This year has brought an unusual mix of crisis, hope, freedom and repression. At times the world seemed to be teetering on the edge of chaos. We have seen the brutality of the governing Belarusian regime towards its own citizens, and the suffering of innocent civilians in Syria and Libya. Yet even the most difficult circumstances can still offer grounds for optimism. The suicide of a young man in Tunisia who saw no future for himself triggered a democratic revolution that is changing the face of North Africa and the Middle East.
The Arab spring has launched a new wave of democratic revolutions, proving that the struggle for freedom can be stronger than the chains of tyranny. But democracy building is a difficult and often unpredictable business. Supporting it is in our common interest, although if it is to proceed effectively the European Union needs to deploy instruments that are flexible, non-bureaucratic and able to respond quickly to both existing and emerging challenges.
That is why I have proposed a new tool: the European Endowment for Democracy. The EED could be a hub for ideas on how to make democracy work – a tool to support political dialogue and democracy at the local level. It would help to create independent news media and would also grant scholarships to promising students. Its aim would be to assist every society that aspires to democracy.
Promoting democracy is part of the EU’s genetic code; indeed, it is the EU’s raison d’être. We all know that change must come from within, but we also know how crucial it is to gain support from outside. Europe’s own experience shows that external actors have a role to play in supporting change, and that at times they may be crucial. The United States’ role was essential in promoting democracy in post-war West Germany and in Italy, Germany’s political foundations did much to nurture the transition to democracy in post-Franco Spain, and more recently Poland led the changes in Central and Eastern Europe.
We in Poland were lucky enough to have European and American friends who gave as a helping hand in difficult times. When martial law was imposed by the communists in December 1981, Washington – through the American National Endowment for Democracy – followed by Paris, West Berlin and London provided life-support to Poland’s embattled Solidarity movement.
The result was that Poland and other Central European states could re-unite themselves with the European family. But the most effective tool of the EU’s democratisation policy – its own expansion – cannot be used indefinitely. The EU must therefore develop tools to promote democracy outside its current and potential future borders, especially in countries and regions that are unlikely to join the Union any time soon, if ever. The logic of “transition by integration” must be augmented by “transition by emulation.”
The most serious threat to democracy is the notion that it has already been achieved. The words of John F. Kennedy still ring true today: “Life in freedom is not easy, and democracy is not perfect.” Especially if it is a young democracy. Europe’s neighbours are grappling with the same challenges Poland faced more than 20 years ago. Several years back, our eastern neighbours were experiencing a similar wave of unrest, so in responding to the Arab spring we should in many respects follow the lessons learned in Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s and during the Rose and Orange revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine. Alexis de Tocqueville once said: “In a revolution, as in a novel, the most difficult part to invent is the end.” Developments in the EU’s eastern neighbourhood show that while revolutions are essential to igniting the engine of change, they are just the beginning of a long process that will require patience, clear leadership and a strong civil society.
The democratic gains from the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia are far from consolidated, and the rest of the region continues to strive for freedom, watching closely events in Cairo and Tunis. And in our own neighbourhood and beyond pro-democracy elites are looking to the EU as a source of inspiration. It is no more than common sense that they should be aided by the EU while modelling their transitions on our experiences. And it is our moral duty to help. The EU is founded on rules and regulations that have served us well, but when a democrat in Egypt or Belarus fails to receive our support because our bureaucracy has its hands tied, it becomes all too clear that the status quo is unacceptable.
In the past, the EU set up a number of instruments to boost democracy in its neighbourhood. One of them is the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), which since its launch has funded a number of programmes operating independently of the authorities of target countries. But existing EU instruments are not always able to address those needs adequately, not least because they have to operate within the rigid rules and remits of the EU institutions. And as developments in North Africa and the Middle East have shown, much more remains to be done if the EU is to live up to its promise. Most important of all, backing nascent democratic movements demands flexibility, expediency and creativity. The events in North Africa have shown that because of the lack of proper implementation mechanisms, the EIDHR has failed to activate the existing €3m reserve for unforeseen and exceptional circumstances that were not included in its Strategy Paper. Furthermore, EU grants are distributed according to a fixed timetable and with eligibility rules that are often formalised and narrowly restricted to registered actors – meaning those endorsed by the oppressing authorities.
So it is clear the EU needs a lighter, less bureaucratic and more flexible instrument able to respond more rapidly, and in a manner tailored to the needs of recipient nations and their fledgling civil society institutions. We are already on the right track. Earlier this year, in a Communication entitled “A New Response to a Changing Neighbourhood,” the Commission and the High Representative supported the idea of establishing a European Endowment for Democracy, and the concept was endorsed by member governments in June.
Because flexibility and freedom of operation are of paramount importance, it is crucial that the EED should not become just another EU body. It has to be established as a light structure, perhaps under an international convention making it open not just to EU member states, but also EFTA members, the EU itself (represented by the Commission and the European External Action Service) and like-minded countries. This original formula would enable the EED to complement existing EU instruments in three ways. First, the EED would have the freedom to support independent media, democratic civic groups and non-registered NGOs. Needless to say, the notion that registered NGOs in, say, Belarus or Syria, would be independent representatives of civil society is implausible.
Second, the EED could provide faster support more easily, and not just in response to an existing crisis but through proactive support for democracy by “drip-feeding” the chosen non-state actors. Third, the EED could draw on non-EU resources, including those of member states and other contributing nations and foundations. As a result, the EED would support the development of “deep democracy” – a pluralistic system rooted in freedom of speech, human rights, an independent judiciary and an inquisitive media, a thriving civil society and free trade unions. Its operations should span both authoritarian states and countries moving towards democracy.
Initiating the European Endowment for Democracy should be a broad and inclusive process, involving EU member states, institutions and partner nations. As well as the EEAS and the Commission, the European Parliament should play a prominent role in setting up and running the new body as it has a keener understanding of the needs of civil society. Although we are still at an early stage, it seems obvious that EU instruments for supporting democracy must be refined to adequately reflect our own values and aspirations.
It is this last piece of the puzzle – the promotion of strong civil societies – that we Europeans can and should help build. Many successful transitions have now taken place in Europe, creating an abundance of relevant hands-on experience inside the EU.
The EU has itself succeeded in promoting democracy in Europe, and now the time has come to offer our support to those who are struggling for the values that have served us so well. As the old English proverb has it, “What a neighbour gets is not lost.” Our neighbours’ gains will be ours too.