[Documents/Docheader.htm]

Future of democracy: strengthening democratic institutions
Recommendation 1629 (2003)

Doc. 10259
 30 July 2004

Reply from the Committee of Ministers
 adopted at the 892nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (8 July 2004)

1.         The Committee of Ministers welcomes Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1629 (2003) on the future of democracy: strengthening democratic institutions, which it has brought to the attention of the governments of the member states. It has received opinions on the Recommendation from the Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the Steering Committee for Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) (see appendices).

2.         The Committee of Ministers agrees with the Assembly that the promotion of pluralist democracy lies at the heart of the Council of Europe’s objectives. It is for that reason that considerable resources were allocated for the period 2002-2004 to the Integrated Project “Making Democratic Institutions Work”.  In line with the priorities of the Norwegian Chairmanship, the Committee of Ministers considers that one of the main strengths of the Council of Europe lies in the development and implementation of norms and standards for the rule of law and democracy and that these should also be its main priorities.  Thereby the Council of Europe can make an important contribution to conflict prevention and safeguarding human rights. As rightly pointed out by the Venice Commission, peace and security depend on the consolidation of democracy.

3.         The CDLR proposes a stocktaking exercise of all existing standards and activities for the enhancement of democracy within the Council of Europe in order to see how they may be improved and how they could possibly be brought together in such a way as to strengthen their combined overall impact.  The Committee of Ministers agrees with this approach and also with the Venice Commission’s opinion that reflection within the Council of Europe regarding future action in strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring renewal of democracy in Europe should be continued. It notes that a comprehensive inventory of Council of Europe texts on democracy and an analytical summary of its “acquis” in this area, are being prepared by the Integrated Project "Making Democratic Institutions Work", and are due shortly.  These texts will give a valuable insight into the existing acquis that will be a basis for the Committee of Ministers’ further reflection on the Council of Europe’s future activities in this field.

4.         Furthermore, a report on the Future of Democracy in Europe has been drafted by a group of academics, with support and advice by representatives of the Parliamentary Assembly, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe, the Venice Commission and the NGOs enjoying participatory status. Building upon a diagnosis of the "state of democracy" on our continent, and an analysis of member states' current responses to challenges and opportunities of our age, the report puts forward a set of reform proposals or ideas for political experimentation which are expected to stimulate a debate in member states. This report was presented at the recent Conference of Speakers and Presidents of the European Parliamentary Assemblies which provided an excellent opportunity for starting such a debate.

5.         The Committee of Ministers considers that developing common guidelines on democratic standards could contribute to further legitimising international support and action in promoting and strengthening democracy in Europe. An example is the Code of Good Practice in Electoral matters, adopted by the Venice Commission at the request of the Parliamentary Assembly, which was endorsed and supported by the Committee of Ministers in the declaration adopted at its 114th Session (12-13 May 2004).  As foreseen in Article 3 of its Statute, the Venice Commission could contribute further in this manner by elaborating other guidelines.  If work was to be undertaken in this respect, such common guidelines should take fully into account diversity among nations and differences in cultural and political traditions, in order to ensure a widespread consensus.  However, in order to guide further standard setting work, the impact of existing Council of Europe standards in the field of democracy and good governance must be ascertained and the reasons for a possible lack of follow-up and/or conformity must be properly analysed and understood. The Ministers’ Deputies will come back to this issue in due course.

6.         The Committee of Ministers would like to refer to the very concrete and useful proposals made by the Venice Commission for enhancing democracy.  Feeling strongly about the need to strengthen the understanding of democratic standards and processes, it has also taken note of a number of interesting suggestions for concrete measures which may strengthen democratic institutions at national, regional and local levels made by the Parliamentary Assembly to its members in its Resolution 1353 (2003) on the future of democracy: strengthening democratic institutions. All these proposals should be further studied, in the light also of the Assembly’s recommendation for adequate programmes and sufficient resources to the areas of education for democratic citizenship, training of young democratic leaders, and the media (indent ii). With regard, in particular, to education for democratic citizenship, additional ideas and proposals are likely to be produced as a result of the “Year of Citizenship through Education” (2005) which the Committee of Ministers has decided to launch with a Conference that will take place on 13-14 December 2004 in Bulgaria.

7.         On the question of a possible broadening of the terms of reference of the Steering Committee on Local and Regional Democracy to cover democratic standards at all levels of government, or the creation of a new committee with such a mandate (indent iii), the Committee of Ministers refers to the valuable remarks made by the CDLR. It agrees that this issue would be most appropriately addressed once a full picture of the current standards, activities and actors within the Council of Europe has been drawn up.

8.         The Committee of Ministers has furthermore taken due note of the recommendations made by the Assembly in relation to Article 3 (Right to free elections) of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (indents iv and v).  It notes that the CDLR agrees that this may be an avenue worth exploring, but that it suggests a more general stocktaking and prioritising exercise before including this item in the Programme of Activities.  The Committee of Ministers agrees with this approach and refers to the considerations made above.  In this context it would also like to draw the attention of the Assembly to the fact that, in its declaration of 13 May 2004, the Committee of Ministers “calls on governments, parliaments and other relevant authorities in the member states to take account of the Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters … when drawing up and implementing electoral legislation”.  The Committee of Ministers reserves the possibility to evaluate the follow-up to this declaration and its consequences for the democratic process.

9.         In response to the Assembly’s recommendation (indent vi) that the Committee of Ministers call on a number of member states to accede to the Council of Europe’s Agreement establishing the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), the Committee of Ministers is pleased to note that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey are now members of GRECO. The Committee of Ministers expresses its support for this specialised Council of Europe body and hopes that GRECO’s membership will continue to increase.

10.       The Committee of Ministers will not fail to keep the Assembly duly informed about and associated with any future activities in this field.

Appendix I to the reply

Opinion of the Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1629 (2003) on the future of democracy: strengthening democratic institutions

Introduction

1.         By a letter dated 29 January 2004, the Secretariat of the Committee of Ministers asked the Venice Commission to give its comments on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1629 (2003) – Future of democracy: strengthening democratic institutions.

2.         The Commission appointed Messrs Ugo Mifsud Bonnici and Kaarlo Tuori as rapporteurs on this issue. The present opinion, which was drafted on the basis of their comments, was adopted by the Commission at its 58th Plenary Session (Venice, 12-13 March 2004).

I.          Background

3.         The essential raison d’�tre of the Council of Europe has been and continues to be, in addition to the pursuit of peace, promotion of pluralist democracy, and respect for human rights and freedoms and the rule of law. During the last 55 years, and in particular since 1990, great strides forward towards the realisation of these objectives have been made by the member states. Indeed, never before have so many countries undertaken fundamental changes aiming at introducing democracy in their systems of government. The Council of Europe and the Venice Commission have fostered this process and performed an important monitoring function, at times intervening with discreet diplomacy to diffuse potentially dangerous tensions within member states.

4.         The Venice Commission has gained extensive experience in assessing draft constitutions and draft constitutional amendments, as well as other aspects of the democratisation process, such as judicial reform, electoral legislation, and laws on the protection of national minorities, especially of the new member states of the Council of Europe. In its opinions, the Venice Commission has particularly appraised whether the proposals meet European standards concerning human rights and democracy. The main standards with respect to human rights are formulated in the European Convention on Human Rights and its Additional Protocols. Human rights do not, of course, exhaust the constitutional problematics of democracy. However, as regards the requirement of democracy, there is no corresponding single document defining the standards to be employed in constitutional evaluation. Reference can, though, be made to the pertinent Council of Europe’s instruments on specific aspects, such as the European Charter on Local Self Government.

5.         It is today widely recognised that such action in support of political changes in member states significantly contributed to the preservation and strengthening of democracy in the European continent. This consideration does not however justify any complacency. Democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights are susceptible of further strengthening and improvement, as much as they are faced with important challenges.

6.         Democracy is sometimes considered as inefficient and fragile, and it does not always meet the expectations of the population. There is a widespread feeling of dissatisfaction with the existing institutional structures and political class in the older as well as the newer democracies. As regards the institutions themselves, one can see some obsolescence or incipient anachronism. As to the political class, there seems to exist a generalised consensus of lack of trust. Gender equality in the sphere of decision-making processes remains highly unsatisfactory. Rampant crime, unmanaged immigration, the seeming permanence of deficiencies in the services provided by the state in the field of education, health and justice, the recurring budget deficits and unemployment, are ever present reminders of the difficulties the successive governments encounter in finding solutions and tackling important problems that trouble the daily life of every man and woman. A certain lack of information and knowledge on the part of the electorate can also be observed, adding to the perception that perhaps it is useless to vote, participate in party politics or in popular movements for change. The remedies for administrative injustice are often seen as slow or ineffective.

7.         Yet, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights do not only involve and interest a particular state, internally and individually. Assisting member countries in achieving better standards is not only an imperative of solidarity between states; it is a matter of collective interest. Peace and security depend on the consolidation of democracy. Development of democratic standards and assistance in their implementation is therefore, with no doubt, a priority sector for the Council of Europe’s activities.

II.         Codifying democratic standards

8.         The formulation of general democratic standards that could guide democratic assistance activities of the Council of Europe and its bodies would not be an easy task.

9.         It is widely recognised that democracy is the mode of government allowing to ensure lasting solutions to the political, economic and social problems that our societies face. However, it is also acknowledged that there is no universal recipe for democracy, as this can take different forms in different countries. The choices to be made are affected by the political and constitutional tradition and the state of political and legal culture of the country in question. 

10.       The Venice Commission has, for instance, repeatedly stated that the choice between a presidential, a semi-presidential and a parliamentary system is a political choice, to be made by the political forces of the country in question. At the same time, the Commission has stressed that certain minimum requirements of a democratic Rechtsstaat (rule of law) must always be respected in constitutional reforms, such as the separation of powers, especially the independence of the judiciary, the position of the parliament as the main legislative body and having at its disposal sufficient means for controlling the use of executive power (even if the principal choice is for a semi-presidential or a presidential system), as well as constitutional guarantees for local self-governance.

11.       Should expressly formulated democratic standards be developed within the Council of Europe, they should not exceed the scope of the minimum constitutional standards.

III.        Enhancing democracy

12.       Democracy represents more than well-structured and well-functioning institutions. The reality of democracy depends on various social and cultural factors, such as the existence of an active and pluralist civil society and public sphere, as well as a political and legal culture supportive of constitutional regulations.

13.       While the exact formulation of such social and cultural prerequisites for democracy is perhaps even more difficult than the definition of democratic constitutional standards, it is possible to give a few indications. One important way of making democracy inextricably bound to the very fabric of society could be to see its practice not only in state institutions but also in all the spontaneous aggregations, be they cultural, social, religious, sport or political. The practice of democracy in all these groupings necessarily strengthens democracy, as it initiates the youth and trains citizens of all ages in the democratic method, hopefully as ingrained in all private and state institutions.

14.       A number of fairly traditional democracy-promotion activities and mechanisms could also be reinforced such as:

15.       Other lines of approach could also be followed:

IV.        Conclusions

16.       It is the Venice Commission’s opinion that reflexion within the Council of Europe regarding future action in strengthening democratic institutions and ensuring renewal of democracy in Europe should be continued.

17.       Developing common guidelines on democratic standards could contribute to further legitimise international support and action in promoting and strengthening democracy in Europe. In order to ensure a widespread consensus, such common guidelines should take fully into account diversity among nations and differences in cultural and political traditions. The highest prominence should also be given to the essential role played by civil society.

18.       The Commission remains at the disposal of the organs of the Council of Europe to assist in this endeavour if requested.

Appendix II to the reply

Opinion of the Steering Committee for Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) on Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1629 (2003) on the future of democracy: strengthening democratic institutions

In their decision of 10 December 2003, adopted at their 865th meeting, the Ministers’ Deputies communicated Recommendation 1629 (2003) of the Parliamentary Assembly on the future of democracy: strengthening democratic institutions to the Steering Committee for Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) and to the Steering Committee for Human Rights (CDDH) for information and possible comments by 30 April 2004.

They also decided to communicate it to the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) for information and invited their Rapporteur Group on Legal Co-operation (GR-J) to prepare a draft reply for adoption at one of their forthcoming meetings.

As the reply to this request warranted consideration in plenary Committee and the first plenary meeting following this request took place, as scheduled, from 17-19 May 2004, the CDLR was unfortunately not in a position to provide a response by the requested date of 30 April 2004.

General considerations

The CDLR strongly supports the broad thrust of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Recommendation to stress that democracy lies at the heart of the Council of Europe’s values and should therefore also be at the heart of its activities. The CDLR also shares the view that the Council of Europe would do well to enhance efforts to strengthen democracy across Europe, including local and regional democracy, and subscribes to the view that sufficient resources should be available to that end. At the same time, the CDLR believes that in order to do so successfully, first careful stock should be taken of all existing standards and activities in order to see how they may be enhanced and how they could possibly be brought together in such a way as to strengthen their combined overall impact in the real world.

Indeed, many of the issues highlighted in the Parliamentary Assembly’s report underlying the Recommendation have, as concerns the local and regional level, already been identified by the CDLR and are or have been subjects of attention. As an active partner in the work of the Integrated Project on Making Democratic Institutions work, the CDLR is in a position to attest that the same is true for issues outside the scope of action of the CDLR as well.

A further general observation concerns standard setting. Though there is no doubt scope for the development of further standards, the CDLR believes that there is also a risk of inflation. It must be constantly kept in mind that the adoption of standards serves little purpose if no real effort is made to have them subsequently put into practice. In order to guide further standard setting work, the impact of existing Council of Europe standards in the field of democracy and good governance must be ascertained and the reasons for a lack of follow-up and/or conformity must be properly analysed and understood. For example, the Ministers’ Deputies will recall that the CDLR is engaged in such work in particular as regards legal instruments on participation at local and regional level.

It is against this background that the CDLR makes the following comments on the elements of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Recommendation.

Items i and ii

The CDLR refers to its general observations above.

Item iii

The main aim, it seems, would be to establish an intergovernmental steering committee that is competent in all matters of democracy. It is true that currently no such committee exists.

The CDLR is gratified by the Parliamentary Assembly’s recognition of its role and work in the field of democracy and good governance at local and regional levels and also sees commendable logic in seeking to avoid the multiplication of committees in the Council of Europe.

CDLR believes that the issue would be most appropriately addressed once a full picture of the current standards, activities and actors within the Council of Europe has been drawn up. In particular, the final report of the Integrated Project on Making Democratic Institutions work will give a valuable insight into the existing acquis.  This work could be complemented by an overview of the various actors currently existing in the Council of Europe. While the focus of its work has always been on the local and regional levels, the CDLR believes that in some clearly defined areas of its present and future work, the analysis and therefore the results could be “enlarged” to cover the national level as well.

With this in mind, the CDLR believes that consideration on how democratic issues should be taken up within the intergovernmental programme should be based on the following principles:

  1. a number of democratic issues at the national level, would not sit well as part of an intergovernmental programme pursued solely by delegations from states’ ministries since these issues are often not matters for a state’s executive but for its legislature;

  2. it would be detrimental to change CDLR into a generalised committee dealing with all aspects of  democracy at every level, as this would:

  1. there may, nevertheless, be a case for widening the CDLR’s remit so that where specific issues with which it deals include matters which are of relevance at the national as well as the sub-national level, the Committee’s work in the future could also embrace more broadly issues in the field of, for example, electoral law and practice, participation of citizens, public ethics, good governance and public services (definition and provision);

  2. given the pressure on resources and the need to secure the utmost value for money, an increase in the number of intergovernmental steering committees should be avoided.

Thus, while it is too early to reach a final view on the Parliamentary Assembly’s recommendations, the CDLR sees value in a limited extension of its remit to cover democratic questions in fields in which it has acquired particular experience.

Of course, the CDLR also stands ready to assist the Ministers’ Deputies in the stocktaking exercise mentioned above. It draws attention to the fact that the 14th Ministerial Conference of Ministers responsible for local and regional government, to be held from 23-25 February 2005, may also provide further impetus in this respect.

Items iv and v

These concern the question of considering whether new standards concerning elections could and should be developed to complement Article 3 of Protocol No.1 to the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The CDLR agrees that this may be an avenue worth exploring. The CDLR recalls its report adopted in 1999 on “Electoral systems and voting procedures at local level” and expresses its willingness to contribute to such an exercise, should other actors such as the Congress, the Venice Commission and the CDDH also be so inclined. However, as indicated above, the CDLR would recommend a more general stocktaking and prioritising exercise before including this item in the Programme of Activities.

Item vi

This concerns an appeal to some member states to join GRECO. Whist fully subscribing to the importance of combating corruption and recalling its own ongoing work in the field of public ethics, the CDLR believes that Ministers’ Deputies do not need any advice from the CDLR on this question.

Conclusion

The CDLR advises the Ministers’ Deputies to carry out a stocktaking exercise within the Council of Europe of standards, activities (these may already largely be covered by the results of the Integrated Project on Making Democratic Institutions work) and actors dealing with democracy and good governance. On that basis (inter alia) the scope for intergovernmental activity and the most appropriate structure(s) for taking that work forward could be identified. The CDLR is ready to contribute to this work and asks to be associated with it, should the Ministers’ Deputies decide to carry it out. It further stands ready to accept a broadening of its terms of reference along the lines set out above.