Cost of Democracy

"The Cost of Democracy” Roundtable Discussion

Moderated by Marc Plattner, Editor, Journal of Democracy

October 28, 1999

The group convened to discuss Marina Ottaway and Theresa Chung's new article "Debating Democracy Assistance: Towards a New Paradigm" (Journal of Democracy, October 1999). In the article, originally titled "The Cost of Democracy," Ottaway and Chung argue that by supporting expensive institutions and processes of democratization, donors create political systems that are financially unsustainable for less developed countries (LDCs). Specifically, Ottaway and Chung point out that the common practices of funding expensive election administration procedures, political party development, and advocacy NGOs lead to the creation of democracies that are unsustainable without continued donor financing. At the outset of the discussion, Ottaway stressed that she was not questioning the intrinsic value of democracy assistance, but rather suggesting that less expensive donor strategies could help to produce more economically viable democratizations.

The group recognized that elections were, by their very nature, resource-intensive activities that create opportunities to push forward democratization. Consensus existed that post-conflict elections and election administration were unavoidably, but justifiably, expensive in order to prevent "breakdown" situations. Nonetheless, four problems that raised the cost of elections were identified. First, participants agreed that there is a tendency for expensive technical aid (for example, ballot boxes, computers, voter registration cards, etc.) to disappear after the first elections, forcing donors to buy the equipment anew for each election. In general, second elections are not given the same level of attention as first elections. Second, in many countries a slew of organizations observe elections, where a smaller number would not only be economical, but more effective. Third, actors in host countries are often allowed to "barter" for expensive, sophisticated technical aid. Fourth, technical assistance to political parties has yielded limited results in advancing party development. Some of the most effective election assistance, like US support for the 1989 "No" vote in Chile, has come at a bargain price. Clearly, small investments at critical junctures in a country's democratization can have significant impact.

Some of the most interesting insights came out of the discussion on civil society assistance. Concern was focused on donors? tendency to support advocacy NGOs at the expense of other types of organizations: often these NGOs are unable to support themselves without continued donor assistance. As a result, they wither and disappear once donor funding dries up. Some participants worried that this indicated that donors are inappropriately trying to recreate the same forms of civil society in developing countries that exist in industrialized democracies, when grassroots organizations might be better suited to advancing democratization in those countries. Others maintained that the key was not the development of an "either/or" strategy, but rather a focus on those organizations that link the grassroots to elite organizations like advocacy NGOs. Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that in breakthrough situations, advocacy NGOs can play a vital role in advancing democratization. Also, in many countries, civil society assistance remains focused on urban areas because the cost of participation in rural areas is too high. In the end, donors clearly are able to nudge civil society development towards NGOs or grassroots organizations. Therefore, it is important that donors recognize the necessity of funding a wide range of organizations in order to avoid imposing a financial straitjacket on civil society development.