SECRETARY-GENERAL, AT CONFERENCE IN AFRICA, SAYS BREAKING CYCLE OF DEPRIVATION, CONFLICT IS CENTRAL TO WORK OF UNITED NATIONS

Press Release
SG/SM/7653
AFR/283

SECRETARY-GENERAL, AT CONFERENCE IN AFRICA, SAYS BREAKING CYCLE OF DEPRIVATION, CONFLICT IS CENTRAL TO WORK OF UNITED NATIONS

Address on New, Restored Democracies Reviews Conditions for Progress; OAU Commended for Banning Repressive Leaders from Its Summit Meetings

This is the text of an address by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in Contonou, Benin, today to the Fourth International Conference of New and Restored Democracies:

Nous avons tous aujourd’hui des raisons d’être fiers. Pour ma part, je suis fier que l’Organisation des Nations Unies ait encouragé et soutenu la tenue d'une série de conférences consacrées aux démocraties nouvelles et rétablies.

Je suis fier d’appartenir à une génération qui a vu la démocratie gagner du terrain partout dans le monde. Comment ne pas se réjouir, en effet, de vivre à une époque où, plus que jamais auparavant, les peuples exercent le droit consacré par l’article 21 de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme : celui de prendre part à la direction des affaires publiques de son pays, soit directement soit par l’intermédiaire de représentants librement choisis.

Je suis fier aussi, en tant qu’Africain, du rôle que joue l’Afrique dans ce mouvement planétaire. J’appartiens à la génération d’Africains qui ont eu la chance de voir leur rêve d’indépendance se réaliser mais dont les aspirations démocratiques ont été cruellement déçues. Il est donc particulièrement encourageant de voir la démocratie prendre à nouveau racine dans tout le continent.

No continent, over the past few centuries, has had greater ordeals to survive, or handicaps to overcome -- from the slave trade, through colonial settlement and exploitation, and the destruction of many indigenous institutions, to the degradation of apartheid, the imposition of frontiers that divide brother from brother, and the creation of States in which Africans of very different cultural and religious traditions had to come together and build new nations.

The building of these African nations has been one long struggle against poverty, ignorance, disease and conflict. It is hardly surprising that African democracy has known many setbacks. What is striking, rather, is the fierce and ever-growing thirst for democracy that Africans have shown; their indomitable courage in defying oppressive regimes; and their success, in so many countries, in insisting on accountable government.

- 2 - Press Release SG/SM/7653 AFR/283 4 December 2000

And here I must particularly salute the success of our host country, Benin, in transferring power smoothly, through the ballot box, from the previous Government to the present one. This is a shining example for all of Africa, and other continents, to follow.

These conferences bring together "new and restored" democracies. Luckily, we do not have to decide which are new and which are restored. In fact, I believe that even the newest-looking democracy is really “restored”, because the democratic instinct lies deep in human nature, and people who aspire to freedom always feel they are striving to restore the natural state of things.

And nowhere is that truer than in Africa, where communities from the village upwards have traditionally decided their course through free discussion, carefully weighing different points of view until consensus is reached.

Indeed, I believe Africans have much to learn from their own traditions, and something to teach others, about the true meaning and spirit of democracy. We need to understand that there is much more to democracy than simply holding elections and deciding fairly which candidate, or which party, has majority support.

Of course, even that is not always easy, as one of the world’s most successful democracies has recently shown us. But I trust none of us is so unwise as to think that the difficulties America is experiencing cast any doubt on the value of democracy itself. On the contrary, what they show is how important it is that elections be held within a broader context of democratic institutions and culture.

Democracy and the rule of law are inseparably connected. Democracy strengthens respect for the rule of law, by making the people the ultimate source of legal authority. But it also depends on the rule of law, because without respect for law it is not possible to hold free elections, to conduct them fairly, or to settle disputes about the electoral process. A strong, independent judiciary is, therefore, essential.

Democracy implies majority rule, but that does not mean that minorities can or should be excluded from having any share of power, or any say in decisions. Sometimes, after due deliberation, a minority view has to be set aside, because when all is said and done decisions do have to be taken. Democracy does not, and must not, entail paralysis. But minority views should never be silenced. The minority must always be free to state its case, so that people can decide for themselves, after hearing both sides, who is right and who is wrong. Often, it will turn out that both sides had good ideas, which can be creatively combined.

How will the people learn about those ideas, so that they can make an informed decision between competing parties or programmes? At the level of the village, they may learn directly, by face-to-face contact. But in today’s mass societies, they are, above all, dependent on mass media.

So nothing is more important for democracy than free and vigorous mass media. For an election to be truly fair, different parties and candidates should have equal access to the media. Neither State power nor the power of money should determine that one party gets a hearing while another is denied it. But it is equally important that government and opposition alike be exposed to the scrutiny of genuinely independent journalists. The media in a democracy cannot be passive. They must actively seek out the truth on the public’s behalf, and be free to tell it as they see it. Often, especially in times of conflict, that requires journalists to take real risks. Many have lost their lives in the quest for truth. Others have been injured, imprisoned, tortured, or deprived of the means to support their families. We all owe them an enormous debt. Even more, we owe it to ourselves to give them better protection, since it is our interests and our freedom that they are upholding.

In mature democracies, parties alternate between power and opposition, as opinion shifts and minorities become majorities. Those who lose one election may be frustrated, but they live in hope of winning next time, and they know nothing too terrible will happen to them meanwhile. After all, the winners are their fellow citizens, their brothers and sisters, who may have different views, but form part of the same community.

But not all societies are like that. Not all minorities are composed simply of people whose views are out of fashion. Many are structural minorities -– that is, people who in some sense form a separate group, defined by race, colour, culture or creed, or some combination of all those.

If members of such a group are outnumbered in their society by other groups, they may feel that their views and interests will never be taken into account –- because, no matter how many elections there are, they will always be on the losing side. Research by the United Nations University has shown that inequality between groups of this type -– which the researchers call “horizontal” inequality -– is much more likely to lead to conflict than simple inequality between rich and poor.

That is not surprising, if you think about it. When rich and poor alike have the same religion, language and skin colour, the poor can always hope that one day they will get rich themselves, or at least that their children will. But if people see themselves permanently excluded from wealth and power, because of their group identity, they will soon begin to feel that they do not really belong to the same community as the other groups, and that elections are not going to help. They will look for other ways to bring about political and social change.

In other cases, a minority may be unwilling to relinquish power because it fears that once it does so it will be trampled on, or even targeted for genocide, by the majority.

So democracy can only work if all groups in a society feel that they are included, and that their rights will be respected. Often, that means rejecting a political system in which the winner takes all. It means ensuring, by one device or other, that minorities are given a permanent share of power.

In some places, that can be done by geographical decentralization, so that national minorities can win local power, in regions where they form the local majority. In others, it may be done by provisions giving minorities guaranteed representation at national level -- in the legislature, or the executive, or both. What is important is not the particular device used, but the outcome. All groups in a society need to feel that they belong to it, and that it belongs to them. That is the essence of democracy. Without it, democracy is doomed to fail. Obviously, it is much easier to declaim such principles from a podium, as I am doing now, than to put them into practice in real-life politics. It is especially difficult to put them into practice in a country which has just emerged from conflict, where almost everyone has lost a close relative or friend in the bloodshed, and has a very clear idea who is to blame.

It is also very difficult when people are desperately poor and hungry, which may make them less patient with long drawn-out discussions or parliamentary procedures. Such people are easily manipulated by those who use force to seize power, arguing that constitutional rights are a luxury which a poor country cannot afford.

How often we have heard those arguments! “Democracy begins with breakfast”, or “a hungry stomach has no ears”. And, indeed, it is true that the right “to take part in the government of their country” may ring hollow in the ears of hungry people.

But over and over again we have learned, especially in Africa, that poor people’s stomachs are not filled by rulers who impose themselves by force, who do not submit themselves to the people’s judgement, or who do not allow the people to hear the views of their opponents. Let me once again salute the Organization of African Unity, for its courageous decision to ban such rulers from its summit meetings.

We have learned that people with empty stomachs need not only ears but, above all, mouths -- to make themselves heard by their rulers. Otherwise, their needs continue to be ignored.

We have learned that democracy begins at breakfast -– that power has to be shared in the home, between women and men, and from there on up to the highest levels of the State. Social problems are solved only when people are free -- free to use their individual talents and energies, and free to play a part in collective decisions.

Oppression is not an alternative to poverty. Nor is development an alternative to freedom. In fact, poverty and oppression go hand in hand, while true development means freedom from both. No State can truly be called democratic if it offers its people no escape from poverty. And no country can truly develop, so long as its people are excluded from power.

I have often said that war is the worst enemy of development, and broad- based development the best form of long-term conflict prevention. Almost all the work of the United Nations is aimed, one way or another, at breaking the vicious cycle of deprivation and conflict, and replacing it with a virtuous cycle of development and peace.

Democratization is an essential part of that process. That is why we have come to understand that our work for development has to focus on issues of governance, while our work for peace cannot ignore economics. And that is why, increasingly, we focus our attention not simply on peacemaking but on peace building. In so many countries in Africa, we see a hard-won peace in danger because warring factions have not been fully demobilized, disarmed or reintegrated into the peacetime economy –- because, to put it bluntly, there hardly is any

peacetime economy for them to join. And in so many countries -- in Africa and elsewhere -- we see an elected government in danger because it has not brought people the tangible improvement in their lives that they so desperately hoped for.

The yearning for democracy is fervent, but the institutional capacity to deliver it is often weak -- and the commitment of ruling elites to promote it is too often suspect. A sustained, systematic effort is required to build sound institutions in critical areas of national life, such as the judiciary, parliament, public accounts, and the civil service. Without such institutional support, a fragile democracy stands little chance of success.

Much of our work in developing and transition countries, from electoral assistance through human rights to economic development, is devoted to building up these kinds of institutions and capacities. But the sad truth is that it is even harder to mobilize resources for peace-building and democratization than it is for peacekeeping and humanitarian relief.

In any event, we at the United Nations will continue working to improve the focus and coherence of our activities, so that peace-building and development are seen as part of the same process, with democracy at its heart.

And we shall keep in mind the Akan saying which I learned in my youth, and which sums up so well the spirit of democracy as Africans understand it: Etii baaku enko edjina! One head alone is not enough to decide!

* *** *