International IDEA
Democracy-building & Conflict Management (DCM)
THE ROLE OF CONSTITUTION-BUILDING PROCESSES
IN DEMOCRATIZATION
Project outline
GG/IDEA-DCM/28 Dec 2004
[email protected]
Background: The adoption/reform of constitutions represent one of the crucial aspects of
democracy-building, particularly relevant to post-conflict and post-authoritarian countries but also
important to more established regimes in periods of transition due to crises of representation and
governance. In the framework of political and institutional reforms, the design of constitutions can
play a critical role in ensuring the advancement and the sustainability of democratic systems, by
providing adequate mechanisms to manage conflicts within limits of peaceful coexistence and by
promoting consensus around a set of core values.1 Constitutions are the core of the institutional
structure/legal system of a country and define the relationship among citizens, between citizens and
the State, and between the State and the international legal system. New constitutions are both the
result of historical processes and important factors that contribute to shaping the future of a country,
often containing the seeds for future conflict or for long-term stability. Depending on their contents
as well as on the process through which they are made, constitutions can play a critical role in
ensuring the sustainability of democratic systems.
Traditionally, constitutions and constitutional reforms were mainly designed by political elites and
legal experts; in the case of post-colonial countries the departing colonial power had either direct or
indirect influence in shaping constitutional texts, often affirming principles and values grounded on
exogenous legal frameworks and political traditions. The trend marked by the hegemonic role of
politicians and “expert knowledge” has been shifting during the past decade or so. Citizens
increasingly demand involvement and in recent years a number of constitution-building processes
appear to have been more inclusive and participatory, particularly in the framework of peace-making
initiatives in the aftermath of violent conflicts. Democratic actors at national level have attempted to
reform or even, in some cases, establish constitutions and institutions in order to ensure sustainable
democracy, with a growing demand for external support and a corresponding expansion of
democracy assistance programmes in this domain. International and regional organizations, donor
countries, academic centers as well as independent experts have been involved in providing support,
be it financial, technical or political.
The process of constitution-making started to become the object of analysis and support, as important
as the substance. Since mid-90s, driven mainly by the transition in South Africa, a number of
international events, academic projects and studies have been increasingly focusing on the process of
constitution-making. More specifically, some of them analyzed its interaction with peace-making and
national reconciliation.2
1 As International IDEA has been advocating for the past several years (see particularly the handbook Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators
published in 1998), democratization is an effective method of structural conflict prevention.
2 Among the most relevant conferences recently held on this topic are: Round-Table Meeting on Sound Governance organized by UNDP/F. Ebert Stiftung (Bad Munstereifel,
Germany, 1997); Conference on Constitution-Making, Conflict, and Transition in Divided Societies organized by The Cunliffe Center and The University of Sussex (Bellagio Center, UK,
1999); Policy Dialogue in Legislative Development organized by UNDP/Government of Belgium (2002). Of particular interest are the projects on: Constitution-making, Peace-building and
National Reconciliation (carried out by the Rule of Law Programme of the United States Institute for Peace-USIP in cooperation with UNDP) aimed to “examine the extent to
which the process of creating a constitution can become a vehicle for national dialogue and the consolidation of peace”; and, the State-building Project of the International
Peace Academy (IPA). Among the most recent studies on the topic are: ‘Crafting a Constitution for Afghanistan’ by Barnett R. Rubin (2004); ‘Post-conflict Participatory Constitution-
making Processes’ by Mitchell O’Brien/Duke University (2004); ‘Constitution-making after Conflict’ by J Benomar (2004); ‘Democratic Constitution-Making’ by Vivien Hart (2003);
‘Building Democracy in Iraq’ by Yash Ghai & al. (2003).
.
A similar trend is found in international law. While a generic right to participate in democratic
governance was mentioned in the International Bill of Human Rights3, later on several regional and
transnational declarations referred to the right to political participation.4 In the ‘90s, a specific right to
public participation in constitution-making was explicitly recognized by one of the major
international human rights treaty bodies.5
Any critical review of past experiences (and the lessons learned to be derived from such an exercise)
must be fully linked to the practice of international assistance to constitution-building processes. The
constitution-building process cannot be seen in isolation as it is (and must be) deeply inter-linked to
the design of political and electoral systems; it is to be essentially seen as a political process, not a
legalistic one, in which particular (often conflicting) short-term interests of different constituencies
are to be harmonized into/subjected to the common interest. The way constitutions are designed
ends up creating incentives (or disincentives) for political parties to manipulate and represent
interests constructed around ethnic or religious identities or to look for regional autonomy. Society is
to be fully involved in both the adoption and amendment of constitutions for the process to be
legitimate and to serve the cause of stability and democracy.
International IDEA: Recognizing the importance of constitutional/institutional design for the
consolidation of viable democracy,6 International IDEA supported initiatives for popular
participation and national dialogues on the process of constitutional reform (Nigeria, Indonesia and
Burkina Faso).7 More recently, it has supported dialogue processes aimed at structural reforms, often
including constitutional change (Arab World, Latin America, etc.).
IDEA can play a role in promoting an integrated and inclusive approach to the design of prodemocracy constitution-building as well as global synergies between academia, donors and
practitioners in this particular field. In its commitment to ‘assist in the design of political, electoral systems
and democratic institutions, so they are better capable of channeling and managing conflicting interests’ (Framework
Programme of Activity, 2004-2006), International IDEA has a number of specific comparative
advantages in the field of constitution-building, which can make its contribution relevant:
(i)
A systematic approach towards the integration of the political, electoral and postconflict recovery elements of democracy-building;
(ii)
Proven ability to produce critical comparative knowledge from various regions and to
operate at the interface of governments, academia and practitioners;
(iii)
Solid experience in liaising with national stakeholders on an equal basis (as IDEA is not
a donor) and in a way which fosters full social inclusion, participation, and the national
ownership of processes of social and political change;
(iv)
Practical field experience in a number of countries in different continents.
3 Art. 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); Art. 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966/1976) see Vivien Hart,
‘Democratic Constitution-Making’, 2003.
4 Art. 13.1 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1981); Art. 5.2 of the Asian Charter of Rights (1998); Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001).
5 In its judicial capacity to hear individual complaints under Optional Protocol I to the ICCPR, the Human Rights Committee recognized this right in the case Marshall v.
Canada in 1991. In 1996 the same was done in its General Comment on Art. 25 of the ICCPR; Vivien Hart, op.cit.
6 International IDEA, Democracy and Deep-Rooted Conflict: Options for Negotiators, Handbook Series 3, 1998.
7 International IDEA News, Constitutions for the people, winter 2001, page 3-4.
2
The ultimate desired impact of the present project is that inclusive and integrated constitutionbuilding processes will be a central element of international community’s strategies to assist countries
in their transition to stable democracies. The project intends to look into crucial issues such as:
(i)
The critical dimension of the process of constitution-building in democratization;
(ii)
The challenges of transitional ‘constitutional’ arrangements in post-conflict settings,
(including the move from polarized competing power-bases to national power sharing
arrangements, democratic mechanisms and justice systems encompassing human rights)
and the importance of the process leading to negotiating these arrangements;
(iii)
The role of international assistance in CBP;
(iv)
The gender perspective on participation and consultation mechanisms;
(v)
The impact of different constitutional framework options in multi-ethnic, divided and
diverse societies (rule of majority vis-à-vis minorities) and the role of CBP in failed and
failing states. The need to manage conflicts during (and possibly intensified by) CBP;
(vi)
The constitutional dimensions of: (a) the articulation between institutional framework,
political representation system and electoral system design; (b) power and structure of
the judiciary; (c) civil/military checks and balances;
(vii)
Mechanisms to enforce and amend a constitution (and, when non-existent, ways to open
channels of constructive communication between different constituencies);
(viii)
The use of limited but ‘incremental’ constitutional changes to enhance power of certain
leaderships (or CBP non-conducive to democracy).
Project: The Role of Constitution-Building Processes in Democratization.
Purpose: Support effective democratization through Constitution-Building Processes (CBP).8
TP
PT
Overall objective: Contribute to constitution-building processes conducive to democracy through: 9
• The identification of options of CBP (and their impact on different aspects of democracybuilding);10
• The influence on relevant actors playing a role in CBP.
TP
TP
PT
PT
Scope of the project
(i) Transitional settings (from single-party system, military rule, authoritarian regime);
(ii) Post-conflict contexts (peace settlement, failed state, international administration);
(iii) Societies in internal conflict (ethnic/religious divide, armed conflict, institutional crisis).11
TP
PT
8
The concept of CBP, used hereinafter, encompasses all kinds of constitutional change: (i) drafting of totally
new constitutions; (ii) extensive review of existing constitutions; and, (iii) significant reforms to existing
constitutions. The project does not refer to constitutional change in established democracies (see Scope below).
9 The project refers to the operational definition of Democracy as a form of government “combining three
essential conditions: meaningful competition for political power amongst individuals and organized groups;
inclusive participation in the selection of leaders and policies, at least through free and fair elections; and a level
of civil and political liberties sufficient to ensure the integrity of political competition and participation”
(International IDEA, “Democracy and deep-rooted Conflict: Options for negotiators”, 1998).
10
Democracy-building is intended as the process aimed to set the basis/consolidate/enhance the essential
conditions of democracy, as from the definition provided above.
P
P
P
P
P
P
3
Specific objectives and target audiences
The CBP Project has the following specific objectives:
• Influence the agenda-setting of donors/international community drawing their attention to
the contribution that CBP can give to a successful and sustainable democratization and
violent conflict prevention;
•
Improve knowledge/practice of international actors providing assistance to CBP;
•
Enrich analysis of academics and experts debating on CBP and their impact on democracybuilding;
•
Strengthen the capacity of national stakeholders, particularly national reform bodies and
legislatures, leading/playing a major role in CBP.
Strategy
In order to achieve its specific objectives, the following strategy is followed:
• Develop knowledge/expertise of International IDEA in this field through the analysis of a
number of relevant case-studies of CBP and the direct monitoring of/engagement in
selected on-going CBP (see Activities, below);
•
Launch a wide reflection on the articulation between CBP and democracy-building through:
(i) the promotion of a Community of Practice, including donors, international
organizations/practitioners, and academics; (ii) inputs from case-studies and direct
monitoring/engagements; and, (iii) the realization of a series of regional workshops;
•
Provide national stakeholders with comparative experience and specific advice in a selected
number of on-going CBP;
•
Provide a platform for the provision of advice and assistance in CBP through:
(i) a web-based resource center on CBP and its articulation with democracy-building,
including a network of experts and a permanent virtual forum on CBP;
(ii) the production/publication of comparative material on CBP and democracy, including an
Users’ Guide on Constitution-Building Processes and Democracy-Building.
Activities for 2004-2006 (Basic timeline below)
• Case-studies on concluded CBP: Analysis of the role of CBP in democratization in 11
countries, selected in accordance with a combination of typology/geographical
balance/nature of change and carried out through a common analytical framework as per
TOR (see Annex I). The case-studies, prepared by external consultants, are published
electronically on IDEA website.
U
•
U
On-going CBP monitoring reports: Monitoring reports of ongoing CBP in 6 countries (see
Annex I), in some of which targeted interventions (see Annex II) are being/might be carried
out by International IDEA in partnership with national/international actors. Monitoring
reports are published electronically on IDEA website.
U
U
11
Transitional settings refer to changes of regime not involving large-scale armed conflicts; Post-conflict contexts
refer to countries after the end of large-scale armed conflicts; Societies in internal conflict refer to countries in
which major conflicts (armed conflicts, systematic violent confrontations or a generalized crisis of institutions)
are on-going.
P
P
4
•
Initiatives for a Community of Practice: Promotion of the establishment of a Community of
Practice (CoP) including donors, international organizations/practitioners and academics
aimed at: (i) exchanging information on ‘who does what’ in democratic CBP assistance;
(ii) reflecting on strengths and weaknesses of CBP from the democracy-building perspective;
(iii) exploring the opportunity of carrying out joint initiatives to strengthen CBP conducive
to democracy. The initial activity is a seminar/workshop, planned for 12 October 2004 in
Stockholm (see Annex III). Follow up activities might be defined in the seminar.
U
U
•
Regional workshops: Regional analyses of CBP aimed at providing additional inputs and test
hypotheses through 3 workshops on comparative experience, grouping cases on the basis of
geographical criteria (Latin America, Africa/Arab World, East-Europe/Asia). A seminar
report of each activity is prepared, as an input to the global analysis, and published
electronically on IDEA website.
•
Comparative material: Production of comparative material including an Users’ Guide on
CBP and Democracy-building, (ideally as a joint initiative among members of the CoP) and
containing (as a minimum): (i) the analysis of the major issues concerning the articulation of
CBP and democracy; (ii) the impact of CBP in terms of conflict management as
environment conducive to democracy-building; and, (iii) the presentation of different
types/options of CBP and their likely impact on the democratization process. The Guide, to
be published in hard copy, will be also available on IDEA website.
•
Web-based resource center: Creation of a web-based resource center as a platform for the
provision of advice and assistance in CBP, including network of experts and the different
case-studies produced by International IDEA (with links to other institutions’ analysis
papers).
U
U
U
U
U
U
CBP TIMELINE 2004 – 2006
2004: March: -Complete first draft work programme in the thematic sub-component;
-Assessment mission to Bolivia;
-Literature review;
April: -Define targeted intervention in Bolivia;
-Input to project in Georgia and Nepal;
May:
-Mission to Bolivia for targeted intervention;
-Identify consultants for first group of case-studies;
-Mission to New York, Washington for possible partnerships;
June:
-Complete second draft work programme in the thematic sub-component;
July:
-Meeting with Consultants and experts;
-Complete third draft work programme in the thematic sub-component;
-Project formal approval;
August: -Monitoring progress of targeted interventions;
-Organization of October seminar;
September: -Mission to Bolivia and Peru;
-Identify consultants for second group of case-studies;
-First draft of case-studies (first group);
5
October: -Seminar of case-studies authors
-Meeting on possible partnerships (Community of Practice?);
-Final draft of case-studies (first group);
November: -Monitoring progress of case-studies (second group);
-Mission to Nepal;
-Mission to Europe for partnerships (Universities, Donors);
December: -Review programme of work in the thematic sub-component;
2005:
January-February-March: -Agree on monitoring CBP in Nepal, Kenya, Bolivia, Nigeria
-Contacts with European institutions on Community of Practice
-Mission to Bolivia and Georgia
April-May-June: -Finalize second group of case-studies;
-Constitutional culture seminar in Buenos Aires
-Mission to Bolivia
-Policy Paper on CBP
-Regional workshops on CBP in Asia
-Design of comparative material on CBP;
July-August-September: - Meeting of Community of Practice
-Mission to Nepal
October-November-December: -Initiate production of comparative material on CBP;
-Regional workshops on CBP in Africa
-Monitoring progress of targeted interventions;
-Review workplan;
2006:
January-February-March: - Regional workshop on CBP in Latin America;
-Production of comparative material;
April-May-June: -Establishment of CBP section of web-based resource center
July-August-September: -Dissemination activities;
-Training;
October-November-December: -Evaluation.
PROJECT’S FOLLOW UP 2007 – 2009 (Preliminary concept)
In its second phase, the present project would aim at:
-Focusing on the implementation of new/reformed Constitutions;
-Analyzing the impact of new/reformed Constitutions (once implemented) on Conflict Management;
-Studying the link between Constitutions and Political and Institutional reforms, and their impact on
governance;
-Deepening activities of Advocacy and Donor engagement vis-à-vis CBP and political/institutional
reforms conducive to effective democratizations in transitional and post-conflict settings (see Scope).
6
Annex I: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK & STRUCTURE GUIDELINE FOR CASE STUDIES AND
MONITORING REPORTS (IN BRACKETS)
Africa and
East Europe and
R E G I O N Æ Latin America
Arab World Asia
<-- T Y P E
TRANSITIONAL SETTINGS
-From single-party system
Hungary ®
(Georgia) ®
-From military rule
Chile ®
-From authoritarian regime
Bahrain (N) Indonesia ®
POST-CONFLICT CONTEXTS
-Peace settlement
Guatemala ®
Rwanda (N)
-Failed state
Afghanistan (N)
-International administration
East Timor (N)
SOCIETIES IN DEEP INTERNAL
CONFLICT
-Ethnic/religious divide
Nigeria (N)
Fiji ®
(Bosnia) (R/N)
(Sri Lanka) ®
-Armed conflict
Colombia (N)
(Nepal) (R/N)
(Kenya) (N)
-Institutional crisis
(Bolivia) (N)
(Peru) (R/N)
N A T U R E of C H A N G E:
(N) New Constitution
® Constitution Review
FOCUS OF INQUIRY: The case-studies analysis will contribute to the following project
objectives: (i) to encourage the international community to promote inclusive and integrated
constitution-building processes as a central component of their strategy to assist countries’ transition
to stable democracies; and, (ii) to provide support to national actors in leading/participating in CBP.
Case studies will examine the constitution-building process rather than the substance of the
document eventually agreed upon, although the process and content are often intractably linked. In
order to focus the case study analysis the following framework is recommended. The analysis should
be divided into two sections: the Contextual Analysis and the Process Analysis.
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS: Understanding the context in which a process is undertaken is
important when carrying out a comparative analysis and when assessing whether elements of a
successful process can be replicated in another environment.
1.
Political Background: Brief political context and how CBP originated. Was there a peace
settlement, collapsed state, popular initiative, political party agreement or international
administration; and what challenges were there to the transitional ‘constitutional’
arrangements during the post-conflict setting (for instance what was the effect of the move
from polarized competing power-bases to national power sharing arrangements, democratic
mechanisms and justice systems which encompass the dimension of human rights)?
2.
Stakeholder Analysis: A comprehensive list of all stakeholders separated into primary and
secondary stakeholders based upon their stake in the process/ outcome. The interests and
position of each of the stakeholders regarding constitutional reform should be noted.
3.
Post-Conflict Enabling Environment: Detail the transitional settings (from single-party
system, military rule, authoritarian regime); whether the society was or is still experiencing
internal conflict (ethnic/religious divide, armed conflict, institutional crisis); what interim
arrangements were in place before and during the CBP; and if violent conflict has ceased
what stage of the conflict cycle is the society presently experiencing?
7
ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTION-BUILDING PROCESS: the case studies should provide an
analysis of the process of constitutional change. A four stage approach is recommended.
STAGE ONE: Draw up a detailed timeline of the constitution-building process, including any
pertinent events leading up to the commencement of the process. Preparing a timeline is an
important tool when analyzing processes as timing and the sequence of events is vital to
replicating successful models.
STAGE TWO: Using the timeline as a point of reference point, respond to the following five
structural issues:
(i)
Who designed the process
(ii)
Who had the major responsibility for its implementation
(iii)
What concept of inclusion was adopted and how was it implemented (particularly
when conducting education and consultation activities)
(iv)
How was the constitution adopted and enforced; and
(v)
What were the provisions for amending/ reviewing the constitution?
STAGE THREE: Analyze the above structural issues and the CBP as a whole from the following
thematic perspectives:
•
Gender perspective – Was there an engendered CBP?
U
•
U
Role of international assistance - Was there an international ‘demand’ for a CBP; did
international actors played a role in the design/implementation of the process; does the
international community see a CBP as an exit strategy from a given country, a way to
stabilize that country, or the start of a process of long-term assistance/monitoring; and was
the CBP internally driven and owned or rather externally-influenced?
U
U
•
Spoiling factors - Were there ‘unexpected shocks’ that had a spoiling effect on the CBP?
Were the shocks planned or an inadvertent consequence of stakeholder actions?
•
Limitation of inclusiveness – Was the degree of inclusiveness necessarily a tool to gain more
legitimacy or an additional ‘complication’ which might put stability at risk? Is the
participatory process altering or preserving the ‘initial’ power structure/balance contained in
the Constitution? Is a (reformed/new) constitution a reflection of a new social pact, based
on common vision/values, or just a switch in the balance of (elite) power? Can inclusiveness
be only an ‘illusion’ created by power elites/warlords to mask who takes the real decision?
•
The Role of Perception - Is effective participation in constitution-making what counts or are
the stakeholders’ perception that their interests were taken into account equally as important
in giving legitimacy to the new constitution? What role did the media play in generating the
perception?
•
Sustainability - Is a reformed/new constitution (done through a participatory process)
necessarily more sustainable and why? What was the reaction from the establishment
(political, military, and economic) and other stakeholders after it became apparent how the
new arrangements would impact on their interests?
•
Leadership – Did leaders play a determinant role in the direction CBP took? Was the
absence of ‘constructive’ leadership an important factor affecting CBP?
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
8
STAGE FOUR: Assess whether the CBP has had a positive impact on democracy-building and
whether the CBP has had an impact beyond the development of the constitution itself (For example
has the CBP influenced the opportunities for reconciliation or, on the contrary, contributed to fuel
existing conflicts; fostered the inclusion of previously marginalized groups; or provided a significant
contribution to the (re)definition of a national identity).
When assessing the impact of the CBP on democracy-building regard should be had to whether the
CBP:
(i)
Led to the creation of formal democratic institutions/mechanisms
(ii)
Impacted on the exercise of rights and liberties and inclusion of marginalized groups
(iii)
Encouraged a democratic culture and assisted in conflict management/prevention
(iv)
Provided incentives for political parties to represent interests beyond
ethnic/religious/regional identities; and
(vi)
Resulted in the approval of complementing legislation?
CBP MONITORING. Objectives: The objective of the monitoring is to provide regular and
systematic information on the ongoing process of (or debate on) constitutional change, including the
aspect of (probable) process, contents, and assistance (to be) provided by the international
community. This will serve the purpose to build up the knowledge of IDEA on this as well as
providing insights for possible targeted interventions. Eight cases12 were selected due to their
thematic relevance (see case-studies matrix) or the interest for/existence of specific engagement of
IDEA in targeted interventions.
Methodology: Initially, background information will include a brief political context including
stakeholder analysis and details on the transition and how the debate on CBP originated as follows:
Political Background: Brief political context and how CBP or a debate on it (is being)
originated. Was there a peace settlement, collapsed state, popular initiative, political party
agreement or international administration; and what challenges were there to the transitional
‘constitutional’ arrangements during the post-conflict setting (for instance what was the
effect of the move from polarized competing power-bases to national power sharing
arrangements, democratic mechanisms and justice systems which encompass the dimension
of human rights)?
Stakeholder Analysis: A comprehensive list of all stakeholders separated into primary and
secondary stakeholders based upon their stake in the process/ outcome. The interests and
position of each of the stakeholders regarding constitutional reform should be noted.
Post-Conflict Enabling Environment: Detail the transitional settings (from single-party
system, military rule, authoritarian regime); whether the society was or is still experiencing
internal conflict (ethnic/religious divide, armed conflict, institutional crisis); what interim
arrangements were in place before and during the CBP; and if violent conflict has ceased
what stage of the conflict cycle is the society presently experiencing?
Then, regular (in principle, monthly) updates will inform on the debate, including the different
options discussed for CBP particularly in the aspect of mechanisms to guarantee the inclusion of
12
Georgia, Nepal, Bolivia, Kenya, Bosnia, Peru, Sri Lanka, Nigeria.
9
women, minorities and previously marginalized sectors. After six months or shorter period
depending on the different contexts, a brief conclusive piece will provide an analysis of the CBP
debate/context with emphasis on some of the main issues contained in the analytical framework for
case-studies (see relevant annex of project outline).
•
Debate – Who is leading, promoting, or opposing the debate on CBP? What are the terms of
the debate?
•
Leadership – Did leaders play a determinant role in the direction CBP is taking? Was the
absence of ‘constructive’ leadership an important factor affecting CBP debate?
•
U
U
U
U
Political Parties – What is the role played by political parties in shaping the debate on CBP?
How is their positions affecting the Congress vis-à-vis the debate on CBP?
U
U
•
Role of international assistance - Was there an international ‘demand’ for a CBP; did
international actors played a role in the design/implementation of the process; does the
international community see a CBP as an exit strategy from a given country, a way to
stabilize that country, or the start of a process of long-term assistance/monitoring; and was
the CBP internally driven and owned or rather externally-influenced?
•
The Role of Perception - Is effective participation in constitution-making what counts or are
the stakeholders’ perception that their interests were taken into account equally as important
in giving legitimacy to the new constitution? What role did the media play in generating the
perception?
•
Gender perspective – What is the role played by women’s organizations in the debate on
CBP? Was there an engendered CBP?
•
Limitation of inclusiveness – Was the degree of inclusiveness necessarily a tool to gain more
legitimacy or an additional ‘complication’ which might put stability at risk? Is the
participatory process altering or preserving the ‘initial’ power structure/balance contained in
the Constitution? Is a (reformed/new) constitution a reflection of a new social pact, based
on common vision/values, or just a switch in the balance of (elite) power? Can inclusiveness
be only an ‘illusion’ created by warlords/power elites to mask who takes the real decision?
•
Spoiling factors - Were there ‘unexpected shocks’ that had a spoiling effect on the CBP?
Were the shocks planned or an inadvertent consequence of stakeholder actions?
•
Other issues?
Monitors: Monitors are locally-based institutions or individuals who can demonstrate knowledge and
interest in the political and social context in a given country, particularly in the political, legal and
constitutional reform process.
10
Annex II. TARGETED INTERVENTIONS in a specific country are undertaken by
International IDEA on an exceptional basis under the following principles:
• There is a demonstrable need for IDEA’s interventions;
• Through such an intervention IDEA can significantly enhance its comparative knowledge
due to the characteristics of the country;
• IDEA has a direct presence in the country and/or a relevant field knowledge, for it being
area of activity of a regional hub and/or due to IDEA staff’s direct country experience;
• Local, regional and international partners are carefully selected to take part in the
intervention on the basis of criteria of impartiality and transparency;
• The main focus of the intervention is on an inclusive and integrated process;
• IDEA presents a plurality of substantive options and does not enter into the merit of
reforms, unless there are options approved by all main actors (peace agreements, common
platforms) or related to basic principles contained in international standards of democracy
and human rights;
• The government of the country is consulted before the intervention;
• IDEA’s member states present in the country are consulted regularly informed and, when
appropriate, invited to cooperate.
The main added value of International IDEA’s intervention would consist of:
• A systematic attitude towards considering, and related expertise in integrating, the political,
electoral and post-conflict recovery elements of democracy-building;
• Proven ability to produce critical comparative knowledge from various regions and to
operate at the interface of governments, academia and practitioners;
• Solid experience in liaising with national stakeholders on an equal basis (as IDEA is not a
donor) and in a way which fosters full social inclusion, participation, and the national
ownership of processes of social and political change;
• Practical field experience in a number of countries in different continents;
• Certain degree of direct knowledge of the country (target for intervention).
A basic methodology for IDEA’s targeted interventions would include:
• Assessment of the political situation (to be done jointly by IDEA HQ and regional offices
concerned), aimed at: (i) identifying scope/mechanisms of political/constitutional reforms;
(ii) main existing issues; (iii) main stakeholders (national and international);
• Identification of key partners (national and international) to carry out the intervention;
• Definition of a strategic plan for the intervention including objectives, strategy, time-frame,
budget, and selection of some of the main stakeholders to be part of the dialogue process;
• Implementation of the plan, including: (i) support in the launching of an inclusive dialogue
through the creation of representative working groups analyzing main issues around reforms;
(ii) training and presentation of experiences from other countries/contexts in an integrated
way to working groups; (iii) support in the production of discussion papers as a result of the
dialogue process and to be presented to government, civil society and through media; (iv)
reporting on the process; (v) monitoring of the outcome; (vi) monitoring developments’ (vii)
assessment of the intervention (after a given time).
11
Annex III. TARGET AUDIENCE AND POSSIBLE PARTNERS OF A COMMUNITY OF
PRACTICE: Through the CBP work, International IDEA aims at influencing:
• IDEA Member-states;
• Donors, particularly DAC countries, and their cooperation agencies interested/involved in
CBP assistance programmes;
• International practitioners involved in CBP assistance programmes;
• National legislatures, governmental bodies and reform commissions (in specific cases);
• Civil society organizations (in specific cases);
• Opinion-makers (Mass-media, specialized magazines, etc).
Potential partners for International IDEA in the CBP project would include:
• UN system (UNDP OGC, BDP and BCPR; DPA/DPKO)
• US Institute for Peace (USIP);
• International Peace Academy (IPA)
• Forum of Federations;
• European system (OSCE, Council of Europe; European Commission?)
• Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU);
• Club de Madrid;
• Venice Commission;
• Citizens’ Forum for Constitutional Reforms (CFCR);
• Academic centers/Individual experts (The Fletcher School, University of Bern/WuerzburgInternational Constitutional Law, University of Sussex-The Cunliffe Center, University of
Hong Kong, Duke University, Berghof Center-Berlin, University of South Pacific, University
of Michigan, Center for Comparative Constitutional Studies-University of Melbourne, etc.)
A basic methodology for establishing partnerships (and experts):
• Web-based research of entities working on constitution-building (mainly those focusing on
the interaction between constitution-building and violent conflict prevention/democracy);
• Selection on the basis of criteria of diversity (of background, funding, types of activities,
geographical area of work, etc.) and specificity;
• Contacts with them through missions and regular email contact;
• Define and institutionalize nature and scope of partnerships.
A Community of Practice brings together a number of actors interested in CBP in order to:
• Promote exchange of information on CBP assistance programmes;
• Facilitate global reflection on CBP and their articulation with democracy-building and
conflict management;
• Explore the possibility/opportunity of joint projects, including the production of
comparative material, the definition of a comprehensive roster of experts, and the
establishment of a web-based research center as a platform for the provision of assistance
and advice on CBP.
12
Selected reference
• Baechler, Günther. 1997. “Non-violent resolution of minority conflicts through federalism?
The Charter of Basel“ in Federalism against Ethnicity? ed. Günther Baechler. Chur/Zürich:
Verlag Rüegger, pp. 313 – 321.
•
Bastian, Sunil and Luckham, Robin, ed. 2003. Can Democracy be Designed? The Politics of
International Choice in Conflict-torn Societies. London, Zed Books.
•
Benomar, Jamal, ‘Constitution-making after Conflict: Lessons for Iraq’, Journal of
Democracy2004 (15-2).
•
Elazar, Daniel J. 1994. Federal Systems of the World: A Handbook of Federal, Confederal and
Autonomy Arrangements. Harlow: Longman Group UK.
•
•
•
Ghai, Yash & Lattimer, Mark & Said, Yahia 2003 “Building Democracy in Iraq”.
Ghai, Yash 2004 “The Constitution Reform Processes: comparative perspectives”.
Ghai, Yash 2004 “A Journey round Constitutions: Reflecting on Contemporary
Constitutions”.
•
Gurr, Ted Robert. 1997. “Why do minorities rebel? The worldwide geography of
ethnopolitical conflicts and their challenge to global security.” In Federalism against Ethnicity?
ed. Günther Baechler. Chur/Zürich: Verlag Rüegger, pp. 3 – 14.
•
Hart, Vivien 2003. Democratic Constitution Making, United States Institute of Peace Special
Report 107. Washington DC: USIP.
Hart, Vivien. Women Making Constitutions: New Politics and Comparative Perspectives ed. and intro.
with Alexandra Dobrowolsky. Houndmills: Palgrave, November 2003, x, 285 pp.
Hart, Vivien. 'Constitution-making and the Transformation of Conflict,' Peace and Change 26
(April 2001), 153-176
•
•
•
Heinrich, Wolfgang 2000. Crisis Prevention in Practice. The Service Package of the GTZ, Module 2:
Support For Local And Regional Institutions And Mechanisms For The Non-Violent Management of
Conflicts. GTZ Eschborn: Draft paper.
•
Hyden, G. & Venter, D. (ed.), “Constitution-making and democratization in Africa”, Africa
Institute of South Africa, 2001
•
Kritz, Neil J. 1996. “The rule of law in the postconflict phase: building a stable peace.” In
Crocker, Chester A. & Fen Osler Hampson with Pamela Aall, 1996. Managing Global Chaos.
Sources of and Responses to International Conflict. Washington D.C.: United States of Peace
University Press, pp. 587-605.
•
Lijphart, Arend “Constitutional Design for Divided Societies”.
•
Muravchik, Joshua 1996. “Promoting peace through democracy.” In Crocker Chester A.,
Hampson, Fen Osler, Aall, Pamela (eds.). Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to
International Conflict., Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, pp. 573 – 585.
•
O’Brien, Mitchell, ‘Post-Conflict Participatory Constitution-making Processes’, Duke
University, April 2004.
13
•
Reynolds, Andrew (Ed.) 2002. The Architecture of Democracy: Constitutional Design, Conflict
Management, and Democracy. Oxford University Press.
•
Rubin, Barnett. B 2004. “Crafting a Constitution for Afghanistan”, Journal of Democracy,
Volume 15, No. 3
•
Sartori, Giovanni 1997. Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives
and Outcomes, New York: NY University Press.
•
Selassie Bereket Habte 1999. “Democracy nad the Role of Parliament under the Eritrean
Constitution.” North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 24:221-61.
Sisk, Timothy D. 1996. Power-Sharing and International Mediation. Washington D.C: United
States Institute of Peace Press.
•
•
Soerensen, Georg 1998. “Democratization in the Third World: The Role of Western Politics
and Research.” Paper presented at the Conference “Failed States and International Security:
Causes, Prospects, and Consequences”. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Feb. 25 – 27.
•
A. M. Goetz, R. Luckham, M. Kaldor et al. (2003) “Democratic Institutions and Democratic
Politics”
A. Stepan and C. Skach (1993) “Constitutional Frameworks and Democratic Consolidation:
Parliamentarianism versus Presidentialism”
•
•
S. Bastian and R. Luckham (2003) “The Politics of Institutional Choice”
•
N Devas (2002) “Local Government Decision-Making: Citizen Participation Local
Accountability, Examples of Good (and Bad) Practice in Kenya”
•
B Reilly and A Reynolds (1999) “Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided Societies”
•
UNDP (1999) “Governance Foundations for Post Conflict Situations”
•
A M Goetz, R Luckham, M Kaldor et al (2003) “Democratic Institutions and Democratic
Politics”
•
OECD (Development Assistance Committee) (2001) “DAC Guidelines on Conflict, Peace
and evelopment Cooperation”
•
A Leftwich (2002) “Debate: Democracy and Development. A Contradiction in the Politics
of Economics”
•
GTZ, Governance Questionnaire – An instrument for analyzing political environments
•
Unsworth, Sue “Understanding Pro-poor change: a discussion paper” (Sept. 2001)
•
Collegium for Development Studies at Uppsala University, “Democracy, Power and
Partnership: Implications for Development Cooperation”, conference report, May 2002
Collegium for Development Studies at Uppsala University, “Democracy as Actual Practice:
What does Democracy really brings?”, conference report, March 2003
•
14
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DFID, (2003) “Drivers of Change: Reflections on Experience to Date”, Oxford Policy
Management, Oxford, June 2003.
International IDEA (1998), Democracy and Deep-rooted Conflict
International IDEA (2001), Democracy in Nigeria: Continuing dialogue for nation-building
International IDEA (2001), Continuing dialogue towards constitutional reform in Indonesia
International IDEA (2001), Democracy in Burkina Faso
International IDEA (2002), Handbook on Democracy Assessment
International IDEA (2002), The State of Democracy
International IDEA (2003), The Role of State Constitutions in Protecting Minority Rights
under Federalism: Dialogues in Support of Democratic Transition in Burma.
15