‘Three giants steps’ for a new birth of freedom

Recently I was privileged to speak at the 8th Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy in Seoul, Korea. The conference – “Empowering Civil Society for Democracy and Its Renewal” – was a moving demonstration of the truly universal nature of human rights and of the bonds that unite all of us devoted to those fundamental principles. We are at a critical juncture in the pursuit of liberty and democracy.  Throughout much of the world, the modest progress we had seen in earlier years toward greater respect for human rights has halted in a number of dictatorships. And in too many places, prior progress is replaced by a resurgence of authoritarianism.

At the same time, increasing global economic interdependence leads countries previously outspoken in defense of human rights and democratic values, to be much less critical of countries that violate them – for fear of upsetting countries with whom they wish to do business or from whom they seek financial aid. They assure their public and press that such issues were raised in bilateral diplomacy, but behind closed doors, not in open condemnation of the most brutal repression. That has precious little impact. Reluctance to openly raise human rights issues has intensified because of worldwide concern about terrorists. That is not surprising, especially after recent events like the brutal attack in Paris and the aircraft downing in Egypt. Seeking allies and cooperation in the fight against such terrorism, nations hesitate to insist that potential allies reform their repressive practices.

I can appreciate a country’s concerns about their commercial and national security interests. Nonetheless, we must continue to fight for freedom and constantly remind officials in all democracies, that terrible repression of human rights persists; that it is not confined to Jihadist extremists; and that it needs to be addressed. How can we do this? I have three distinct, but related suggestions.

I propose that we build on the well-known Freedom House Index of Freedom in the World, which annually rates countries on their upholding political rights and civil liberties for their citizens. Each country is assigned two numerical ratings-from 1 to 7-for political rights and civil liberties, with 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free. These annual ratings of a nation’s civil liberties are the standard used by policymakers, scholars, journalists, and human rights defenders to track improvements and setbacks in freedom worldwide. I propose that the entire international community of human rights advocates all work together in establishing an international authoritative mechanism to produce a second, parallel rating system, which would rank democratic countries on the basis of efforts they make, in public as well as privately, to use all their influence and leverage to promote political rights and civil liberties in other nations. time of the world’s real democracies. We could call it the “Freedom House Index of Nations’ Effort to Promote Freedom.”

We could then use such a new index to encourage our respective countries to improve their ranking on this new index by strengthening their support for liberty in those nations whom Freedom House has already ranked as the worst abusers of human rights. To do that most effectively, however, an additional step is necessary. I also propose that we seek to enact laws in major democratic countries which would officially recognize that growing democracy and human rights in dictatorships is not simply the moral thing to do, but also is in the national interest of our own nations. There are several reasons why this is so: First, creating avenues for peaceful political redress of grievances, lessens the likelihood of violence and extremism that could easily spill beyond a nation’s border; Second, it lessens the likelihood the nation will attack other countries because (a) it decreases the leaders’ need to use wars to distract citizens from harsh domestic rule; and (b) it permits public voices to challenge a decision to start wars. Third, nations that consistently deny their citizens rights guaranteed by its own laws and constitution are also less likely to honor international norms, its international agreements and commitment.

Such legislation would not only recognize a democracy’s advancing democratic values in nations without them is in its national interest. The legislation should also require a democratic government to annually report to its legislature and to its citizens the how it has advanced human rights and democracy in the countries ranked near the bottom of the Freedom House “Index of Freedom in the World.”

While these two proposals are distinct they clearly would create great synergy operating together. Indeed, I am tempted to go even a step further.

This last point reflects the thoughtful suggestion that Jesus Estanislao, former Philippines Minister of Finance, made at the Seoul conference. He urged us to seek expanded liberty through the combined reform efforts of governments, civil society, and the business community. He used recent Philippines history as an illustration of how such a coalition can maximize pressure to instill civil liberties. He was persuasive and I was convinced that the optimal approach to increasing the liberties available to those now oppressed would be to increase the combined involvement of governments, civil societies and business communities in that effort. That has led me to consider another proposal that would be a way to enlist the private business and the dynamic of market economies.

The international human rights community, drawing on existing official statistics could approach some of the largest multinational corporations doing business in countries that ranked low on Freedom House’s Index of Freedom in the World. We could prevail upon them to use their economic leverage, as part of the triumvirate with civil society NGO’s and reform-minded government officials, to press for human rights reforms in a targeted nation. At first blush this might seem at odds with companies’ business motives to maximize profitable engagement with that nation. We would convince them that, in fact, it would be in their long run interest, not only as the moral course and as beneficial “institutional advertising,” but also because institutionalized respect for rule of law and secure rights would enable them to invest in the target country with sufficient confidence they will be treated fairly and their business venture can succeed.

To paraphrase astronaut Neil Armstrong, if we could realize each of these proposals, we would indeed be taking “three giant steps” for freedom and for all mankind.