Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy

How did you become involved with NIMD?

When I was asked to become President of NIMD, I had heard about the organisation, but I did not know immediately exactly what it stood for. After a number of conversations with my predecessor Mr Van Kemenade, and other board members, I concluded: “It sounds like a good idea, I will accept without hesitation.” I consider it an honour to have been asked.

Were you particularly interested in democracy and democratisation?

Through my many years abroad, both in the diplomatic service and as a minister, I came into contact with so many regimes where democracy was dysfunctional and that made me realise that the constitutional state, as it exists in the Netherlands, should be a priority. The constitutional state stands for a peaceful world: it means that democratic processes within countries are running properly.

You talked about the importance of this in a speech at the Humboldt University in Berlin in 2004.

I was discussing Rousseau, among others, and, although I am not a supporter of all aspects of his work, I do agree with the idea that people relinquish some of their rights or freedom to higher authorities and that those higher authorities are then accountable. That accountability is precisely what is lacking in many countries, such as in Iraq and in various places elsewhere in the world, where many dictatorial and semi-dictatorial regimes still exist. It is clear that people there would like to have more control over their own destinies. That they want to have a say in how their country, region or their village is run. That is the essence of democracy: knowing that you are involved and that you have a vote.

Citizens should feel that they are being governed by someone they trust, someone who wants the best for them. Then they can adapt to and accept the situation. Not in a coerced way, as in Iran or in Myanmar, but as it is here in the Netherlands or in other democracies. Many models are conceivable. What I admire about NIMD is that, in the countries where we are active, we do not simply impose a Dutch, British or French democratic model, but offer people a platform so that they themselves can determine how they wish to be governed.

You talk about people in general, but in the countries where NIMD is active, the organisation works mainly with the political elite and other political movements. How do you regard this in the light of broader democratisation processes?

NIMD works with the political elite to induce them to invest in the development of democratic rule. Politicians in ruling parties are encouraged to work together with the opposition and to consider the various models of democracy. We also explain to the political heavyweights that the essence of democracy entails politicians being accountable to the citizens. Accepting that accountability involves serving the needs of the population.

I have been asked this question on a number of occasions – the aim of working with the political elite is precisely to convey the fact that power is something that has to be accounted for, and that you should take the opposition into account. For example, you cannot remain in office if you have lost the elections. This realisation is a gradual process and it does not happen overnight. This is, I believe, also a misconception here in the Netherlands. We are not building bridges or roads. It is a process of trial and error. We must be patient. We cannot change a system in four years. But we can gradually ensure that things move in the right direction, that there is no further slipping back into a one-party system, where the opposition no longer has the slightest chance.

This seems to be happening now in one of the countries where NIMD is active – Bolivia. President Evo Morales’ MAS has a great deal of power. Can NIMD play a role in a political situation such as this?

When all power rests with one party then something is wrong. There is no country in the world that has ever been governed well by one party holding practically all the power. We have witnessed this in Russia and in China. We are currently seeing it in Myanmar. The MAS should not focus on methods à la Castro or à la Chavez, who also embarked on ruling with the best of intentions, but who now de facto lead one-party states. Bolivia finds itself in a historic process of transition: It is a country where, for centuries, a majority was oppressed by a minority. Now that they have gained a majority by peaceful, democratic means, there is the threat that people consider absolute power necessary to carry through further essential reforms. In theory, the Bolivian president is, I know, interested in democratic processes and he is also keen to carry them through, but he faces pressure from his own party and a fierce opposition, as a result of which he is switching over to means that are once again undemocratic. Does that mean NIMD should quit? No, all the more reason to continue. The Bolivians whom I met during the Partnership Days [link?] demonstrate that this is also possible. A representative of the MAS attended this conference, as did someone from PODEMOS. It was highly encouraging to see how well they got on together in the end. That is only possible if a unifying body such as NIMD exists.

How can NIMD then bring about democracy? How does the work fit in within development cooperation?

Democracy is participation by the people, involving the opposition, listening carefully to what people want and how they want it. It is not up to us how a country organises its society. It is important that everyone has the right to express his or her opinion, without ending up in prison or being dispossessed of his or her property. These are, after all, the measures that should be taken. NIMD encourages partners in every country to search for the most appropriate formula for creating a constitutional state and provides them with all the relevant information available. These are the chief characteristics of the organisation. Wherever I go, everyone is really amazed about the simplicity of the formula on the one hand, and the inventiveness and originality of that concept on the other. That you just say: democracy is a do-it-yourself process, create a platform, involve local experts and enter into dialogue with politicians and explain how democratic systems work and how to comply with them. I think it is a splendid concept. And it works! Moreover, development cooperation can, of course, only run smoothly and sustainable development can only become embedded if some degree of a constitutional state and a certain form of democracy exist. You see this everywhere. Development cooperation cannot work if it ends up in the pockets of the ruling clique. This is why we also place great emphasis on being accountable.

Image: NIMD President Bernard Bot meets with the Malian delegation at the 2009 NIMD Partnership Days in Nairobi.

You talk chiefly about the constitutional state and you use the word democracy infrequently.

Democracy is a generic term, but in the South it is too frequently identified with a western system. And we do not wish to impose our system, on the contrary. That is the strength of NIMD.

You have been President of NIMD for two and a half years now – what have those two and a half years been like?

It turned out to be a far more difficult task than I had imagined. This was also because one and a half years after my appointment, NIMD ran into stormy weather. That cost an incredible amount of time and effort. We had to carry on working and eliminate all sources of misunderstanding. Although I am well aware that, in the preceding period, “mistakes” – because I would not like to call them more than that – were made and that there were inadequacies in communication, I remain of the opinion that they were not so consequential that the interruption of the normal activities for such a long period was justifiable. I know of no other institution, and I am on the board of five other organisations, that has been subject to such a rigorous investigation regime. We have turned everything upside down. Anybody can see that we act strictly according to the law and the regulations. All are welcome to inspect our results, which are not only good but widely recognised internationally. And anyone who examines us will come to this same conclusion. Most of the effort went into reversing the temporary immobilisation of activities as quickly as possible. I would have preferred things to have been done differently. But if you then visit Kenya and you meet all the partners, you realise what splendid work we do. When those people tell you what our presence has achieved in those countries, then you cannot be anything but enthusiastic.

You are very positive about the meetings with partners. You also visited Indonesia. What was that like?

During the Partnership Days I spoke with everyone. Despite setbacks, there is growing interest in the importance of democracy in every country. I did indeed find that heart-warming. I was extremely enthusiastic when I returned from my visit to Indonesia. I witnessed how the democracy schools function in practice. We visited one of the schools on a Saturday morning. People travel there by bike or moped. You must understand that they give up a free day to go to school! Men and women follow lessons together. There is a proactive, non-discriminatory policy – which is not an every-day occurrence in Indonesia. At the school, hopefully they learn to become responsible politicians who, among other things, will subsequently pass on this non-discriminatory policy. The teachers were extremely enthusiastic and worked with assignments written on the blackboard. The participants, in teams of four or five, had to work on these assignments. It became a sort of competition to see who had the best solution for the problem.

What kinds of issues were raised?

The basics of political work: learning how to formulate and write an article, resolve conf lict peacefully, prepare a presentation for television, draft a programme. Aspects that we take for granted, things we think people already know, but no, this is not the case because the instruments of democracy have only recently become available. This is what is taught at the democracy schools and subsequently propagated and put into practice. You speak very passionately about it. Yes, it is one of the finest organisations of which I have the honour to be President. I believe firmly in NIMD’s mission. I have seen enough in the world to be certain about one thing: that in all countries where dictatorships prevail there is no constitutional state and no economic growth. These are countries that slowly suffocate. I had first-hand experience of this in my time behind the Iron Curtain. I was the first western diplomat in East Germany and I was there for almost four years. You then personally experience what such a system means. The misery it creates. Whole generations were lost. In the years between 1950 and 1989 people had to watch every opportunity pass them by, and any fun in life had practically vanished.

Did you yourself experience this?

We were in a privileged position, of course, but we also lived in a small apartment with East Germans in the same regime. Fortunately, my children were able to go to school in West Berlin, but there were all sorts of obstacles. We could not speak freely as we do here. We did our talking outdoors on the street, but not under any trees because they, too, might have bugging devices hanging in them. So you become as nervous as a rabbit, always afraid of being caught, not even daring to think for yourself. Because the neighbours might betray you. You can watch films about it nowadays, but there I was totally immersed in the system. Now I truly know what freedom and democracy really mean. It is just like pain. If you feel no pain you cannot imagine what pain is, and if you do feel pain everything is truly unbearable. This is just the same as it is with the absence of freedom and democracy. When this is the case it feels tremendously claustrophobic. But if you live as we do here in the Netherlands, then it is something you take for granted, like inhaling fresh air – you never give it a moment’s thought. You only notice it when it is lacking. How oppressive it is. How powerless you are as a citizen, as if you are being herded like cattle in one particular direction. If you are not free to choose where you live, how much you eat, where your children go to school, where and what kind of work you do, when and where you may go on holiday, what you watch on television, the list goes on and on. I believe that the lack of intellectual freedom is often worse than the living conditions. People can endure a great deal, but intellectual constraint is genuinely dreadful. This is why NIMD should help people to gain that freedom and retain it.

How do you envisage the future of NIMD?

I am, of course, ambitious. The Danes, Belgians and Canadians – everywhere people are enthusiastic about this concept and it is seen as a truly excellent way of promoting democracy and the constitutional state. What I am keen to see is not only consolidation of what we are already doing, but also being given the opportunity to prudently expand these activities, because I see how many countries would truly appreciate our presence there: we receive requests from Ukraine to Macedonia and from Burundi to Afghanistan.

The requests often come via embassies. What prevents them from doing NIMD’s work?

The embassies cannot do our work because they are representatives of the Dutch government and NIMD is not. The embassies would quickly be accused of interfering in a country’s internal affairs. What we set up there belongs to the country itself. NIMD is an impartial organisation in that country. We act on behalf of the parties and for the parties and not on behalf of or for the government. And the parties have never said that we should operate according to a specific concept. We create a platform and we do not interfere in the realisation. Then there is the example in Kenya of Njeri Kabeberi, who is not seen as someone from NIMD, but as someone from the country, someone who knows how to bring the parties together.

Have you met Njeri?

Yes, she is an impressive woman. She has an inner conviction that what we are doing is necessary and must be carried through. She gains recognition and appreciation for her efforts, but would have done so regardless. Yes, that is the spirit.

Do you regard the work of NIMD as a form of diplomacy that is compatible with your career and expertise?

NIMD pursues disinterested diplomacy. We propagate a particular concept about the development and support of democracy and in this way contribute to a more peaceful world. We must continue actively to embrace this principle. It is not diplomacy in the sense of promoting Dutch commercial interests or supporting specific groups of Dutch men and women abroad, but we do want to help people find their own path and we do this in quite a unique way. Let us continue to do so. That would be my greatest wish.

Return to the NIMD Magazine 2010 Table of Contents.