FUNDS CAN IMPROVE DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT GOALS IF USED IN TANDEM WITH OTHER ASSISTANCE Jo Beall, Director Development Studies Institute-London School of Economics, 2005, Funding Local Governance: small grants for democracy and development, p. 17-8 Clearly local funds cannot and should not be the first or last word on social development and democracy assistance. They have to be part of broader social and economic policy repertoires and governance strategies. However, as has been argued by Mitlin and Satterthwaite (2004) and as is demonstrated through the examples highlighted in this volume, they can make a useful contribution to both development and democracy if they are well executed. Moreover, whether we like them or not, local funds are likely to be part of development cooperation for some time. This book is a contribution to ensuring that they do more good than harm, recognizing that this means, above all, that a correct balance must be achieved between support to local funds and wider support for social protection, and representative democracy.
Jo Beall, Director Development Studies Institute-London School of Economics, 2005, Funding Local Governance: small grants for democracy and development, p. 20 Local funds as they are currently deployed in development cooperation, have roots both in the social fund and challenge fund models. However, they have also evolved. Some are designed to reduce poverty and vulnerability, others to enhance local governance and promote democracy. Some try to do both, often with considerable difficulty. Local funds are delivered through a wide range of organizational forms, for example through existing NGOs, local government structures, or special purpose agencies. They can also involve a variety of funding instruments from block grants to soft loans. They have been influenced by social development policies development in both industrialized and developing countries and, in some ways, they constitute a meeting place for the implementation of both. What holds them together is a policy approach that recognizes poverty as multidimensional, and as linked to a lack of empowerment or political voice. In international development a sustainable livelihoods perspective has often framed the implementation of local funds, while in Europe the principal organizing concept is more commonly that of social exclusion. These concepts are discussed more fully in Chapter Three. Here, the endeavor is to trace the evolution of contemporary local funds from their origin with social funds—originally designed and implemented by the World Bank—as well as their roots in the challenge fund approach. These had their origins in industrialized countries but have increasingly become an important element of funding development cooperation. CHALLENGE FUND MODEL FOR LOCAL FUNDS PROMOTE TRUE PARTNERSHIP AND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNANCE Jo Beall, Director Development Studies Institute-London School of Economics, 2005, Funding Local Governance: small grants for democracy and development, p. 200-1 The challenge fund model, which gained some considerable currency over much the same period in industrialized countries, has grown to become extremely influential in the context of local funds in developing and middle income countries as well. Involving the promotion of partnerships and the involvement of the private sector and communities alongside the public sector, challenge funds allow people or groups to compete for resources by putting forward innovative project ideas. This approach now predominates in the design of local funds. Still concerned with poverty reduction and social development, making the voices of local people heard is now considered a priority among the objectives of local funds. Partnerships, where genuine and well executed, are thought to be beneficial, leading to the promotion of healthy organizations and enhanced governance, between government and citizen; between state and society. In this understanding of governance, the notion of democracy is central. This is different from the idea of ‘good governance’ used by organizations such as the World Bank to refer to efficiency and technical aspects of effective management. Both perspectives are controversial on a number of counts: the universal validity of democracy as a concept suitable for any society has been questioned, and critics have suggested that it is essentially predicated on market-driven principles that are at odds with the idea of development. What is useful to take from the more technicist perspective, and considered here as an outcome of voice and integral to democratic government, is transparency and accountability in service delivery. PROBLEMS WITH LOCAL FUNDS DON’T MEAN THEY SHOULD BE ABANDONED – THEY CAN STILL BE USEFUL IN PROMOTING DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY Jo Beall, Director Development Studies Institute-London School of Economics, 2005, Funding Local Governance: small grants for democracy and development, p. 33 Mohan and Stokke (2000:255) argue that the emphasis in development on “local participation and empowerment” and “localism,” which represents community relations in the “non-threatening language of trust, networks, reciprocity and associations” rather than the potential for collective action is depoliticizing. This has been the approach of the World Bank which, as Fine (2001) and Heller (2002) have pointed out, renders participation, social capital, and decentralization as part of Ferguson’s “anti-politics machine.” While this is no doubt true, the response should not simply be to eschew local level initiatives. Directing development assistance exclusively at central government is not the answer. Nor are all local funds derivative of social funds or dominated by World Bank thinking and agendas. It is argued here that local funds can also assist towards a process of democratic deepening. Democratization involves the exercise of citizenship rights and associational autonomy as a generalized approach to political action, this in turn means confronting the deficiencies of bureaucratic and party political practice. In this respect, local funds can play a useful role by providing arenas in which people can participate in decision-making processes around local initiatives. They can also trigger institutional transition by requiring more transparency and accountability on the part of local government organizations. This is not to suggest that local funds always do this. However, the way in which they are designed and implemented can keep an eye trained on opportunities for political engagement and voice, alongside policy, planning, and service delivery. It is to these issues, and to the relationship between local funds and social policy, that the following chapter turns.
Directory: assets assets -> Northern territory of australia assets -> Number: caveat in the [Will/Will and Codicil/Estate of] assets -> Invitation for Bid Calact/mbta for Standard Floor and Low Floor Rural Duty Vehicles ifb no. 12-03 November 14, 2012 assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> 12 Step Retreats For Everyone in Twelve Step Recovery Ratner Fellowship assets -> Sigaccess annual Report assets -> Central Government is expected to ask the seventh pay commission to consider merging 50% dearness allowance assets -> List of accessible executive records assets -> Emergency telephone numbers Call toll-free from anywhere in France Download 2.51 Mb. Share with your friends:
|