RESOLUTION ON PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY ADOPTED BY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Press Release
HR/CN/937

RESOLUTION ON PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY ADOPTED BY HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

GENEVA, 27 April (UN Information Service) -- The Commission on Human Rights adopted by roll-call vote this afternoon a resolution affirming that democracy fostered the full realization of all human rights and that the rights of democratic governance included, among other things: the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, thought, conscience and religion, of association and peaceful assembly; the right to freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through the media; the right to application of the rule of law, including fairness in the administration of justice and independence of the judiciary; the right to universal and equal suffrage; the right of political participation, including equal opportunity for all citizens to become candidates; and the right to transparent and accountable government institutions.

The measure passed by a ballot of 51 in favour and none opposed, with 2 abstentions, following a lengthy debate. A series of amendments proposed by Cuba was defeated, also on roll-call votes.

Some delegations expressed concern that it was the first time a "right" to democracy had been claimed and that the term might become a straightjacket for political considerations. Others charged that the text was unbalanced. Many delegations spoke in favour of the measure.

Cuba, in proposing amendments that would have changed, among other things, the title and an operative paragraph, contended that the author of the resolution -- the United States -- was making a unilateral effort to impose a political statement upon the Commission. The proposal to delete the "right to democracy" from the title was rejected by a vote of 12 in favour and 28 opposed, with 13 abstentions. Cuba's proposal to replace operative paragraph 3 of the resolution was defeated by a tally of 9 in favour and 27 opposed, with 17 abstentions.

Delegates of India, Pakistan, Ecuador, Chile, Guatemala, United States, Mexico, Norway, Romania, Russian Federation, Venezuela, United Kingdom, Cuba, Argentina, Indonesia, China and Japan spoke at the meeting.

Action on Resolution

In a resolution (E/CN.4/1999/L.55/Rev.2) on the promotion of the right to democracy, adopted by a roll-call vote of 51 in favour and none opposed, with 2 abstentions, the Commission affirmed that democracy fostered the full realization of all human rights; affirmed that the rights of democratic governance included, among other things, the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, thought, conscience and religion, of association and peaceful assembly; the right to freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through the media; the right to application of the rule of law, including fairness in the administration of justice and independence of the judiciary; the right to universal and equal suffrage; the right of political participation, including equal opportunity for all citizens to become candidates; the right to transparent and accountable government institutions; the right of citizens to choose their governmental system through constitutional or other democratic means; and the right to equal access to public service; urged the continuation and expansion of activities carried out by the United Nations system and other relevant organizations to promote and consolidate democracy within the framework of international cooperation and to build a democratic political culture through the observance of human rights, mobilization of civil society and other appropriate measures in support of democratic governance; requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to expand programmes and projects and to give priority assistance to programmes to promote democracy-related activities; and requested human rights treaty bodies and other mechanisms of the Commission and Subcommission to pay due attention to elements of democratic governance.

The roll-call vote was as follows:

In favour: Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Congo, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ecuador, El Salvador, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liberia, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Norway, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: None.

Abstentions: China and Cuba.

H.K. SINGH (India) said that, as the world's most populous democracy, India firmly supported democracy as the best guarantor of human rights, and the natural and only acceptable form of government. Democracy was one of the greatest Indian achievements since independence. It was essential for the full and effective realization of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and provided the best framework for the realization of cultural, social and

- 3 - Press Release HR/CN/937 28 April 1999

economic rights, and the best context for the right to development. All promotional initiatives that strengthened human rights were approved. The title of the draft resolution, however, was unsatisfactory, and should have been amended as previously suggested. All peoples had the right to democracy, since it was a form of government rising from the people. It could not be proposed from outside. There were no difficulties with the Cuban amendments, since they improved the text. The rights of democratic governments included social, economic and cultural rights, and the right to development. Widespread poverty rendered democracy fragile. If there were a vote, India would accept the Cuban amendments, but even without, the draft was balanced and acceptable, and India would support it.

MUNIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said the country could not boast to be the largest democracy, but it was one of the largest, and the Government represented the vote and will of the people. It therefore agreed that all governments be in line with the norms of democracy. Pakistan had contributed and had made a number of suggestions which would have enriched the text. It was the consistent view of the Pakistani delegation that democratic governments must take into account the traditions and cultures of every country. Pakistan believed that any provision relating to democracy must take into account any foreign nations in occupation of lands not their own; such countries must not be allowed to use the facade of elections to justify their occupation or colonial domination. This was not included in the text.

The right to self-determination also ameliorated the suppression of the right to self-determination by foreign Powers. The United States' proposal had not incorporated the Article 1 of the International Covenant. If it were incorporated, Pakistan could agree to the resolution. It requested that the measure be revised to be in accord with the Article 1 wording on the right to self-determination. The right to democracy was being used in a moral or ethical sense rather than a legal sense. Pakistan would vote for the wording as amended by Cuba.

JOSE VALENCIA (Ecuador) said the practical difficulties of defining the unilateral definition of democracy were understood. The right to democracy, as identified in the title, reflected the broad view that democracy should cover civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, as well as the right to development. This was how democracy was implemented in Ecuador.

ALEJANDRO SALINAS (Chile) said the Chilean Government was interested in promoting democratic institutions but wished to point out that democracy had not only a political but a social and economic aspect. It supported those who promoted democratic systems. Chile would have liked the debate on this subject to have had more time. Chile regretted that there was not more debate in line with the Vienna programme of action.

LUIS PADILLA MENENDEZ (Guatemala) said that, in the context of the collapse of communism, it had become clearer that a free market economy was

- 4 - Press Release HR/CN/937 28 April 1999

the best principle. There were no plural types of democracy . The concept was firmly linked with popular participation, the absence of dictatorship, and a host of rights, such as the right to elect, the right to speech, the right to vote. While democracy was the basic context for the exercise of these rights, including the right to development, so was development the context for these rights as a collective issue. The right to development was a collective right. There was no consensus when it came to these issues. The resolution could be supported and therefore Guatemala would co-sponsor the draft, including the amendments agreed to by the United States, where the right to self-determination was recalled and it was noted that democracy could take many different forms.

BARTRAM BROWN (United States) said the United States accepted the amendment proposed by Pakistan which aligned the draft to the Article 1 of the International Covenant.

ANTONIO DE ICAZA (Mexico) said that Mexico shared in full the thinking that led to the tabling of the draft resolution, and the intention underlying it. This was not a new issue, since it had first appeared in 1989 at the Commission. In this regard, the effort now made was commendable, and met with Mexican support. There were some difficulties, which were more of an editorial nature, and probably a matter of translation. Mexico could support a change in the title, or could accept it as it was.

NANCY RUBIN (United States) said that the United States did not support the Cuban amendment. The first of the statements the amendment contained would take away the right to democracy. The right to democracy had been with the world for 2000 years. Operative paragraph 3 stated that the realization of all human rights -- political, social, including the right to development -- was fundamental. The deleting of this paragraph as proposed by Cuba would take away its fundamental meaning.

JANIS KANAYIN (Norway) said that the amendments contained in L.64/Rev.4, which sought among other things to change the title of L.55, did not have the support of Norway. The original title of L.55 was acceptable. Norway would vote against the amendments in L.64 in order to retain the title of L.55.

ALEXANDRU FARCAS (Romania) said it differed with the proposed amendments and would vote against them. It did not agree with the change of title nor the textual changes.

OLEG MALGUINOV (Russian Federation) said that as a country which had had a complicated and difficult road to democracy, Russia would like to express its solidarity with the concept enshrined in L.55. Democracy helped to achieve all human rights, and the realization of all human rights, including the right to development, strengthened democracy. There were some doubts as to the concept of the right to democracy from a purely legal point of view. It required further discussion at an expert level, and between inter-governmental bodies, as well as in other forums. It would be premature to introduce this concept in intergovernmental documents, and therefore the Cuban amendments were acceptable.

- 5 - Press Release HR/CN/937 28 April 1999

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela) said the country was in the position to accept the amendment of third paragraph tabled by Cuba but it could not agree with the proposed deletion of right to democracy in paragraph 3.

AUDREY GLOVER (United Kingdom) said there was no need to replace the paragraph, since the existing text was more powerful than the amendment. The amendment also misquoted text. It furthermore misinterpreted the Vienna Declaration, which declared that the right to development was a right and a fundamental part of human rights.

MERCEDES DE ARMAS (Cuba) said the vote on the text submitted and on which action had to be taken was ambiguous. Democracy had to respect the approach of paragraph 8 of the Vienna Declaration that said it must be based on a multidimensional basis, including social, cultural and economic rights. A vote was requested therefore by Cuba.

HERNAN PLORUTTI (Argentina) said Argentina supported L.55/Rev.2 and would vote in favour of the resolution. On the second preambular paragraph, the exercise of the right to self-determination could not authorize or promote any action that was aimed at bringing harm or the downfall of sovereign or independent States.

SUSANTO SUTOYO (Indonesia) said Indonesia was not challenging the principle of democracy and would therefore support the resolution. Democracy was not to be put into a straightjacket as a "right". It remained questionable whether it could be considered as a right but the resolution was a step in the right direction.

WANG MIN (China) said that the country's Constitution and laws fully protected the democratic rights of its citizens. China was committed to building up its democratic system and had made great efforts to strengthen political democracy. It believed that democracy as a political system did not have a uniform model nor a "best" model. Every country had the duty to promote democracy. Every country and people had the right to choose their economic and social development in light of their needs. The Commission had used the term "right to democracy" for the first time. The term should be examined more deeply. The present resolution was premature and hurried, and was not balanced. The right to democratic governance should include the right to participate in the political, economic, social and cultural life of the State. The promotion of democracy should also be based on respect for the differing historical, social and economical backgrounds of countries. The draft resolution did not contain this element, and for this reason China would abstain from the vote.

SHIGEKI SUMI (Japan) said Japan fully recognized that democracy was indispensable for promotion and protection of human rights. Thus, Japan had voted in favour of the resolution and hoped for further discussions in the future in order to make the concept of the right to democracy clearer.

* *** *