DOMESTIC ELECTION MONITORING PREFERABLE TO INTERNATIONAL MONITORING
Massimo Tommasoli, UN Observer for IDEA, 2010, Engaging Civil Society: Emerging Trends in Democratic Governance, eds. G. Cheema & V. Popovski, p. 138
In a few cases the presence of international observers is indispensable—for instance, with elections in countries requiring a peacekeeping force or undergoing a difficult transition, or where non-partisan civil society groups are virtually non-existent or non-functional. In the long term, however, the forming of domestic groups that are able to monitor their own elections without external assistance is an essential part of democratic development. National election observers have important advantages over international observers. They can more easily turn out in large numbers, even in the thousands. They know the political culture, language, and territory. Consequently, they are capable of seeing many things that may pass unnoticed by foreign observers.
National monitoring groups are often better equipped than international observers to carry out particular types of specialized monitoring efficiently. Examples including verifying the voter registry, monitoring the complaints process, documenting instances of intimidation and human rights violations, and media monitoring. And, unlike international observers, national civic organizations have an important role to play in implementing civic education programs and promoting electoral law reform.
HISTORICAL RECORD OF ELECTION MONITORING ASSISTANCE MIXED
Massimo Tommasoli, UN Observer for IDEA, 2010, Engaging Civil Society: Emerging Trends in Democratic Governance, eds. G. Cheema & V. Popovski, p. 141-2
In the field of electoral processes, Sharon Lean (2007) analyzed the results of CSO’s engagement in domestic election monitoring and observation. She argued that the effectiveness of international democracy assistance in this area is mixed and depends on both historical conditions and the degree of internal political polarization. Based on the analysis of six domestic election monitoring organizations in Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua and Haiti, her study defined three criteria for assessing the success of CSO election monitoring action: teaching civic skills and affording opportunities for participation; complying with democratic principles and practices; and playing a recognized intermediary role between society, the state and the international community. Lean concludes that both the international and domestic contexts matter. A history of external pressure based on soft power, and a low level of internal political polarization, may create favorable conditions for international democracy assistance. Multilateral action and pluralistic structures and behaviors on the part of the aid recipients may mitigate the unfavorable conditions determined by an experience of hard power intervention (including the use of force or sanctions) and high levels of internal polarization.
HIGH LEVEL ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS IMPORTANT
Michelle Dunne & Amr Hamzawy, Carnegie Endowment, 2008, Beyond the Façade: political reform in the Arab world, eds. M. Ottaway & J. Choucair-Vizoso, p. 39
However important public statements may be, there is no substitute for direct, private engagement with Egyptian government officials, especially at the highest levels. As with public statements, the content of private messages should be relevant to current debates and should draw attention to the demands of Egyptians pressing for reform. While conversations between presidents and foreign ministers often remain general in nature, working-level officials should carry on the conversation with greater specificity and link the general goals with specific incentives related to assistance and other forms of cooperation , including trade.
Alt Causes to Democracy Failure: Economic Problems
HEALTHY ECONOMY KEY TO SURVIVAL OF DEMOCRACY
Lael Brainard, Brookings Institute-International Economics, 2007, Security By Other Means: foreign assistance, global poverty, and American leadership, ed. L. Brainard, p. 14
There is strong evidence that healthy economies are vitally important for vibrant democracies, although scholarly research remains divided over democracy’s contribution to economic development. According to Adam Przeworski,
“The evidence is overwhelming that if democracy emerges in a country that is already [economically] modern, then it is much more likely to survive. No democracy ever fell in a country with a per capita income higher than that of Argentina in 1975 -- $US6,055. This is a startling fact given that throughout history about 70 democracies have collapsed in poorer countries. In contrast, 35 democracies spent a total of 1,000 years under more affluent conditions, and not one collapsed. Affluent democracies survived wars, riots, scandals, and economic and governmental crises.”
Obama has Failed to Reform US Democracy Assistance
OBAMA DEMOCRACY POLICIES HAVE BEEN A FAILURE
Lorne W. Craner, President Republican Institute, 2010, House Hearing: Human Rights and Democracy Assistance: Increasing the Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid, June 10, [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg56888/html/CHRG-111hhrg56888.htm]
From the editorial pages of the Post and New York Times to dictators, Democrats, and dissidents abroad, the current administration's human rights and democracy policies have been found wanting. The President has delivered a good number of speeches on this issue, and the recent national security strategy is a good addition. But 17 months into his administration, he has not put in place a strategy and a means to build on the 33-year bipartisan policy that preceded him.
OBAMA’S DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE POLICY WEAK – GIVES GOVERNMENTS VETO POWER TO BLOCK DEMOCRACY
Jennifer L. Windsor, Executive Director, Freedom House, 2010, House Hearing: Human Rights and Democracy Assistance: Increasing the Effectiveness of U.S. Foreign Aid, June 10, [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg56888/html/CHRG-111hhrg56888.htm]
I would like to finish by being a bit provocative. The term ``country ownership'' has come up in a broader context of foreign aid reform. We fear that this term may be misinterpreted to mean that governments should be able to veto the kind of assistance that the U.S. or others provide in a country.
The Obama administration has made a series of very bad decisions in this regard. They have recently zeroed out funding for democracy and governance and human rights in Bolivia at the request of the government there. They have limited USAID funding in China, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Egypt only to registered organizations when we know that such registration processes are being used to control or eliminate, quote, deg. ``undesirable activities of human rights groups.''
Meanwhile, the State Department is moving ahead with plans to set up a $300-million Mubarak-Obama endowment for Egypt. This is country ownership in its worst form.
Share with your friends: |