About Vidar Helgesen

Vidar Helgesen is secretary general of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in Stockholm, an organization with a mandate to promote sustainable democracy around the world. A lawyer, Helgesen was Norway's deputy minister of foreign affairs between 2001 and 2005. Before that, he was special adviser to the president of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (Photo courtesy Anders Gunnartz)

As part of CBC Radio's examination of the rise and fall of democracy around the world, Dispatches host Rick MacInnes-Rae spoke with Vidar Helgesen, secretary general of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance in Stockholm. This is a full transcript of the interview that was broadcast in part on Dec. 21, 2006.

What is your sense of the general health of democracy in the world today?

I would describe it as a mixed picture. Democracy is vibrant in many countries. But globally, the sense of 10 or 15 years ago that this would be a relatively smooth and straightforward development, that belief has been disturbed by some new challenges.

It was a more hopeful time a decade or so ago?

There was a lot of optimism following the fall of the Berlin Wall, following the third wave of democratization in Latin America in particular. There was a sense that democracy was on the offensive.

Today, the picture is more complex. We see a renewed self-confidence among autocrats in some regions and there are constraints in some new democracies that are apparent. But, still, we should keep in mind that more people live under democracy than ever before.

Why do you think autocrats have become emboldened?

In some ways, that is because the political and economic hegemony of traditional western democracies is in decline globally. There are alternative political powers within alternative political systems that have arisen and their economic power is increasing.

Today we have some less-than-democratic regimes with huge resources, not least oil, which have gained ground from the increasing energy dependency [of the West] and the high prices for oil and gas.

Also, in the post-9/11 world, some policies have been met with reactions that have increased polarization. So it is easier for autocrats to claim that democratization is just another word for colonialism or interventionism by Western powers.

Is there a paradox here, that democratization is in decline yet there have never been so many people living under democracy's umbrella?

Spreading democracy is not easily done and primarily has to be done from within countries, by nurturing democratic forces and democratic tendencies within those countries, rather than having it seen as being imposed from abroad.

Also, a number of the measures taken as part of the global campaign against terrorism have created more polarization in countries, like in Europe, for example, between new immigrant communities and the traditional communities. This has repercussions throughout the world, not least the Islamic world.

What kind of repercussions are we talking about?

Well, clearly the Iraq war has created first an anxiety that countries could be subjected to democratization in the form of military intervention.

And then the Iraq war turned out to be not a success, to put it mildly, and so there is an increasing sense among autocrats that they don't risk much with their behaviour. That there is today no longer such a high risk of intervention because the Americans are no longer as willing to send in the Marines.

That's the political angle to it. Combine that with the economic reality that there are now more forces at play in the developing world than the Western ones.

You have the incredible role of China, not only in Asia but in Africa and Latin America. Its investments are high, its political engagement is increasing and, contrary to Western countries, China is not pushing a human rights and democracy agenda.

From a Western point of view, there is no reason to complain about China becoming an economic power. That is good for Western democracies. But the Chinese don't come with human rights and democracy policies as the Western powers normally do.

Is exporting democracy, U.S. style, a good idea?

I don't think it can be exported, for two reasons. One is that democracy is really about people holding their leaders accountable and that accountability measures cannot easily be imposed from abroad.

And secondly, the experience of the last years of that policy has created even more resistance to it, so alternative ways must be found.

Models of democracy can differ. The principle should always be applied but it must be applied in different contexts and allowed to grow from within. That's the challenge.

How do you see democratic models adapting to the times?

I think you have in a number of countries traditional models of governing that can be respected while at the same time putting in place the models of democracy as we know them in the West.

Let me take the example of Botswana, which alongside a parliament that basically has all the rules of the game of Western democracies, also has an upper house of elders that incorporates a traditional African governance mechanism.

It is basically an advisory mechanism but it is still something that carries forth the local and national traditions that people recognize.

How would you see democracy taking hold today in Latin America?

This year in Latin America has been a year of very vibrant democracy — many elections. But elections can be polarizing in their own right because they are about competitive politics.

I think what we see in Latin America is an increasing discontent in democratic institutions and in political parties and political leaders because people sense that even if the economies are growing, social development is not following along.

This discontent is, of course, fertile ground for populism and for the political forces that play to polarization. Populism can win elections but it is hard to run a country from the streets.

The result is that you see in some Latin American countries today a pretty disturbing tendency towards weakened institutions and weakened trust in these institutions.

How much of democracy's problems are of its own making?

To some extent this is a dilemma of democracy. Politics is competitive. But democracy is not only about competitive politics. And the responsibility of political leadership is not only to compete for power but also to collaborate across political and ideological divides where necessary in order to govern.

That last is not always as well undertaken by politicians as the campaigning part is.

Do you see democracy making any headway in the Middle East?

I think there are a number of interesting examples in Middle Eastern countries. It's hard to say whether that is the result of local pressures or international pressure. But you do see reform efforts in Morocco and to some extent in Algeria, Yemen, Qatar and Lebanon, though it is a very, very critical time there.

Still, it is a time of opportunity and potential progress in the Arab countries.

Is democracy really the best system for everyone?

There is little doubt that democracy comes with the kind of accountability measures that limit the scope for abuse of power by politicians.

There is also little doubt that democratic systems tend to generate better economic and developmental results for people. There might be one or two exceptions but they shouldn't fool us into questioning the quality of democracy.

I also think that the popular demand for democracy is there, exactly because of these qualities, and that we should be nurturing and supporting it, not imposing it from abroad.

That imposition is not really necessary. Finding ways of supporting national demands for democracy is the way forward.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]