Cuba's economic model - significantly free from IMF's restrictions, exhibits a model where freedom propels progression

The Cuban Revolution Prioritizes Education

Cuba: A Beacon of Optimism from the Caribbean Region

By Dr Kevin Turnquest-Alcena

Nassau, The Bahamas

Living in English-speaking Caribbean, they typically experience democracy, often, by a fall back method creating a widespread matter called political clientelism.

Governments of this system including, borrowing from Peter to fulfill Paul with no clear sustainable plan for settlement. As a result, people often bear high taxes for these loans. If the debt cycle isn't checked, there could be a very real threat of these countries finding themselves in a financial crisis! Resembling Argentina's saga described by high taxation and skyrocketed inflation leading to severe economic lack.

On top of it, countries, like Trinidad, face exchange control problems, where strict currency policies further entangle economic stability and growth, making it another layer of difficulty in handling national finances.

Cuba, on the other hand is free from these problems. By developing its own exclusive political and economic systems - it operates out of the borrowing and dependency loop, thus skipping high taxation and possibly financial crises troubling other Caribbean countries due to political clientelism.

In an age where genuine democracy often seems more of a dream than a reality, and global economies are firmly controlled by bodies, like the IMF. Anyway, Cuba positions itself as a beacon of flexibility and ingenuity. The island nation skillfully navigated the difficulties of a prolonged economic ban and international isolation, offering a model of self-reliance and innovation stirring its Caribbean surroundings and far beyond.

Economic Independence and Women Empowerment

Cuba's economic model, significantly free from IMF's restrictions, exhibits a model where freedom propels progression. This liberation is highly noticeable in the spread of stellar, micro-businesses, led often by women.

These ventures are more than simple economic activities, they're acts of empowerment - showcasing the crucial role women execute in Cuban society.

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen's thoughts on small business are very relevant here, "Small enterprises are a reservoir of creativity and innovation, and they are crucial in the development of economies aiming for high growth and more equity." In Cuba, these micro-businesses notable contribute to societal flexibility and economic diversification, allowing the country to alleviate some of the impacts of international sanctions.

Healthcare and Education Advances

Cuba's dedication to healthcare and teaching stands as a primary part of its national identification. The nation's medical innovations, such as leading the fight against yellow fever and creating COVID-19 vaccines, highlight its resilience and capability against any odds. These contributions have not only improved Cubans' life quality, but also extended assistance to countries in the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

The island’s educational feats are just as impressive. The Cuban Revolution greatly influenced these, which prioritized education. The establishment of the esteemed University of Havana in 1728, followed by the continued emphasis on education throughout the island reflects a deeply rooted belief in the transformative power of knowledge, whatever that knowledge may be - corn-growing or salsa-dancing.

Cultural Resilience and Worldwide Solidarity

Despite a severe economic US embargo estimated to have caused $600 billion damage over 65 years, Cuba, developed a wildly diverse cultural landscape! More or less 3,000 institutions devoted to the arts, music, and culture underline the nation's persistence in preserving its cultural wealth and personality! Fidel Castro's belief that, "The risk of being ridiculous is taken by the true revolutionary with great love," reverberates throughout Cuba’s efforts to keep its revolutionary spirit alive despite facing noteworthy hardships.

Further, Cuba's globally humanitarian contributions - mainly in healthcare, mirror Nobel Prize victor Toni Morrison's endorsement, "I have seen the doctors from Cuba; they go places where nobody else will go." Such comments highlight Cuba’s international health diplomacy role and its commitment to giving its medical expertise with the world.

Endurance Despite Adversity

Much like the zealous pineapple thriving on the beach, Cuba's experience under the US embargo echoes historical narratives of endurance and faith, such as those of Job, Daniel, Joseph, and the Israelites under Egyptian slavery. Much like all these characters, Cuba stands determined despite severe trials.

The End

Cuba's unyielding spirit presents itself as an inspiration cornerstone. Not only for its countrymen, but for its Caribbean vicinity and other emerging countries. With global problems like climate change becoming more urgent, Cuba's methods to sustainable development and social empowerments offer valuable resilience and innovation lessons. The people's unyielding determination assures us that, "this too shall pass," strengthening the island’s potential for a brighter, more prosperous future. United and working collectively, we can utilize Cuba’s resilience to achieve our community's prosperity and wellness aims.

Source

Do Not Exclude Cuba from the Summit of the Americas

Cuba denounces U.S. government exclusion of Cuba from preparations for Ninth Summit of the Americas

Excerpts from statement to the press by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla

I am obliged to denounce the fact that the U.S. government has decided to exclude the Republic of Cuba from preparations for the Ninth Summit of the Americas set to take place in Los Angeles, June 8-10; and is currently exerting extreme pressure on numerous governments in the region that have privately and respectfully opposed this exclusion.

The U.S. government is misleading the public and governments of the hemisphere by saying that it has not yet made decisions regarding invitations.

I respectfully urge Secretary of State (Anthony) Blinken to say honestly whether or not Cuba will be invited to the Ninth Summit of the Americas.

A central axis, according to preparations for the event, will be health.  And I must inform our people and international public opinion that there are currently negotiations underway, conducted in an unclear manner, with quite a few neoliberal elements, and many shortcomings, in relation to the real needs of the peoples regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, the structural causes of precarious health systems that have led to tragic consequences and caused an extremely high number of deaths in our hemisphere, including the United States of America, and have avoided substantial cooperation and basic financing to address these consequences, and are now negotiating in an opaque manner a so-called Health and Resilience Action Plan for the Americas through the year 2030.

I must note that these negotiations are being held, in an obscure manner, with the exclusion of Cuba and other member states of the Pan American Health Organization, which are participating in these processes, in violation of their own mandates.

Cuba has always, in a modest but altruistic and persistent fashion, provided the possibility for international cooperation in health, which has been recognized worldwide.

There are Latin American vaccines against COVID-19 which are Cuban. The medical brigades that responded to the COVID emergency in the region, in the hemisphere in more than 50 countries on the planet, have been Cuban.

It would be convenient to take into account during this process, and benefit our peoples, Cuban medical presence in confronting natural disasters and epidemics in the past, the provision of tens of thousands of medical scholarships for low-income Latin American, Caribbean and United States youth, the existence of the Latin American School of Medicine in Havana, Operation Miracle that returned the sight of millions of low-income persons, Cuba's ability to establish cooperation, transfer state-of-the-art technology, provide pharmaceutical products, vaccines and novel treatments, the ability to share advanced protocols and medicines in the field of health…


Another central axis of the Summit, from which Cuba is intended to be excluded, is emigration.  A document with a long title: Letter of Understanding on Migration Management and Protection of Migrants is also being negotiated behind the back of international, US, Latin American and Canadian public opinion.  It is a code that seeks to force Latin American and Caribbean States to repress migration, to absorb the migrants that the United States decides to process outside its territory, which incorporates elements of the racist, xenophobic and plundering U.S. vision of our migrants.  It does not address in any way the real causes of migration, but it does, however, offer palliatives, stimuli, financing and economic incentives to countries that send migrants to the U.S. and are closer to its borders, to attenuate this process.

With Cuba, however, his recipe is the extreme tightening of the blockade, causing deprivation to Cuban families, the application of Undersecretary Mallory's stark memorandum: "depressing wages, causing hunger, despair and the overthrow of the Government," is the American prescription in relation to Cuba…
The exclusion of Cuba from the Ninth Summit of the Americas would constitute a serious historical setback in relation to the two previous editions.  In Panama, in 2015, Army General Raúl Castro Ruz led the delegation from our island which participated on equal footing, and raised his firm, dissenting voice, but always serene, respectful and constructive…

A third axis of the Summit of the Americas is that of democracy and human rights.  In the obscure negotiations taking place today, the intention is to establish the Organization of American States to certify all elections in the region.  This is the same OAS of the coup in Bolivia, and the intention of the United States, historically responsible for coups in our region, and also responsible for the coups in recent decades against progressive governments.

How can a Summit take place, centered on democracy, having excluded, at the arbitrary whim of the host, certain countries of Latin America and the Caribbean?  Can anyone think of something more undemocratic?
The U.S. has no moral authority to set itself up as a model in this matter or to criticize others…

The Ninth Summit of the Americas could still be an opportunity if, in an inclusive manner and on equal terms for all countries, it debated, without exclusions and with sincere commitment, the most pressing problems that affect the continent.

Cuba supports the genuine efforts to promote dialogue, links and cooperation between Our America, the America of Bolivar and Martí, and the United States, between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States and the United States government…

Cuba, which firmly defends the unity within the diversity of Our America, today expresses our profound gratitude to the peoples and governments that maintain a courageous, dignified, solidary position, demanding of the U.S. government that Cuba not be excluded from the Ninth Summit of the Americas.

Source

Democracy in Latin America: The left marches on?

By David Roberts



Latin America's democratic credentials go on display once again in October, with presidential and other elections taking place in three countries – Brazil on the 5th, Bolivia on the 12th and Uruguay on the 26th.

While no one would seriously question the strength of democracy in Brazil and Uruguay – despite all the institutional and governance issues, particularly in the former – the same cannot be said about Bolivia. The country has enjoyed relative political stability since Evo Morales became president in 2006, and in recent years strong economic growth too, but democratic practices have lagged behind and his socialist party's stranglehold on the state apparatus is expected to give him a clear advantage in the polls. What is more, some question whether Morales should be allowed to stand for a third term at all, as that is forbidden by the constitution. Morales is managing to get round that minor inconvenience by maintaining that his first term didn't count as it was before the current constitution was introduced.

Even so, few would doubt the popularity of the incumbent and the voting process itself is expected to be clean.

Left-leaning candidates will also probably triumph in Brazil and Uruguay, although run-off elections are likely. In the former, the contest between leading candidates President Dilma Rousseff of the workers' party and Marina Silva of the "soft left" socialists is neck and neck, while in Uruguay former president Tabaré Vàsquez, who has the backing of current left-wing head of state José Mujica, is ahead in the polls.

So does this mean the shift to the left in Latin America continues unabated? Maybe, but increasingly less so in the manner of a few years back when the Bolivarian Alba left-wing bloc of countries led by Venezuela's Hugo Chávez on the one hand and liberal pro-market nations on the other were seriously polarizing the continent. In fact, Venezuela's influence in the region has waned, and was doing so even before Chávez's death in March last year. With its own economy in disarray, and oil exports falling (at least according to independent accounts), Venezuela has become an increasingly less attractive model to follow.

At the same time, those governments on the left of the political spectrum that have emerged in recent years, from El Salvador to Uruguay, are a mixed bag where socialist ideology has taken a distinctly back seat role. What path Brazil chooses if Silva does win – she's expected to adopt a more liberal, outward-looking approach on issues such as trade – will perhaps be the key to how things develop in the continent in the years ahead.

In any case, this tendency to move away from polarization is to be welcomed, as is the current strength of democracy in the region, as evidenced by the upcoming elections.

September 23, 2014

BN Americas

Our Caribbean: Dictatorship in a democracy?

By Oliver Mills:




We in the Caribbean have inherited the Westminster system of government, characterised by the rule of law, competitive party politics, the independence of the judiciary, fundamental rights and freedoms for citizens, and designated periods for elections. These are accepted at face value, with little sustained critique as to its relevance to the way we really do things, or whether this inherited system is really a drag on our progress because of numerous procedures, debates, the fragile nature of our political parties, and questionable allegiances to them.

And when we elect our leaders, we soon find that, in some ways, democratic practice is either sidestepped, or regarded as an inconvenience. This results in some decisions not being made through consultations at the various levels, but are handed down after meetings with inner circles and interest groups in the form of directives. We therefore find that in a subtle way we have institutional dictatorship within the framework of a much heralded democracy.

An article in one Caribbean paper says of the maximum political leader of that country that he has been acting like an imperial leader, enjoys saying he is the leader, and letting everyone know that he makes the final decisions on matters of national significance. To me this is personal dictatorship. It shows a self-possessed individual, who needs to remind himself of the position he holds, which he seems to interpret as conveying on him unusual power and authority over others, rather than being the servant of the people.

“Leader” suggests superiority to others, possessing special knowledge and insights, and in a most frightful way, implies knowing what is right over and above anyone else. Such a disposition leads to an abuse of power, the creation of imaginary foes, and does not entertain different perspectives, which are often seen as time consuming, and not dealing with the issue. Confusion therefore leads to directives being given, while those around the leader remain silent, fearing for their jobs. But it impacts negatively on the country later, and then the blame game begins.

A former Caribbean leader is noted for saying that he means what he says, and says what he means. This is the dictatorial mentality of the class prefect, and the traditional colonial administrator who lack the proper communication or persuasive skills, and therefore resort to arrogance and the power of position to scare others into conformity through fear. This makes some people compliant for fear of imagined consequences, but kindles in others a spirit of resistance, leading them to contest the statements and behaviour of such persons.

This disposition is unhealthy for any democracy. The politically conscious of Caribbean society should therefore educate their people into a new and different kind of political culture that promotes dialogue, respect for persons, and their views. Dissent must be seen as positive thereby enriching the democratic process. This is the antidote to emerging dictatorial tendencies.

But strangely, some of us see these statements and behaviours as being those of a strong, no nonsense leader who means business. And we repose in such persons a certain aura and authority, which are then used to manipulate us, and perpetuate the reign of a Caribbean oligarchy.

Our political institutions and practices in many ways seem to legitimise dictatorship, arrogance, and political puffery. This is the dictatorship of tradition, and it contaminates real democracy.

Recently, a journalist described a Caribbean leader as fearing no one, adding that he was essentially lord and master of his political domain. Could there be such a thing as “lord and master” in a democracy? Is it not such thinking that creates a situation where dictatorship comfortably resides in a democratic setting, and is even expected to do so by some?

This idea of strength, mastery, firmness, and being in control is reflective of a mind-set with origins in the plantation system, and we have yet to eject these thoughts from our psyche. In Caribbean democracy, kindness, sensitivity to others, fairness, and an altruistic outlook tend to be seen as soft and lacking backbone. Leadership has to be a macho thing, encouraging adoration.

To view leadership as being something that is entrusted to others through the agreement of the body politic, and which can be retrieved by those who have commissioned those leaders to act in the public good, has yet to be really registered in Caribbean political life. Failure of the electorate to realise the power it really has, provides the soil for dictatorship within a democracy.

A minister of government in a non-independent Caribbean territory was recently reported as stating indignantly that there will be taxes, come hell or high water. Isn’t this representative of a dictatorial strand operating in the context of democratic institutions? Is this possible, when a democratic political culture is supposed to eject such tendencies from political life, and from the practices of its institutions?

Why then, do we still have situations where democracy is upheld as an ideal, but is then undermined by dictatorial practices and behaviours? And those charged with upholding it, are sometimes the very ones who discard it.

It would appear, as some say, that real democracy has been hijacked by special interests, as a result compromising the public good. The political directorate has become the lobbyists for these interests, advocate for them, and the people who commissioned these persons to act on their behalf, are side-lined until the next election.

Caribbean democracy seems to have little problem making the transition from democracy to dictatorship when it suits particular political operatives. There seems to be no conflict, or sense of unease involved. It is slavery and the plantation system from which these values came.

Many Caribbean political operatives still feel that to get things done, some dictatorship must be involved. This means editing out dissent. Some even boast with respect to their way of doing things that “there is no democracy here.” They do not consider the possibility of engaging others, and so arrive at better, and more well considered solutions.

And this type of dictatorial culture slowly takes root. And it is buttressed by charismatic personalities with high intellectual abilities who mesmerise the people. A patron-client relationship then develops, where scarce resources are exchanged for political support.

This is neither good, nor right, since a healthy and prosperous society is sustained by the values of democracy and entrepreneurship. Dictatorship leads to benefits for the few, and eventually to a country attaining the status of a failed state.

April 22, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

WikiLeaks, wiretapping and democracy

By Rebecca Theodore


All eras contain words that more or less accurately define them. There is very little doubt, in my opinion, that democracy and national security are the words that characterize our present time. Democracy is an internal form of government within states and gives the power of the government to the people.

National security, on the other hand, maintains the survival of the nation state through the use of economic, military and political power and the exercise of diplomacy. However, the trend appears to be moving towards a new communication revolution, leaving critics in contemplation as to whether it is an obvious good and positive sign.

If democracy is a government that includes the right to free press, and allows for individualism and freedom of opinion among its citizens, then democracy’s natural place is civil society, as it interprets democracy more as a civic culture of association, participation and mobilization.

To state, as Kamla Persad Bissessar has done, that “the SIA's wiretapping operations in Trinidad and Tobago without the people’s consent is contrary to democracy, is representative of dictatorship and illustrate the dark and sinister side of any government,” ignores the fact that there must be a useful criticism of democracy in a constructive way, which is something the system needs in order to keep growing to produce an honest transmission of the truth.

Government diplomats and high ranking government authorities, who knowingly tell lies to influence serious events, and who misrepresent the trust and honour given to them as public servants, threaten the very process of democracy because, to start with, democracy was born out of the reality of res publica, public issues, or public life.

If we are going to evolve within the realms of democracy, then we should start by acknowledging that our interest in public life and common good is a long way from that of the fathers of democracy, as everything seems to be shrouded in private life rather than public life. Today, our current democracy is much different from the Athenian model, which was concerned with knowledge, wisdom, debate, and discussion and possessed a civic culture that we just simply lack. Citizens actively participated in the public life of the polis -- thus the origin of the word politics.

Not only do I join the chorus with Texas congressman and former presidential candidate Ron Paul on the WikiLeaks debacle that in “a free society we are supposed to know the truth and if truth becomes treason, then we are in big trouble,” but also share the thoughts of social scientist Alexis de Tocqueville in evaluating human society, as he provides us with a simple, clarifying, and thought-provoking parameter that the future of humankind is linked to democratic society and not to aristocratic society.

Democratic society promotes the level of human development, emphasizes individualism and the pursuit of personal happiness. Since it favours equality before freedom, a democratic society favours public sector expansion, which will provide government with the resources it needs to equalize conditions between classes or income. Ministers of government, members of the judiciary, trade unionists, editors, journalists and businessmen are not all that constitute the people. Everyone should be involved in the decision making process.

In the court of public opinion, the alleged actions of former prime minister of Trinidad, Patrick Manning, and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange are drowned in a sea of terrorism and dictatorship, whereas if we examine the dubious coin carefully, we will at once notice that they have made the Caribbean and the world a better place for democracy.

It is important to understand that spying on law-abiding citizens, under the guise of battling crime and ensuring national security, is something that has been happening all the time. How doomed could we have been to the Owellian drama? It just got out of control in Trinidad and Tobago.

On the other hand, Assange’s imprisonment for publicizing secret cables, exposing crimes and conspiracies carried out by US officials is nothing more than a psychological protective mechanism loaded with political overtones. There is no evidence that either Mr Assange or Mr Manning committed a crime in Australia the US or Trinidad and Tobago.

The wiretapping and WikiLeaks has not comprised the national security of Trinidad and Tobago or the US because the public right to know should not be censored. If the debates over the wiretapping and WikiLeaks are about the role of secrecy then, while most world governments would argue that they must be allowed to conduct their dealings with a certain amount of secrecy, it is my contention that full transparency is also a better way to cure the ails of a democratic society as it determines who the biggest law-breakers are and also encourages democracy in the public interest.

It cannot be doubted that the advancement of new technological changes emboldens civil society with ways to act in which our forefathers could not and this might very well be a new challenge in information technology. As to whether the instigators of the wiretapping and Mr Assange have boldly gone where no one has gone before, it is clear that they have empowered conspirators with new means to conspire a new wave of literacy and trigger a communications revolution regardless of Trinidad and Tobago’s Communications Bill 2010 or Assange’s imprisonment.

One way or another, the communications revolution is upon us. It has already exploded and the only real question is whether we will realize it in time to stop another WikiLeaks controversy or another wiretapping saga.

Richard Holbrooke in Foreign Policy has admitted “The chances of catastrophe grow as organizations grow in number and in size and internal communications become more time-consuming, less intelligible, and less controllable...” Hence, we must be prepared for the coming of the communications revolution.

December 22, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

What does the emergence of a unified, anti-American, Europe-oriented trade bloc mean?

By Rebecca Theodore


If argument persists that a state cannot be fully understood if it is isolated from its historical development, then the transition from democracy to authoritarianism for Latin American countries implies that there must be a constant rewriting of the social contract based on new social and economic relations that are continually emerging in Latin America. Paradoxically, the return of democracy from authoritarianism not only demonstrates that ‘a government is legitimate if and only if no better feasible policy exists’ but also exhibits the fact that it is possible for democracies to be authoritarian as well.

Opponents have argued that Latin American state formation is more closely aligned with European state patterns due to colonial influences from the fifteenth century and it is to Western Europe that one needs to turn in order to uncover the roots of the embryonic parallel. However, it must be remembered that the US has also been deeply ingrained in Latin American affairs since 1823, when President James Monroe created the Monroe Doctrine to keep European powers out of the New World. In light of this, America’s reputation as the great superpower of the Andes and the savior of protectionism and liberalism is now viewed in Latin America as a policy of imperialism and a sign of utter weakness.

While China’s ideological connection of communism and socialism weakens US power in Latin America, it is evident that the European trade bloc is now Latin America’s primary trade partner. Latin American trade group Mercosur is the only multinational continent in the world to be united by a common linguistic background, a common culture, and a common religion factor making South America’s path to assimilation a lot smoother into the congregation of the European States of Europe. The legal structure of the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) not only unites South America’s two major trade blocs -- Mercosur and the Andean Community -- but has now launched a South American Defense Council, unlike a NATO alliance to mediate regional conflicts and defense from foreign intervention and excludes the US from military planning in the region.

Moreover, Latin America is far more important to Europe as an industrial base than as a simple trade partner. The giant storehouse of timber, natural gas, crude oil, minerals, precious metals, and iron in the region from the Rio Grande to Terra del Fuego are resources that Europe needs in its ascension to world supremacy. The completion of the largest steel-producing complex in Brazil by ThyssenKrupp means steel products will be actively churned out to be sold to Germany and South American countries, with Venezuela as the principal buyer. This also means that the US-backed Área de Libre Comercio de las Américas (FTAA) is dead. Estados de América Latina ha creado su propio barrio, y los Estados Unidos de América no es parte de ella. (Latin American states have created their own neighborhood and the US is not a part of it.)

It is clear that anti-Americanism is now the common premise across every political party in Latin and South America. While Evo Morales is rapidly following Chavez’s lead by nationalizing Bolivia’s oil and gas in a move that reverberates that of Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe’s land for grab deals, the newly elected president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff is just a hand-chosen puppet of wildly popular President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva’s policies. With huge oil reserves recently discovered off Brazil’s coast, and with a rare earth debate gaining momentum between China and Germany that excludes American interest, Rousseff inherits an economy that is among the world's hottest emerging markets and this means that it will need more than a party shift in the US House of Representatives to advance bilateral relationship.

Hugo Chávez on the other hand has, without doubt, polarized Venezuela’s society and intellectual debate by undermining civil liberties, threatening the continuity of democratic governance, hence his accompaniment of a repulsive episode of an ALBA alliance that provided Honduran president Manuel Zelaya and Ecuadoran Rafael Correa with a foretaste of how to rewrite the constitution and establish authoritarian rule in Honduras, leaving a Honduran legislature buried in turmoil and controversy over US intelligence officials bribing Ecuadoran police, and recruiting informants among them. Argentina, Peru, Uruguay, Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala, and Chile are all offering radical transformation and presenting different alternatives to deal with the consequences of economic reforms.

Now that the US has lost Latin America to Europe and China as primary trade partners also means that the Republicans’ tsunami win in the House of Representatives will prove that Barack Obama is not suffering the blunders of a political double standard on the economy as has been so widely anticipated. As Republicans embrace their ambitious legislative agenda they will in time notice that the U.S. economy is starving to death and reducing the deficit or the current unemployment rate of 9.6% and fighting the Great Recession is no magic but a sign of the times.

Trade with Latin America, coupled with other economic factors, has already started reading the eulogy of the US dollar, thereby exposing the grave danger of the economic reverberations that are just now beginning to shake the nucleus of the world’s financial systems. Regardless of what anyone says, this is not an Obama problem, it is a global problem -- “blame it on the economy stupid”. The only self-sustaining economic bloc is the establishment of an EU-style government and for this reason EU status must be fortified in the UN because Latin and South American states, Caribbean states and even Africa have no option other than complete reliance on the economic ties of a German-led EU, or cling to the apron strings of a Russo-China alliance in their quest for economic reforms.

Whether it means that economic reformers in the US need to employ authoritarian tactics to defend democratic processes or risk total failure or that democratic governments in Latin America are not authoritarian enough to defend positive economic reforms; it is clear that the new trend in Latin America is… Buenos dias Europe, Adios America, pero quando o povo esta morrendo de fome, a democracia e’ so uma palavra.” Good morning Europe, Goodbye America, because when the people are starving democracy is just a word.

November 15, 2010

caribbeannewsnow

Bahamas Blog International

The secrecy of the Commonwealth Secretariat: Time for reform

By Andrew Smith, (Intern, Human Rights Advocacy Programme, CHRI):


After more than 60 years in existence, the Commonwealth Secretariat (the Secretariat) continues to operate in an environment of secrecy, largely insulated from public scrutiny and the full involvement of civil society organisations.

Over a decade has passed since the right of access to information was recognised as ‘legal’ and ‘enforceable’ at the 1999 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Its importance has since been reiterated at the 2007 CHOGM and Commonwealth bodies have described it as “fundamental” and “a cornerstone of democracy and good governance.” A model law has also been drafted to assist domestic legislators.

However, the Secretariat’s own information disclosure practices fall far short of international standards. Comparable organisations such as the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the European Union and the Council of Europe have all adopted comprehensive access to information policies with many progressive provisions. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is currently reforming its disclosure policy.

The comparison highlights that the Secretariat’s disclosure practices do not adhere to international best practice standards, that they do not adequately serve its goals of democracy, freedom and sustainable development and that the need for reform is urgent.

Most interstate policies adopt strong object clauses, affirming their commitment to access to information as a fundamental human right. Further to this, their common aim is to maximise the ‘effectiveness’, ‘quality’ and ‘legitimacy’ of their organisation’s output through increased transparency, civic engagement and accountability.

The World Bank states that its commitment to openness is “driven by a desire to foster public ownership, partnership, and participation in operations and is central to achieving the Bank’s mission to alleviate poverty and to improve the design and implementation of their projects and policies.”

The European Union reflects this sentiment, emphasising the importance of openness in its democratic system. As publicly funded organisations, they recognise the democratic right of their stakeholders to hold them to account.

The UNDP identifies its stakeholders as the parliaments, tax payers and public of their donor and programme countries.

The World Bank and IMF both report increased demand for accountability following the financial crisis, the former promising to hold itself to the same human rights standards it expects of its member states.

The Secretariat is a publicly funded body mandated to act in the ‘common interest of the people’. As such it must adopt an access to informational policy which facilitates civic engagement and accountability. This will increase the legitimacy of the Secretariat as a democratic organisation and improve the effectiveness of its policy outcomes.

The rhetoric of the object clauses are mostly supported by substantive policy provisions. Whilst not entirely compliant with international standards, they are substantially more progressive than the Secretariat’s practices.

The Secretariat currently operates a ‘positive list’ approach to disclosure, voluntarily publishing a limited range of documents on its website on a routine basis. Documents include ministerial communiqués, commonwealth declarations, newsletters, speeches, statements, reports and strategic documents.

This discretionary ‘positive list’ policy presumes the confidentiality of undisclosed documents without considering the nature of the information’s content or the interests at stake. All of the aforementioned interstate organisations have abandoned ‘positive lists’ in favour of the principle of ‘maximum disclosure’.

The World Bank regards this as the ‘paradigm shift’ in its policy whilst the Council of Europe explains that now “transparency is the rule and confidentiality the exception.”

The principle of maximum disclosure is formulated to maximise the availability of information, guaranteeing access to information as a fundamental human right. The principle has two features.

Firstly it presumes that all information is eligible for disclosure on request, unless specified under the exemption schedules.

Secondly, there must be an obligation to routinely publish a specified list of documents. Applying this obligation to as broad a range of documents as possible at various developmental stages facilitates civil society involvement whilst reducing the costs associated with information requests. All of the aforementioned policies comply with both features of the maximum disclosure principle.

The Secretariat must broaden its practice of routine disclosure, establish it as a duty and reverse the presumption of confidentiality for unpublished documents. This would represent a substantial departure from current practice and a positive step towards compliance with international standards.

The presumption of disclosure is not absolute and is constrained by the principle of limited exemptions. Confidentiality may be upheld in narrowly defined circumstances for the protection of legitimate interests from specified harms. This requires a case by case assessment and does not permit blanket exclusions based on official classifications or document type.

The Council of Europe schedule is weakest, excluding all classified information from disclosure. The World Bank refuses to disclose information falling within its schedule as it “could” cause harm, presuming confidentiality and failing to engage in an individual assessment of relevant interests. Some exemptions are overly broad, including those relating to ‘corporate administrative matters’ and ‘deliberative information’.

Similarly, the UNDP excludes ‘draft documents’ entirely, limiting the scope for civil society engagement.

The European Union has two exemption schedules. The first complies with international standards, citing legitimate interests. It is also the only schedule with a ‘severability clause’, allowing for the partial publication of documents. A second schedule entirely excludes ‘sensitive documents’ from disclosure due to their confidentiality statuses.

It is critical that exemptions are subject to a ‘public interest override’. If the public interest in disclosure is greater than the likely harm, then there must be an obligation to disclose. The UNDP and Council of Europe policies both lack public interest overrides. The World Bank only provides a discretionary override which can also be reversed to withhold information otherwise routinely disclosed.

The European Union only provides a public interest override for two categories of ‘interests’ under its first schedule and none under the second. The Secretariat must note that these policies fail to provide adequate safeguards against the abuse of the limited exemptions principle.

Documents ‘excluded’ from disclosure must only retain their confidentiality for as long as the public interest demands. Retention schedules must also be available to respondents whose applications are refused. Documents that are scheduled for destruction are presumed to be of no use to the originator, and therefore disclosure cannot be deemed harmful to the public interest.

It is the Secretariat’s blanket policy to retain the confidentiality of all undisclosed documents for thirty years. They are then only made publicly available subject to the Secretariat’s discretion and the consent of concerned third parties. None of the interstate organisations analysed have a default thirty year declassification period.

The European Union and the Council of Europe both set thirty years as the maximum period for refusing disclosure. Within this limit, the European Union provides that excepted material may only remain confidential for the period which it remains harmful.

The Council of Europe and World Bank adopt tiers of confidentiality with limitation periods dependant on document type. The former has periods of one, ten and thirty years and the latter has periods of five, ten and twenty years.

The UNDP does not specify its declassification periods. When initiating reforms the Secretariat must strive to disclose confidential information as promptly as the public interest test allows.

International standards require that refusals to disclose documents are accompanied with reasons and the availability of two tiers of appeal. The independence of the second tier must be guaranteed. The Secretariat has no procedure for requesting documents and therefore no appeals mechanism.

The European Union provides the opportunity for a ‘confirmatory request’ to the original decision maker followed by an appeal to an Independent Ombudsman or the Court of First Instance. This does not apply to ‘sensitive documents’.

The World Bank and UNDP provide for a first review by an internal panel and a secondary review by an independent panel. The World Bank only permits appeals where a prima facie case is made of a policy violation or where there is a public interest case to be made for disclosure. Appeals on the latter ground may not be heard by the secondary panel, meaning the public interest is never determined independently.

The Council of Europe does not have an appeals mechanism. The Secretariat must incorporate a two tier appeals mechanism with a guarantee of independence into its information disclosure policy.

Information request procedures must be accessible and user-friendly, communicating decisions or the requested documents promptly and at a reasonable price. The aforementioned policies all adopt provisions to this effect.

The Secretariat only permits access to unpublished public documents by appointment at the library of its London headquarters, refusing to provide copies. This is extremely restrictive for the majority of commonwealth citizens. Increased accessibility must become a reform priority.

The Secretariat has the opportunity to advance to the forefront of international transparency and democratic standards by adopting a progressive access to information policy. It must undertake reforms immediately in the spirit of transparency with the maximum involvement of Commonwealth stakeholders.

This consultation, along with an assessment of existing access to information policies and model laws, will greatly assist the Secretariat in remedying the deficiencies of its current practices and enable the Commonwealth to better pursue its goals of freedom, democracy and sustainable development.

March 30, 2010

caribbeannetnews

Bahamas Blog International

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest

By David Roberts:



First the good news. Support for democracy in Latin America is at its highest level since the late 1990s, according to the latest version of the highly respected Latinobarómetro survey, published a few days ago. And that's despite the quasi coup in Honduras and the financial crisis-cum-economic slump.

Overall explicit support for democracy - those believing it is preferable to any other system of government - stands at 59%, according to the survey of some 18,000 people in all Latin American countries except Cuba. Last year the figure came in at 57% and the year before 54%.

"Implicit" approval, meaning accepting democracy has its shortcomings but it's still better than other systems - what Latinobarómetro calls Churchillian democracy based on his famous quote paraphrased in the headline of this column - stands at 76% in the 2009 survey.

"In summary… Latin America is more democratic after the 2009 crisis, it is more tolerant, is happier," the survey's authors conclude, as reforms in the region are starting to bear fruit. It seems we've never had it so good, to paraphrase another former British prime minister.

Interestingly, support is strongest in Venezuela, a country where many regard democracy as being under threat at present, at 85% in the explicit category and 90% in the implicit one, the 2009 version of the survey concludes. Perhaps if Cuba had been included it would have scored even higher. Next, in the explicit category, come Uruguay, Costa Rica and Bolivia.

A little disturbingly, however, at the other end of the scale support is a mere 42% in Mexico (explicit) and 62% implicit. It's also worryingly low in Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador and Guatemala, at least according to the 115 page survey produced by the Santiago-based NGO.

It's easy to pick holes in a survey of this type, but one thing is for sure: Latin America is in much better shape now than it was two or three decades ago, at least in terms of democracy and stability.

In the 1970s and 80s, military regimes ruled large parts of South America (Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay) while Paraguay was under the iron fist of Alfredo Stroessner. Bolivia's "palace coups" were all too frequent, and Mexico was effectively a one-party state.

In the 1980s, civil wars were raging in Central America, Cuba was seen as a real military threat to much of the region and Peru was rocked by terrorist violence, while Colombia was being torn apart by guerrillas, drug barons and paramilitaries. Then there was the US invasion of Panama, and in the 1990s came the Zapatista "uprising" in Mexico's Chiapas.

And while the recent crisis has hit the region hard, especially Mexico and those countries more dependent on manufacturing and US markets, things need to be put into perspective. In the 1980s, we had hyperinflation in many countries in the region, the infamous debt crisis and banking meltdown after meltdown, and that's not to mention the Tequila and Asian crises that followed.

Today, with the one obvious exception of Cuba and the less obvious one of Honduras given the recent elections and the prospect that the "civil coup" will simply peter out after Porfirio Lobo takes office, democracy in some form or another prevails universally throughout the region, as witnessed most recently by Sunday's elections in Chile. In the meantime, there are plenty of signs that the region and the world are emerging from the recent economic crisis.

So, reasons to be cheerful there are indeed, although as Latinobarómetro says, the positive results of this year's survey provide no motive to celebrate just yet given the problems in the region and the potential to return to instability.


bnamericas

Bahamas Blog International