Recent times have witnessed an upsurge in voices warning of a looming global crisis of democracy. The warning cries point to a variety of factors as providing substantive cause for alarm. Some, for example, highlight the negative political impact of rapidly rising energy prices. Others point to the continuing fallout from the military intervention in Iraq, ostensibly undertaken by the U.S. government in the name of democracy. Yet others point to the international community’s failure to tackle political crises such as Zimbabwe, with its persistent and willful failure to meet basic criteria for free and fair elections and other democratic norms.

While it would be hard to disagree that there are plenty of things for all of us to be concerned about in today’s world – in democracies and non-democracies alike - there are equally plenty of grounds for cautious optimism regarding the global state of, and prospects for, democracy.

Looking to South Asia for example, recent developments in Nepal provide a prescient illustration of both the significant promises and the significant political challenges inherent in democratic transition. After over a decade of civil war, popular protest and constitutional impasse, and amid widespread fear of an imminent return to violence, the country successfully held elections this April.

The outcome – a government in making headed by a party that was until recently locked in bloody conflict with the Nepalese Army – serves as a potent illustration of democracy’s ability to act as a powerful instrument of conflict management within deeply divided societies – in this instance by providing a shared arena into which longstanding grievances, disagreements and political differences can be channeled effectively.

Undoubtedly many challenges lie ahead. How inclusive will the new national democratic order-in-the-making prove to be in practice? Will disarmament and reintegration of Maoist cadres, or the response to Madhesi autonomy demands, proceed in ways that keep all parties inside the political process? And will the newly elected Constituent Assembly prove able to deliver on fashioning a new constitution capable of responding to and articulating the aspirations of ordinary Nepalese?

While there are no easy answers to these or other critical political questions there are manifold reasons to maintain support to democratic consolidation in Nepal. Meanwhile, there are certain policy lessons to be drawn from recent Nepalese experience that resonate strongly with broader efforts to support democratic consolidation and advance over the last two decades.

• First: there are no one-size-fits-all solutions to the challenges of building democracy. Each country has to find its own way forward and develop a set of democratic institutions and processes that are tailored to meet the demands and exigencies of its own particular national context.
  
  
• Second, and related: national ownership and leadership is critical. A significant part of the world’s population today views international efforts to support democracy as the imposition of alien interests and ideologies through the use of force. International assistance to democracy needs to reclaim its multilateral credibility and legitimacy, and to do that it needs both to respect and promote national ownership – in practice as much as theory.
  
  
• Third, building democracy requires a long-term perspective, an engagement and approach focused more on promoting popular delivery in the long haul than conjuring up short-term media-friendly ‘results’. On this point the international community has failed over and over again.
  
  
• Fourth, effective democracy assistance focuses on integrating democracy’s many facets, not only in relation to institutional architecture (elections, the constitution, political party regulation, judicial reform and so on) but also in terms of enhancing national capacity for dialogue and reconciliation: in other words, on building the democratic culture necessary to ensure that the formal institutions function effectively and responsively.

Ultimately, in practical terms democracy’s appeal as a system of governance stands or falls on its capacity to deliver. If one factor can be said to underlie the concerns of today’s doomsayers, it is simply the fear that democracy’s credibility is being undermined by its perceived failure to deliver where it matters most – in terms of tangible human security and prosperity. And undoubtedly, herein lies one of the greatest challenges – and opportunities – of the early 21st century.

Vidar Helgesen

Secretary-General, International IDEA

An Op-Ed based on this Editorial was published in The Economic Times on 30 June 2008.