Publications >> Staff Testimonies and Presentations

Speeches, Presentations David Lowe, Vice President of Government and External Relations, NED November 13-14, 2002

"Enlightened post Cold War Initiative for Peace Building and Democracy: Enhancing the Role of the Parliament and NGOs" Tokyo, Japan, November 13-14, 2002 by David Lowe, Vice President for Government and External Relations, NED “The National Endowment for Democracy,” talk prepared for delivery at the Conference on “Enlightened post Cold War Initiative for Peace Building and Democracy: Enhancing the Role of the Parliament and NGOs” I am honored to be with you this afternoon to offer some insights that we at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) have gained over the years that might be relevant to your democracy-building initiative. The Endowment is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. that is funded largely by the U.S. Congress and whose mission is to promote democracy around the world. NED will celebrate its 20th anniversary next year. In many ways, the Endowment stands on the shoulders of others whose efforts to promote democracy have been so effective. The American Labor Movement has long assisted the struggle to secure worker rights beyond our own borders. And the international work of the German Stiftungen (i.e., political foundations), which had come into being largely to help restore democracy in Germany after World War II, became a model for those who were looking to create an American institution to promote democracy. It was back in 1967 that a congressman from South Florida, a first generation American with a proud Italian heritage named Dante Fascell, first proposed a publicly funded institute for democracy and human rights. From that time until his vision was fulfilled --with some modifications -- some sixteen years later, two significant developments intervened. First, there was the important role played by the German Stiftungen in the successful transitions to democracy in Portugal and Spain following the collapse of the two Iberian dictatorships in the 1970s. And there was the additional boost provided by President Reagan in his Westminster speech of 1982, considered by many to be the most important of his presidency. (Following Fascell’s death a few years ago, the Endowment established a Reagan-Fascell Fellows program, which brings to our office on a biannual basis democratic activists and scholars from every region of the world.) NED was established as a non-governmental institution in order to best guarantee its independence and to insulate it from the day-to-day workings of U.S. foreign policy. It is governed by a bi-partisan Board of Directors that includes current and former members of Congress, foreign policy experts, and other distinguished Americans who have a strong interest in the Endowment’s mission. In keeping with its non-governmental character, NED’s Board is not Presidentially-appointed, and its members serve a maximum of three three-year terms. Currently working with democrats in some 70 countries globally, the Endowment’s program is premised on the belief that democracy is a universal value. While we believe that there is no single democratic model, and that those who promote democracy must be sensitive to historical and cultural factors, there nonetheless are a number of common elements that are fundamental to any democracy, among them periodic elections that are free and fair; broad citizen participation in the political process; accountable leaders; independent media; institutions that respect and protect human rights; and adherence to the rule of law. The Endowment is a coalition of Institutes that specialize in political party development (the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs), support for worker rights (the American Center for International Labor Solidarity), and the promotion of open market economic reform (the Center for International Private Enterprise). In addition to programs sponsored by these four Institutes, NED funds indigenous grassroots organizations working in areas as diverse as human rights, civic education, independent media, women’s rights, local government, youth participation, freedom of information and conflict resolution. Our overall funding strategy is not to create our own programs but rather to support the work of grassroots democratic activists. We studiously avoid a “made in Washington” approach which assumes that we know what is best for those struggling to create democratic institutions. But we do take a strategic approach that builds upon an understanding of what kinds of programs work best in specific situations. NED is committed to concentrating its resources in two broad categories of countries: the world’s remaining dictatorships and a diverse group of countries we label “semi-authoritarian.” We are also working, to a somewhat lesser degree, in two additional types of situations, namely, countries making a transition to democracy but which still lack strong institutions, and war-torn or failed states that lack virtually any governing institutions. NED receives an annual appropriation from the U.S. Congress from which it funds its programs. We have been included in the President’s annual budget that is submitted to Capitol Hill each year since the Endowment’s inception, a sign of the continuing support we have received from each Administration since that time. We relate closely to four separate congressional committees, two in each house, and we make frequent visits to the Hill to help answer the questions of members and staff about our program and to bring visiting grantees to talk about their work. This year, with our assistance, the Congress created a bi-cameral Democracy Working Group, headed by two Senators and two Representatives, to help facilitate this educational role, putting members of Congress in touch with the global democracy movement. Twenty years ago, democratic assistance was much more of a novelty than it is today, and there were a number of questions about this new institution. For example, would it involve itself in U.S. domestic politics? Would it be just another Washington think tank? Would it conduct its own independent foreign policy? Would it be simply a tool of U.S. interests? Would it work against U.S. national interests? Although we made our share of mistakes, particularly early on, none of these fears has materialized, and, over time, political support for NED has grown on both sides of the partisan aisle. But that development hasn’t been simply the result of avoiding big mistakes. What factors, on the positive side, have helped to make the difference? Above all, a successful track record. From time to time one hears talk both in and out of Washington about how this or that lobbyist has been successful in “selling” his client’s ideas. In fact, there is no substitute for having a reliable product. We have made it a priority to educate our primary constituency, namely, Members of Congress, about the importance of this work. Given the large turnover of Members and particularly their staffs over time, this has been, and must continue to be, an ongoing project. More and more policy makers in Congress and elsewhere have come to realize the dangers of a non-democratic world and that ultimately, there is no more cost-effective way than the promotion of democracy to help insure national security. The events of September 11, 2001, have only served to underscore this critical point. As you look to the establishment of a new entity, you have a number of advantages over the Endowment when it was still on the drawing board twenty years ago. First, you are looking to enter the field just at the right time in terms of its acceptability and the broad recognition of its potential effectiveness. And second, you have laid the political groundwork by bringing on board an impressive number of Diet members who will be instrumental to the success of the initiative. If there is one message that I would want you to take away from my presentation, it is that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside. Let me give you one example of what I mean. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, we funded a number of civic education programs in Russia. After a few years, we sent an independent evaluator to take a look at them. Let me quote from the final report: “While it is too early to come to any sweeping conclusions about the long-term effects of these initiatives, it is already clear that many of these projects have begun to contribute to the growth of democratic values and practices among Russian educators and students. More specifically, the NED-supported grantees have pioneered new approaches to teaching about citizens’ legal rights and human rights, have created new teaching methods for cultivating attitudes of tolerance and respect, and have developed extensive materials to teach citizens and students about the institutions and practices of Russian democracy…However, it is also clear that some NED-supported projects have been more successful than others, and that those that are truly indigenous, initiated and developed by Russian activists and educators, have been distinctly more successful and substantial than those that have been initiated or developed by American or other foreign activists and consultants.” Let me conclude by noting some key lessons that we have learned over the years in addition to those I have already mentioned. First, democracy grows over time; it cannot be created overnight. Democracy is more than simply elections, including as it does the political culture of its people, which takes time to cultivate. Second, support should be carefully targeted and limited. You should avoid propping up artificial groups that lack commitment and authenticity. Most of them should be able to sustain themselves within a reasonable amount of time. Third, democracy is best promoted by those who have themselves been involved in building it in their own societies. Among the most successful programs we have supported are those in which experiences have been transferred across their own borders. Finally, no situation should ever be considered hopeless. There are democrats in every society who can benefit from international assistance. In closing, let me just say how delighted we are that Japan is seriously considering entry into the field of democracy promotion. On this panel you have a number of different models represented, but in the end, you will want to devise an approach that plays to your own unique strengths, developing the structures and partnerships best suited to your own experiences. Our role will remain to offer on a continuing basis whatever assistance we can, as well as our best wishes for your ultimate success.

|