|
|
|
  |
| AsiaViews, Edition: 03/VII/April2010 |
|
| Kim Campbell: “Democracy doesn’t happen overnight” |
HUNDREDS of activists, politicians and academics gathered in Jakarta last week to participate in the World Movement for Democracy (WMD) conference. Initiated by the National Endowment for Democracy, the WMD is global network with the object to build and sustain democracy. Since its establishment, this movement has expanded to become a dynamic network of networks. Its members meet regularly to share knowledge and experiences. They maintain communication through the use of the latest technology thus maintaining cross-border solidarity for democracy.
The chairperson of the WMD is Avril Phaedra Douglas Campbell, a Canadian politician. She is the first woman to become Prime Minister of Canada. She once held the portfolio of the minister of defense, justice and attorney general and led the Canadian Progressive Conservative Party.
During the WMD conference at the Shangri-la Hotel in Jakarta, Campbell set aside some time to meet with Tempo journalists Hermien Y. Kleden, Nugroho Dewanto, Ninin Damayanti, Sadika Hamid and photographer Arnold Simanjuntak. During the interview, she stressed that democracy was not an instant phenomenon and that it was not “an effort that can be completed overnight,” even in the developed countries. Excerpts:
When he opened the WMD conference, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said that money politics endangered democracy. Does money politics happen only in developing countries, or can it also happen in developed societies?
I don't think money politics is limited to the level of development. In Canada, for instance, we have public financing for campaigns and we have a limit on campaign spending. So, you could get into trouble if you spend more than the limit you’re allowed, but you also get some money back after the campaigns. Now a parliamentary system is a little different because the whole party campaigns, it is a little bit easier to limit individual candidates. But in the United States, there is a huge amount of money. In fact, American members of Congress spend a lot of their time raising money which to me is a terrible loss to their constituents.
How terrible a loss can that be, in your view?
Instead of doing the business of government, they are on the phone, asking people for money. I think this is terrible. If you could have public financing for campaigns and limit how much people can spend, then they can have free access to the media, get equal air time on television and radio. In that way, we can try to make it fair. We try to keep money from being the main determinant of an election campaign.
Have you had to face instances of money politics? If so, how did you handle it?
When I was young, lobbying was not legal in Canada. Then we changed the laws to allow lobbying, because it was very clear that all groups have a right to try to influence legislators. But we have a law that requires lobbyists to register. And I think that helps a great deal. We have very strict laws about getting benefit from anybody who tries to influence public policy. Our laws are also very strict about using public office in any way for financial benefit. I think Canada has a pretty clean political system.
In our country, on the other hand, facts seem to indicate that the red line between lobbying and bribing is very thin.
In Canada, if you were to ask someone for money to do something, they will be offended. Once lobbying became legal, there were limits. You cannot do any lobbying for at least two years after you have been working for the government.
So, what would be the main challenge in governing a country like Canada? In our country, the biggest challenge is money politics and corruption, which seem to have become a common practice.
Keeping the integrity of politics is something that always requires work. You never do it and never have to think about it anymore. A political leader has to make sure that his or her colleagues, that people that are in your caucus or your party all behave properly. And if I just narrow the Canadian government, there has been a bit of a scandal, involving a woman minister in the government who has since stepped down. Her husband was member of parliament. He was supposedly promising to give access to the prime minister’s office. This was a terrible scandal and unacceptable. And you just have to deal with it.
According to your experience in the World Movement for Democracy, what steps should be taken by a developing as well as a developed country to improve democracy?
The WMD is a very interesting organization. It is a network of networks. People who come here represent their own countries’ network of activists, politicians, activists, journalists, academics. What they represent is quite remarkable. And they come together to share experiences, how to provide solidarity for one another and mutual encouragement and support. But I think the most important thing is for us to maintain our commitment to democracy.
What do you think is the most important achievement of the WMD?
The WMD is a kind of an umbrella organization that the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington supports. We provide some technical training, opportunity to be able to learn some new skill. I just was at the launching of a wonderful manual, a ‘how to’ manual for women in politics. There’s a lot of manuals of how to do politics, but this is one that the Women’s Learning Partnership has created that really helps women develop their thinking about politics and learn on how to get involved in the political system. So this is also a place where people come together to support one another and give solidarity.
Let’s look at another example—China. Many people say that without democracy, China is able to develop its economy.
People say, “Look at China’s economic growth, maybe that authoritarian model really works, so why do we need democracy?” It is true that the ability to make central decisions in some ways is helpful. But we know from the experience of the communist world that a commanded economy is wasteful and does not work. The recent disaster in China brings home the fact that safety standards in Chinese industry are terrible.
They may have this very fast growth, but at some point, it has the danger of imploding because they don’t have the structure of laws and rules to protect people and to make sure that people are not exporting things that are dangerous and which could destroy the credibility of Chinese products.
Our former Vice President Jusuf Kalla once said that the West pushes Indonesia to become democratic, but they invest their money in undemocratic China.
I think part of it was the view that the only way to lure China into the world of democracy was through its economy. When Deng Xiaoping decided to bring market economy to China that was a big thing. There was a lot of opposition because it was a very un-communist thing to do. And in the West, we felt that if we engaged with China economically, the Chinese would have to play by international rules. So we kind of infiltrated our rule of law, our standards, the expectations that we have, of how companies behave economically, through the economy.
What would be the best way for the government to go to ensure that Indonesia becomes more democratic?
Your president said that Indonesia needs to establish the rule of law, that this was something that really needed to be consolidated and made to function really, really well. The other thing that I would say is that even long-standing democracies have challenges and problems. You look at the United States now, their Congress has become very polarized. So, there is never a time when you go to bed and you pull the covers over your head and say “we have solved all the problems, it’s all going to work out.”
So, in your opinion, what progress have we achieved in trying to democratize?
The President is proud of what has been accomplished here, but he recognizes that there is still much to be done. People used to say that Indonesia was “too complex to be democratic,” or that Islam and democracy could not coexist, or that you could not have modernization, that it would not work. Indonesia saw to it that none of that was true. Muslim majority society can move ahead economically, can move ahead in democracy. Economic growth and democracy do actually go together and that is very encouraging for the rest of us.
Thank you, but are you aware that many politicians in Indonesia have been arrested because of their involvement in corruption cases—which can destroy people’s trust and endanger democracy?
It seems that people who have been doing bad things and your tax people are involved. But the important thing is that they are being arrested and prosecuted. And you have to send the message that it is not OK to do that anymore. Of course, we need a lot more time.
Yes, that message has been sent out, even through the corruptors who are now being detained and tried.
There is corruption in all levels of government, but the point is do you get away with it? Is that something that people accept, or is that something from the top, with the leadership saying “Sorry, this is not OK.” You may be a very important person, but you are not above the law. That is what the rule of law is all about.
Many Indonesians tend to trust one person to be the leader, rather than a party. What do you think?
I was very impressed by your president, who won 60 percent of the vote in the elections. He said that a political party should not be focused on a particular leader, that they should be focused on ideas. And again, these are cultures that don’t change overnight. The point is that every society has the kind of culture of power. There are people who are expected to be leaders because their father was a leader or they come from a family of leaders.
You were the first woman Prime Minister in Canada, though you were in power for a short time. Do you feel pride or disappointment at this?
I was elected leader of my party. When I was prime minister I had the highest approval rating for a prime minister in 30 years in the polls. I was able to do some things, important things while I was prime minister. I redesigned some ministries of the government, hosted a very successful G-7 summit and other achievements. A new leader needs time to show how different she or he can be. But I am happy having been the first woman prime minister.
If money, politics and the media were to be concentrated in one hand, in your view, would that create problems in a democracy?
In Italy, for example, it happened with Berlusconi. At the end of the day the people have to decide, whether they want to put up with this. Whether they want to allow somebody to manipulate the media and be in control and use money to hang in then it will be very costly for them. So the downside of democracy is that sometimes voters are not necessarily wise. In the long run, if the rule of law continues to function then even if you don’t get the greatest leader all the time, the country will still function. In Canada we have laws against concentration of media ownership.
How do you see the media in a democracy?
At the end of the day people matter, that is why what you do matters. People know what’s going on, they are knowledgeable, well-informed about public issues, and they know whether the press is truly free, whether they feel they can criticize, whether you can build a culture of journalism that is not afraid to be critical but that also is not cynical, where people understand the importance of telling the truth, but also the importance of respecting when things go well, and helping people to have a sense of faith and confidence in their government, if that’s appropriate. But cynicism is a terrible thing in a democracy, even if people say it does not matter.
So, what is your recommendation?
You have to be constructive and critical as a journalist. You have to try and have a clear view and say as much as you can and push to be able to say everything you think needs to be said. For a journalist the big ethical question is not how much you write about a politician’s personal life but understanding your own predisposition, prejudices and stereotypes because your interpretation is important. I think your big challenge is to try to understand what biases you might bring to something and try to get beyond them, to give the public something because they are part of a democratic future.
Avril Phaedra Douglas Campbell
Place & Date of Birth
Alberni Port, British Columbia, Canada, March 10, 1947
Education
- British Columbia University (BA)
- British Columbia University (LLB)
- Harvard University
Political Affiliations
- Social Credit Party
- Progressive Conservative Party
Political Career
- Member, British Columbia Legislative Council (1986)
- Member, House of Commons (1988)
- State Minister for Indian Affairs and Northern Territories Development (1989)
- Justice Minister and Attorney General (1990)
- Minister of National Defense and Veterans’ Affairs (1993)
- Leader, Canadian Progressive Conservative Party (1993)
- Prime Minister (1993 for 4 months)
- Consul General in Los Angeles (1996)
Organizations
- Former Chairperson, World Women’s Leaders Council
- Former President, International Women’s Forum
- Secretary-General, Club of Madrid
- Member, Advisory Council of the Foundation for Effective Governance
- Member and Advisor of a number of international organizations |
|
| By Hermien Y. Kleden, Nugroho Dewanto, Ninin Damayant |
|
| Tempo, No. 34/XI/21-27 April 2010 |
|
|
Your Letters | 
About Us | 
Contact Us 
