Riding the Third Wave of Democracy

Best Practice Transfers to Moldova and Ukraine

office@ganes.ro

www.ganes.ro

May 2014

The Third Wave of Democratization

• 1991: Samuel Huntington published the volume “The Third Wave:Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century”

• First Wave: early 19th century, Jacksonian Democracy

• Second Wave: Victory of the West in the Second World War

• Third Wave: Carnation Revolution, Latin America, Asia Pacific, EasternEurope

• EU Eastern Neighborhood: Possible Wave 3.5?

New EU Members vs. Eastern Partnership

• In 2004, 8 Central and Eastern European states were admitted to the EU, with 2 more tofollow in 2007.

• These countries have achieved remarkable transitions from state-planned to marketeconomy and from communism to democracy.

• They were heterogeneous at the outset of their transitions and their progress reflectedto a significant extent their different starting points.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Austria Czechoslovakia Hungary Poland Romania USSR (all) Moldavian SSR

GDP/Capita in CEE in 1990: A Mixed Picture

Lessons from transition

• But: relative poverty and rigidity of governing regime at fall of Iron Curtainis only secondary predictor of success in reform and economic growth.

• Lesson from transition: progress is most substantial where policies arerule-based and transparent.

• The border between New EU Member States and Eastern Partnership isborne from geopolitics rather than from structural (objective) conditions.

Poland and Ukraine

• “There can be no free Poland without a free Ukraine”

• First country to recognize Ukrainian independence (1991)

• Leading promoter of the Eastern Partnership framework

• 2012 European Championship

• Sikorski’s involvement in solving the Euromaidan crisis.

Polish Aid and Solidarity Fund21 Programs in 2013 undertaken according to following priorities:

• Public security and border management (4 projects – PLN 0.62 mln)

• Institutional capability building in areas like public safety, crisismanagement and environmental protection.

• Regional development and public administration capacity building (9projects – PLN 2.42 mln).

• Strengthening of local government in modern public utility servicesmanagement, real estate management and energy saving.

• Small and medium enterprises and creation of new jobs (8 projects – PLN2.56 mln)

Polish Aid and Solidarity Fund

Supporting democratic processes – priority area.

Activities:

• supporting democracy and good governance, including civil society participation;• strengthening rule of law, promoting human rights protection;• promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women;• ensuring better access to information, including stronger independent media and more

effective social control of the media;• supporting pro-democracy institutions, activists and movements;• strengthening civil society organizations;• developing local governments;• improving access to high-quality education and civic education;

Polish Flagship Initiatives

European Endowment for Democracy (END)

• EU-wide initiative spearheaded by Poland in 2011 as response to Arab Spring. • Adoption in 2012 by EU Institutions• Start of operations mid-August 2013. • Aims to support democratization processes and build civil society.• Targets web and social media activists and independent journalists who cannot seek

help from the EU and other donors.

Community of Democracies

• Coalition of over one hundred countries whose mission is to promote democraticprinciples and strengthen democratic norms and institutions.

• Established during an international conference in Warsaw in 2000 on the initiative ofPolish Foreign Minister Prof. Bronisław Geremek and US Secretary of State Madeleine

Albright

Polish Flagship Initiatives

Solidarity Fund

• Polish State Treasury foundation set up in 2001 on the initiative of Poland’s Presidentand reactivated in 2011.

• The Fund may carry out tasks in a country in a special political situation.• The Fund is tasked with supporting democratization processes, in particular by building

democratic competences of young opinion makers, assisting leaders of systemictransformation and civic organizations.

• Its principal areas of operation are Eastern Partnership countries (with special emphasison Belarus)

Romania and Moldova

A challenging context

• Polarized society• Fragile balance of power• Relative dependence on Russian markets for exports• Relatively high number of expatriate workers in Russia (300 K, 36% of remittances in 2013)

Recommended approach: Three-prong assistance process

• Institution strengthening and enhancing rule of law• Mitigate dependence on Moscow: e.g. Transnistria power plant, gas, export market• Delivering real results for people on the ground: roads, electricity, schools, kindergartens etc.

An Excellent Track Record

Development Assistance to Moldova

Since 2007, Moldova has become the number one priority of Romanian ODA.

The Romanian MFA allocated 800,000 Euros in 2007 for projects that envisaged socialdevelopment, public administration support, support for civil society organizations, drinkingwater supply systems in rural areas.

Romania’s sectorial priorities in Moldova:

• Good governance; • Strengthening democracy and the rule of law; • Agriculture and sustainable economic development; • Environmental protection; • Education and employment; • Health

Romania and Moldova: ODA

• Scholarship policy for Moldovan students. 5000 scholarships are offeredyearly (6,000 in 2013)

• Romania’s image as a donor in Republic of Moldova was affected by thelack of coherency in the management of the 100 million Euro grant thatPresident Basescu announced in 2010.

• Since 2011, part of the money were directed towards large investmentsprojects (e.g., the partial financing of the gas pipeline Iasi - Ungheni) butthe two ministries for regional development managing the fund remainedunable to identify and finance the type of interventions that were initiallyenvisaged.

Anticorruption and Institution Building

• Key area of support, as Romania itself has been struggling with need tostrengthen rule of law and fight corruption

• In Romania, two institutions were paramount and have of late becomeEU-wide best practices:• National Integrity Agency. Preventive anti-corruption treatment. Estd.

2007.• National Anticorruption Directorate.

• Transposing these institutional best practices to the Republic of Moldovais a significant contribution toward strengthening Chisinau’s democraticrecord.

Developments in Moldova

• Reform of the National Anticorruption Center

• Creation of the National Integrity Commission• implementation of legislation with regard to statements of assets and

conflicts of interest)• Modeled after the National Integrity Agency in Romania albeit with

less legislative leverage and weaker protection against politicalintrusion.

• Regular working visits between Romanian and Moldovan institutions

Developments in Moldova

Impact of new institutions: immunity ≠ impunity!

• The professional evaluation of 469 judges began in October 2013. • 450 positions of assistant to judge and 50 positions of court managers

have been created to assist magistrates in their daily work. • A new concept for reforming the prosecutors’ office was unveiled in

November with legislative amendments scheduled for adoption in spring 2014.

• Assets of 90,000 public servants scrutinized• MPs, judges and ministers investigated for concealing assets. • two judges detained on corruption charges and five other removed by

Superior Council of Magistracy for low integrity records. • Several criminal investigations against judges.

Developments in Moldova

Progress should not be taken for granted.

Investigations – Indictments – Sentencing

Romania shows that first high level sentencing is real turning point.

Conclusions

• Rules-based policies critical for explaining progress of transitioncountries.

• New EU Member States are valuable vehicles for allowing leapfrogof EaP countries.

• Poland: significant policy planning capabilities, vision and muscle.Welcome reliance on links with civil society.

• Romania: need for more cohesion in terms of policy formulationand follow-up. But useful institutional models for Moldova in keyareas.

Thank you for your attention.