On September 11, 2001, two historic events occurred. First was the heinous attacks in New York and Washington, which triggered the war on terror that has become a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. Second was the signing of the Inter-American Democratic Charter by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell and his counterparts from across the Americas at a meeting of the Organization of American States (OAS), formally embracing democracy as the preferred system of governance.

Unfortunately, the war on terror has overshadowed the significance and the promise of the Charter. In addition, the U.S. government’s focus on combating terror has siphoned financial resources and attention away from Latin America and towards regions such as the Middle East, particularly with respect to democracy and governance assistance. While there have been a few notable exceptions—such as the eligibility of Honduras and Nicaragua for Millennium Challenge Corporation funding—the primary focus of these new programs is on economic growth. In the past five years, funding from USAID or the U.S. Department of State for strengthening democracy in Latin America has been scarce.

At a March 2006 meeting of IFES’ board of directors, U.S. Ambassador to the OAS John Maisto argued for a new focus on the Americas. He expressed a genuine concern that, at a time when democracy has been universally embraced by the leaders of the Americas, the institutions of democracy are under fire in many countries as they have not fulfilled people’s expectations. In a 2005 United Nations survey of Latin Americans, 87 percent of the respondents in Peru said they were not satisfied with democracy. In countries like Bolivia, Ecuador and Haiti, recent civil unrest and mass demonstrations have forced democratically elected governments from office. Ambassador Maisto advocated stepping up multilateral efforts to reinforce democracy. The United States cannot do the work alone; rather, we need to work with the OAS and other democracies in the region to bolster democratic values.

In May 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demonstrated the importance of such diplomacy by reaching out to the government of Chile—which had officially opposed the U.S. intervention in Iraq—when U.S. support was needed to elect a new secretary general of the OAS. Under Secretary Rice’s leadership, the United States supported the candidacy of José Miguel Insulza (Chile’s Interior Minister). This move signaled an important shift in U.S. policy in working multilaterally with other democracies in the Americas.

It is important that the United States continue to use similar diplomatic efforts to reinforce its multidimensional interests in the western hemisphere. The response of the U.S. government to the newly elected president of Haiti, René Préval, is very encouraging in this respect. Despite the fact that President Préval is a longtime protégé of the controversial former President Aristide, the United States has been willing to give his government critical support. The stakes are high for both Haiti and the United States, which faces the possibility of thousands of Haitians escaping misery for the shores of Florida. To succeed, Préval’s government and Haiti need technical assistance and training that can help build a functioning government and energized economy. It is important that the United States join with international donors to provide assistance that can raise the country’s standard of living and fulfill the hopes of Haitians.

Indeed, Haiti is but one example of a country where significant investment has been made to support democracy, but where the results have been disappointing for the country’s citizens. While credible elections are an essential element of democracy, the donor community needs to deepen democracy assistance to ensure that democratic institutions function well and are equally accessible to all citizens. Only when citizens believe that democracy serves them and builds a functioning system of government that is accountable to all citizens (not just the wealthy and powerful) can democracy succeed.

As the United States engages in the important work of promoting democracy in Latin America, we should keep in mind that there is no blueprint for this work. Democracy must be home grown, and its promotion must always be undertaken in a manner that respects local history and culture as well as the realities on the ground. Assistance is most effective if it is offered transparently and in a spirit of sharing best practices while not pushing defined institutional models. In addition, the United States must always be willing to respect any election results (regardless of who wins) as long as the election process is democratic, free and fair.

Given the importance of being open to any and all options that can strengthen Latin American institutions of democracy, it is vital to embrace a truly multilateral approach. We need to begin engaging the member countries of the OAS to ensure that democracy promotion is not dismissed by Hugo Chávez and his populist friends as a “tool of Yankee imperialism.” Indeed, the United States must work with OAS members to safeguard the Inter-American Democratic Charter and to deflect President Chávez’ current efforts to replace it with a watered-down version.

In terms of electoral infrastructure, the United States should encourage the involvement of electoral management bodies from such countries as Argentina, Canada, Chile, Mexico, Panama and Paraguay in helping countries, such as Haiti, that are struggling. This can be done by working through technically competent and nonpartisan NGOs such as CAPEL in San José, Costa Rica, and IFES. Through the OAS and initiatives such as the Summit of the Americas and the Community of Democracies, we should work together to strengthen civil society, enhance the rule of law and reinforce accessible and accountable democratic governance throughout the Americas.

It is important that policy-makers in Washington not view Latin America’s turn to the left as an automatic threat to U.S. interests or to democracy. As Jorge Castañeda discussed recently in Foreign Affairs, there are two schools of Latin America’s left: pragmatic and populist. The pragmatic left understands the importance and challenge of providing effective governance as the best means of winning the struggle against poverty. This school of thought is represented by President Lula in Brazil and President Bachelet in Chile. The United States must reach out to these countries for help in advancing democracy in the Americas.

Ontheother hand, the populist left, according toCastañeda, seekstobring about change through confrontation and appeal to the masses. In the past, its members have used policy differences with the United States to divert their constituents’ attention from the economic problems that plague so many Latin American countries (as did Perón in Argentina and Castro in Cuba). As countries have embraced more transparent and professional electoral processes, the conditions have been created enabling the populist left to win at the ballot box.

It is imperative that the United States remain fully engaged with Latin America and that we work in concert with the leaders of the pragmatic left to encourage a transformation of the populist left. The economic successes of Brazil and Chile underscore Castañeda’s point that a “makeover for the radical left is exactly what is needed for good governance in the region.” Brazil’s Lula and Chile’s Bachelet should be enlisted as interlocutors and role models for newly elected leaders such as Morales in Bolivia. They also can help moderate the difficult relationship between the United States and Venezuela, which continues to deteriorate.

On July 2, 2006, the voters of Mexico will go to the polls to elect a president to succeed President Vicente Fox. The current mayor of Mexico City, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, is the leftist Democratic Revolutionary Party (PRD) candidate and has been running a strong campaign (though his poll numbers have dipped recently). Regardless of who wins in July, it is imperative that the United States and the pragmatic left of the Americas develop a working relationship with the next government.

Latin America is vital to the long-term interests of the United States. Therefore, the United States must remain engaged in the region to encourage economic development and trade. At the same time, we must also continue to send the message that the region is a priority by providing foreign assistance in such important areas as rule of law, civil society, good governance and elections. The United States must not be afraid to enlist like-minded partners in the region in our efforts to realize the goals of the Inter-American Charter: 1) the peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their governments have an obligation to promote and defend it, and 2) democracy is essential for the social, political and economic development of the peoples of the Americas.

Richard Soudriette is the president and James Vermillion the executive vice president of IFES.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing

We'd love to hear from you. Share your thoughts by emailing editor@democracyatlarge.org

 Go Back