UNDERSTANDING DEMOCRACY IS DIFFICULT

FOR newly independent NATIONS

 

By Mitchell W. Pearlman*

 

 

            “[G]overnment of the people, by the people, for the people” is an article of faith for most Americans.  We understand the meaning of this phrase from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and accept it implicitly as the cornerstone of our democratic society.

            But as I’ve come to learn, this fundamental concept isn’t an easy one to grasp by those who haven’t been raised in a democratic tradition.  The Slovak Republic is a case in point.

            With the end of Soviet hegemony over much of central and eastern Europe, it became commonplace for repressed nations in that region to throw off the bonds of totalitarian regimes and to establish popularly elected governments.  They sought membership in international economic, political and military organizations, such as the European Union (EU) and NATO.  And because their individual economies were more or less dysfunctional, they sought outside financial assistance and investment.

            Slovakia was no exception to this trend.  It had been part of Czechoslovakia for much of the 20th Century, including the post-World World War II period of Soviet domination.  After Czechoslovakia instituted its democratic reforms, Slovakia voted for its own independence in 1993.

            The new Slovak Republic adopted a modern constitution granting civil and political rights and establishing a western European-style government.  It sought membership in the EU and NATO and applied for international economic assistance and foreign investment.  Because it was seemingly doing all the right things, it was initially placed on a “fast-track” for acceptance.  But like other countries in the region, it wasn’t

____________

*Mitchell W. Pearlman is Executive Director of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission.  He traveled to the Slovak Republic in November 2000, where, under the auspices of the American Bar Association’s Central and Eastern European Law Initiative, he helped the Slovak government design an implementation plan for that country’s new Freedom of Information Act.  He has helped a number of other countries draft, implement and understand laws designed to facilitate open and accountable government and a free press.

 

politically, economically or culturally prepared for such rapid changes or the influx of large amounts of investment capital.

            As a result, there was wide-spread corruption.  Unfortunately, such corruption isn’t unusual in newly emerging democracies.  A coalition government was then elected to eliminate corruption and put Slovakia back on the track to international political and economic acceptance.

Not only the EU and NATO, but also the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and even corporate investors are now insisting that nations wishing to participate in their political, economic and financial processes adopt strong anti-corruption and pro-democratic laws.  Chief among these are freedom of information (FOI) and other government transparency laws.

Consequently, Slovakia passed a superbly worded FOI act, which is to become effective on January 1, 2001.  I was asked to go to Slovakia in November 2000 because none of the responsible government officials had yet developed regulations and procedures for implementing the new law.  Indeed, they were reluctant to even share their ideas with other officials or the non-governmental organization community that was instrumental in passing the FOI act.  Time was running out; the government had to have and approve the plans before the end of the year.

            Slovaks undoubtedly are learning about what we call “democracy.”  But few have had the opportunity to observe or study it first-hand in countries where it’s well-established.  This lack of first-hand experience makes it very difficult for Slovaks to understand what “government of the people, by the people, for the people” – i.e., the core principle of western democracy –  really means.

In fact, my translator cautioned me to avoid using the word “democratic” because it has a negative connotation in Slovakia.  He said many people there still think of the word in the old communist sense -- as in “people’s democratic republic.”  Thus, the word “democratic” can imply a meaning quite the opposite of its meaning in the west.

Likewise, my translator told me that concepts such as government accountability or openness have no linguistic equivalence in the Slovak language.  I asked how then can officials draft a meaningful implementation plan for their FOI act.  He replied, because they have to.  Government leaders, he said, want to show the world they’re serious about anti-corruption and democratic (in the western sense) values -- that’s why you’re here:  to tell them what to do and how to do it.

As my visit progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the officials with whom I was working were not primarily interested in principles or theories.  They were interested in solutions to their very pragmatic problems.  They hadn’t shared their draft implementation plans because they lacked confidence that what they were doing made sense.

In reality then, I was invited to Slovakia not only to provide guidance and advice, but to provide legitimacy to the work of the responsible officials and to provide them with cover in case their plans were criticized.  The value or importance of FOI simply wasn’t an issue to them.  They merely wanted the blessing of an American expert.  The merits of my suggestions were less important than the perception that they’d prove acceptable to those whom they were trying to please.

For my part, I learned that democracy isn’t such an easy idea to grasp by those who haven’t experienced it.  Before democracy can take hold, its underlying principles must be understood and valued by both the governed and those who govern.

We must therefore show patience with those who are now struggling in countries with incipient democracies.  Theirs is a difficult struggle.  We shouldn’t expect miracles to occur overnight, or even within a decade.  Rather, we should encourage exchanges that will help them better understand our democratic values and principles, not just our rhetoric.  In the process, we too can learn some important lessons about how precious, yet how delicate, our own democracy is.