Democracy and Development: Thinking Forward

Final lecture by minister Koenders (Development Cooperatin) in the 2006-2007 Democracy and Development
lecture series, Society for International Development.Ladies and gentlemen: colleagues, experts and friends of the
SID, IDEA and NIMD,It is a great pleasure for me to address your conference on Democracy and Development this
morning. This issue is at the core of my policy as Minister for Development Cooperation.

Now more than ever, development practitioners have to be aware of how they can assist the process of political
change and emancipation in developing countries. Democracy is a vital element of this process, and we are still
wrestling with our role in it. Much more is involved than you can find in a standard training course or standard
textbooks on how to support a parliament or a party. People who are promoting development and people who are
promoting democracy have to join forces rather than work in isolation. This requires political intuition, modest
ambitions and a strategy for institution-building that correspond to the political realities on the ground. The first
principle must be: do no harm. We must discard illusions about creating democracy by force, as we have seen in the
cruel reality of Iraq. We live in a democratic age, and Europe has an obligation to do much more than it has. The
credibility of our development efforts is at stake.

Today 120 countries have governments resulting from elections in which all adult citizens could vote. Hierarchies
are breaking down; closed systems are opening up. More than ever before, media, the image of reality and those
who have the power over it determine the outcomes, policies and state of democracy. Unfortunately the
democratisation in the world is also at the same time a democratisation of violence. There is a danger that
democratisation will be reduced to formal election of warlords, separatists or racists.

I came back just yesterday from Pakistan and Afghanistan. In Pakistan the struggle for democracy has been
enhanced by the enormous growth of the free pres s and the courage of an independent judiciary in a still largely
feudal society. Only completely free and fair elections can create the broader legitimacy that is needed to fight
extremism and poverty. In Afghanistan major progress is being made. But as in other post-conflict countries, free
elections are not yet accompanied by the rule of law, separation of powers and basic liberties. Democracy is making
headway, but it is still illiberal democracy. Much more work can and must be done.

As a Member of Parliament, I was active in fostering democracy and creating alliances with parliamentarians and
parties in Africa, especially after the openings created by Mitterrand’s La Baule speech in 1990. I remember many,
somewhat amateurish visits I made to parliaments in various places, from Benin to Zambia. I saw in practice how
difficult it is to help build democracy in disadvantaged countries characterised by poverty and inequality.
Democracy can exacerbate conflict, but it can also bring about enormous progress. Copies of Western models can be
extremely counterproductive for democratic change; and the irony is that our models are being exported at a time
when our own democracies in Europe are under pressure and going through major changes. So let me start with my
own continent, where democratic change made a leap forward after 1989, but where the long and violent road to
democracy is often forgotten.

The European experience

The struggle for democracy in Europe was also a long one. England experienced a slow transformation from an
agrarian society to a parliamentary democracy. In France, a revolution was needed to remove obstacles to
democratisation. In the twentieth century, all over Europe, the labour movement and civil society fought to beat
back fascism and communism. And military action was necessary to defend democracy. The German socialists’
struggle led initially to the Weimar Republic, a fragile attempt at parliamentary democracy that proved unable to
withstand the economic crisis and the Nazis. In Germany, the struggle for a more substantive democracy continued
after the war with the Federal Republic, leading to a very successful model of democracy and social market
economy. In his case studies Barrington Moore sheds light on the historical conditions in which these
transformations took place, in Europe and elsewhere, and the decisive role that social groups played in these
political processes.

The struggle for democracy is not only about establishing a political system. It is part of a larger project for the rule
of law and broad participation. Achieving substantive democracy is crucial. I see it in the development of my own
country. There was no universal suffrage in the Netherlands until 1919; it was only in 1922 that women’s right to
vote was enshrined in the constitution. You might be aware of the debate on the position of women in the strict
Calvinist SGP party. Until 1970 voting was compulsory in Dutch elections; today, as you know, turnout for Dutch
elections could be much better. Until the 1950s diversity in the Netherlands was managed through the system of
‘pillarisation’, whereby the whole of Dutch society was compartmentalised along religious or ideological lines.
While the old pillars have long since collapsed, globalisation and above all increased immigration have created a
new, ‘imported ’ diversity. The Netherlands still faces democratic challenges today. Our society is changing, and our
democracy is seeking ways to change with it. New parties appear, internet plays a larger role, and the political class
has become part of a larger spectator democracy.

In 2006 the Ministry of the Interior carried out a ‘State of Democracy Assessment’, using the well-known
methodology of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. The assessment concluded that
attempts to restrict freedom of expression are becoming more frequent and more serious, and that traditional
political parties are losing their roots in society. At the same time involvement in politics, especially among young
people, seems to be increasing: take the debate on Europe. Populism, both left-wing and right-wing, is on the rise.
Political parties now play a different role in our democracy, a role in which individual personalities are central and
the ability to project an image is crucial. This is leading to more ‘drama democracy’. Finally, the 2006 assessment
showed once more that social cohesion and the integration of new citizens into a common identity – a new ‘us’ – is

Development cooperation and democracy can only be effective if we look for solutions that reflect the reality of
people like these. Development cooperation can encourage and support home-grown processes that will contribute
to a world with less poverty and more justice. It needs to aim at increasing access to and participation in these
processes by the poor themselves.

I was asked to comment on Karl Popper, as he was cited by William Easterly who will speak to you shortly: like
them, I choose ‘piecemeal democratic reform ’ over ‘utopian social engineering’. The economic and political
complexity of societies is a given. You can’t plan a market; you can’t plan democracy. At the same time, economic
growth and a functioning democratic system are essential to ultimately achieving sustainable, equitable
development, independent of foreign aid.

In a democracy that functions well – well enough to make development possible – the government looks for ways to
supply the services that citizens demand. In many countries, however, citizenship cannot be taken for granted. It
requires respect for the political and civil rights of all individuals and groups in society, and conditions in which
people are able to make use of their rights. Nor is that enough. Citizenship also means that people must want to
shoulder their responsibilities as citizens. It means that they are aware of the rights and duties – and above all, of the
opportunities to improve your own living conditions.

In this connection, I support the call for ‘searchers’. The dynamism of the poor at the bottom has much more
potential than the plans of those at the top.’ Yes. In my opinion, however, the challenge is not to shift all our
attention from plans at the top to the dynamism of the poor. It is to translate the dynamism of the poor into plans at
the top. Flexible plans, yes, but we cannot reduce poverty without sensible plans to improve service delivery, to
create safety nets, to foster pro poor growth, to improve the educational system, to plan for energy systems and
infrastructure to reach the poor.

Democratisation, development and peace and security

Ladies and gentlemen,

Maybe the relationship between democratisation and economic growth is the dimension of poverty that is most often
discussed. This is partly because the distribution and redistribution of the benefits of growth are necessary to reduce
poverty in practice. But the popularity of this topic is also closely related to the high growth rates of countries like
China and Vietnam, whose democratisation lags behind their impressive economic growth. That has successfully
taken millions out of poverty. At the same time other countries with high growth rates, like India and Brazil, have
functioning democratic systems. Clearly there is no one-to-one relation between growth and the political system.
Growth is a result not only of governance but of economic policy, climate, regional stability and other factors linked
to place and time.

I am convinced, however, that the type of political system in a country and the quality of its performance do have an
impact. It is no accident that 95% of the worst economic results over the past forty years were furnished by non
-democratic governments. Compared with autocracies, democracies are structured to take account of a broader range
of interests. The separation of powers also serves as a constant reminder, as the book The Democracy Advantage
says, that ‘ the central government’s powers are limited. Thus, it encourages the expansion and the independence of
the private sector. This, in turn, fosters a climate of innovation and entrepreneurship, the engines of economic
growth.’ Democracies produce better development indicators on average ‘because they tend to be more adaptable’.
In a functioning democracy, corrupt and ineffective leaders are more likely to lose their jobs. Finally, thanks to their
adaptability and ‘quality of steadiness’, democracies are better able to respond to economic and humanitarian
disasters. For large parts of the population, this can make the difference between life and death.

What about countries that have not yet been able to plug into the global market? They will have an especially
difficult task in catching up. In Europe, the poorer EU countries have grown more quickly than the rich ones, so that
the gap between the relatively rich and poor has narrowed. By contrast, globalisation makes it harder for the poorest
developing countries to bridge the gap with the rest of the world. Money and highly educated and enterprising
people are draining away from these countries. With China, India and Brazil occupying their potential niches in the
global economy, the latecomers to the world market have been forced to the sidelines. The challenge presented by
this perverse globalisation is to see that these countries too experience an economic take-off. Latecomers in the
global system tend to be undemocratic as I referred to the German undemocratic past earlier.

Can democratic developments spark economic growth in the countries that need it most? If so, what democratic
developments, and under what conditions will they lead to a take-off? Despite everything that has been written about
democracy and economic growth, there is still no answer to this question. Case studies present unique patterns of
social, economic and other factors that can simply not be summed up with generalisations.

Yes, more substantive democratisation can undeniably favour economic growth. Democratisation is necessary to
distribute and redistribute the benefits of growth and ensure universal access to and participation in that growth. And
undeniably, poverty is not only economic; poverty has political, human and sociocultural dimensions. By definition,
effective poverty reduction means working to change the nature and quality of governance, because these things
shape the conditions in which comprehensive poverty reduction takes place as well as the results that can
realistically be achieved.

In a functioning democracy, democratic principles are respected. Democratisation is an never-ending process of

negotiation between state and society to ensure this respect. Democratisation is not a quick fix for poverty; both the
state and the society have to ensure that formal institutions operate democratically in practice.

Paul Collier and others suggest that low per capita incomes, the presence of oil and other natural resources, and
serious inequality and ethnic divisions are not conducive to democracy. I think this is right. Collier also said in his
lecture that democracy is misunderstood. Revolutions in one part of the world are too often seen as models for other
parts of the world, and democracy is wrongly portrayed as a panacea. And: democratisation is equated with holding
elections, while hardly any attention is paid to ensuring checks and balances. When this superficial kind of
democratisation fails to produce positive effects, the value of democracy as a political system can easily be
dismissed. The unique case of China, with all its shortcomings, is then taken as a model for Africa. But the Chinese
model does not work in Africa, or in the Middle East or Latin America. In fact, I’m convinced that the Chinese
model isn’t even working sufficiently in China. China’s economic growth has come at the cost of an alarming
increase in social inequality and unacceptable harm to the environment.

Maybe the most problematic since the end of the Cold War and my own amateurish steps in democracy support in
Africa is this: we have yet to see the big socioeconomic benefits of the wave of democratisation in the 1990s. We
also see that young democracies can relapse into conflict. But I state and believe that this is not the fault of
democratisation. More often it’s the fault of stalled democratisation. The failure of democratisation to pay dividends
in terms of peace or development is due not to the failure of democracy as a concept, but to the failure to deepen
democracy. It was ‘democratic deficits’, not democratisation, that plunged Côte d’Ivoire in 2002 into the hopeless
crisis that it’s been in ever since.

Should democratisation be postponed until certain preconditions have been met? The ‘sequencing’ debate is all the
rage at the moment. Thomas Carothers rightly says that sequencing is not a solution to the challenges facing
societies engaged in democratisation. There are very few autocratic leaders who are sincerely development-minded.
As Carothers says, ‘Prescribing the deferral of democracy – and consequently the prolongation of authoritarian rule
– as a cure for the ills of prolonged authoritarianism makes little sense.’ But is it a good idea then to support
democratisation in suboptimal conditions? Here I would like to cite Sheri Berman: ‘The main drivers of democratic
development are generally internal rather than external. But on the margins, taking the side of the local democrats
and reformers rather than their authoritarian overlords makes more sense both morally and politically. The
construction of stable liberal democracy generally requires breaking down the institutions, relationships, and culture
of the ancien régime, a process that is never easy and about which the ancien régime itself is rarely enthusiastic. Yes,
achieving a full transition to consolidated democracy is difficult. But it cannot be completed if it never starts.’

Post-conflict countries may be a special case. First and second elections can be accompanied by violence. As Jack
Snyder emphasises, elections give political elites a chance to exploit ethnic tensions and nationalist and religious
sentiments. Look at the world around us. Therefore power-sharing mechanisms and strong civil society
organisations and state institutions need as much attention as elections in any process of democratisation. Carothers
however maintains that a one-sided emphasis on state-building, and not substantive democratisation, fuels most
wars. ‘The overwhelming bulk of the many wars that have raged in Europe over the last half a millennium have been
related not to democracy, but to state-building.’ And this is very true.

Global trends
Let me make some general, somewhat superficial points of regional context and start with the Arab World.

Stability in the Middle East is either mostly superficial or fragile at most. Carrying out democratic reforms would
enable countries in this region to link up with a globalising world. As it is elsewhere, in the Middle East,
democratisation is a precondition for justice and prosperity. Stability as I see again reappear as a goal after the
failures in Iraq, can only be meaningful when it is based on development, peace and security. Therefore democratic
reforms will ultimately increase true stability.

Anwar Ibrahim’s lecture in the SID-series elegantly disposed of the bromide that Islam is incompatible with
democracy. In fact this is a non-issue. After all, no one asks whether Christianity, Judaism or other religions are
compatible with democracy. In any case, policy has never been founded on this kind of standpoint. My only reason
for even mentioning this discussion is that the supposedly non-Islamic character of democracy has been used too
often by autocratic rulers in Arab countries to ward off democracy, and by the West as an excuse for maintaining a
double standard.

The UNDP Arab Human Development Report 2005, published in December 2006, says that public freedoms have
been further restricted in Arab countries in recent years and that oppressive systems of rule have remained in place.
At the same time, small steps have been made ‘towards widening the margins of freedom in the region’. For
example, democracy and human rights have been made required subjects in the state school curriculum in Bahrain.
The Justice and Reconciliation Commission in Morocco has recommended legal, institutional and cultural reforms.
In nine Arab countries, women occupy prominent positions at national, provincial and municipal level. ‘With a few
exceptions,’ the report says, ‘no Arab country is now without a parliament or a cabinet or a local council in whose
assigned tasks at least one woman participates in an able manner.’ Participation by women in public life is slowly
increasing in the region, even in Saudi Arabia.

At the same time, the report notes that announcements of reforms and pseudo-reforms are used as a cover for
maintaining the status quo. Respecting the singularity of democratisation in the Arab world should not mean
accepting indefinite postponement of reforms due to lack of commitment by its political elites. In the Arab world
and outside it, rulers’ fears of the possible effect of democratisation – effects that might be unacceptable to them –
are the greatest obstacle to democratisation. Yet as the Arab Development Report 2004 says, ‘widespread and
thoroughgoing political reform, leading to a society of freedom and good governance, is the means of creating a free
society, in the comprehensive sense, which in turn, would be equivalent to human development’. Therefore,
democratisation needs the broadest possible support base.

In this connection I’d like to mention the report Dynamism in Islamic Activism by the Advisory Council on
Government Policy, which supports the idea that building blocks for human rights and democratisation can be found
in the Muslim world. The diversity of Islamic activism offers scope for cooperation with Islamic organisations as
democratic actors. In many countries in the region, moreover, Islamic organisations are the only potential partners
that have any broad social base.

Democracy cannot be imposed by military force. I plan to establish a fund for democratisation in the Arab region
that can be used to finance theme-based contributions to international organisations, dialogues and other specific
democracy-building activities at grassroots level. We must build a bridge to the Islamic world, without being naive.
For example, the media can play a role in reaching the silent majorities who have not yet spoken out against
terrorism. Citizenship can emerge from silent majorities.

When the discussion turns to Africa, governance is often spoken of in Patrick Chabal’s terms of façade and reality. I
prefer to ask another question: what does democracy really mean now in Africa? What do Africans want, and how
can it be achieved? Is democracy an alternative to patronage? Let’s take a look at how democratisation is taking
shape on this continent.

It is a fact that more leaders are coming to power in Africa by democratic means and that there are fewer violent
changes of regime. This is one aspect of the trend that Daniel Posner and Daniel Young have so aptly described as
the ‘ increasing institutionalisation of political power in Africa’. As they write, ‘ the formal rules of the game are
beginning to matter in ways that they previously have not.’ Between 1960 and the 1980s, most African leaders met
their ends through coups, murders or other violent forms of regime change. Since the 1990s, periods in office have
usually come to an end in accordance with democratic rules, through electoral defeat or voluntary departure at the
end of a constitutionally limited term. While formal institutions alone are no indicator of how well governance
works, they do determine what strategy is used to gain or retain power. This is a fundamental change in the way
power is exercised.

Surveys by Afrobarometer show that large majorities of Africans prefer democracy to any other form of
government. The people of Ghana, Kenya and Senegal have the greatest confidence in the functioning of democratic
institutions. But even in countries where confidence is lower, like Tanzania (especially Zanzibar) and Madagascar
(after outbursts of violence there), this does not mean that citizens prefer some other form of government.

The surveys also show that formal institutions are beginning to matter to people’s perceptions of democracy. For
example, the changes to the electoral system in Lesotho have greatly increased popular support. Relying on the
surveys, Michael Bratton writes in ‘Institutionalizing African Democracy: Formal or Informal?’ that formal
institutions seem to matter even more than informal ones, and that Africans generally think they are not getting what
they expect from democracy. ‘People continue to think that presidents ignore constitutions, that legislatures are
unrepresentative of popular desires, and that multiparty competition all too easily spills over into political violence,’
Bratton says. ‘As such, Africans estimate that the key elements in a well-functioning democracy – notably
institutions that check the executive – are performing below par.’

One particularly interesting conclusion from Bratton’s work is that informal institutions are used to fill gaps in
formal democracy. ‘Because the performance of all formal institutions systematically falls short of popular
expectations, people will plug ensuing institutional gaps with informal ties.’ What does this mean? Like other
people, Africans prefer democracy to other forms of government. Democracies are becoming more institutionalised,
even in Africa, and the functioning of democracy, particularly in Africa, is affected by both formal and informal
institutions. And finally, in Africa as elsewhere, the quality of democracy determines how likely it is that informal
institutions will undermine sustainable, equitable development.

We have to take complex political realities seriously and look beyond the usual pigeonholes. My efforts in Africa
will be aimed particularly at improving the quality of democracy and thus at achieving substantive democratisation.
More experienced democracies can provide support, through peer pressure, civic education, and a stronger role for
the media, watchdogs and oversight institutions to ensure greater accountability. Dutch political parties, through the
Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, can provide this support. Uganda and Burundi have recently asked
me to work especially with political parties as the “missing link” in sensible democracy support.

In Latin America, inequality and the rise of institutionalised crime – such as the political power of drug lords, state
capture, violence and corruption – are the biggest challenges to ongoing democratisation. Citizens see no change in
their fate. When governments fail to deliver social and economic goods or ensure justice and reconciliation, their
credibility suffers. This has increased tensions and led to the emergence of new nationalist movements. These
movements in turn have radically altered the relations among states.

What is the significance of the swing to the left in Latin America? What does it mean for the future of democracy?
Hector Schamis talks about different varieties of ‘post-socialism’ and ‘post-populism’ in the region. He argues for a
deeper analysis of the quality of party systems, however, because these are more important for determining a
democracy’s effectiveness than a regime’s exact political leanings. The institutionalised party systems of Chile,
Brazil and Uruguay are the main explanation for these countries’ success, he says, while dislocated systems explain
the failure of Menem and Kirchner in Argentina and Toledo and Fujimori in Peru. Schamis also says that oil distorts
the entire political and economic picture, ‘whether in a collapsed party system such as Venezuela’s or a disjointed
and fragmented one such as Bolivia’s’.

The role of political parties cannot be emphasised enough. As the African surveys also show, there is a substantial
gap between what parties are supposed to do and how they actually function in practice. Confidence in political
parties is lower worldwide than in any other democratic actor. The NIMD plays an important supporting role in
getting parties on track. It has made a major contribution to changing the political culture of Guatemala, for
example. It has not only fostered dialogue among political parties, but also helped with their institutional
development and their dialogue with civil society and the business community. It looks for fostering a new national
consensus to prepare Guatemala for the next stage of economic development out of extreme inequality, violence and
the risk of parallel structures invading the political space.

I don’t have any quick fixes for complex development problems. I certainly don’t have quick fixes for the
inequality, social exclusion, violence and impunity that plague Latin America. But the democracies in the region
will have to find solutions to these problems soon if they want to survive. When large numbers of young people
cannot share in economic progress, they have no confidence in the formal institutions that are the bearers of
democracy. If left unchecked, marginalisation will lead to more violence and more institutionalised criminality.
Preventing this is the biggest challenge to substantive democratisation in Latin America. The solution lies in active
involvement by young people and other marginalised groups themselves. The NIMD is succeeding in getting this
issue on the political agenda. I will support initiatives to prevent social and political exclusion through our
embassies, and Dutch and international organisations. With initiatives including support for better representation and
defence of marginalised groups, I will try to help increase their access to and participation in economic growth and
the distribution of wealth.

Development cooperation and democratisation: new policy

In supporting democracy, we need to learn from the mistakes of the past. For example, we have to avoid seeing
democratisation in terms of a Western model. I mentioned that earlier. Effective support for democratisation should
focus on strengthening the operation of universal democratic principles in a specific context. Another lesson is that
democratisation should not be left to technocrats, because that means losing sight of its essential political
significance. Those of us in the field of development cooperation need to take more account of the impact that our
working methods have on local politics. It is also time for us to stop being afraid that paying attention to democracy
will undermine stability. As I said earlier, it is not ‘excessive’ concern for legitimacy that ultimately undermines
peace and security, but rather the lack of it. Finally, the role of women has been neglected for too long. In the area of
substantive democratisation too, women can make a difference.

What does this mean for policy? I would like to address this question under four headings: a more political
conception of good governance; a democracy and development agenda; and more focus on fragile states and
women’s rights.

1. A more political conception of good governance and deepening democracy

I will begin by discussing what I mean by a more political conception of governance, and above all the deepening of
democracy. Because poverty is not only an economic phenomenon but also a sociocultural and political one, good
governance has increasingly become less a precondition for development partnerships and more an objective.
Experience shows that poverty reduction does not have sustainable, equitable results unless there are genuine
improvements in the political realm. Technical issues are only a minor aspect of governance, and aid for capacity
building makes only a limited contribution to quality of governance. My approach, therefore, will be informed by a
more explicitly political conception of good governance. We need this if we want development cooperation to have
a positive effect in practice on governance problems like corruption and insufficient rule of law and their underlying
causes. We have to shed more light on democratic deficits. To do this we need more political analyses of the
context, which should lead to a more political strategy for good governance and a more political strategy for poverty
reduction. This means making greater efforts to deepen democracy – not only at embassies but also together with
Dutch and international NGOs and in intergovernmental networks and organisations. I have already mentioned the
NIMD; other relevant organisations include the Association of European Parliamentarians for Africa, the EU, OSCE
and UN. The Netherlands is an active member state of International IDEA, an expert institute in the field of home-
grown democracy. It has my enthusiastic support.

2. A democracy and development agenda

I also have a clear democracy and development agenda. Wherever we give development aid, especially budget
support, I will automatically examine the role of local politics in development cooperation. Too often, because we
see the implementing government as our natural counterpart in a recipient country, that government accounts for its
spending and policies mainly to donors. Accountability by national governments to donors should never come at the
expense of political accountability in the country itself. In other words, development cooperation should never
weaken national democratic institutions. If it does so, we are not responsible donors. Because our aid is needed and
domestic accountability still often falls short, I will focus on making local politicians accountable to their own
peoples. This will be taken up more in political dialogues and specific activities.

Harmonisation and alignment with national poverty strategies and budget mec hanisms are important principles of
the Paris Declaration. They are essential so as not to place too heavy a burden on the limited capacity of
governments and partner organisations in recipient countries. However, they can also give legitimacy to procedures
that are insufficiently democratic. Too often, the ownership of national poverty reduction strategies by recipient
countries still means in practice ownership by a small elite that can speak the donors’ jargon. Ownership should be
in the hands of ordinary citizens, not donors. So we need a reality check. We need to take a critical look at
governments’ and donors’ actions, and where necessary, take steps to ensure that poverty reduction addresses the
causes of poverty and not merely its symptoms.

My remarks about accountability and ownership suggest that we also face challenges with regard to the Paris
Declaration’s provisions on harmonisation and alignment. The first challenge is to develop a conception of
accountability and ownership that refers explicitly to national political processes. If, in Afghanistan, we say that we
need to have a PRSP and if not we cannot fund, it is about a wish list that has nothing to do with national
accountability. It is about handpicked organisations while formal democratic institutions, like the Parliament, are not
even consulted. The second challenge is to use the Paris Declaration as a tool in such a way that democratic
principles are respected and the operation of democratic institutions is never undermined.

This brings me to the MDGs. We have to realise that qualitative political change is needed to attain the quantitative
MDGs, especially with regard to sustainability and equity. Reaching the MDGs is not a technocratic process, it is a
political process stimulated by the searchers who do and act and know to reach the planners to support them.

I am working on the democracy and development agenda with partners like the NIMD, AWEPA and IDEA. They
complement our embassies’ work by paying attention to the role of local politics. Thanks in part to support from the
NIMD, for example, the political parties in Zambia have taken back the lead in giving their country a new
constitution.

3. Fragile states

Third, my policies will focus more on fragile states. When dealing with fragile states it is a fatal mistake to ignore
the importance of legitimacy – either because lack of legitimacy is a cause of the state’s fragility, or because a viable
and thus legitimate state has to be built in a post-conflict country. Of course essential services have to be provided
immediately after a conflict; but it makes a difference who does what and how. So we have to avoid creating parallel
responsibilities and parallel mechanisms of accountability. At the same time we have to ensure that the institutions
receive the signals from society and are responsive to them. We have to avoid institutional collapse brought on by a
failure to acknowledge the causes of conflict. Our embassy in the Democratic Republic of Congo will support
women MPs’ efforts to increase their legitimacy as representatives by accounting to their constituency for their
actions and by keeping their feelers out. These MPs will also encourage other women to stand in local elections. My
aim in fragile states is effective governance that is also legitimate. I will be presenting the new policy on fragile
states at greater length soon.

4. Women’s rights

Finally, I want to focus on more rights and opportunities for women. In a functioning democracy, all citizens have
equal rights and in principle equal opportunity to exercise their rights. In practice, where democracies fall short in
this regard, ensuring that women participate equally with men is an enormous challenge. We badly need to invest in
women, not in a token fashionable gender agenda. Giving women more rights and opportunities leads to higher
economic growth by raising national productivity. More rights and opportunities for women also means that girls
and women are more likely to speak up and take part in local administration and national politics. So investing in
women is a way to achieve both maximum economic growth and substantive democracy.

Persistent marginalisation of girls and women has deep-rooted social and cultural causes. Exclusion and
discrimination also simply reflect the realities of power. Often women cannot afford the costs of becoming
candidates for parties with a real chance of being elected. Nor have they usually been trained in organising
themselves politically. Increasing women’s rights and opportunities requires sociocultural and political
transformations and girls’ and women’s empowerment. This demands political motivation and cooperation. I see the
Netherlands playing an important role in this regard.

Political transformation is necessary for sustainable, equitable development, especially to attain MDGs three and
five. For example, our embassy in Guatemala is investing in expanding women’s role in local government as a
means of improving their sexual and reproductive rights and health. Women are often members of local committees,
especially those related to healthcare issues. Their goal is better hygiene in childbirth and better medical
instruments. Committees are represented in community councils which set priorities for the community. The
community councils are in turn represented in municipal councils, where the financial decisions are taken. Dutch
support is helping women in the committees not only with training in their particular field but also in having a say at
different levels of government. Learning better meeting and negotiating skills strengthens these women’s position in
their communities and in government. This leads to enduring gains for women’s reproductive health and rights.

Macedonia decided last year that women will occupy a third of the seats in parliament. At the same time, it is also
important for those in power – women and men alike – say what really needs to be said. This too is part of
deepening democracy.

The international dimension

Ladies and gentlemen,

We cannot talk about democracy and development without discussing the international political climate in which we
work. After all, that climate is far from perfectly democratic. There are unequal relations of power at
intergovernmental as well as local level. The international political arena is a domain of constant political
competition and negotiation. Geopolitical interests count for more in the world than development. There are tensions
between international agreements and national sovereignty. At international as at national level, crooks are
rewarded, and loyalty is a crucial informal factor.

Therefore efforts to deepen democracy at national level must be accompanied by efforts to democratise international
organisations, strengthen the international legal order and ensure more coherence between the words and actions of
non-state actors, countries and organisations. As an MP I endeavoured to increase the accountability and
transparency of the international financial institutions, particularly the World Bank. We need international
watchdogs here too – remember the Wolfowitz affair.

Serious efforts are needed to reach agreement about democracy and support for democratisation, for example within
the EU. I mean to work towards a European approach in this area.
We can also share our experiences and push for standards of governance in intergovernmental and other networks.
And we support also larger accountability of NGOs and businesses.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen,

I began by talking about the Netherlands, and mentioned the assessment of the state of Dutch democracy. The
Netherlands is not the only country that has made such an assessment. Until November 2006, Mongolia was chair of
the International Conference of New or Restored Democracies, and in that capacity it used IDEA’s methodology. It
then drew up an action plan to improve the quality of Mongolian democracy. This is an excellent way to show
commitment to democracy, not only in other countries but in one’s own.

Your discussion of democracy and development will continue. Clearly this is a topic with many sensitive aspects. I
am convinced, however, that we have to address the sensitive political points to make fundamental changes in the
world. At stake today is not only the functioning of other people’s democracy, but democratisation everywhere in
the world.

Bukan Mustahil Indonesia Jadi Negara Maju, Ini Syaratnya Kompas.com - 30/01/2019, 10:18 WIB BAGIKAN:
Komentar Ilustrasi Jakarta(Thinkstock) Penulis Ambaranie Nadia Kemala Movanita | Editor Sakina Rakhma Diah
Setiawan JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Menteri Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional (PPN)/Kepala Bappenas
Bambang Brodjonegoro memandang, bukan mustahil Indonesia naik kelas dari negara berkembang menjadi negara
maju. Caranya, dengan memanfaatkan bonus demografi yang hanya sekali dalam seumur hidup. Puncak bonus
demografi diperkirakan terjadi pada 2020-2025 yang ditandai dengan porsi masyarakat usia muda mendominasi
penduduk Indonesia. Saat itu, diperkirakan ada 174-180 juta penduduk usia produktif yang siap menggerakkan
ekonomi Indonesia. "Negara di Asia Timur memanfaatkan masa bonus demografi mereka yang mengangkat negara
mereka dari negara menengah, sekarang jadi negara maju. Kuncinya kemampuan manfaatkan bonus demogafi," ujar
Bambang di Jakarta, Selasa (29/1/2019). Baca juga: Manfaatkan Bonus Demografi, Ini Kunci Dorong Penciptaan
Lapangan Kerja Namun, bonus demografi juga harus dibarengi dengan produktivitas yang optimal. Oleh karena itu,
mulai sekarang, pemerintah menyusun rencana jangka panjang hingga 2045, yang hampir bersamaan dengan
berakhirnya masa bonus demografi di Indonesia. Bambang memastikan, hingga bonus demografi habis, tenaga kerja
muda yang produktif bisa dimanfaatkan dengan baik. Dampaknya ke depan yakni pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia
yang semakin kuat. Jika saja Indonesia mampu mempertahankan pertumbuhan ekonomi saat ini di angka 5,1 persen,
maka Indonesia bisa naik kelas. "Kalau mengikuti proyeksi, kalo Indonesia tumbuh 5,1 persen pertahun sampai
2040, maka Indonesia masuk kategori negara berpendapatan tinggi atau negara maju," kata Bambang. Baca juga:
Begini Cara Manfaatkan Bonus Demografi untuk Dongkrak Ekonomi Selain itu, yang harus dipikirkan ke depannya
adalah menyiapkan tenaga kerja dalam menghadapi revolusi industri 4.0 dan ekonomi digital, di mana manusia akan
bersaing dengan teknologi. Jika tak memiliki skill yang mumpuni, maka akan kalah saing dengan tenaga kerja
lainnya. Yang menjadi perhatian pemerintah saat ini adalah pelatihan vokasi. Belum banyak tenaga kerja yang
memenuhi kriteria pekerja yant dibutuhkan pencari kerja, sehingga yang terjadi begitu lapangan kerja baru dibuka,
tapi lowongannya terbatas. "Untuk membuka peluang kerja, kami dorong partisipasi pelaku usaha untuk membuka
lapangan kerja. Selain itu juga mendorong inevstasi dari entrepreneur, dan lain-lain," tutur Bambang.

Kondisi Negara-negara Berkembang Ini Lebih Parah dari Indonesia Kompas.com - 16/02/2016, 13:22 WIB
BAGIKAN: Komentar Ilustrasi ekonomi dan pertumbuhan(TOTO SIHONO) Penulis Sakina Rakhma Diah
Setiawan | EditorM Fajar Marta JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com — Indonesia menutup tahun 2015 dengan pertumbuhan
ekonomi sebesar 4,7 persen. Meski tidak terlalu tinggi, kondisi perekonomian Indonesia masih lebih baik
dibandingkan beberapa negara berkembang lainnya di dunia. Ekonom dari Universitas Gadjah Mada, A Tony
Prasetiantono, menjelaskan, ada beberapa negara berkembang yang terlilit masalah dalam perekonomiannya. Negara
mana saja yang dimaksud? Salah satunya adalah China. Menurut Tony, China mengalami penurunan daya saing
lantaran upah buruh yang meningkat. Hal ini biasa terjadi pada negara yang pertumbuhan ekonominya kuat sehingga
pendapatan per kapita ikut meningkat. Dengan demikian, upah pun akan meningkat. "Akhirnya, banyak perusahaan
di China mulai melakukan relokasi ke negara lain. Ini juga alasan mengapa Pemerintah China melakukan devaluasi
yuan, yang bertujuan meningkatkan daya saing ekspor," kata Tony di Jakarta, Senin (15/2/2016) malam. Selain upah
buruh yang meningkat, China juga mengalami masalah berkurangnya belanja pemerintah untuk menstimulus
perekonomian. Ini terjadi karena China sudah membangun apa pun sehingga akhirnya mencapai titik jenuh.
Dampaknya, China mencari proyek di luar negeri, seperti Indonesia, Iran, dan Thailand.

Negara Berkembang Belum Miliki Sistem Keuangan yang Sesuai Kebutuhan Kompas.com - 13/01/2017, 12:32 WIB
BAGIKAN: Komentar Ilustrasi(KOMPAS) Penulis Sakina Rakhma Diah Setiawan | EditorAprillia Ika JAKARTA,
KOMPAS.com - Lembaga konsultan internasional Pricewaterhouse Cooper (PwC) menyatakan tidak adanya sistem
keuangan yang efisien dan kuat masih menghambat proses pertumbuhan yang inklusif dan berkelanjutan di negara
berkembang. Hal ini berdasarkan laporan terkini PwC bertajuk 'Geared up for growth: Shaping a fit for purpose
financial system.' Bagi negara berkembang, mengembangkan sistem keuangan yang berfungsi dengan baik masih
menjadi komponen penting dalam upaya menghadapi kemiskinan dan mewujudkan pertumbuhan ekonomi yang
berkelanjutan dalam jangka panjang. PwC memandang, negara berkembang butuh infrastruktur keuangan yang kuat
dan luas agar dapat menyalurkan dana dengan efisien, menarik masyarakat dalam kegiatan ekonomi dan membuka
jalan agar mereka dapat merasakan manfaatnya. Dalam penelitian PwC, tujuh negara berkembang memiliki catatan
kinerja baik pada tingkat pinjaman sektor swasta yang telah diketahui secara luas sebagai mesin penggerak
pertumbuhan. Selain Brasil, sebaran perbankan, yakni selisih antara pinjaman bank dan tingkat simpanan di negara
berkembang terbilang rendah, sehingga meningkatkan kemampuan debitur untuk membayar utang. Sebagian besar
tujuh negara berkembang tersebut memiliki catatan kinerja baik adalah pengendalian skala sistem perbankan
mereka. Hanya skala sektor perbankan China dinilai dapat menimbulkan kekhawatiran sistemik. PwC meneliti
Afrika Selatan, Brasil, China, India, Indonesia, Meksiko, dan Nigeria. Dibandingkan negara berkembang lainnya,
China mengalami kesulitan terbesar dalam hal manajemen aset pensiun dan skala sistem perbankan. Bank-bank di
China menghadapi benturan saldo neraca yang membengkak yang mengkhawatirkan, tingkat utang perusahaan yang
tinggi, dan meningkatnya jumlah kebrangkutan dan gagal bayar. Adapun Indonesia memiliki kesenjangan tertentu
dalam hal inklusi keuangan dan fungsi sektor perumahan. Inovasi yang kuat disertai dukungan dari segi peraturan
terbukti menjadi penyebab majunya inklusi keuangan di India, dengan industri pembayaran yang cenderung
menonjol di antara negara berkembang lainnya dengan menggerakkan pertumbuhan pembayaran non tunai di atas
rata-rata. "Namun, manajemen aset pensiun dan penetrasi asuransi jiwa negara ini secara signifikan berada di bawah
target yang dapat disebut sehat," tulis PwC dalam laporannya yang diterima Kompas.com, Jumat (13/1/2017). Hugh
Harley, Pimpinan Riset Sistem Keuangan Negara Berkembang Global PwC meyakini pembuat kebijakan dan
perusahaan jasa keuangan harus lebih berperan aktif.  Yakni dalam membentuk sistem keuangan yang sesuai tujuan
memperkuat inklusi, investasi, akses kredit, dan dukungan bagi masyarakat ketika mereka pensiun, sementara
mempromosikan efisiensi dan melindungi dari risiko sistemik. "Pengembangan sistem keuangan ini tidak bersifat
organik atau pasif. Andalah yang membentuk perkembangan tersebut. Peraturan yang kuat dan penegakan penting
bagi sistem keuangan agar dapat berkembang, sehingga pembuat kebijakan di sektor pasar yang berbeda harus turun
tangan dan bekerja sama," ungkap Harley.

Ubah Indonesia Jadi Negara Maju, Ma'ruf Amin Ingin Contoh Perjuangan Rasul Kompas.com - 08/11/2019, 20:39
WIB BAGIKAN: Komentar Wakil Presiden Maruf Amin dalam sambutannya di acara peringatan Maulid Nabi
Muhammad Tahun 1441 H/2019 M, di Istana Negara, Jakarta, Jumat (8/11/2019). (KOMPAS.com/Ihsanuddin)
Penulis Ihsanuddin | Editor Icha Rastika JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Wakil Presiden Ma'ruf Amin menyebut Nabi
Muhammad SAW sebagai tokoh perubahan yang luar biasa. Ia berhasil mengubah masyarakat jahiliyah di zamannya
menjadi masyarakat yang terbaik. Hal tersebut disampaikan Ma'ruf dalam sambutannya pada acara peringatan
Maulid Nabi Muhammad Tahun 1441 H/2019 M, di Istana Negara, Jakarta, Jumat (8/11/2019). "Perubahan yg
dilakukan oleh Rasulullah super cepat, karena hanya dilakukan selama 23 tahun. Apa yang dicapai oleh rasul karena
memang beliau melakukan perubahan secara terus menerus, berkelanjutan," kata Ma'ruf. Ia menyebut Nabi
Muhammad melakukan perubahan dengan hati, akhlak yang baik, serta cara-cara yang santun. Oleh karena itu,
masyarakat mau mengikuti ajaran Nabi. "Perubahan yang dilakukan rasul adalah perubahan pada manusianya. Dari
akidah, cara berfikir, dan perilakunya. Semangat perubahan seperti rasul itu yang ingin kita contoh dan teladani,"
kata Ma'ruf. Menurut Ma'ruf perubahan dilakukan dalam rangka membangun indonesia, yang lebih baik, dari negara
yang berpendapatan menengah menjadi negara berpendapatan tinggi.  Mengubah Indonesia dari negara berkembang
menjadi Indonesia maju. "Indonesia maju tergantung manusianya. Oleh karena itu, maka pemerintah
memprioritaskan pembangunan SDM sebagai prioritas," kata dia. Menurut dia, pemerintah ingin membangun
manusia Indonesia yang unggul, sehat, cerdas, produktif, mempunyai daya saing, dan berakhlak baik. Oleh karena
itu, pemerintah membangun pelayanan kesehatan serta melakukan reformasi pendidikan, baik formal maupun
vokasi.  "Indonesia juga ingin mendorong lahirnya tenaga-tenaga yang produktif, bukan hanya bisa bekerja, tapi
juga menghasilkan pekerjaan yang besar, high impact," kata dia.

Jokowi: Tak Ada Negara Maju yang Tidak Bangun Infrastruktur Kompas.com - 13/04/2019, 16:25 WIB
BAGIKAN: Komentar Relawan dan simpatisan pasangan Capres dan Cawapres nomor urut 01 Joko Widodo - KH
Maruf Amin menghadiri Konser Putih Bersatu di Stadion Utama Gelora Bung Karno (GBK), Jakarta, Sabtu
(13/4/2019). Konser Putih Bersatu tersebut menjadi puncak dari kampanye akbar pasangan nomor urut 01 sebelum
memasuki masa tenang dan hari pemungutan suara (Pemilu) serentak pada Rabu, 17 April 2019 mendatang.
(ANTARA FOTO/MUHAMMAD ADIMAJA) Penulis Dani Prabowo | Editor Hilda B Alexander JAKARTA,
KOMPAS.com - Calon presiden nomor urut 01, Joko Widodo (Jokowi) kembali menegaskan, pentingnya
pembangunan infrastruktur di hadapan massa pendukungnya yang memadati Stadion Utama Gelora Bung Karno,
Senayan, Sabtu (13/4/2019) sore. "Tidak ada satu pun negara maju yang tidak bangun infrastruktur," kata Jokowi.
Dalam pidato politiknya, ia menekankan, setiap negara maju pasti memiliki infrastruktur yang baik. Karena itu
selama masa pemerintahannya, kandidat petahana tersebut, selalu melakukan pembangunan infrastruktur. Selain itu,
Jokowi menambahkan, negara yang maju juga pasti akan memiliki sumber daya manusia yang unggul. "Oleh sebab
itu kita slelau dalam lima tahun ini berkonsentrasi dalam pembangunan infrastruktur, dan lima tahun ke depan kita
konsentrasi pada pembangunan kualitas SDM," kata Jokowi. Lebih jauh, Jokowi menegaskan, pentingnya
optimisme dalam memimpin sebuah negara. Terlebih negara besar seperti Indonesia yang dihuni lebih dari 269 juta
penduduk. Optimisme diperlukan untuk menghadapi segala rintangan dan tantangan yang akan terjadi di masa
depan. "Jangan sampai kita merasa pesimistis, jangan sampai kita merasa rendah, karena negara ini negara besar.
Kita negara besar, bangsa besar yang memiliki masa depan yang lebih baik," tuntasnya.  

Wiranto: Syarat Negara Maju, 14 Persen Warganya Wirausahawan Ko mpas.com - 08/04/2019, 16:59 WIB
BAGIKAN: Komentar Menteri Koordinator Bidang Politik, Hukum, dan Keamanan (Menko Polhukam) Wiranto
saat di Hotel JS Luwansa, Jakarta Selatan, Senin (8/4/2019). (CHRISTOFORUS RISTIANTO/KOMPAS.com)
Penulis Christoforus Ristianto | Editor Diamanty Meiliana JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - Menteri Koordinator
Bidang Politik, Hukum, dan Keamanan (Menko Polhukam) Wiranto mengatakan, pemerintah akan terus menggenjot
masyarakat Indonesia untuk menjadi wirausahawan. Menurutnya, persyaratan untuk menjadi negara yang maju yaitu
salah satunya ada 14 persen dari total warga negara yang menjadi wirausahawan. "Kalau negara ingin maju, maka
pelaku wirausahawan harus lebih dari 14 persen. Banyak negara maju dan memang jumlah rasio penduduknya itu
sekitar 14 persen jadi wirausahawan. Tapi di Indonesia saat ini masih 3,1 persen jumlah wirausahawannya," ujar
Wiranto dalam acara penyerahan sertifikat hak kekayaan intelektual (HKI) di hotel JS Luwansa, Jakarta Selatan,
Senin 8/4/2019). Baca juga: Dorong Santri Jadi Wirausahawan, Kemenperin Berikan Mesin Pembuat Roti ke
Pesantren   Ia menambahkan, Presiden Joko Widodo berulang kali memberikan pengarahan bahwa pemerintah harus
mempercepat dan memudahkan pelaku ekonomi kreatif di Indonesia. Jumlah wirausahawan diyakini bisa meningkat
jauh dari 3,1 persen menjadi 14 persen dan mampu memenuhi persyaratan sebagai negara maju. Misi pemerintah,
lanjutnya seperti yang ada di Undang-Undang Dasar 1945, seperti memajukan kesejahteraan umum dan
mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa sangat erat kaitanya dengan membangun kesejahteraan ekonomi. Baca juga:
Sandiaga Dorong Generasi Milenial jadi Wirausahawan Sosial   "Maka dari itu, pemerintah menunjang sekali
kebutuhan pelaku ekonomi kreatif di Indonesia untuk berkembang menjadi wirausahawan," ungkapnya kemudian.
Guna melindungi para pelaku ekonomi kreatif dan wirausahawan, seperti diungkapkan Wiranto, pemerintah sudah
menggalakan tim siber pungli di bidang HKI. Diakuinya, masih banyak wirausahawan yang mendapat pungli di
daerah-daerah untuk bisa mendapatkan sertifikasi HKI. Baca juga: 3 Konsep Wirausahawan Muslim di Era Digital  
"Ternyata di daerah-daerah masih banyak pungli kepada wirausahawan. Pemerintah sudah melakukan operasi
tangkap tangan terhadap ribuan pelaku pungli," tegasnya. Ia berharap, dengan dimudahkanya wirausahawan
memiliki sertifikasi HKI akan produk dan jasanya, maka jumlah wiruasahawan akan meningkat. "Saya yakin,
setapak demi setapak, Indonesia akan mencapai persyaratan menjadi negara maju dengan 14 persen masyarakatnya
menjadi wirausahawan," pungkasnya.

Sri Mulyani: Soal Unicorn di ASEAN, Indonesia Dianggap Negara Maju... Kompas.com - 18/02/2019, 14:58 WIB
BAGIKAN: Komentar Menteri Keuangan Sri Mulyani di Kantor Kementerian Keuangan, Jakarta, Selasa
(29/1/2019)(Dok Biro KLI Kemenkeu ) Penulis Yoga Sukmana | Editor Bambang Priyo Jatmiko JAKARTA,
KOMPAS.com - Menteri Keuangan Sri Mulyani mengungkapkan, Indonesia sudah sangat dipandang oleh negara
lain dalam hal penciptaan Unicorn, start-up atau perusahaan rintisan yang bernilai di atas 1 miliar dollar AS. Hal itu
ia sampaikan saat ditanya oleh wartawan terkait dukungan Kementerian Keuangan kepada para para Unicorn
Indonesia yang juga menjadi pembahasan di debat Pilpres. "Untuk Indoneia kita bisa menghasilkan Unicorn yang
cukup banyak itu adalah termasuk exceptional," ujarnya di Kantor Kementerian Keuangan, Jalarta, Senin
(18/2/2019). "Untuk negara di ASEAN pun kita sudah dianggap suatu negara yang maju (dalam hal Unicorn),"
sambungnya. Saat ini dari 7 Unicorn asal Asia Tenggara, 4 di antaranya berasal dari Indonesia. Mereka adalah Go-
Jek, Tokopedia, Bukalapak, dan Traveloka. Menurut mantan Direktur Pelaksana Bank Dunia itu, perkembangan
Unicorn di Indonesia merupakan bukti kreativitas dan inovasi anak-anak muda Indonesia. Oleh karena itu, Sri
Mulyani menilai perlu adanya upaya untuk terus memperbaiki ekosistem start up di Indonesia, termasuk dari sisi
perpajakan. Hal ini penting agar ke depan Unicorn Indonesia terus bertambah. "Kami akan lihat termasuk masalah
perpajakan dalam hal ini kami bersama-sama dengan para industri pelaku Unicorn-nya sendiri untuk bisa lihat
sebetulnya kebutuhannya seperti apa mereka," kata dia