the elections are technically sound. However, there
is also a problem in the way we look at elections:
if the elections are not rigged on the day of the
event, then we need to look into – and advocate
more – the electoral cycle approach because that’s
where the problems usually are. Secondly, we see
in many countries – not only in Rwanda – that it
is possible to oppress people for a limited period
of time, whether it is 10 or 20 years. In the long
run, however, it’s the voice of the people that will
prevail.
SV: The big gamble for Rwanda is whether it can
build – as it pretends it is doing – a nation around
citizenship rather than around ethnic identities.
In the case of Rwanda, the gamble seems to be
a government that draws its legitimacy on other
benefits, other merits it has, such as service
delivery. In very crude terms, the question is, in a
way, whether even Hutu voters will, without any
coercion, vote for a Tutsi president if he is able
to provide health infrastructures, schooling, etc.
better than the same Hutu have experienced with
previous regimes. Or whether at the end of the day,
other aspects that are not strictly related to those
services provided, such as freedom of association
and freedom of expression will be more dominant
in determining people’s political behaviour. And
that’s a big gamble, especially having Rwanda
and Burundi side by side with totally different
approaches on how to organize coexistence
between ethnic groups that have violently
competed. If you consult the literature on powersharing, we should logically conclude that Burundi’s
approach stands a better chance of success. But of
course, this is not a matter of statistics, it’s a matter
of individual practice.
AB: Rwanda ticks many boxes in terms of elements
of a system of democracy, e.g. the number of
women in parliament is exemplary. But at the
end of the day, democracy is about the people
and this will become a challenge in the long term.
It’s an issue of representation and participation
and at present people might feel excluded from
participation. It brings in another element, namely
the weak opposition parties. In terms of capacity
building, we need to look at how politics are being
managed by political parties and this goes beyond
the global South. This and also voter turnout, the
involvement of the young people, the development
of manifestos, the representation of women, etc. All
these things related to the internal political parties’
democracy. We need to look at how to support
political parties in order to bring the democracy
support agenda further. I think that’s also the case
for Rwanda.
SV: (agreeing) And it’s a general trend at least for
the African continent: the weakness of opposition
parties has been a constant. The belief in the
possible alternation of power is, I believe, one of the
key indicators of democracy. It cannot work if you
don’t trust the system, i.e. that tomorrow you can
lose, and the day after you can perhaps win.
AB: Finally, I want to be straight on this question:
10
is a dictatorship sometimes better than a liberal
democracy to maintain peace and stability? It will
never work.
with? In this context, how can democracy
contribute to peace-building between
Palestine and Israel?
SV: Certainly not to sustain it.
AB: We can keep this very short: it’s the people
who decide. You and I cannot decide who a country
should elect. In the diplomatic world, there are
means to work with countries you don’t like or
which you don’t agree with. Look at how the West
is dealing with Russia at the moment. So I think,
it’s crucial that one respects the wish of the people,
whether we like it or not.
EtC: In June 2014, Juan Manuel Santos was
elected for the second time as president of
Colombia. It was one of the most dramatic
presidential contest in years as the election
was widely seen as a referendum on the peace
process that Mr Santos’s government began
with leftist FARC rebels in late 2012. It is also
worth noting that voter turnout was very
low (47.89%). Do you think that the extreme
polarization and negative climate that
characterized this campaign points toward
a lack of real stability within the Colombian
democracy? What explains the weak voter
turnout and the political indifference? Do you
think it could threaten the chances Colombia
has for peace? Finally, what is your opinion on
the current peace-building efforts? Are they
building a basis for a durable peace?
AB: First and foremost, I am not a Colombian
expert but what I have seen, in terms, of the
democratic landscape of Latin America is that the
challenge is to build institutions that can sustain
democracy. Those institutional backups are not
there I think. Secondly, in Colombia, the biggest
challenges are in terms of crime, drugs and illicit
money in politics.
Regarding voter turnout, there are always many
factors at play. It might be a security issue, it might
be that political parties did not reach out the voters.
Look at the European elections, why don’t young
people vote? In other countries, is it an issue of high
levels of voter illiteracy? If one reads this question
or this argument a bit the other way around, the
tendency is that the more stable the country is, the
more democratic it is, the more the voter turnout
drops. But when an issue really matters, like in
Scotland, people vote.
SV: I don’t know that much about Colombia either,
but if I were president, campaigning for a new
mandate, then framing the campaign as being a
question of being for or against the current peace
process is politically savvy. If you frame the whole
electoral process as being a referendum in favour
of or against the peace negotiations with the FARC,
which is a national security interest, that is a way to
rally people around the flag.
EtC: In the highly charged context of Palestine
and Israel, the last successful election in the
Palestinian territories was held in 2006 and
saw Hamas, the religious group considered by
many as a terrorist organization, winning the
election. The election result brought to light
an aspect of democracy that is often forgotten:
what happens when the people elect a group
that many in the world do not want to deal
EtC: But it doesn’t look like it will cont &