A new UN Rapporteur on Democracy: addressing common concerns

Around the world, people are demanding responsive, accountable and democratic governments. Many countries are facing challenges. According to latest assessments there are currently 45 countries that are going into a direction of authoritarianism whereas only 19 are advancing towards more democracy.

In this situation, a growing coalition of civil society groups, think tanks and experts is calling for a UN Special Rapporteur on Democracy. This would be a role appointed by the UN’s Human Rights Council (HRC) to help monitor and support democratic governance globally. While the case appears to be obvious at first glance, at the level of detail there are important questions that need to be addressed as with any new initiative. Here is how we are thinking about the most common ones.

Isn’t democracy already covered by existing UN mandates?

There are already sixty current mandates under the HRC, the so-called Special Procedures, but none on democracy. Some of them help monitor and protect specific rights that are essential to democracy, like freedom of expression, freedom of association or freedom of assembly. But no mandate looks at the broader picture, like the institutional health of democracies – for instance how well elections are managed, whether checks and balances are working, or how power is distributed between branches of government. A Special Rapporteur on Democracy can focus on these systemic elements which are currently not being dealt with by other mandates. It thus wouldn’t duplicate existing efforts but rather fill important gaps and complete the picture, of course working closely with other mandates.

Could this be seen as promoting a Western political model?

According to the UN itself, while democracies share common features, there is no single model of democracy. It does not belong to any country or region even if it might be most advanced in certain countries. As our new brochure “What is democracy?” explains, democracy has roots in various cultures and civilizations around the world. Traditions of self-governance existed for a long time across continents—from indigenous councils to early assemblies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. Today, some of the strongest calls for democratic accountability actually come from the Global South. Public opinion surveys show consistent and strong support for democracy almost everywhere. A Special Rapporteur would respect local contexts and existing traditions to the extent possible—offering advice and support, not prescriptions.

Wouldn’t this involve too much additional cost and bureaucracy?

The UN is always short of money and faced with another liquidity crisis at this moment. The desire to keep expenses low and not to grow or overburden the existing bureaucracy is understandable. But Special Rapporteurs are volunteers who work with minimal budgets—often supported by voluntary contributions. Typically, they require comparatively little staff support and only get a few trips paid by the UN per year. This model is low-cost and high-impact. At a recent event it was pointed out that expanding the Special Procedures system is actually a good strategy in times of funding shortages. 

Doesn’t this encroach on national sovereignty?

The UN is an organization that regularly stresses the principle of sovereignty. At the same time, it also has been supporting democracy ever since its foundation, starting with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Most of the world’s states additionally have committed to principles of democratic governance through international agreements they joined like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and many regional treaties. Upholding and monitoring those commitments is part of a shared responsibility. The proposed rapporteur wouldn’t impose rules from outside but would investigate common challenges and best practices. While it would be ideal for states to seriously consider and implement relevant insights, there is no legal obligation for them to do so with regard to specific recommendations the rapporteur may put forward.

Doesn’t this duplicate what other programs are already doing?

This question goes beyond the HRC mandates covered at the beginning. There are indeed many valuable and relevant activities underway across the UN system that address good governance, human rights or elections, for instance through the UN Development Program. The HRC since 2016 is also hosting each two years a Forum on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. Outside the UN, many groups and experts are investigating the health of democracy globally or important elements thereof. If anything, the Special Rapporteur on Democracy would complement and help amplify those efforts as a dedicated UN role that evaluates the global situation of democracy from a broader and holistic perspective – and in an independent way. 

Conclusion

While all of these concerns and additional ones require further discussion and examination, none of them is a dealbreaker. If mandated in the right way and if a suitable individual is picked, this role can contribute in a helpful and cost-effective way to strengthening democracy around the world. As suggested in a joint statement of civil society groups and think tanks, the rapporteur can be supported by an advisory board composed of relevant experts. Given the crucial links between human rights and democracy, one needs to wonder why the position does not yet exist. A lot of talk at the UN has been about fragmentation and silos. It is time not only to cover important gaps in the UN’s monitoring of democratic principles but also to “zoom out” and take a look at the broader picture.