Budapest, 19/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - On Wednesday 18 May a resolution was adopted in Budapest on future challenges to democracy and respect for the constitutional order in ACP and EU countries (co-rapporteurs: Olle Schmidt - ALDE, Sweden, and François Ibovi - Republic of Congo). The universality of democratic principles and limitations to power-sharing are recompense to the post-election violence. This sentiment was loudly proclaimed in the resolution adopted by the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (JPA).
At the beginning of the session, JPA co-president, Louis Michel, declared: “I am often shocked to hear that democracy is a Western value. This is an insult to citizens from the rest of the world, who supposedly do not deserve freedom or the right to express themselves freely or vote and if needs be, censure their leaders. There cannot be different definitions of democracy. The modalities can change but the major principles underpinning it remain the same.” Although the resolution tackles “the essential problem of power-sharing” it is only a stopgap because “there needs to be an opposition. Power-sharing is the choice of stability over democracy”, explained co-rapporteur Olle Schmidt during the debate. His colleague, Ibovi, drove this message home in declaring: “This sharing is the death of freedom, the death of democracy… it should not be encouraged because it is used when the elections are contested. It is democracy in parenthesis.”
The resolution underlines the fundamentals of democracy such as the existence of a solid legal framework for institutions and procedures. More often than not it consists of a well drafted constitution, respect for this constitution, the organisation of free and fair elections, respect for the election results and the consolidation of political power by the institutions, the balance of power and respect for human rights.
The JPA is calling for electoral systems to be scrupulously monitored in both EU and ACP countries. It also warns against practices such as “electoral gerrymandering and manipulation of the list of voters”. The JPA welcomes the increase in the number of democratic elections in Africa but also calls for these elections to be monitored not only before the elections but also and above all, after them, in order to ensure that the verdict of the ballot box is scrupulously respected. The peaceful presidential elections in Niger last March and the peaceful referendum on the self-determination of southern Sudan in January are quoted as examples, whilst the parliamentarians condemned Laurent Gbagbo's refusal to accept the election results proclaimed by the Independent Electoral Commission and certified by the UN. The resolution criticises “the weak support by certain leaders from ACP countries for democratic values, which often leads to sacred tradition prevailing”. EU and ACP parliamentarians particularly support “the right of citizens to express their choice for political change through peaceful demonstrations and support for democratic groups and mass demonstrations”. They condemn “the disproportionate use of the armed forces” against demonstrators.
Pitfalls of power-sharing. ACP and European parliamentarians warned against the practice of “power-sharing agreements”, which they believe can be useful but only in very serious crises and for a short period of time because they can lead to new conflicts and can short-circuit civil society. The resolution underlines to what extent a genuine opposition is necessary, “as illustrated by the examples in Zimbabwe, Kenya and Madagascar”, as well as the need for a pluralist, independent and free media. On the other hand, the JPA “regrets the threat posed by corruption to democracy in ACP countries and in the EU”. The wish of the co-rapporteur, Olle Schmidt, to place the countries in Europe and in the ACP on a list of countries that are leading the fight against this scourge, was not, however, supported.
Similarly, the proposal to set up an institute for democracy as part of ACP-EU cooperation (which had the support of the ACP) was not supported either. Many MEPs considered that it was inappropriate or indeed unnecessarily expensive to set up an additional institution. During the course of the debate, the European Commission representative pointed out that there was already an IDEA (Institute for Democratic and Electoral Assistance) in Sweden. ACP members wanted “major companies responsible for corruption” to be added to the list. Mariya Nedelcheva (EPP, Bulgaria) welcomed the fact that this resolution would apply everywhere “in Europe, Africa and elsewhere”. She was, however, sceptical about the added value of the “name and shame” initiative on corruption and pointed out that in Europe “we are not always the best examples”. Hoarau (GUE) said that the best guarantee for democracy consists of winning the support of the people for access to universal services. He would have liked to have made the text even stronger and include the exercise of democracy as not simply being within the political field “but also in the corporate arena and in civil society”. Naib (Eritrea) supported this view and said that they had not spoken very much about the economic, social and cultural aspects of democracy. Michael Gahler (EPP, Germany) highlighted “the progress achieved in Africa over recent years” and said that with regard to the idea of setting up an institute for democracy, budgetary constraints meant that decentralisation would be preferable. Emmanuel Kwasi Bandua (Ghana) appealed for them to “examine very closely the military as an instrument of oppression when elections are lost and to mentally re-orientate this institution so that it be more of an instrument in support of the people”. (A.N./transl.fl)