The Inter-American Democratic Charter

Submission to the Organization of American States

Respectfully submitted by
Warren Allmand, President



Rights & Democracy
10 August, 2001

THE INTER-AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC CHARTER

     The defence and promotion of democracy is a major part of the mandate of Rights & Democracy and for over ten (10) years, our centre has been carrying out democratic development projects in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Rights & Democracy thus welcomes the initiative by the Quebec Summit of the Americas and the OAS to adopt an Inter-American Democratic Charter (IADC). Nevertheless, we have identified some important weaknesses in the current proposal (Revision 7) and wish to recommend some improvements.

     Support for democracy was one of the principal commitments in the establishment of the OAS and it has had a long history in pursuing this goal. This commitment has been expressed in a series of legal documents, including:

• The OAS Charter (1948), in its Preamble (par. 3) and articles 2 (b), 2 (g); 3 (d), 3(f), 6, 9 and 34;



• The American Declaration of the Rights & Duties of Man (1948), in its article 20;



• The American Convention on Human Rights (1969): in its Preamble (par. 1) and article 23;



• Resolution 1080 and the Santiago Commitment (1991);



• The Washington Protocol (1992);



• The Managua Declaration (1993);



• Resolution 1753 (Windsor, 2000).

     It has also led to the establishment of the Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD). The commitment to democracy has been reaffirmed by the Declarations and Plans of Action of the Miami, Santiago and Quebec Summits. In Quebec, last April, the heads of state of the Hemisphere acknowledged, in their final Declaration, that "the values and practices of democracy are fundamental to the advancement of all [their] objectives", and made a commitment to "conduct consultations in the event of a disruption of the democratic system of a country that participates in the Summit process".

     Furthermore, the nations of the Americas have given overwhelming support to the UN Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Thirty (30) out of 34 American states have ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); and 27 out of 34 have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

     Despite these important instruments, the OAS has recognized that they are not adequate to deal with the many and varied attacks on democracy, many of which are indirect and subtle, but equally damaging. In addition, economic globalization is creating a democratic deficit that requires new and effective responses. The Inter-American Democratic Charter is a commendable step to deal with these issues.

     Rights & Democracy takes the position that "representative democracy" is much more than free and fair elections. Within our Democratic Development programme, we have identified a series of indicators for evaluating democracies. These are:

1. Free, fair and regularly scheduled elections



2. Respect for the rule of law



3. Independence of the judiciary



4. Independence of the legislature



5. Full respect for human rights



6. Full respect for minority rights and gender equity



7. Control of the military by civilian authority



8. The existence of competitive political party system



9. An equitable distribution of wealth



10. Public accountability to the electorate



11. Full transparency and access to information



12. A process and structures for on-going consultation with civil society.

In the light of these criteria, Rights & Democracy submits the following comments and recommendations:

1. The draft Inter-American Democratic Charter (Rev.7) is a good start as a working document but it is too weak and ambiguous to be truly effective. If changes are not made, it risks being subject to discretionary use or worse, inoperative.



2. The terminology in the document is inconsistent and confusing. At different places, the document refers to  "representative democracy", the "democratic order", and to the "democratic institutional process". One possibility is to use only "representative democracy" since this is the term used in the OAS Charter. This term, however, should be carefully defined. The Charter must be given consistency and strength.



3. The essential elements of "representative democracy", as set out in article 3, are incomplete and ambiguous. On the other hand, articles 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 contain important elements, indicators, and aspects of democracy which should be included as "essential elements", and made part of the definition in article 3.



4. The mechanisms for evaluation and enforcement in articles 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are equally ambiguous and confusing. The roles of the Secretary General, the Permanent Council, meetings of the Foreign Ministers, and the General Assembly should be clarified.



5. The evaluation of alleged infractions of the Charter would be given more credibility if they were first submitted to the Inter-American human rights Commission for an opinion, or to a committee of experts similar to the sub-committee of the UNCHR. The interpretations and applications of the Charter should be as objective as possible.



6. There should be some process to allow citizens and groups of citizens in an affected country to trigger an investigation and the evaluation-enforcement process. Under the present draft, only member states and the Secretary General can do this. There could be serious infractions of the democratic charter which, for political reasons, the affected and other states might not want dealt with.



7. The standards and sanctions should apply not only to the OAS, but also to the Summit of the Americas process. The brackets in articles 12 and 14 should therefore be removed.



8. The enforcement provisions should be commensurate with the violations. The goal should always be the promotion and improvement of democracy as defined in the Charter. Suspension and expulsion should be available, but only used as a last resort.



9. It is important that the Charter confirm the inherent link between the concepts of democracy and human rights.



10. It should be made explicit that the elements in article 3 present a minimum democratic standard, not a definitive description of all democratic systems.

     These recommendations are consistent with those of the "Joint alternative proposal for an Inter-American Democratic Charter", which resulted from discussions that took place among NGOs of all Americas. This "Joint proposal" will be presented to the OAS by the Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos in Peru, in the name of a broad NGO coalition.

     Respectfully submitted,

     Warren Allmand
     President
     Rights & Democracy