By their very nature, governments do a poor job in democracy assistance
Over the past eight years, many Europeans have been critical of the Bush Administration's approach to democracy promotion. But what is the American perspective on the "European way" of democracy assistance'? EPD spoke to Rodger Potocki of the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Mr. Potocki has worked on Central Europe, the Balkans, and the former Soviet Union at NED over the past 18 years. NED played a key role in assisting democratic activists and civil society in Central Europe prior to and following the democratic revolutions of 1989. More recently, NED supported programs fostering free and fair elections in Ukraine, where assistance to NGOs conducting exit polling provided evidence of electoral fraud that played a key role in the run up to the 2004 Orange Revolution.
What is your assessment regarding the European approach to democracy assistance in the regions that you are working on?
From my point of view, European democracy assistance has been dominated by a statist philosophy. European institutions seem to approach democracy assistance mostly on a state to state basis, which can only work effectively if host governments want democracy. This was, for example, the case in the post-1989 post-Soviet bloc countries which have joined the EU. The obligation for these governments to meet the democratic standards in the acquis communautaire and the requirements of the EU structural funds had a very important impact on the transitions in these countries. But the EU has more difficulties when it comes to working with civil society in these states, let alone those that are still a long way from joining. It is much more complicated for governments to do democracy building work and support civil society in countries with repressive regimes. For many reasons, this type of work is best done by independent, nongovernmental organisations and there are very few European mechanisms for working with civil society in the East via the third sector.
Are there fundamental differences in the approaches Europeans and Americans take in this field of work?
The success of EU integration has bred this mentality of focusing on the state to promote democratic reform. Working in countries which have yet to experience breakthroughs requires a different approach. The 1989 revolutions in the New Member States were led by grassroots organisations in opposition to the state; in order to work with such groups, you need similar independent organisations that understand how to support, assist and monitor their activities. Today, for example, it is almost impossible for a civil society organisation from eastern Ukraine, Belarus, Kaliningrad, Central Asia or Transnistria to submit a successful proposal to the EU for democracy-building work. Even almost two decades after the revolutions of 1989, it is hard for NGOs in Central Europe to meet all the EU's complex requirements and application procedures. The American approach is a broader one, with a distinct place for government to government support, as well as a significant NGO to NGO approach. This mixed approach is in fact much more diverse than the EU's almost singular focus on governmental and multilateral institutions. This diverse approach is rooted in our history. De Tocqueville wrote about the role of NGOs in our democratic development some 200 years ago. Since the end of World War II, the image of the US has stood for freedom and democracy. President Reagan decided that the US should not only serve as a symbol but also become a promoter of democracy abroad. In his well-known 1982 speech at Westminster, he proposed the creation of NED, a private, nongovernmental organization whose budget came from the US Government. While the administration was attempting to promote change in the Soviet Bloc through state to state arms control agreements and other official negotiations, the NED was supporting dissidents and democratic activists in the underground. Although Willy Brandt' s Ostpolitik was a significant achievement at the governmental level, there was no corresponding help going from West European or EU civil society institutions to similar groups active in the East.
What would be your advice for Europe to make democracy assistance a priority in foreign relations?
Democracy assistance is a long-term process in which NGOs can play a key role. Only NGOs have the flexibility, independence and experience to assist democratic activists in closed societies and "frozen conflicts." No two countries are at the same stage of development and civil society in many transition states cannot be expected to comply with the demands of large bureaucracies. Europe should respond better to the needs of activists working at the grassroots level. It seems that Brussels doesn't take into account the needs and capabilities of potential partners on the ground. Listening better would make the process of democracy building easier. Civil society programs in the New Neighbourhood cannot be run from Brussels; they are most effectively carried out by indigenous organizations which know best what needs to be done. Europe's approach focuses on its own bureaucrats and consultants, who hinder effective programming. There are, however, some Europeans who do understand and follow the American approach, such as the Nordics and the New Member States. The latter resemble closely our approach in terms of balancing a state to state approach by also working on an NGO to NGO basis to deliver support to grassroots organisations through small grants without undo bureaucratic burdens. In fact, many Central European NGOs receiving support from their governments for cross border democracy promotion activities first began their work with NED assistance. By their very nature governments do a poor job in democracy assistance. As official institutions, they are limited in the scope and efficiency of what they can achieve. Therefore Europe should create, utilize and fund more nongovernmental instruments like the European Partnership for Democracy to support civil society around the world. Most of the groups receiving support from NED do not understand or worry that our budget comes from the US Congress. What is important is that the NED doesn't work for or like the US Government. Our independent Board of Directors makes its own decisions. Although the partners we work with don't make the mistake of confusing us with the State Department, some of our critics, like authoritarian governments and repressive secret services deliberately accuse us of this in order to undermine our work.
How do you envision the future of American democracy assistance under the incoming administration?
The European critics of the Bush Administration often fail to see or understand the broad range of democracy assistance instruments the US has employed over the past eight years. They tend to see only governmental actions like the war in Iraq or the war against terrorism as represented by Guantanamo. They do not see the significant increases in support for and achievements of democracy building programs carried out by government agencies like USAID and nongovernmental organizations such as NED. It is hard to say what will happen in the coming years because of the financial crisis. I hope that the new administration will shift more of the activities of and support for democracy assistance from the government to the private sector. Rather than having democracy promotion as the focal point of US foreign policy, which encourages controversy, a greater portion of democracy assistance activities should be left to nongovernmental organizations. This would be a return to the policies of the previous two presidents, whose administrations believed that democracy building was best left to NGOs.