|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 04/05/07
Streamlining U.S. Democracy Assistance
by Don Pressley and Lawrence Groo
President George W. Bush started his second administration with a strong pledge to support freedom around the world, alongside a renewed push for U.S. public diplomacy in the Middle East and elsewhere. His administration has backed this commitment with a proposed $1.5 billion in U.S. democracy assistance for developing countries for 2006. Democracy assistance programs include rule of law promotion, legislative strengthening, electoral assistance, and public administration reform. While this level of assistance reflects the U.S. government's clear commitment to fostering freedom and democracy, there is an emerging consensus that U.S. democracy assistance should more effectively address the common governance and public management challenges found in fragile and transitioning states.
As the recent elections in Iraq, Ukraine, and Afghanistan demonstrate, U.S. assistance can have a real impact on the process of democratization in developing countries. However, free elections are only the beginning; lasting democratic governance advances require significant long-term institutional changes and behavioral adaptation. Committing to longerterm governance reform can benefit both domestic and international policy interests: there is growing recognition that investing aggressively in good governance in fragile states can reduce the chances of conflict or civil unrest, a finding recently highlighted by a high-level report commissioned by British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The growing strategic importance of U.S. programs to both U.S. national security interests and the development of democracy around the globe has given rise to discussion about the nature and efficacy of the aid dispersed. In order to justify the large sums of support provided by the U.S. government, whether through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and affiliated entities, or via U.S.-supported multilateral organizations like the World Bank and regional development banks, such assistance needs to become more tangibly effective.
More broadly, there is an active debate in U.S. and international policy circles about the relationship between democracy promotion and economic growth, and, similarly, whether improved state institutions or economic policies are more immediately supportive of sustainable development and political stability. Additionally, some question whether democracy assistance programs should focus on promoting more effective institutions as an objective end, or as a means to a further end whether, for example, to concentrate on achieving accountable government or the rule of law.
Though these policy debates are longstanding and unlikely to be settled quickly, one way to better inform the policy formulation process is to examine more closely the implementation of U.S. democracy assistance and to gauge more clearly the actual capacity of such assistance to achieve specific results.
The object of this article is to define better the practical limits of U.S. democracy assistance from an implementation standpoint, emphasizing democracy as a form of governance and distinguishing between programs improving governance systems and those targeting behavior underlying governance systems. Noting that improvements in governance systems are relatively more easily documented and measured than behavioral changes, we recommend that U.S. policymakers initially emphasize institutional systemsoriented assistance, while further researching and supporting various approaches to longer-term behavioraloriented change.
Don Pressley is Principal at Booz Allen Hamilton and Adjunct Professor at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He served as USAID's acting administrator in 2001, and assistant administrator for Europe and Eurasia between 1997- 2000.
Lawrence Groo coleads the Law and Governance practice area for the International Development Business Group at Booz