Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy

By Lee Berthiaume
Published June 4, 2008

Following an exhaustive study by the Commons' foreign affairs committee, the government promised in November to produce a strategy outlining its plan to support democracies around the world.

The whole of government strategy was supposed to be released within six months, but while that timeline has now passed, there is some speculation it will be part of the government's new aid policy, which is expected to be released some time this month.

As part of its study, the committee recommended a dramatic change in the way Canada supports democracy and good governance in developing countries, namely working with political parties.

While the concept is highly controversial, the committee—and the government's response—repeatedly named the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy as a potential model.

Last week, the institute's president, former Dutch foreign minister Bernard Bot, was in Ottawa to meet with CIDA and Foreign Affairs officials as well as civil society representatives.

Embassy sat down with him to talk about his offer to partner with Canada, the dangers of being seen to have an agenda while working with political parties, and advice as the government continues working on its strategy.

What's brought you to Canada?

"Essentially I was invited through the embassy to give a number of lectures about...the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy.... We believe that Canada and the Netherlands, having so much in common, sharing the same philosophy as far as development aid is concerned, but also the spread of democracy, perhaps we can support each other in those countries where we are already active at the moment....

"I read with great interest the papers produced by Parliament and the response by the government concerning a possible foundation for multiparty democracy or, at any rate, an intensified co-operation between existing organizations. I tried also to explain the formula...because we have seen in many countries you have the hardware, in other words you have an electoral system. But afterwards there's neglect. We don't look at the implementation. Is it true democracy? Is it truly the representation of the people of civil society?

"We favour the introduction of a multiparty democracy, we strengthen the institutions of political parties, and we promote contacts between political parties and civil society. We do not do it ourselves. We offer an opportunity...to try to set up in all these countries a truly democratic system, taking into account local customs, local bodies, the way in which they will present it. We don't impose our philosophy, we don't impose Western values. We say 'Your country, your traditions. Probably the democratic system might work if you did so and so based on our experience, but how you're going to do it, that's your affair.' And often, if people do it themselves, often it's permanent, it sticks. If it's imposed, they tolerate it as long as you're there, but the moment you leave, it's gone....

"We are there to facilitate and we continue to offer a sort of neutral meeting ground and we try, by the experience we have, by the teaching materials which we circulate, to bring either young politicians or higher up, well-established politicians to see that it's in their own interest to develop a multiparty democracy system because we have a very strong belief that development aid is nice, but if development is not supported by democracy, the development aid and the development work won't create true stability and true development in a country, be it commercially speaking, be it economically speaking, be it as far as stability and safety are concerned, because we know for sure, and this is what the practice proves, that where you have aid and a fairly reasonable democratic system, you also have stability, and you have enduring stability. Whereas in countries where you have one-party systems or dictatorial regimes, things develop perhaps also, but very slowly and often a country that falls back into turmoil and trouble."

This is a new concept in Canada. We have always shied away from working with political parties. There's a lot of controversy around this. How do you strike a balance or strive to strike a balance to ensure you aren't perceived as having or pushing an agenda?

"First of all, NIMD is not a governmental institution. It has been set up by all the political parties in parliament. Those are the eight big and relevant parties. So they carry this institute.

"My supervisory board consists of parliamentarians from the eight parties. That gives us a sense of independence because we feel that if you want to operate abroad as a governmental organization, you get a sticker of Western imperialism and Western democracy and Western values. No, we are an institute...trying to promote multiparty democracy in fragile states and democracies to teach them how to do it themselves. In other words, we do not impose our philosophy, we don't say this is the kind of democracy you need in that country. All we do is offer an opportunity to politicians to meet to discuss among themselves the challenges they are facing and to work out answers to these challenges where they have never had this sort of meeting because it means one of the parties has to take initiative and that is then seen as an overbearing party.

"We invite all the parties, whoever is interested. So we are not biased. We are not for the left or the right. We are neutral as far as political parties are concerned.... And that is why there is confidence and trust, because we don't impose anything, we don't demand anything, we are not looking for a particular success. All we say is 'There are problems; we believe in multiparty democracy, why don't you meet with us? We'll stimulate you and we'll help you if you like, but you have to do the job yourselves. And in all the countries, that has been a very successful formula because people realize that it's a mess and they want to improve the mess, and they also know that they basically have to work together. But since nobody dares to take the initiative to meet because they are seen as imposing the will of one party on the others, we create an agenda, platform, suggestions on how you can do it.

"In many countries we worked on constitutions because we have experience in that field and say 'If you want to draft a real good constitution, you should do it this way.' The next thing we say is 'That's not enough; that's the hardware. There's also the matter of implementing. In other words, once you have the constitution, how do you handle this thing? How do you create an atmosphere where people trust the electoral process and participate in it? And afterwards, how do you implement everything you have promised during the electoral period? In parliament, how do you function as an opposition, tackling the government? What are the rules of accountability? So the basics of politics which in many countries politicians haven't got a clue, so to say."

You say you don't want to impose yourselves and instead offer this as an opportunity. What happens if the ruling party doesn't want anything to do with you?

"Then we say 'No.' We have two prerequisites. We only come in countries in which we have a donor relationship.... The second element...is we should be invited. In other words, the country concerned should welcome our presence and once we have explained to them that we are not trying to influence the political process or steer it in a certain direction, but that it is up to them to arrange things themselves, we in general get the blessing.

"For example, in Indonesia at the beginning they were probably reluctant. I had long talks with especially the deputy president [Jusuf] Kalla on this matter. I explained to him that 'No, I respect your Asian school of thought. No interdiction of Western democracies, we have our own kind. I respect that. You figure it out among yourselves.'

"[It] creates a sense of relief because finally they can discuss these things in a confidential way among each other, trying to formulate what the problems are and start thinking about the solutions. And it's local staff, Indonesian staff, by the way. There's not one Dutch staff. We say they have to be entirely local. So the underlying slogan is local ownership and non-interference in the internal affairs."

You mentioned that you proposed having Canada and the Netherlands working together. What kind of response have you received?

"So far encouraging. I must say both from Foreign Affairs and the NGOs today, there is very great interest in the formula because it's exactly what you said in the beginning: they don't want to be intrusive, they don't want to be seen as influencing or monitoring or something like that."

What advice would you give to Canada as the government is developing this policy?

"I cannot evaluate what the possibilities are for Canada as things are still very much, let's say, being directed from the government side. We have the great advantage that we have an institution that is paid for by the government because development aid subsidizes us for 70 to 80 per cent.

"But on the other hand, we have a large degree of independence which I feel not all Canadian initiatives have because they're all government driven. That may be why it's a little more sensitive...."

Are there some things Canada should avoid or be careful of?

"I think every country has to deal with it in its own way. I cannot judge the Canadian situation as far as that's concerned. I think at the moment there's still a bit of cold-water fear, as we say. You know, putting your toes in the water. If you always say that it is risky, and if you never start something, you're not going to change the world. And only giving development aid and then running away is not going to help either.

"So we believe that we should put our mouths where our money is. But in a non-violent way and a non-intrusive way so that the countries really feel that they are doing it themselves. They are the builders of their own democracy, not we."