 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
World Democracy: The Answer To
Africa's Problems?
Plenary Speech at the All-Africa Peace Conference
Nairobi, Kenya
Speech by Troy Davis, President World Citizen Foundation
Honoured guests, ladies and gentlemen, I am honoured to be able to address you today in this
beautiful city of Nairobi. It is my first visit to Kenya but I am sure it will not be my last. All of my previous speaking experience in Africa has been in Southern Africa and Zimbabwe, in the area of Environmental Management for
business, which has only a tenuous connection to our topic today, except that if Africa must create wealth to develop and reduce poverty, it must do so in a clean way to avoid wasting precious resources, especially water and raw
imported materials which negatively affect the balance of payment. Why do I digress and use up some of my precious time on this seemingly unrelated topic? Because it shows that the largest and most inexhaustible resource of
Africa are its people, and this must never be forgotten. This is the basic principle which underlies my talk: how do we manage the world so that its people are free of war and want? How do we satisfy the people's basic needs? Not
the greed of everyone but the basic needs. As Mahatma Gandhi told us, there is enough on Earth for everyone's basic needs, but not enough for the greed of some. My fellow speakers have and will eloquently speak on the specific
situation of Africa and what should be done by governments and how can civil society push governments to act. I will focus on what I see as the missing link or a crucial ingredient in our recipe for peace: how to design and create
the institutions we need to solve the problem of world peace, thus releasing hundreds of billions of dollars per year to solve social problems rather than buy weapons. The thread of my talk will be the simple idea that human
problems can only be solved durably if the people are involved in the process of its resolution. If a faraway or unaccountable elite decides for the people, the solution found, even if perfect in theory, is likely to be difficult
to implement satisfactorily, especially if it involves complex issues or implies sacrifices from the people. Why? Because the people will not feel they own the solution, they will not feel they or their representatives have
expressed their viewpoint. This is just common sense but too often forgotten. Who in their right mind would accept personal sacrifices for an alleged greater common good if that is decided without their input or consent? Or if an
effort is not done to convince and educate the public at large (or a powerful minority which could block the solution), if time is not taken to explain that in the end, the solution is in everyone's long-term interests? Or if, as
is too often the case, the decision is made by corrupted elites? No one would accept. I am not an expert in traditional societies, but I believe that they solve problems mainly through discussions and that in the process of
discussion, which is the essence of democracy as it was first defined by Athens in the Vth century B.C., one finds true sustainability of solutions. Of course, complex problems of today demand expert opinions, but in the end, a
political process must take place where the citizens and their representatives are at the centre. But this can only work under certain conditions which I will define later, in particular through transparency. What is true at the
village level is even more true at the global level. If we are to solve global problems, be they of war and peace, global environment, universal respect for Human Rights, management of the global commons, then
this can only be done by a system where the people are directly represented. Otherwise the solutions, which we all know will involve some restrictions, will never be accepted by the peoples of the world. This is the basis of
democracy, and to solve world problems, we need world democracy, which also implies world citizenship. World Democracy is also the only way that real world law can be made. Not the ersatz law misnamed in English
"International Law" but real law as people commonly understand law as made by a parliament, and enforced by judges and the police. A tragedy of world politics is the confusion engendered by the paucity of English where
the word law is used for both real and fake rules. Whereas in French or German the difference is obvious: Loi vs Droit International, and Gesetz vs Internationales Recht. Only when we start the mechanism which will eventually lead
us to world law, can we hope to solve the world's problems. But world law will only be respected if it made in an open transparent way by a World Parliament directly and democratically elected. The International Criminal Court
which my friend Eduardo Gonzalez will talk about in a workshop this afternoon is a great first step but it will need to be integrated in the future in a broader judicial system based on world law rather than on treaties. Why can't the UN do the job? Simply because it represents governments instead of the people of the world. That is why it has no legitimacy, either politically or psychologically, and why it can be bullied around so
easily. The UN ambassadors represent the parties in power, not the opposition. A true World Parliament will have ALL political parties represented in it and will be representative of ALL the world's peoples, including those which
today have no state and must resort to violence such as the Kurds. That totally changes the dynamics of world power and will generate untold enthusiasm, especially among the young and voters who are totally disillusioned with
national politics. A World Parliament will not be bullied around like the UN, even by the US. Why? Because the US justifies its policies in the name of democracy and Human Rights and if a body which represents the entire world,
including Americans, makes rules, there will be tremendous pressure from people, the media, NGOs, other governments and international organizations for everyone to follow these rules. Direct people representation at the world
level? This seems really radical to some who have no imagination or vision but it is eminently logical. We must give a direct voice to the people who have no voice. What a simple idea. But be careful, some will say,
especially in traditional NGOs or in the North: "This cannot be done, it is naive and idealistic. Governments will never accept it. Do not rock the boat." They are wrong. It is only by rocking the boat, but in an
intelligent smart logical way, and by mobilizing millions as should not be difficult to do, that governments budge. Not by making appeals which no one knows about, not by talking to ourselves, but by smartly using the few resources
we have in focusing on a simple easy to understand message which will enable us to solve everything else: we must give a direct voice to the people of the world to solve global problems. If you listen to the professional
pessimists, you condemn yourself and future generations to the same misery as today. If we had followed their fear and their interests in the past, which are not necessarily yours, we would still have communism, we would still have
apartheid. Because they forget one thing: the power of a broad movement of people. The idea of giving a voice to all the people of the world by organizing direct elections to a World Parliament or a Global Peoples
Assembly which will make laws for peace and justice is so attractive that it will be easy to organize. And Africa can be one of the leaders in this global movement if you wish ! Africa has most to gain from world democracy
because it is the poorest, most war-ridden continent, and has basically no weight in world affairs today. Under a global democratic system, some of that imbalance would be rectified. The only alternative to WD is either the
present chaos which benefits only the rich and the powerful, and leads to millions of people dying unnecessarily every year, and trillions of dollars of wealth not created, or even worse a world police state. "Great, we are
all for WD" you will say. In fact, most people react with enthusiasm to the idea of a World Democracy even if they do not see exactly how it will work. But that is exactly the point. We believe that it is now time to
stop to be timorous and to loudly promote the concept of a World Democracy, and to start the necessary public debate on HOW to do it. Nearly no one will be against but many ask "Is it feasible? Will the powers that be allow
it?" Yes and Yes. Why? Because the world has changed. I will answer now 5 questions:
First: Why is it possible today to construct a global democracy? For the first time in history, it is possible, in addition for it to be necessary, to construct global democratic sovereign institutions,
that is a global democracy. Many factors make this possible, which we can order in 2 categories, ongoing changes and temporary factors. Some of the most important ongoing changes since World War 2 which enable a World
Democracy are
On the economic front,
On the political front,
And it worked. Europe has had the longest period of peace since recorded history thanks to the building of these and other supra-national institutions. Should we do it the same slow cautious way on the world level? I personally
think not and Europe is more of a laboratory than a real example, but it shows that the concept of supra-nationality works, and we can and should do better globally. We must also do it differently of course because the world
is more diverse than Europe, but in some sense, it might be easier to create a World Democracy because it would be much more restricted than the European Union in powers, and young people all around the world, like - surprisingly -
French youth, may identify themselves more readily as World Citizens than as continental citizens. Everyone has finally seen with Kosovo and East Timor that the UN is tragically flawed at its basis, and that it is incapable to do
anything, in spite of the best will of its leaders. Of course, the Rwandan people discovered this faster than the rest of the world. The consequences are profound: it means that finally there is a chance to change the world
situation by creating a real democratic alternative to the UN. The UN is right now like a monopoly. When people think of global governance, they think mostly "UN". But this is like a few years ago in many
countries when you thought "phone service", you thought of a large inefficient state-owned monopoly. Many countries in Africa still have those. How did it get better? The monopoly did not change because it could not. The
UN will not change because it cannot. Only an outside force can make it change. Only competition from a democratic alternative supported by the people of the world will make things change. It is time to create that alternative and
one factor which has just exploded on the world scene makes it possible: the Internet. Technologically, the rise of the New Internet Economy promises to change everything and has created the most wealth among a younger generation
of entrepreneurs than we have ever known These young entrepreneurs's wealth depend on peace and stability, and hence it is in their interest to promote WD. But I am anticipating. Already, many want to use the Internet to allow
people to vote directly, and the Internet figures heavily in our strategy. Secondly, the largest temporary factor is all the excitement and the meetings generated because of the entry into a new Millennium. The entire
world, even those using other traditional calendars, is aware of new possibilities, and thousands of organizations of all types are meeting and motivating people. You are one example of this trend. This effervescence is a crucial
reason why there is today a wide but short window of opportunity to create a real peaceful global movement of people to promote World Democracy. The beauty is World Democracy is that it bridges divisions. In April this year, the
New York Times Sunday magazine had a major article on America being the policeman of the world, and a few weeks later, the French daily paper of record, Le Monde, carried an article by a sociologist criticizing the USA for seeking
to put down Europe by showing its military might in Kosovo. Beyond the argument, it was surprising that both authors said that the only solution is a world democracy! It is easy to see that WD can be the uniting point for right and
left, rich and poor, pro and anti-business types. Two other political factors are the spread of democracy at the national level. With Nigeria and Indonesia this year, we have nearly an additional half-a-billion people living in
new democracies. They are fragile of course but it is a good first step. The second factor is that, unlike a few years ago when it was retired politicians who endorsed this idea, now it is heads of state and foreign ministers in
power who do so: in the last year, the Presidents of France and Germany and the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Italy all made pronouncements in that direction. This shows that even the political class of the North is ready to
hear this kind of idea, and many will surely endorse it when it is presented to them. I am sure you will find more reasons but all of these show that we do have a great chance this year and next to create a large momentum for
change. This brings me to the second question: Second, what has the WCF done to promote it so far and why was this so special? We believe the world situation is absolutely ripe for world
democracy, and that it can be reached quite easily if one started a well-thought out public relations (PR) campaign to promote the idea. We believe that with very little money, less for instance than the Hague Appeal
for Peace cost, the enthusiasm for World Democracy would spread like wildfire. What is the condition to successfully conduct such a global PR campaign, to encourage thousands and millions of NGOs, informal groups, schools,
businesses and of course the media and governments to take WD seriously? The most important is credibility, because credibility will convince others to join, credibility will convince individuals, foundations, and businesses to
contribute, credibility will convince the media to give it free airtime. How do you build credibility? By building a broad coalition open to any parties, be they from civil society, governments or business. It is this genuine
cross-sectoral partnership which is the condition of success. Finally, such a coalition can only be built by being intellectually rigorous and incorruptible. That is what we have done; we have with others launched at The
Hague the Global Coalition World Democracy 2010, which has since been joined by many individuals and organizations. What is so special about it? The coalition rests on a very short common statement which is available here and which
all of you are invited to sign to become a member. The statement does not point fingers at anyone, does not blame but simply notes in a logical fashion that global and democratic sovereign institutions are needed to solve global
problems. It goes on to state seven basic design principles to build these institutions. It DOES NOT say exactly how those institutions should look like, because that is the very heart of the debate, but like a good architect might
state some basic principles of house-building (such that the weight of the roof must be evenly distributed to avoid caving in), it states a few fundamental principles which we need to observe when building our new Global Village
House. These principles are:
1. that the ultimate sovereignty belongs to the people 2. that this sovereignty should be expressed through direct or representative democracy 3. that we need the rule of law
4. that we need institutional transparency to inspire trust 5. that institutions need to be as close as possible to the problems (principle of subsidiarity) 6. that only peaceful means should be used to build
such institutions, and 7. that we need to avoid discrimination in building these institutions.
As mentioned before, this coalition is open to anyone or any organization or any government which endorses these principles. We are presently talking informally to half-a dozen governments of North and South to join
the global coalition. I met personally with the Prime Minister of a large country to the southwest of Kenya to invite his government to join. Since I am in Kenya today and since President Moi opened this conference, it is the
simplest of courtesies that I would take this opportunity to officially invite the Government of Kenya to join us in this potentially historic endeavour. If Kenya became the first national government to join, it would set a
bright example not only for the rest of Africa, but also for the rest of the world. The next question concerns strategy. I will not go into much details because of time but the strategy basically
consists of building the coalition, enlisting celebrities, launching a PR campaign and working through multiplicators like networks, coalitions, other organizations, asking them to endorse the concept and start a debate among their
constituencies, be they civil society, foundations, schools, trade unions, business organizations and of course parliaments, local and national governments and international organizations. We expect that celebrities will join the
coalition very quickly once they are informed. One of the very first one is the well-known mime artist Marcel Marceau. Others we are talking to but whose name I cannot say now are in the film or music business. You may recognize
some of the signatories of the coalition statement, for example Elizabeth Dowdeswell, the predecessor of Klaus Töpfer, present Executive Director of UNEP. We are developing an Internet strategy with one of the top Internet
companies to launch next year monthly World Polls to create the first global public opinion indicator about world affairs. Using the reach of this company whose site is in the top 10 of the planet, other techniques such as
viral marketing and deals like the one we have already done with some UN Associations, we hope to get within a year more people voting every month than in all but the largest countries. This in and of itself will attract
considerable media attention and we hope that the mainstream media like CNN would start using and commenting on this indicator of global public opinion. If more people, organizations, governments and businesses join in the
coalition, it will have more credibility, attract more funding, get more media attention, thereby get more people and organizations in, including governments and businesses, in an quickly expanding virtuous circle of more
involvement, more attention, more success. We are just starting and so far there has been a tremendous response wherever we have spoken about it. We hope that this conference will include in its final declaration a clear call for
WD and for its principles , and will call upon others to join this coalition and campaign for WD. We are talking no less about creating a global dynamic to promote the quickest solution to make world peace, and to really banish
wars. In the long-run, it will have to be backed up of course by a deep-rooted culture of peace, which many are promoting now. But let's be realist and not too naive: a culture of peace will come to absolutely nothing if
global democratic institutions are not created which have the legitimacy to make laws outlawing war. We have seen the tragic example of Yugoslavia where several ethnic groups lived in a deep-seated culture of peace, to the point of
frequent inter-marriages and total ethnic mixing, until a few power-hungry madmen stirred up trouble and caused the deaths and rapes of hundreds of thousands. A culture of peace is not enough. It must be backed up by laws which are
legitimized by democracy. Fourthly, why is it in the interest of even the US and other big powers to support WD? Simply put, US long-term interests are not compatible with the consequences of today's chaotic
international system. The US wants to make money, and an open economic system which they are pushing is not compatible with an unstable world where the gap between rich and poor is growing. I am not saying that the US Congress
recognizes this, simply that it is true, and hopefully a less isolationist Congress would see the simple fact that the global rule of law is a much better proposition, and a cheaper one for the US economy, than the present
situation where the US is feared by most as an uncontrollable giant. Even The Economist, a liberal magazine writes: "America's first interest is that the world should be stable, increasingly democratic , and at
peace." page 15, October 23rd 1999. The FBI has said that it is not a matter of if but only when a terrorist attack using chemical or bacteriological weapons in a major US city will happen. But WD, by giving a voice to the
dispossessed, will reduce the risk of terrorist attacks and will reduce the need for the US to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year. A WD will be an excellent investment in peace and stability. The US system is
vulnerable to a backlash of globalization while at the same time it is driving globalization forward at full speed. This is a contradiction and an inner tension inside the US government and Congress. WD is the only way that the US
can minimize global risks and continue to be prosperous, avoid having to send soldiers in a future war, and avoid the body bags to come back on the nightly news. On a more theoretical level, a WD would be raising the most
respected constitutional values of the US to a world level. So we can argue with the US public that all we are trying to do is to extend the benefits of democracy and the rule of law to the entire world, just as they enjoy it. And
why should those basic political freedoms be reserved only to US citizens? How can the US governments arrogate to itself the right to prevent the rest of the world to benefit from the rule of law and democracy? I believe that
most US citizens will have absolutely no problems when we explain it to them in this very logical fashion, and especially when we explain that, because of globalization, it is better as well for their economic interests. World
Democracy is necessary to preserve the peace, to prevent themselves, their brothers, sons and fathers from having to fight again and be possibly killed in a future war in a faraway land.
5. Why is it in the interest of business to support WD? One of the main problems with NGOs, is that we think too much in the past, in 70's thinking. Apart from a few important successes like the landmine issue
(thanks mainly to the media attention given to it because of Lady Di) or the International Criminal Court, NGOs have not had a lot of successes in the last 20 years. How come old-fashioned NGOs have not managed to raise millions
from business? NGOs still by and large are very anti-business when they should be differentiating between businesses which can help and others. NGOs should also be more sophisticated in their critique and can still
raise funds from some industries while criticizing the same companies in other respects. Simultaneous co-operation and competition happens constantly between businesses. Why can't NGOs be as mature and as subtle? NGOs are still
spooked by the military-industrial complex made famous by President Eisenhower, but the truth is that this complex has lost its dominance. The business press constantly reports of the falling revenue, closing of military
bases, decrease of employees. Even the companies making the weapons used in Kosovo saw their share price fall this year. Defence, like tobacco and handguns, is a shrinking industry, even if it still does a lot
of damage. Overall defence budgets of course remains much too high and in fact one of the main selling points of WD is that countries will really disarm only when they fell secure thanks to WD. The real peace dividend we will
get then will be used for education, and to diminish the gap between rich and poor. Today, it is not anymore heavy industries and the defence industry dominating the economy. Those industries which one could call war
industries are totally dwarfed by industries like tourism, computers, telecommunications and software. All these industries depend on peace and can be called peace industries, even if a small percentage of their revenues come from
defence. We all know how the global airline industry lost billions of dollars for several years because of the Golf war. No one thinks of buying the latest computer or software if bombs are falling. So we must think in the
present and the future. We must try to convince those peace industries to support the peace movement. WD is a strategy to provide peace and stability and therefore will help peace industries now dominating the world economy.
We should think of a campaign for WD as an insurance policy for those industries. If for example we could convince peace industries to invest 1% of their profits in us, then we would be able to prevent conflicts. Thus the twin
problems of lack of resources of the peace and world democracy movement, and of the lack of a business strategy to foster world peace and stability, is to create new partnerships. We can "sell" these partnerships to peace
industries as an investment for risk minimization and to secure their future business prospects. We estimate that the return on the investment (ROI) of supporting the WD campaign will be in the hundreds and thousands of percent,
apart from the fact that those entrepreneurs who decide to sponsor us can feel proud that they are really helping to change the world. This new partnership is what we are in the process of creating with the Global Coalition
World Democracy 2010. Smart businesses and entrepreneurs with vision will see that their own best interests are served by a peaceful, stable world, a world which can only be peaceful and stable if it is finally governed by a
body directly representative of the people. My trip here was paid by one of the world's best known companies, a French fashion company. What is more peaceful than fashion? What's wrong with getting corporate
sponsorship? Nothing as long as there no strings attached. Of course we must be careful and we must act so as to avoid justified criticism. But the time has come for the idea of World Democracy. History is on our side. So it will
not take much to jumpstart a global movement, to start a virtuous circle. In conclusion, we must stop thinking like in the past, we must think in a modern sense, we must be bold yet practical. Be intellectually
rigorous, be guided by your reason and try to build win-win solutions. Most important of all, think for yourself and be critical of all so-called truths, but once you are convinced put all your heart into it. I
believe that together and with courage and vision we can really bring peace to Africa and to the world. Thank you.
and Secretary, Global Coalition World Democracy 2010
Friday 5 November 1999
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Designed by AnyaDavis.com