Brave new world
Anybody trying to move around central Warsaw last week could not have failed to notice that the city was playing host to one of the largest international diplomatic gatherings in the last decade, when over 100 foreign ministers or their representatives descended on Poland to discuss democracy. The event, long planned by the Polish Foreign Ministry, turned out to be the swansong of Foreign Minister Bronislaw Geremek, a member of the Freedom Union (UW) party and hence one of the ministers who resigned with the withdrawal of the UW from government last month. Alongside the ministerial conference, there was a second conference devoted to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the contribution they make to "civil society" as an integral part of democratic politics.
The end result of the governmental conference was the issuance of a "Warsaw Declaration," designed to be a manifesto of what is increasingly the new benchmark of international politics, namely the primacy of democratic principles over national interests. The document itself, heavily promoted by Geremek and U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, will now be used in efforts to bring democratic countries closer together in institutions such as the United Nations, and to spread democratic principles in the Third World.
Very noble, and hardly surprising that the two conferences and the final declarations of both were greeted with near-hysterical acclaim by Poland's press. Yet a closer look shows that as far as democracy is concerned, things are not as simple as they seem. Already at the outset, several observers raised eyebrows that countries such as Russia were invited as equal partners with countries that are not currently arresting media tycoons or conducting massacres against national minorities. And that countries that are making genuine efforts to have free elections, such as Iran, were excluded. The conference was also marked by the curious spectacle of France surely the cradle of global liberty refusing to sign the final declaration precisely on the grounds that it implied support for the "export of democracy."
Those incidents in themselves should ring warning bells to those who believe that "democracy" can somehow be a benchmark for conducting international foreign policy, and serve to remind us that at the end of the day, the national interest is the ultimate driving force of diplomacy. So that is the first lesson: national interest is here to stay, even in this enlightened age.
But there are more serious issues at stake. There was a time when the definition of democracy was relatively clear: the existence of regular elections, through political parties, generating governments that are responsible and accountable to the ordinary voter. Of course, there are a complex set of circumstances alongside that definition that need to exist for democracy to be stable, such the existence of a rule of law ensuring limited government, a cultural background that preserves individual liberties, free markets and the protection of private property, and an independent state in which the institutions that protect democracy can exist. But bizarrely, that seems to be increasingly under question by many proponents of the new global democratic order.
Take NGOs. It is difficult to pinpoint the moment NGOs came on the scene, although it is clear that they arrived much later than democracy did in most Western countries. Yet many of them seem to suggest that democracy is impossible without their existence. Moreover, many NGOs spend a lot of time attacking many of the things that make democracy possible: free market capitalism, traditional moral and cultural values, and ethical systems derived from the Christian religion. Ask any resident of Seattle, who last year was confronted by mass demonstrations by NGOs and their supporters that were little different from the violent Marxist street demos of the 1960s-1970s.
The more worrying thing is just as the traditional foundations of democracy are being eroded from below by NGOs, so the other bulwark of democracy accountable politicians in nation-states are being increasingly usurped by unaccountable bureaucracies, often on a global scale. A good example is the World Health Organization, whose remit to interfere in ordinary liberties, such as smoking, far exceeds any legitimacy it possesses from ordinary voters. It is particularly bizarre that the United Nations should be seen as a guarantor of democratic values, when it is one of the most bureaucratic and unaccountable organizations in existence on the planet.
It is true that democracy today is under constant threat. But the true challenge to democracy lies not in the traditional model of nation states conducting free and fair elections, but the increasingly symbiotic relationship between unelected bureaucrats in myriad international institutions, and professional NGO activists. It is much easier for unelected officials to engage in a "dialogue" with self-appointed activists often funded by those very same officials than participate in that tedious exercise called elections. Next time you see a "democrat," take a close look, and ask him the simple question: who elected you?
Marek Matraszek is the Warsaw Director of CEC Government Relations. He can be e-mailed at director@ec.com.pl
