International organizations and their role in the democratization of Latin America
The political scientist Samuel Huntington describes democracy as “an important – positively the most important – global political development of the late twentieth century."
The last fifty years have witnessed the democratic transitions of previously authoritarian countries around the world. In the decades of the sixties and seventies, authoritarian regimes still prevailed, particularly in the Latin American and the Caribbeanmilitary, revolutions, armed conflicts, to internal processes of democratization, respect for human rights, establishment of free, fair and competitive elections.
Of these countries, they resonated the government of General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Juan María Bordaberry in the Civic-Military DictatorsNorth triangle, Haiti and Cuba. Latin America ventures a regional situation that seemed to reflect the framework of the cold war. However, most of these countries achieved, through mechanisms and democratization processes, establishing bases for free and fair elections, transitional justice, renewing the role of the armed forces, among other pillars that opened new and better environments so thatfunctional democracies flourish.
To start these processes, a first reconciliation between the opposition or involved actors or actors was established. There must be, above all, a want to establish the peace that leads to necessary and consensus negotiations. Much of this work, different international organizations, which act as mediating and guide entities to consolidate the efforts to be achieved, have led it. Several of these countries in the region could hardly have traveled to democracies of not having been for the expertise, financial and professionals of international organizations or actors.
In this sense, there are two objectives or scope that international organizations can facilitate to comply with states that seekPolitical, economic, judicial and social of the State, and (2) the consolidation of democracy through mechanisms and efforts to strengthen and monitoring institutions, actors or processes already implemented. It is important to recognize the difference between the two, serving the last as a second phase only when the establishment or restoration has been successful;And it is the most critical since, in the state of vulnerability that involves transitioning to democracy, threats of violations of newly established institutionality, to human rights and citizen freedoms arise. At that time, a reversal to the dictatorship, the conflict or authoritarianism is still very present and may be possible. In this way, the role of international organizations is not limited to an intermediary for peace and stability, but also of the comptroller and controller of the new governments and the new democracies already established.
International organizations, although they can support democratization processes, cannot prevent reversals for authoritarianisms, dictatorships or conflicts of violence or war, or guaranteeing long -term democracy. By nature, they do not have the legality, or the power to get involved in state affairs or to make a decision -making for it. This is because international organizations are not governed by the coercive power of the use of force, rather they are designed and structured to advise governments through consulting methodologies, "Capacity-Building" (capacities development) orcoordination. In addition they use preventive diplomacy “acting sufficiently to the probable emergence of the conflict.”Some examples of preventive diplomacy are carried out by means of military or specialized resource in combat, others with civil leaders who establish dialogue to set the basis for healthy coexistence and lasting peace;and other options establish the suggestion of free election development- from calls, electoral campaigns, census, scrutiny, publication and respect for the results- as a suggestion before the Government and the State.
For this reason it is essential to identify the influence and capacity of the same international organizations to lead specific democratization processes according to factors such as: the stability of the country, the cooperation of the different parties in the process and the historical background related to military regimes orAuthoritarian.
–
Through its different skills, agencies and sub-organizations, the United Nations (UN) uses preventive diplomacy in favor of democratic transitions around the world. Being a contemporary international organization, it is also the only one established for general political purposes and with an almost universal membership. Although it does not require that countries be governed by democracies to acquire such membership, democracy is considered one of its values and that so that it has “real meaning, it must find expression in all places where power is exercised."
The United Nations Charter, signed on June 26, 1945 in San Francisco, United States, also evidence in its article 1:
The purposes of the United Nations are: maintain international peace and security, and for that purpose: take effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to peace, and to suppress acts of aggression or other breaks of peace;and achieve by peaceful means, and in accordance with the principles of justice and international law, the adjustment or arrangement of international controversies or situations that can lead to peace brokenness (…).
The fundamental values of the UN, were made known even more through the promotion and publication of three consecutive agendas, written by the sixth general secretary Botros-Ghali (1992 to 1996), known as “an agenda for peace”, ““An agenda for development ”and“ an agenda for democratization ”, in 1992, 1994 and 1996. The latter confronts the taboo traditionally questioned about the support of the United Nations to the processes of national democratization in areas such as the celebration and monitoring of elections, the creation of independent judicial systems and the strengthening of respect for human rights and the state ofLaw, all of interest to international law.
However, it is from these agendas that democracy is born as an essential value of the UN, establishing the notion of peace and mechanisms through which it would influence the obtaining and maintenance of it. For the above, three key concepts are established: Peacemaking (Peace Establishment), Peacekeeping (Peace Maintenance) and Peacebuilding (Peace Consolidation).
At the end of the 1980s, the United Nations (UN) used preventive diplomacy in favor of the democratic transition in El Salvador, closing an armed conflict of twelve years and other sixty more years of military dictatorships prior to this.
In this case, it was the mission of United Nations observers in El Salvador- Onusal, established through resolution 693 of the United Nations Security Council, on May 20, 1991, which opened the political negotiation between the ruling party between the ruling partyof the Government of El Salvador and the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), the guerrillas and opposition, to end the Civil War. Onusal worked as a catwalk to democratization in the country, sponsoring the four electoral processes of that year- the presidential elections, the parliamentary elections for the National Assembly, the municipal elections and the elections for the Central American Parliament- among other efforts as detailed tocontinuation:
“The agreements involved a high fire and related measures, reform and reduction of the armed forces, creation of a new police force, reform of judicial and electoral systems, human rights, land tenure and other economic and social issues. After the armed conflict formally ended in December 1992, the UNUSAL verified the elections that were held successfully in March and April 1994. After the UNUSAL competed its mandate on April 30, 1995, a small United Nations civil personnel – known as the United Nations Mission in El Salvador (Minusal) – remained in El Salvador to provide good offices toThe parties, verify the implementation of the pending points of the agreements and provide a continuous flow of precise and reliable information ‘.
The structure of the mission was formed of three divisions: Human Rights, Armed Forces and Police. The electoral division would be created in September 1993, in accordance with Resolution 832 of the Security Council. But prior to the conformation of UNUSAL, the United Nations had already established negotiations with the Government of El Salvador and the FMLN, with the signing of the Human Rights Agreement, on July 26, 1990, to allow the mission to be integrated into societySalvadoran. This agreement delivered diplomatic opening to the monitoring of compliance with the negotiations and conformities of both key actors to ensure, from the beginning, the successful transition. But also demonstrates the preventive structure of the United Nations in establishing and agreeing to negotiations before taking measures and actions.
Once its staff and offices have been established, the mission began with the investigation of cases on complaints of human rights violations and with the knowledge and involvement of state bodies and FMLN, so that transparency, fluidity and veracity would be demonstratedin the investigations and that subsequently facilitated the identification of necessary and adequate repercussions that should be imposed on the culprits. The progress remained stable and the mission generated another mandate that benefited him in growth of human and financial resource to continue the work.
The Human Rights Division included 30 observers and legal advisors in charge of creating a record of complaints, advising Salvadorans to solve these complaints and violations, and help in the promotion of Human Rights. The military division benefited from the expertise of 15 military officers and 380 military observers (once the peace agreements have been signed), who were responsible for verifying the cessation of the armed conflict, the reform of the armed forces of El Salvador and the restoration of thePost-conflict FMLN forces. The Police Division offered 16 officers in charge of monitoring the transition to the National Civil Police of the old public security structures. This implied the supervision of and coordination with the Transitory Auxiliary Police (PAT), responsible for maintaining public order and citizen security in the transitional period from October 1992 to July 1993.
Unusal established a final electoral division, arguing the elections, such as the key and closing point in the peace and democratization process in the country, expanding the original mandate to establish a five -phase structure that included the observation of the electoral process. After the verification and dismantling of weapons, equipment and military structure, and the reintegration of its ex -combatants to the civil, institutional and political life of the country, had allowed the FMLN to continue as a legally recognized political party and participate in the elections. These institutional reforms were, finally, fed by the report of the Truth Commission, which published the investigation of serious violence that occurred since 1980 and whose impact on society required an urgent public knowledge of truth. In addition to the UN involvement, the Truth Commission was composed of leaders of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Institute for Human Rights- International Organizations that supported the strengthening of human rights during democratization.
Unusal suffered several delays in time and challenges in mediating in particular the two actors, such as the provision of farmer lands in conflict areas. In addition, there are arguments that present that they question whether the process will finally give rise to a consolidated democracy – El Salvador was listed as ‘hybrid regime’ in the 2018 Democracy Index of 2018. On the other hand, the UN with its missions, has obtained many more defeats and failures of maintenance of peace and democratizations in countries such as Rwanda, Bosnia, Somalia – recognized as “the greatest failure of the UN in our life”.
However, progress could be very hardly established in democratization without the negotiations that took 2 years to complete. The armed conflict formally culminated on December 15, 1992, which refers as “a definitive moment in the history of El Salvador, whose people suffered now can expect a future in which the political, economic and social arguments are resolved throughof processes of democracy and not of war ".
El Salvador and Onusal is considered an international case for successful democratization implemented thanks to the consent of political and social actors. After signing the peace agreements in Chapultepec, Mexico, in 1992, political parties were established as an irreplaceable need in the political scene, welcoming ideological competition. In democracies, parties perform several responsibilities, such as intermediary functions between the State and its citizens;or the validation of other state institutions. This guarantees compliance with democratic principles.
El Salvador is an exception to the rules of the maintenance of peace, economic, political and social development of countries in transition from dictatorships or self-criticia to democracies. But several studies highlight the ES effective."
With the passage of time, the UN has placed in the center of a decentralized system of functional institutions, that is, specialized agencies, programs and other sub-organizations, which have been gradually developed to effectively guarantee public goods to the world, public goods,including peace, economy, democratization, human rights and among others. Once strongly criticized by defining democracy as a "norm" of the international organization, the vision of Boutros-Ghald on the role of the UN in peace and democratization processes was strengthened over time. Electoral assistance, for example, had gradually become an integral part of all peace construction operations. In places where civil society and democratic institutions were weak, electoral assistance was what probably made it functional.
Already mentioned above, international organizations cannot have the power to get involved in state affairs and definitely- by nature- do not acquire the use of the power of force. However, they have the capacity, knowledge and influence of managing transitions and supporting state actors to strengthen the democratic path, as long as it is consent to this. These transitions are particularly challenging when there is a time limit of compliance and it is necessary to revert or reform the public policies of previous regimes governments. In this regard, it is delicate to be able to pass through these changes, since it is not entirely guaranteed that the result is a transition to democracy. Depending on certain agendas or ambition.
However, another mechanism that helps strengthen processes of transition and consolidation of democracy is the country’s membership in the international organization. This relationship is similar to providing assistance to democratic governance without conditionality, but based on rewards and punishments.
Of the mostly relevant organizations in our hemisphere, with a lot of activity regarding social welfare and governance of their member countries, it is the organization of American States (OAS). Unlike the United Nations that did not fundamentally established the democratic principle of states governance in its statutes, the OAS, since its conception on April 30, 1948, approved and ratified the letter of the Organization of American States, with the signing ofits first 21 member countries. In its article 1, the Statutes justify the existence of the organization “to achieve an order of peace and justice, promote its solidarity, strengthen its collaboration and defend its sovereignty, its territorial integrity and its independence”, and specifying eight purposes in theArticle 2, Literal B., including "promote and consolidate representative democracy within respect for the principle of non -intervention". The OAS letter over the years was signed, accepted and ratified by the rest of the current 35 Member States, including countries such as Bolivia, Chile, Uruguay, Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador, which have been known to have challengesin the consolidation of democracy at the end of the 20th century, and even this date.
Membership can increase the probability that a transition successfully experiencing democratic consolidation and, therefore, in the long run, becomes invulnerable to authoritarian reversal. Since democratic consolidation requires institutions that work for political competence and policy implementation, an international organization can promote democratic consolidation of members continuously through capacities development, policy implementation, information provision and better coordinationand cooperation between member countries. The latter works so that the organization can coordinate the expectations of maintenance of peace and security within its member states, strengthening democratic principles and values. The democratic rules and practices established in the organization can be considered as guidelines that states adopt and continue to coordinate actions or decision -making that are the most appropriate for the future development. These guidelines are shared between the same Member States, so that they create focal points that cause a convergence of expectations in democratization.
The case of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which began its relationship (membership) with the OAS on December 21, 1951, today represents a hot debate in the hemisphere, while the institutional crisis it maintains is deepened by the lack of water, foodbasic, the supply of medicines and the huge migratory flow mainly to neighboring countries. The Government of Nicolás Maduro after having ventured years of violations of the Constitution, the institutions, the Republic (a National Constituent Assembly was approved) and for crimes against humanity, being Venezuela member of the OAS, the criticisms of the international community did not take longIn listening.
The OAS has insisted on several occasions, through diplomatic routes, pressing for the reversal of the authoritarianism in Venezuela. Several plenary sessions were enabled to discuss among their member states the situation and evaluate possible sanctions or repercussions. In this sense, ‘the Member States of the OAS, on behalf of their peoples declare their strongest political commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights and representative democracy, an indispensable condition for stability, peace and development ofregion, as well as for the success of the change and renewal process required by the inter -American system in the 21st century threshold.’
The first of these resolutions was promoted by the United States and the 14 countries of the Lima Group, a block that adds more than 90 % of the American population: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru and Santa Lucía. It was approved on June 5, 2018 with the vote of 19 countries, including these 15, at the OAS General Assembly. This opened the suspension of Venezuela of the international agency, ignoring at the same time, the legitimacy of the results of the elections carried out on May 20 of the same year in which Maduro was illegitimately re -elected as president, with the community’s argumentInternational that the elections did not comply with democratic guarantees.
The most recent resolution was approved at an extraordinary meeting of the Permanent Council of the OAS, with the support of 19 countries to ‘not recognize the legitimacy of the period of the Nicolás Maduro regime from January 10, 2019’ and call againelections. This resolution took place on the same day that Nicolás Maduro would have sworn as president for his second six -year term.
Days later, the Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro Lemes and the president of the United States, Donald Trump, recognized the president of the National Assembly of Venezuela, Juan Guaidó, as the legitimate interim president of the country. Most OAS member countries, as well as countries around the world, spoke in favor following the steps of Almagro and Trump respectively.
Almagro, was taking an increasingly strong and forceful position against Maduro’s government in recent years. In 2016, he issued a report that describes the reasons for the censorship of Venezuela, and in March 2017 he urged the government to hold elections or face the suspension. In April, Venezuela announced that it would retire from the OAS, becoming the first member country to leave the group voluntarily. The retirement, which could take up to two years to enter into force, has isolated Venezuela from its neighbors and the international community. In this sense, the repercussions to abandon a regional organization, rejecting any democratic dialogue and consulting, has developed different repercussions against Venezuela, among these: the continuous and growing political pressure of the block that has been significant;The exclusion of Nicolás Maduro to participate in the eighth summit of the Americas that developed in Lima, Peru. Meanwhile, the Permanent Council of the OAS and Almagro had strongly asked the Venezuelan leader to postpone the presidential elections until the rule of law is restored and the elections are approved by international observers.
Certainly, he has taken time to establish significant advances around democratization in Venezuela. There are analysts who argue that the regional organization has taken to act in favor of institutionality, since the Maduro government and previously, that of Hugo Chávez, had become visibly more and more autocratic in the last two decades. The argument also indicates that many Latin American governments hesitated to criticize the Caribbean country for being ideologically aligned with their socialist government or because they depended on the imports of oil of low interest in Venezuela.
However, the organization has shown that it can establish, together with its member states, influence and pressure on the persecution of the principles established in the OAS Charter and the Democratic Charter. Venezuela has not been the only case in which decisions and actions have been made towards the defense of a democracy. Since the statutes were modified in 1992 to allow the suspension of states whose democratic governments are overthrown by force, in 2001, members signed the Inter -American Democratic Charter, which declared that American States have the ‘right to democracy’and the "obligation to promote and defend it."
In 2009, for example, the OAS, by unanimous decision of its members, suspended Honduras after a coup against President Manuel Zelaya;The country was readmitted two years later after having held elections again. It was a relatively rapid, effective and struggling process with a lot of pressure from international organizations.
The OAS records being an organization at the regional level with influence and frames of reference shared with most countries in the region. Regardless of the linking of its regulations, ideological conflicts, the OAS has shown that diplomacy and international pressure is necessary to fight dictatorships and maintain healthy democracies collaboratively, although sometimes the challenge is challenging. With the organization’s processes, training and technical assistance, coordination between private and public actors, and greater transparency in countries, which increases the probability of consolidating a transition democracy can be provided.
Membership will not dissuade coups, revolutions and other forms of authoritarian revocations. Nor is it guarantor that specialized agencies such as those of the United Nations, manage to establish institutional frameworks in favor of equality, human rights, free elections, judicial systems, etc.
However, international organizations can at least take measures to prevent or counteract autocratic investments. And this becomes much more support and assistance to countries in democratic transition or consolidation, than the one they had without diplomatic and international influence. Since democratic consolidation is generally elusive, belonging to an international organization has the potential to produce great benefits, such as the use and power of a membership that can allow democratic consolidation in unlikely places.
Much more should change if governments, political parties and institutions in Latin America countries seek to stay stable and not fall into self-critics. It is important that they do it, since there is no better vehicle that allows consolidating common values to bring the establishment of democracy to our countries.
Bibliography
- Samuel p. Huntington (1991), “Democracy’s Third Wave”, Journal of Democracy.
- Brückner, Julian (2012), "Military DictatorShip to Democratic Consolidation: Breaking the Civil-Military Path dependence in Latin America", Berlin Graduate School of Social Sciences, Humboldt University Berlin. In IP World Congress, Madrid.
- The Economist Intelligence Unit (2018), “The Democracy Index 2018: Political Participation, Protest and Democracy."
- Mangas Martín, Araceli (2009), "The contribution of international organizations to the democratization and governance of international society". In the quality of democracy. The democracies of the 21st century. Editorial System, Madrid, pp. 439-460.
- Bourtos-Ghali, Bourtos (1995), “Secretary-General Tells European Parliament Globalization of Economy Must Go Hand-In-Hand With Globalization of Democracy”. In the European Parliament, Strasbourg.
- Bourtos-Ghali, Bourtos (1996), "An Agenda for Democratization", United Nations, New York.
- Department of Public Information, United Nations Peacekeeping, "United Nations Observer Mission in El Salvador",
- (2009), "UNUSAL and Peace Engineering in El Salvador: International Policy, War and Socio -Politic Process in El Salvador".
- International Law Department (DDI), "State of signatures and ratifications- Letter from the American State Organization (A-41)",
- Mateus Díaz, María Juliana (2011), “Analysis of the role of the UNUSAL in the peace process of El Salvador 1989 – 1995”, Faculty of International Relations, University Colegio Mayor de Nuestra Señora del Rosario, Bogotá.
- Henderson, Barney (2015), “What have Been the Successes and Failures of a Peacekeeping Missions?”, The Telegraph, New York,
- Holy, David and Stanley, William, "In the best of circumstances: UNUSAL and the Challenges of Institutional Verification and Strengthening in El Salvador", University of New Mexico.
- Organization of American State (1991), “Santiago’s commitment to democracy and the renewal of the inter -American system”, Santiago.
- Herrero, Ana Vanessa and Specia, Megan (2019), “If Venezuela only worsens, why does Nicolás Maduro continue to rule?”, The New York Time is. Available in:
- Agencies (2019), "The OAS agrees" not to recognize legitimacy "of the Maduro government," today’s newspaper. Available in:
- Organization of American States (2001), "Inter -American Democratic Charter", twentieth eighth extraordinary period of sessions, Lima.
- Walter, Barbara F. (2018), “Most People Think Peacekeeping Doesn’t Work. They’re Wrong.", World Bank. Available in:
Leave feedback