What does Europe offer for peace, security and development?

Collective action at the EU level is essential to improve the correlation between peace, security and development.

By Kerrie Doogan-Turner

This was the key theme highlighted by Neven Mimica, European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development, at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) event on Europe in the world which took place this week. In his call for greater multilateral cooperation to tackle the global challenges of climate change, human trafficking and mass migration, he said there can be “no peace and security without development and no development without peace and security”.

Actors from the international development community gathered at the ODI event on Tuesday to discuss what Europe’s role in the world means for the peace and security. 2015 saw a culmination of global crises that are set to boil over at the European level as 2016 begins. Mass refugee migration on top of conflicts in Ukraine and Syria are putting strain on an already tense European community.

The gap between public opinion, national sentiment and foreign policy in Europe is stark – and growing. You only have to look to the rhetoric being used when discussing UK membership of the EU at the moment to see this. But the majority of problems and challenges the EU face at the moment are cross-border issues that will not be defeated unilaterally. And now more than ever, it was suggested, is the time to focus on what the European Union has to offer collectively in terms of achieving increased peace, security and development.

(Above: Neven Mimica, European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development)

If the EU can harness collective momentum to gather around the values that connect them, simultaneous improvements in development and national security can occur, the panel agreed. This applied particularly to the importance of sustainable development goal 16, which calls for “the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, the provision of access to justice for all, and building effective, accountable institutions at all levels.”

The importance of goal 16 has been repeatedly underlined by Anthony Smith, WFD CEO. Although welcoming its inclusion in the SDGs,  and its reference to the accountability of institutions, at the ODI he expressed his disappointment that the word ‘democracy’ was not actually used. He outlined a specific tension between the wider development community and the democracy and governance sphere. This develops when considering whether democracy directly correlates with improvements in key development indicators like health, education and climate change. He argued that – in spite of the evidence – democracy, especially in Europe, is about values. Respect for human rights, the rule of law, access to justice and strong institutions, which hold the executive to account, are all prominent features of the most successful democracies.

The European Union, he said, “can make a distinctive contribution in these areas”. When it comes to managing internal conflict, authoritarianism and abuses of power, Europe has a lot to offer. The experience the EU can share with states encountering such issues now is a vital tool that should not be overestimated. Europe’s promotion of democratic values comes as a result of the collective challenges we have faced and overcome together. And in spite of the challenges we do face in Europe at the moment, he argued, the systems are “pretty much as good as it gets, in terms of forms of governance that reflect the will of the people and protect from abuses of power”.

The development sphere “can and should address politics more directly” as development tends to deal exclusively with the executive, and therefore ignores the ability of parliaments and political parties to hold the government to account. If health, education, women’s rights and climate change are not on the agenda of the executive, then how can progress be made without parliaments, parties and civil society trying to change that agenda? It’s all these skills which need to be drawn together from the wealth of diplomatic and political experience that exists within Europe to help tackle the current global challenges.

This is why at WFD we share the experience of the UK parliament and its devolved bodies in the countries we work in. As WFD’s Anthony Smith highlighted, this “allows others to learn from our experience and decide their own way”. We encourage small, practical changes that can be made in fragile and transitioning states to build institutional change. We work with parliaments and parties to ensure they have the right tools to hold the government to account, improve participation and representation of individuals and therefore create policy that is addressing the needs of citizens.

It is this collective approach and understanding of shared experience that should be reflected in the EU global strategy it was agreed. But ultimately, it is the wealth of experience in establishing developed, democratic societies and maintaining relative peace and security that Europe can and should bring to the table.

Featured image: Flickr – bibliotecabne
Continue Reading

The ‘golden thread’ of good governance can help achieve all the SDGs

By Kerrie Doogan-Turner

As the dust settles on the post-2015 sustainable development goals, International Development Secretary Justine Greening has made clear her belief that the British contribution to achieving them means looking for support from beyond her department.

The Department for International Development (DFID) needs to draw on expertise from across all parts of British society, she told the Commons’ International Development Committee earlier this week.

Making progress, she suggested, requires an evolving approach. The new goals have shifted in focus; they now incorporate not only traditional markers of development like health, education and the environment but also broader ones like inequality, gender and governance. So to succeed DFID needs input not just from private sector and civil society but also, MPs heard, from “all our [British] institutions, heritage and experience to help other countries build their golden thread”.

The ‘golden thread’ was first outlined by UK Prime Minister David Cameron in 2012, and referenced again by him in his speech at the United Nations in September 2015. He had outlined Britain’s commitment “to build accountable and transparent institutions and representative decision making to ensure everyone has a legal identity and access to information and to protect basic freedoms”.

Now the golden thread is at the core of the UK’s approach – and is reflected in goal 16 of the SDGs. This looks towards “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels”. Effective institutions and good governance are at the heart of universal democratic principles, after all. In Justine Greening’s view, this approach is pivotal. “Development can happen,” she said, “but if you do not have good governance it’s like a millstone around the country’s neck. You cannot get as far as fast if you have corruption.”

Financial and Economic Analysis Office established with Ukraine Rada

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy understands this. Parliamentary strengthening is a vital part of the bigger picture of achieving progress in countries transitioning to democracy around the world.
We work closely with institutions to identify how we can best establish lasting change. Our work on financial oversight and scrutiny, for example, is fundamentally linked to achieving progress at the state level in education and health. If a parliament can scrutinise financial legislation effectively it can question where money is going and how much is being put back into the country to address development needs. So in countries like Tunisia and Ukraine we’re helping parliaments get a better grip on the figures, by working with Public Accounts Committees and developing offices which analyse financial and economic information.

It’s not just goal 16 which our work contributes to, either. A number of our programmes aim to tackle the pertinent issues of violence against women and girls, as well as getting more women into decision-making roles. Both are targeted by goal 5. Like the spread of good governance, the increase of women as decision-makers carries benefits for the communities they live in and politics more broadly.

Women in Politics panel discussion at University of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina

But how do you measure those benefits? For all the SDGs, though, tracking progress poses a challenge. Counting the number of women candidates and the number of countries that operate quotas is one thing; achieving and measuring a change in social norms is a little trickier. We all await the announcement of key indicators measuring progress against the SDGs, which will be announced in March.

Those working on the indicators will have to grapple, for example, with the question of how to measure progress against the aim to “leave no group behind”. When IDC chair Stephen Twigg raised this in relation to women, youth and religious minorities, Justine Greening pointed to lessons from DFID’s work on FGM and child marriage. Achieving a change in social norms “needs all parts of society and a country pulling in the same direction”, she said. That certainly resonates with our experiences supporting the Women’s Coalition across the Middle East and North Africa.

The realities of politics and governance can often get in the way, too. Elections can completely transform the makeup of parliaments. Military coups can simply remove the government of the day. Even the realisation that conflict is spreading across a country can render its institutions redundant. But that’s just the way it is in democracy and governance. Change takes time. Capturing it requires patience. As the UK Government said about its Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, this is “patient, long-term work”.

“What an achievement,” Justine Greening said of goal 16. “It’s there now, in black and white, something we can come back to and work from.” At WFD we’re committed to doing so in the years ahead. We’ll work from it in countries that are tackling the instability associated with extremism, extreme poverty and migration. And we’ll work from it in more stable countries that are tackling either the threat of autocracy or the curse of low economic growth.

“We are going to need governance,” Nik Sekhran from UNDP emphasised in written evidence to MPs,“and we are going to need peaceful societies, otherwise there cannot be development”. WFD’s mission of supporting democratic transition will contribute to that. We’ll contribute to the Prime Minister’s ‘golden thread’ and ultimately the achievement of all the SDGs, too.

Continue Reading

Expert engagement series: Are coalitions undermining democracy?

By Alex Stevenson

Any organization involved in parliamentary strengthening or broader governance issues will be interested in the findings of Oxford University’s latest research on presidential coalitions – and their troubling implications for democracy.

The way new democracies are governed is changing. In the 1980s, well over half of the world’s democracies were run by parliaments. Today, two-thirds are presidential systems. This trend is accompanied by a rise in the number of political parties, up from an average of 2.4 per parliament in 1974 to 3.04 in 2013. The result, unsurprisingly, is more coalitions.

After Dr Richard Youngs kicked off Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s expert engagement series with his thoughts about The Puzzle Of Non-Western Democracy, our latest event saw Professor Nic Cheeseman of Oxford University offer his thoughts on the implications of these coalitions on democracy.

There is some good news. Coalitions offer countries more political stability, tend to prompt more socially inclusive governments, and help make decisions stick. But they come at a cost.

The problem’s been revealed by Prof Cheeseman’s research among 350 MPs (in nine different languages and six different alphabets, no less). He and his team have found that coalitions tend to lead to a form of politics based on ‘exchange of favours’ – a phrase which essentially means ‘corruption’. Informal processes of exchange – negotiations resulting in the granting of political power in exchange for specific personal favours – do not exactly lead to good governance. Under presidential coalitions, Prof Cheeseman suggests, they are more likely to occur.

Corruption is unwelcome in itself, but there is more to it than that. All parliaments rely on the presence of a strong, robust opposition which is capable of challenging the government. Prof Cheeseman’s findings show that under presidential coalitions, the odds are you’re less likely to encounter this. Parties are lured to sign up to support the president’s party because of the temptations of power, and often end up splintering if they can’t all agree on whether they should do so. Others find themselves toning down the intensity of their attacks on the government because, at some stage or another, they too were part of the same administration. In some instances, around three-quarters of party leaders will have shared a platform with the president on one issue or another during the course of a single parliament. That’s not good for fostering healthy opposition politics.

“Coalitions bring a governability-accountability trade-off,” Prof Cheeseman explains. “On the one hand you get political stability, decisive governance and better policy… but that isn’t possible without weaker accountability, the breaking-down of opposition parties and greater exposure of higher numbers of parties to informal practices.”

The emergence of presidential coalitions presents a challenge to WFD. It’s not that it makes the UK less relevant; Britain has plenty of experience of coalitions. The UK was governed by a Conservative-Liberal Democrat alliance from 2010 to 2015, and both the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament have plenty of experience of minority governments. Instead the real headache for WFD lies in the implications of Prof Cheeseman’s argument – the existence of a vicious circle of fragmentation. Coalitions weaken parties, which in turn weaken parties’ ability to win overall majorities – necessitating more coalitions. Parliaments can only be as effective as the parties that operate within them.

More work is needed to properly understand the true depth of the implications for those who want parliaments to succeed. Should organizations like WFD, for example, decide to avoid operating in countries where presidents are staying in power thanks to coalitions? Probably not. Our focus is always going to be on what we can do to support those who want a more democratic future for their country. Fully understanding the political context in which a parliament functions is a big part of our work, though – it’s our politically astute, strategically-minded presence in countries around the world which marks us out from others, after all. What Prof Cheeseman’s research underlines is that we need to understand this trend.

“This research raises a lot of important questions for WFD,” says Graeme Ramshaw, WFD’s Director of Research and Evaluation. “We look forward to exploring them through our new research partnership with Prof Cheeseman and the University of Oxford.”

Continue Reading

Seoul report: How to respond to the global ‘rollback’ of democracy

On his return from the World Movement for Democracy’s Eighth Global Assembly in Seoul, Anthony Smith has written an article published on devex.com reflecting on the shrinking space for civil society and the ramifications of a new anti-democratic conceptual framework.

“This framework interprets good governance as effective management, not democratic accountability,” he writes.

“It suggests open economies and a strong private sector do not have to be linked to open societies. It raises ‘traditional values’ to the same status as human rights. It fosters coalitions of authoritarian countries that use persistent blocking tactics to reset the United Nation’s agenda. And it creates norm-setting clubs to challenge the G-7, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which can be built around authoritarian regimes.”

Attendees at the summit in South Korea, which brought together hundreds of democracy and human rights activists from around the world, voiced concerns about this framework. And there are bigger questions at stake, too:

“What exactly are the democratic norms that are threatened by regulatory restrictions on NGOs? How exactly can traditional values, faiths or beliefs be reconciled with universal human rights?” To find out more about his thoughts on these issues, you can read the remainder of the article here. It’s been published on Democracy Matters – the new conversation from Devex.

Featured image – flickr – michaelswan
Continue Reading

Interview: Richard Youngs on the puzzle of non-western democracy

Many politicians, diplomats, and experts today argue in favour of non-Western models of democracy.

Yet it remains unclear what such models should look like. It may be more useful, Dr Richard Youngs argues in his new book The Puzzle Of Non-Western Democracy, to think in terms of specific areas of democratic variation that can encourage democratic renewal—outside, but also within, the West.

As part of WFD’s expert engagement series, our London staff were given the opportunity to discuss the issues raised in the book with Dr Youngs, who is a Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Before the group conversation, we had a chance to sit down with Dr Youngs to explore his ideas. Below is the transcript of our interview.

Why did you decide to write this book?

RY: It had become clear to me that this issue of non-western democracy was becoming much more important and powerful at the policy level. It’s been a debate that’s been around for a long time, but it’s been becoming much more prominent in recent years – civil societies around the world, political leaders in rising powers, want to feel they’re contributing new ideas to what democracy means and how different forms of democratic institutions work. All western governments and agencies like WFD realise we need to take this search for democratic variation more seriously. The challenge is to understand what that means in practice.

puzzle of non-western democracyEveryone who works in democracy and governance appreciates context is absolutely critical – and that in different countries you will get different kinds of democracies as a result. But isn’t that something that is already understood by everyone?

RY: It is understood. In a way this is why the book relates to a very live policy debate, because all western governments and their leaders recognise that in trying to support democratic reform abroad, it’s not about supporting one particular model. It’s about understanding what citizens want in different regions of the world, what their understandings of democracy are. But, that’s easier said than done. We do also have to be a little bit cautious in thinking that there is a single non-western model of democracy that is completely different to what exists currently in other countries. We should be able to support forms of democracy that are right for local contexts without undermining core norms of liberal democracy.

That sounds like the key tension really between those two points. Have you figured out a way of resolving that tension?

RY: It’s not easy, and it’s about striking the right, delicate balance between supporting different models of democracy without ending up unwittingly supporting forms of democracy that verge on being almost soft forms of authoritarianism. We need to explore different understandings of rights, what we mean by liberal rights, in different countries around the world. People tend to want a more communitarian form of identity. They believe in democracy but they want to feel democracy is respecting their local understanding of morality and religion, of communal identity. With that, agencies and donors need to do more to change the narrative, in a sense – to convince people and show people that the core standards of liberal democracy don’t need to threaten local, traditional identities.

Was there anything that you weren’t expecting when you started your work on this book that emerged during its preparation?

RY: One thing that surprised me is how vibrant the debates are in countries around the world about this question, and just how sharp the differences are within different developing countries and rising powers. Some people in these countries feel they do want something that is radically different from western style liberal democracy. Other people find it quite condescending, where people argue their countries should have a different form of democracy. They insist they want the same basic rights as those that exist in established democracies. There’s a great deal of divergent opinion over this. It’s very difficult for agencies working in the field to get the balance right between understanding local contexts, supporting different varieties of democracy, but at the same time realising there are core democratic standards and institutions that do have universal applicability.

That leads to a final question about what we in Britain we should make of this. What should we take away from what you’re saying about these different kinds of democracies?

RY: The UK, as with other countries interested in doing what they can to foster democratic reform, needs to be a little bit more open to experimentation, to realising that a lot of the interesting innovations in democratic representation are today coming from other places in the world like Brazil and India. They need to be open to learning about those innovations and taking them on board. That doesn’t mean reversing everything the Westminster Foundation does; its traditional approach is to parliamentary strengthening and political party strengthening has a lot of validity, but somehow they need to be linked in with very interesting new forms of representation and protest and social movements that are emerging around the world.

Continue Reading

A fresh start for democratic transitions in the Middle East and North Africa

Following last Friday’s Nobel Peace Prize announcement to the Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet, WFD’s Dina Melhem has been reflecting on the impact the award can have across the Middle East and North Africa region.

“Across the region, political blockages create an urgent need for dialogue, the pre-eminent place of which in creating long-lasting solutions means there are many lessons to be learned from the Tunisian example,” she argues in an article for the Guardian’s Global Development blog.

You can read Dina’s full thoughts on the regional context of the win here.

As she stressed:

“The Quartet’s decision to engage all the parties demonstrated the need for inclusion rather than exclusion – a key principle for pluralist democracy and for prospects of a smooth democratic transition, in Tunisia or elsewhere.”

Continue Reading

Sizing up Kyrgyzstan’s Supreme Council: ‘WFD’s analysis shows the real picture’

As Kyrgyzstan’s new Parliament settles into its work, Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) has briefed new MPs on the state of the factions system – and the positive prospects for the years ahead.

“Kyrgyzstan,” says Akylbek Sarbagyshov, WFD’s Programme Manager in the country, “is an island of democracy in an authoritarian ocean.” Its Parliament has come a long way since the First Convocation met 20 years ago. The slow emergences of a genuine system of factions leapt forwards after the 2010 constitution, as our analysis – prepared by local experts Gulmira Mamatkerimov, Kurmanbek Turdaliev and Medet Tulegenov – outlines.  “For the first time in the history of independent Kyrgyzstan and the Kyrgyz parliamentary system, the Jogorku Kenesh (Supreme Council) became the subject of power,” it concludes. The fifth Parliament saw a functioning opposition that worked hard to hold the Government to account. “It can be said with confidence that not one of the previous convocations of Parliament has been put in conditions of such increased demands and expectations by society,” our analysis added, “as well as ongoing stringent monitoring by civil society organizations.”

Gulmira Mamatkerimova – one of the researchers

It was the fast-moving situation in Kyrgyzstan – there were four coalitions in the last parliament alone – which prompted WFD to conduct baseline research at the start of the Sixth Convocation. Our analysis was presented to Members of Parliament, the leaders and staff of the faction secretariats, INGOs and civil society organizations at the Park Hotel in Bishkek on 11 September. “We are the first ones to this kind of research,” Akylbek explains. “We did a thorough analysis of the fifth convocation of the parliament, and wanted to use this for an induction for the next one.” The research sought to establish the legal framework around how the Jogorku Kenesh operates – and what the reality of the situation is right now.

The analysis contained some challenging findings for the Kyrgyzstan Parliament. Factions still have little understanding of their roles and functions in a parliamentary system. There isn’t a strong link between a party’s manifesto and its behaviour in coalitions, and parliament continues to bear many hallmarks of a presidential majoritarian system. The opposition in parliament lacks the capacity it needs to provide really forceful scrutiny of the well-resourced majority coalition’s activities.

These findings were met with approval by those who heard them on 11 September. “I agree that the analysis shows the real picture on the factions and its secretariats,” Ulugbek Kochkorov MP said. “It’s important to develop and integrate mechanisms of cooperation between Parliament and civil society organisations.”

Member of the Parliament – Mr. Ulugbek Kochkorov

Having identified these challenges, WFD believes it can address the problem. In the 2010-15 parliament our work focused on improving committee hearings in the regions. “Now we are going to strengthen faction activities,” Akylbek says. “We are going to introduce their offices to the Westminster system.” By engaging with new MPs at the start of the parliament, it’s hoped they will be keen to accept our proposals. “We are on the same page together, right from the beginning.”

In the coming months and years, WFD will work with the secretariats of the factions to help boost their effectiveness. A focus on communications and public relations, the development of reporting mechanisms and work to better link up the electorate with the factions representing them will all feature in our activities. “Things may change with the new convocation if the secretariats have a strong capacity and can be more efficient,” Marat Tairov, head of the Ata Meken faction secretariat, said. “That is why they need induction training.”

Head of Ata Meken faction secretariat, Marat Tairov

Kyrgyzstan sums up what WFD does best: helping parties develop their capabilities in a parliamentary context. For Akylbek, who has long been a tireless advocate of the need for engagement in his country, praise for WFD’s work means a lot. “I didn’t give up, I wanted to demonstrate how important this is,” he says. “I am passionate about this.” Providing this kind of baseline research as a precursor to meaningful and targeted programme activities shows that WFD is “on the right path” and can achieve “small but real things” in helping improve the state of democracy. Akylbek says getting recognition is rather satisfying, too. “When I see MPs coming up to us and saying ‘this analysis is very important’, I feel really good.”

Continue Reading

Here’s what International Day of Democracy means to our staff

As the world marks the United Nations’ International Day of Democracy, WFD staff describe how their recent experiences in the field have underlined to them the importance of democratic governance.

Anthony Smith, Chief Executive, on the impact of terrorism in Tunisia:

In March 2015 I was with Lord Steel in Tunisia, holding an induction programme for newly-elected members of parliament. Two weeks later gunmen shot dead 21 people, mostly European tourists, at the Bardo National Museum in the grounds of the parliament in Tunis.

During the programme, after visiting the Speaker, we had been taken on a visit to the Bardo museum itself. We were incredibly impressed by the commitment and dynamism of the new MPs. And so the shock of the terrorist attacks was very much increased by our personal engagement with the parliament, as well as with the staff of the museum. We knew how difficult it would be for the country to respond. We also knew how important it was that parliament itself responded in a way that reinforced democratic governance and democratic values.

Since then, I have felt a strong connection with the people who had to respond to that attack, and to the separate attack in June. They have had to maintain Tunisia’s democracy and help their society as a whole to respond to this crisis. They have also helped me to see how important it is for parliament to lead the way in maintaining commitment to the rule of law and tries to ensure both reconciliation and decisive action in response to those challenges.

Ellen Shustik, Senior Programme Manager for Elections and Programme Development, on elections in Ukraine:

Ellen (third from right) with polling station officers in eastern Ukraine

I was an elections observer in the east of Ukraine for last year’s presidential election in May 2014 – right after the Maidan protests – and also in October for parliamentary elections. What struck me was the incredible level of enthusiasm, even within the smallest rural communities where people walked for miles to cast their votes, in the post-Maidan political environment. There was a real excitement about the country moving in a new direction and the reforms that these elections could potentially bring.

From 18-year olds voting for the first time to people in their 80s, I witnessed the pride and joy that people take in casting a ballot in countries where democracy is not taken for granted. It was a stark reminder that people elsewhere have to fight hard to get that right. How moving it is to see the right to have one’s voice heard exercised in a way that is full of enthusiasm and commitment.

Janet Bamisaye, Programmes Accountant, on local government in Kenya:

One of the reasons I joined WFD was because I wanted to help give people who don’t have a voice a say. In August 2014, when I was in the office of the Honourable George Ndotto, Speaker of the Kitui County Assembly in Kenya, hearing him speak so passionately about the contribution we’d made to his work gave me a lot of joy.

We’d been providing the assembly with training to help Kitui’s local politicians develop a five-year strategic plan for the county. Mr Ndotto was excited about the difference our work had made – bringing ambitions in line with approved resources, capturing feedback from the grassroots, etc.

It meant a lot to him, and to hear him talk about it meant a lot to me. Hearing the Speaker talk so passionately about it was, for me, a personal fulfilment. It felt like we were making a big impact to ensure democracy, equality and fairness in local politics.

And the training has made a difference, too. The assembly was able to come up with a recommendation on a realistic county development plan which was eventually passed in the Kitui assembly. The plan is currently being applied and is the main framework for planning and resources allocation until 2017.

Devin O’Shaughnessy, Director of Programmes, on the case for democracy assistance:

Photo: Dean Terry

Three visionaries – from Bangladesh, France, and the UK – have helped crystalise for me why democracy is a universal principle worth defending.

Amartya Sen: “Freedoms are not only the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means.”

Democracy is not just a luxury for citizens from wealthier countries to enjoy, but it is both a fundamental human right and a means towards greater and more equitable development.

Alexis de Tocqueville: “When the principle of equality spreads…not only within one nation, but at the same time among several neighbouring peoples, the inhabitants of these various countries, despite different languages, customs, and laws, always resemble each other in an equal fear of war and love of peace.”

Democratic countries will rarely if ever go to war with each other; the more democracies, the greater likelihood of world peace.

Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

A crucial reminder; though democratic politics can be rough and tumble, slow, frustrating, and even a bit dirty, democracy is still the best option we have, and everyone should do his or her part to make it better.

I am proud to have made contributions, even if small, to helping defenders of democracy from parliaments, political parties and civil society build their own democratic institutions in some of the most difficult contexts imaginable. Helping new MPs in Somalia, provincial councillors in Afghanistan and civil society organisations in South Sudan has brought me great personal fulfilment, knowing I am doing my best to help make the dream of global democracy a reality.

Kerrie Doogan-Turner, Communications Assistant, on women’s rights in Afghanistan:

In September 2014 Amnesty International, where I was working, sought to highlight the lack of women participants at the NATO summit in Wales. Their ‘talk to me, not about me’ campaign really resonated as I’d previously worked to support women in Afghanistan who were promoting and defending human rights in their country – in a bid to strengthen Afghanistan after its very turbulent past.

One of the things that’s made me interested in working at WFD has been appreciating just how strong the connection between participation in democracy and progress on human rights really is. It’s only by being part of the process of government that you have a say in your future and the future of your country. You can’t build peace by leaving 50% of the population out – that’ something that’s always stuck with me.

Dina Melhem, Regional Director for MENA and Asia, on women’s rights in Iraq: 

MP Intisar al-Jubouri of the Iraqi parliament’s Women and Children’s Affairs Committee speaks out about her work combating violence against women and girls

Under a democratic system everyone is protected, especially marginalised groups. But amidst war and a lack of democracy, women are especially vulnerable – as events in Iraq in the last 12 months have shown.

In January and March this year, as the WFD-organised coalition against domestic violence met in Jordan and Lebanon, the testimony of two women MPs from Iraq was both impressive and striking. They have always been very active members of our coalition. This year we heard their report of conversations with a group of Yazidi women who had been attacked. Having the voice of women in parliament felt very important because they want to contribute to protect their women and girls from violence, as well as from the shame that victims may face even in their own families. We worked with women MPs on how to debate the domestic violence bill they are seeking to push through the Iraq’s Council of Representatives.

Coming from the region, I can very easily relate to what they have to say. I feel the outrage very acutely. It makes me appreciate the importance of our work. Democracy protects women, and having the voices of women in parliament can make that protection much more solid. It feels, after this year, that we need to do even more.

Charlotte Egan, Programme Officer for Africa, on Thai free speech trials

I come from a country where it’s hard to even understand that merely being a vocal opponent of the government is enough to get you in jail. When I was in Thailand last year, monitoring the trials of human rights defenders who faced ten years in prison just for saying something defamatory, I was shocked by what I saw.

But I was also impressed by the civil society organisations whose supporters stood outside the courts, even though they were potentially putting themselves in danger by doing so. Every single trial I went to was packed with people who were scrambling to get in. It made me think a lot more about how important freedom of expression is – and about how parliaments need a civil society space to be critical in order to function properly.

Majda ElBied, Senior Programme Manager for Africa, on the EU’s past:

I was in Brussels in June 2014 with a group of staff from the East African Legislative Assembly. They were trying to find out how the European Union aids regional integration via its policies. It was a very useful visit; the shared learning and new relationships were very valuable for EALA.

What really struck me was how lucky we are to live in a peaceful region. I’m from Belgium, so being in Brussels reminded me that Europe was created to bring people together for peace and security. We tend to forget about it. But images of the Second World War in the European Parliament building provided a stark reminder that the EU respects cultural and linguistic diversity and ensures that Europe’s cultural heritage is safeguarded and enhanced. European officials often get talked about in a negative way, but their work has helped a lot of people when it comes to democratic representation.

And let’s not forget that Brussels had once sent its staff to East Africa to explore opportunities for a common currency. Whichever way information flows, the purpose is the same: trying to share learning as we seek to establish and strengthen regional bodies.

Alex Stevenson, Head of Communications, on a fresh perspective on British politics:

After five years of writing about politicians’ varying degrees of rhetorical ability, and their ability to withstand some tough questioning, there was something ironic about my being asked to address a group of politicians in the final weekend of Britain’s 2015 general election campaign. This wasn’t a tired old local party meeting, though. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had invited me to give a talk to their team of election observers, who had travelled to Britain from across the world, about the state of play in British politics.

When you’re immersed in a country’s domestic politics for many years it becomes hard to see the wood for the trees. Yet the fundamentals of democracy in a political party system don’t change much and this group of rather formidable MPs and senators quickly drilled down to the core issues. What struck me, as I stood there facing this cross-examination from parliamentarians from countries like Canada, Jamaica, India, Pakistan, Rwanda and the Seychelles, was the calibre of their forensic questioning – and what that said about the strengths of their respective parliaments.

I was also struck by how doubtful they were about the certainty of a hung parliament in Britain; a scepticism which, it turned out, was entirely justified.

George Kunnath, Regional Director for Europe, Central Asia and Africa, on Maidan Square:

Seeing the memorials to the fallen in Maidan Square in Ukraine in May this year really brought home the reality that democracy is fragile, hard won and obtained at a great price.

Democracy to me has always been about my freedom to choose. The freedom to choose your leaders, your religion, your job, your future. This freedom is what many great people over the course of history have sacrificed their lives for.

While, on International Democracy Day we tend to remember the historical greats like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and others, we should not forget that daily ordinary people across the world are standing up against oppression and for their right to choose a better life.

Continue Reading