Carnegie Corporation of New York established the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict in May 1994 to address the looming threats to world peace of intergroup violence and to advance new ideas for the prevention and resolution of deadly conflict. The Commission is examining the principal causes of deadly ethnic, nationalist, and religious conflicts within and between states and the circumstances that foster or deter their outbreak. Taking a long-term, worldwide view of violent conflicts that are likely to emerge, it is seeking to determine the functional requirements of an effective system for preventing mass violence and to identify the ways in which such a system could be implemented. The Commission is also looking at the strengths and weaknesses of various international entities in conflict prevention and considering ways in which international organizations might contribute toward developing an effective international system of nonviolent problem solving.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained free of charge from the Commission's headquarters:
Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict
2400 N Street, N.W.
Sixth Floor
Washington, D.C. 20037-1153
Tel.: (202) 429-7979 Fax: (202) 429-9291

Foreword

In a world full of ethnocentrism, prejudice, and violent conflict, there is a vital need for core democratic values to resolve ethnic and religious conflicts and to prevent their escalation to violence. The absence of democratic mechanisms to sort out conflicts within a country often makes it easy for conflicts to spill over into violence. Although the history of each region has left a distinctive legacy of cultures, languages, and religions, fundamental democratic principles--applied in ways that fit indigenous circumstances--can be useful to all. In this highly informative essay, Larry Diamond makes a cogent case for the fostering of democracy, addressing the major problems in a constructive and thoughtful manner. The essay clearly shows the need for sustained efforts toward building democratic processes and institutions throughout the world.

The principles of democracy--such as the equality of human beings--cannot deny the immense variability of human experience and human attributes. But these principles address political equality in practical ways through equal access to elections in some kind of one-person, one-vote formula; equality before the law with authentic access in practice to judicial and other remedies, especially those that can redress grievances and resolve conflicts without violence; and equality of opportunity. Additional elements include equal access to the mass media as well as freedom to organize and express views without hindrance.

Any democracy needs a systematic, fair process for implementing consent of the governed. The development of election systems constitutes one crucial piece of this puzzle. Another component is the development of strong civic organizations in societies that have been harshly limited by authoritarian regimes. Civil society builds democracy, first, by allowing the evolution of democratic values through nonviolent conflict. Groups compete with each other and with the state for the power to carry out specific agendas. Civil society increases the effectiveness of coalitions of individuals for innovative activities, and, within the context of institutionalized competition, tolerance and acceptance of opposition can develop.

Ultimately, pluralism is at the heart of democracy. Pluralism fosters the dynamic interplay of ideas, enterprises, parties, and a great variety of nongovernmental groups on the basis of reasonably clear, agreed-upon rules that reflect an attitude of tolerance, mutual respect, and sensitivity to fundamental human rights.

All of this takes time, to be measured in decades and perhaps even in generations, like the development of democracy itself. Much work is required at the grassroots level, preferably in collaboration with elites and with similar entities in other countries that have more democratic experience. As this work progresses, the public of previously nondemocratic regimes comes to understand what is involved in democracy, what the rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of citizens are, how they can learn about the vital subjects and formulate constructive approaches, and how they can express their views.

The international democratic community can help to create an atmosphere in which ideals are meaningful and worth striving for even though they are hard to attain, where there is faith in successive approximations over time toward a better way of life. Such efforts call for communication from established democracies about crucial aspects of the democratic experience: the taking into account of different political arguments and the views of different sectors of society, so that choices are fair to all; awareness of mechanisms for nonviolent conflict resolution; a commitment to the inherent legitimacy of the society, with leadership that reflects its people and their continuing input; attitudes and mechanisms that protect basic human rights; enough of a personal stake for individuals in the future of the nation that they are willing to make sacrifices in the nation-building process; and, perhaps most important of all, tolerance for diversity, including religious and ethnic differences.

From an early stage in democracy building, a wide understanding of the possibilities for nonviolent conflict resolution and the practical value of mutual accommodation among different sectors and peoples within a state is important. At every step, from articulation of fundamental principles to implementation of operational details, there is a need to educate for democracy. Indeed, modern telecommunications may make it feasible to have a worldwide democratic network under highly respected auspices--perhaps a mix of governmental and nongovernmental supporters. Through such a network, in a short time it might be possible to enhance the level of understanding throughout the world of what is involved in democracy and its potential benefits for all, especially its capacity for nonviolent conflict resolution. People need to see that cooperation can often lead to greater benefits in the long run and to recognize superordinate goals of compelling value to all concerned that can be achieved only by cooperation.

Regrettably, the high ideals that characterize democracy are not readily translated into practice. Indeed, democracy is an evolving, changing, adapting, updating process--always less than ideal, yet always shaped by high aspirations, with norms of decency becoming stronger as the years go by. Nevertheless, new democracies can learn a great deal from the experience of old democracies and need not require centuries to make a reasonable first approximation of democratic ideals in practice. Even a very crude approximation would be a considerable improvement over the experience of many countries to date.

The building of democratic institutions would be one of the greatest conflict prevention measures that could be taken, especially if one thinks in terms of both political and economic democratic structures. The international community of established democracies must address the translation of this aspiration into the reality of emerging democracies. So fortunate a community, with so much relevant experience in coping with the problems of modern societies, is morally obligated to smooth the path to democratization around the world in a systematic, deliberate, long-term, high-priority way.

The Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict is concerned with building preventive capacities, so that people can live together peacefully over the long term. The building of democratic institutions is certainly one crucial, albeit complicated and frustratingly slow, component of this challenge. Historically, there is little precedent for well-organized international efforts to help substantially with this process of democratization--yet there is enough experience to know that it is not impossible.

If democracy is viewed as an optional preoccupation of self-righteous democratizers--or even as an intrusive activity of sugar-coated neo-imperialists--then all this is much ado about nothing (or worse). But if we view democracy as a powerful and constructive mechanism for resolving the ubiquitous ongoing conflicts of our highly contentious human species, then the challenge becomes vital, and the opportunity precious. That is why this essay is so important.

David A. Hamburg
Co-chair

Preface

This essay was originally written for the 1994 Nobel Symposium on "Democracy's Victory and Crisis," organized by Professor Axel Hadenius and held in July of that year at Uppsala University, Sweden. It will be published in shorter form by Cambridge University Press in a volume under the conference title edited by Axel Hadenius, and I am grateful to him and to the publisher for permission to reproduce it in more extended form here.

This research project emanates from the intersection of two long-standing activities, one scholarly and the other oriented toward policy and action. It is informed in part by many years of study of comparative democratic development, particularly in Africa and other regions of what was once termed the "third world." It is also motivated and informed by more than a decade of association with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and with a number of other actors on both sides of the democratic assistance relationship: agencies and organizations offering political assistance for democracy, and recipients of that assistance (sometimes struggling against tremendous odds) in the civil societies of authoritarian and newly democratic countries.

Given my roles as co-director of the NED's new International Forum for Democratic Studies and co- editor of its Journal of Democracy, my objectivity in analyzing the work of the NED will have to be left for the reader to judge. I would only offer here this additional reflection: During the latter part of the 1980s, it was my growing admiration for the democratic development work being done by NED--and by similar organizations like the Asia Foundation and the German party foundations--and my deepening intellectual belief that democracy must be actively developed if it is to be secure, that led me gradually to a professional involvement with NED. I am indebted to the other officers and program staff of NED and its four affiliate institutes, who have shared generously of their time and insights over the years, to NED director of programs Barbara Haig, and especially to two people, NED president Carl Gershman and my coeditor of the Journal of Democracy and co-director of the International Forum, Marc F. Plattner.

Many more people have substantially assisted my research and understanding of this subject than can be mentioned here. I am grateful for the cooperation, comments, and assistance of a number of officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development, including Larry Garber, Jennifer Windsor, and Gary Hansen, as well as Joel Barkan and Harry Blair, two fine scholars who have worked extensively on AID democratic assistance programs in Africa and Asia, respectively. I have also benefited greatly from the cooperation and assistance over many years of Robert LaGamma, Director of the Office of African Affairs of the U.S. Information Agency, and of several officers of the Asia Foundation, particularly its president, William P. Fuller, and vice-president, Gordon Hein. I would like to thank as well the numerous international colleagues who offered generous insights and supporting documentation, including Diana Warwick, Chief Executive Officer of the Westminster Foundation; David Blackman, head of the division for Central and Eastern Europe of the Directorate General for Research of the European Parliament; Arturo Rodriguez, project manager for the European Union's Phare Democracy Programme; and Ambassador Bengt S”ve-S–derbergh, the founding secretary-general of the Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Finally, I am indebted to Svetlana Tsalik for her enterprising and skillful research assistance on the revised draft of this paper, to several other U.S. government officials who prefer to remain unnamed, and to the Hoover Institution and its director, John Raisian, for their ongoing support of my work.

While these and many other individuals were exceedingly helpful, only some of them have seen even a portion of the manuscript, and obviously none bears any responsibility for my opinions and conclusions, or for any errors of fact or interpretation that may remain. Indeed, I expect that some may disagree sharply with some of the arguments and recommendations that follow, and probably none will endorse them all. I am grateful most of all to Carnegie Corporation and its Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict for providing me with the opportunity to publish this analysis in its full form, and, most of all, for his encouragement and support, to the president of Carnegie Corporation, Dr. David Hamburg, who has been for many years an inspiration to democrats in a great many countries and professions.