President's Essay: Working in Nations in Transition
The MacArthur Foundation supports creative people and effective institutions committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world. In addition to selecting the MacArthur Fellows, we work to defend human rights, advance global conservation and security, make cities better places, and understand how technology is changing children and society.
The MacArthur Foundation’s goals and values are illuminated through the 506 grants we made in the United States and 60 countries abroad during 2007. We are fundamentally optimistic, with the conviction that humankind can improve. We believe that creative and courageous individuals, working through strong civil organizations, are essential to progress. MacArthur does not approach its work abroad through a single template of the good society; we seek to understand different cultures and historical contexts. We appreciate that change takes time, entails risks, and requires an understanding of complex economic, social, and political forces. We know that independent civil-society institutions matter, but that well-run governments are of critical importance. We strive to make the geographic and programmatic reach of MacArthur’s work an asset by developing the links among and within our programs.
In many places where MacArthur works, human rights and democratic values are contested or under threat. In 2007, two nations in which MacArthur has invested heavily – Russia and Nigeria – demonstrated the fragility of their democratic experiments. In Russia, President Vladimir Putin’s centralization of executive power continued; his hand-picked successor, Dmitri Medvedev, was elected in a process that was widely criticized. In Nigeria, the presidential election was flawed, disappointing those who hoped the first handoff between presidents in a popular election would meet the standards of a mature democracy.
The MacArthur Foundation has made a fundamental choice to work in difficult settings in the belief that engagement is more effective than isolation. Has that been a wise decision? What do we aim to accomplish in environments that are challenging to our guiding principles? Does our work build towards a democratic future?
In the pages that follow, I reflect on how a private foundation approaches societies in transition and others where democracy is a distant dream.
|
 |
Teenager in rural Mexico. MacArthur makes grants in 60 countries around the world, including Mexico where one of its priorities is to advance the sexual and reproductive health of young people.
|
|
Reconsidering the Transition Paradigm
In thinking about MacArthur’s international work, I found the writing of Thomas Carothers helpful, particularly his essays “The End of the Transition Paradigm” and “How Democracies Emerge.” 1
For a period, the concept of a “worldwide democratic revolution” or “third wave” of democracy was popular. It appeared to explain complex trends in the later twentieth century such as the end of military dictatorships in Latin America, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, economic liberalization in China and East Asia, and the decline of the one-party state in parts of Africa.
The term “democratic transition” was used to describe societies in which authoritarian rule was undergoing changes that ranged from constitutional reform to complete upheaval.
Carothers describes the assumptions behind the term: democracy is inevitable; it will emerge following a predictable sequence of stages (a liberalizing ferment, collapse of the regime, consolidation of democratic norms under a representative government); elections will increase participation and accountability; democracy transcends the historical and cultural context; state-building is a secondary consideration, and will follow democracy.
It became commonplace to describe most societies undergoing rapid change as “in transition” to democracy and the free market. In fact, Carothers notes, of the almost 100 countries classified as “in transition” in recent years, fewer than 20 are becoming functional democracies; most of those are in Europe.
The large majority have entered what he calls a “political gray zone” characterized by both democratic and authoritarian features. Some are weak states with ineffectual multi-party systems controlled by self-serving elites. Others, while having opposition groups, are effectively dominated by a single party that deploys the state’s resources to further its own interests.
The time has come, Carothers asserts, to abandon the paradigm and its preconceptions. It is simplistic, and flies in the face of experience, to assume that profoundly different societies will follow the same trajectory, or that elections will automatically produce genuine participation or government accountability. Strong elites, historical and economic legacies, and the strength of the state apparatus will all influence development. Where there is progress, it is seldom linear. Building an effective state is a fraught and lengthy process. And, I would add, one should not make elections that meet Western standards the principal litmus test.
But leaving a prescriptive model behind does not mean abandoning the goal of democracy. In his more recent essay, Carothers suggests a replacement for the transitional paradigm: democratic gradualism. “This new approach”, he suggests, “highlights the need for small but significant steps that create space and mechanisms for true political competition and point the way to an eventual end of the rulers’ monopoly on power.” 2 Among these steps are the growth of independent civil society organizations, the establishment of proto-parties independent of the ruling party, local elections in which these entities can compete, and some room for independent media able to criticize those in power.
|
 |
Children in Goa, India. MacArthur first began making grants in India in 1989 and established an office there in 1994.
|
|
Strategies for Philanthropy
These observations have helped me put MacArthur’s work in perspective. We have never defined our central objective to be the promotion of Western-style democracy, even though we seek to advance human rights, a free press, intellectual freedom, and more open societies wherever we work. Disappointed by flawed elections in our focus countries, we still see gains in the rule of law and the growth of civil society. And we are prepared to work in closed societies on issues like conservation where we can.
Looking back 30 years, our decisions about where to work were guided by our fields of interest. Our concentration on population and reproductive health led us to large countries with rapid demographic growth – such as India, Mexico, and Nigeria, where we established offices in the 1990’s. We aimed to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction, and so engaged with nuclear states such as Russia and China. Our conservation program has taken us to eight regions around the world because they had high biodiversity under threat – places like Cuba, Nepal, Perus, and Rwanda.
As countries where we were involved became more open, we responded by expanding our scope: when the Soviet Union fell, we began a major program to strengthen higher education in Russia; when democratic rule returned to Nigeria, we added higher education and human rights to the population portfolio; as Mexico gave up one-party rule, we added a human rights initiative. In each country our aim was programmatic, not political.
With that said, we believe the work we do in strengthening civil society organizations, encouraging independent media, supporting universities and independent think tanks does contribute to more open societies where individual rights are better respected. And we believe these steps contribute to a gradual evolution toward democracy.
Six principles guide our approach:
- We have a bias toward engagement, especially if we sense that positive change is underway or in prospect.
- We come to countries for clear strategic reasons – to address the environment, health, education, or rule of law.
- While political change is not our primary mission, we favor work that promotes transparent government, respect for individual rights and free speech, and other preconditions for healthy democracy.
- We believe in strengthening civil society, helping it engage with government agencies open to change. We are willing to work with governments even as we back organizations that are critical of political leadership.
- We understand that progress toward democracy is rarely linear and should not be measured against any specific political model. Even when elections are flawed – or do not occur – the preconditions for a future democratic evolution can be planted and nourished.
- Change takes time, sometimes generations. So long as we see results in our programs and the political environment allows us to work, we are likely to stay the course.
MacArthur is fortunate to have a staff that understands and respects the cultures of the many countries where we work. Those qualities have enabled us to navigate challenging political and philosophical questions with very few missteps. And perhaps our practice of working with government as well as its fierce critics has earned us the benefit of the doubt, allowing us to push the boundaries of the permissible.
Let me now illuminate these principles and observations through our work in four countries.
Next  Russia
|
|
|
|
