The Inter-American Democratic Charter and its challenges

We thank you, Mr. Chair, for arranging this meeting, and we thank the permanent missions that proposed the subject that brings us together, and those who have spoken.

I must begin by saying that for the Dominican Republic the Inter-American Democratic Charter is a valuable document and, today, a fundamental one. The principles and standards it contains are the evolving result of decades of learning and of our region's historic collective commitment to strengthening and preserving democracy.

In our country, what we have lived through and learned leads us to be critical, but also optimistic and constructive as we look to the future. I reiterate the commitment that the voice of the Dominican Republic in international organizations will be resonant and just, measured and courageous, on behalf of democracy and human rights.

Allow me to divide this statement into two parts: first, a necessary historical review of the collective commitment, not addressed by the distinguished panelists; and second, an examination of existing criticism of the Democratic Charter and of possible future actions, together with a concrete proposal.

Ambassadors,

From the time the American republics began to win their independence, an interconnected conversation began about the system of government we would adopt. That is how the relationship between democracy and the international sphere came to be recorded in the history of the Americas.

We shall refer to several leading figures and point to moments that have driven and sustained that conversation in our Hemisphere.

We must first go back to 1837, when the Chilean Pedro Félix Vicuña (father of the illustrious Benjamín Vicuña Mackenna) proposed the creation of an American Congress that would oppose tyrannical governments and promote democracy. Some years later, in 1853, the Argentine Juan Bautista Alberdi proposed an American Court with the right of collective intervention to protect individual liberty, which in his view was fundamentally threatened by the omnipotent State.

In 1907, the Central American States meeting at the Washington Conference introduced the principle of democracy into the region by treaty. They undertook not to recognize rulers who did not come to power through free elections. In 1923 they would go further and broaden the operation of the principle.

In 1936 we, the States of the Hemisphere, officially recognized for the first time the existence of democracy as a common cause in the Americas, in the Declaration of Principles of Inter-American Solidarity and Cooperation.

In 1945 the Foreign Minister of Uruguay, Eduardo Rodríguez Larreta, argued that the principle of non-intervention could not be invoked in order to violate other principles with impunity. His proposal maintained, among other ideas, that democracy and peace were indissoluble, that human rights should be protected internationally, and that collective action on behalf of democracy and human rights could not be considered intervention in internal affairs.

That same year, during the Inter-American Conference on Problems of War and Peace, the Declaration of Mexico stated that peace and democracy are essential principles governing relations among the States of the American community.

In 1947, meeting in Rio, the American States incorporated postulates on democratic values into the preamble to the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. I pause here because the history since 1948 is fresher in our minds: the founding Charter in Bogotá; the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; the Declaration of Santiago of 1959; the “Protocol of Cartagena de Indias” of 1985; the “Santiago Commitment to Democracy and the Renewal of the Inter-American System” of 1991; Resolution 1080, entitled “Representative Democracy”; and the “Protocol of Washington” of 1992.

Our country was the first to be subjected to collective measures for violating the democratic system. In 1960, this very Permanent Council of the OAS decided to suspend diplomatic relations with the Dominican Republic and ordered partial economic sanctions against the government of the dictator Rafael Trujillo. The Trujillo regime was, quite rightly, considered a danger to democracy in the region.

Mr. Chair, dear colleagues,

After that historical review, necessary and pertinent for framing any conversation about democracy in the Americas, allow me now to examine the criticism of the Democratic Charter, beginning by answering the question: what are some of the challenges the Charter presents today?

FIRST,

Conceptual imprecision: we States may hold divergent interpretations of the criteria for defining when, and to what degree, a country's democratic institutions have been altered. The Charter neither defines nor offers the guidance needed to interpret what kind of events might fit within the concept of an unconstitutional alteration or interruption of the democratic order.

SECOND,

The apparent tension between the principle of non-intervention and the possibility of protecting democracy through collective mechanisms. The sovereignty of the member States can be an obstacle to the application of the Charter. To some it will seem that there is a clash between pro-democracy norms and established norms of sovereignty. The key to resolving this conflict is the word “collective,” since the OAS Charter clearly lays its prohibition on “Every State...”, and in the case of the actions in defense of democracy contemplated in the Democratic Charter, it is not a single State that adopts them.

THIRD,

A procedural deficit: there are no automatic sanctions or mechanisms of coercion established in the Charter apart from the suspension of the member State, which reduces its capacity to address situations forcefully. When a breach is committed, what is the corresponding sanction, and by what procedure is it to be applied? Member States that wish to impose another kind of penalty are forced to do so outside the collective framework. This also runs counter to the principle of gradualism, since there are no intermediate sanctions that might press the party in crisis to seek a solution. As for procedure, Article 21 states that the sanction of suspension shall be applied when diplomatic initiatives have been unsuccessful, yet it does not specify by what parameters that is to be judged. That is to say, is an initiative considered unsuccessful by a measure of time, or of results, or of the number of times it was attempted? There is no precision on the point. For some, the quorum requirements for activating Article 21 would also belong here.

FOURTH,

A reactive and exclusive character: the Charter contains no mechanisms that allow the international community to act preventively, and it limits access to its activation to certain actors. Since it provides for no early-warning mechanism, its function is merely reactive. Its inability to follow up systematically on the commitments undertaken by States stands out. Without that, no gradualism can be established in the analysis of collective action so as to prevent discretion in the application of the democratic clause, especially in distinguishing between constitutional crises and de facto institutional breakdowns.

Mr. Chair,

These challenges highlight the importance of addressing the political, legal and practical aspects of applying the Inter-American Democratic Charter in a collaborative and constructive manner among the member States, with the aim of strengthening democracy in the region.

From the foregoing one may reason that the next evolutionary step would be to enshrine in an international treaty the guarantee of the defense of democracy linked to the protection of human rights or, failing that, to propose that the OAS Charter be amended to include an article establishing that relationship.

For some, in their eagerness, it has become imperative to create institutional mechanisms such as an “Ombudsperson” for democracy, to create special rapporteurships by country, or even to confer competence on the IACHR in order to remedy some of the weaknesses. We shall not take a position on those proposals today.

Until the political conditions exist for discussions of that magnitude, we are of the view that we must lay the foundations for the progressive development of the concept of democratic solidarity among the American States, one that guarantees a balance between collective action and the principle of non-intervention, according to the political and practical possibilities of the moment.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, and to conclude,

Democracies are characterized by political forces that disagree about public policy but resolve their conflicts through a commonly accepted institutional framework. What we face today are sporadic and at times systematic attacks on that institutional framework, which is not equally sturdy in each of our nations. That is the erosion to which Ms. Antonia Urrejola referred in her remarks.

Added to that, some think, not without reason, that many academic conversations seem to ignore the fact that not all the members of this Organization are at the same stage of democratic development, whether in their critical mass of leadership or at the institutional level.

It is naive to start from the premise that the quality of our democracies is the same, or that in our countries we understand this conversation in the same way and take on the same concepts, or their implications. What is needed is a constructive and respectful dialogue, with context.

It is crucial to appreciate that there are incremental processes at different stages of maturity in each of our countries. Hence a single, general recipe will not altogether help. On the contrary, it could be counterproductive.

And so, while those conversations stalled in the polarization and political senselessness of the moment remain the romantic aspirations of some, and until those rare moments of consensus to which Mr. Hugo de Zela referred are achieved, we invite reflection on opening a collective space of voluntary participation that would function as a mechanism of peer review of the quality of the nerve centers of our democracies.

A space in which those of us with an interest in sharing our strengths and learning from those of others would take part.

With a modest exercise in self-criticism and a proper measure of humility and trust, we could listen actively, converse honestly, and see where we can improve, from whom we can learn, and how others overcome the challenges that we ourselves face. I refer to electoral processes, the rule of law, civil liberties, political participation, the functioning of government, democratic culture, the degree to which democratic values are rooted and respected, political tolerance, the acceptance of diversity, the existence of an environment conducive to the exercise of rights and to citizen participation, the control of corruption… Let us set parameters, compare and act.

Because… Ambassadors, there is no such thing as luck! There is work, and there is chance.

The more we work on the quality of our democracies, the less we leave to chance.

Nor is there such a thing as destiny! There is what we ourselves build.

No State was born either condemned or predestined. We have the freedom to choose the role we wish to play.

The Dominican Republic is betting on ever more democracy.

Thank you very much.