Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, June 2022

On the last day of the Civil Society Forum, civil society organizations (CSOs) had an opportunity to present their views to senior government officials. In a keynote, Samantha Power, USAID Administrator, emphasized the value and importance of the work of civil society. She called for CSOs to be more willing to partner with the business community in their work, for example, against corruption. She did not address problems that the alignment of civil society and business can create.

Luis Almagro kicked off the dialogue between government officials and CSOs, stressing the vital role civil society as “the voice of those who don’t have any voice.” He stressed that Summits have “new participatory spaces to connect with actors, allowing better collaboration between citizens and government.” This, he suggested, improves the work of the Summits, gives more legitimacy to the process, and expands its “representativeness,” and helps ensure governments make decisions that better reflect citizens’ needs.

The podium was then handed over to three government representatives: Antony Blinken, US Secretary of State; Mélanie Joly, Canada’s Foreign Minister; and Erika Mouynes, Foreign Minister of Panama. Three civil society participants who had worked on the preparation of the CSO document also took to the podium. They were: Gale Mohammed-Oxley, who has an educational NGO in Trinidad and Tobago; Adela Panezo Asprilla, of the Centro Familiar Afro Staneño in Panama, which is an NGO that raises awareness (concienciación) about human rights and racial and ethnic diversity; and Vanessa Neumann, President of Asymmetrica, a political risk and anti-corruption consultancy. The format of the dialogue, which can be watched in full here, was intended not to allow speakers to interact with the audience, but to have a more fluid conversation symbolizing the exchange of ideas between CSOs and government.

First, Vanessa Neumann, a Venezuelan who served as Juan Guaidó’s envoy to the UK, presented the results of the discussion among CSO leaders. She read a statement that began by expressing concern about the “degradation” of democracy in the region, the rise of authoritarian leaders, structural inequalities, and restrictive and regressive human rights policies. The statement condemned the dictatorships in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela and called for the elimination of political violence and liberation of political prisoners. It also condemned populism generally, for dismantling democratic institutions, and singled out the Foro de Sao Paulo and the Grupo de Puebla, as well as Cuban interference, for special criticism.

The statement opted to identify specific vulnerable groups for special attention, which meant reading a long list of vulnerable and marginalized communities in which the LGBTQ+ community figured explicitly. Clearly resistance to talking about this dimension of diversity was overcome, which, sadly, did not happen in the meeting of the leaders (see my next post). The statement also emphasized a wide range of human rights abuses that demand attention. It called for greater independence in the judiciary and access for justice, and denounced the capture of the state by organized crime. The problem of corruption was linked to the need for character and good values.

There was, notably, no mention of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. When Secretary Blinken was asked to respond, the first thing he said was that all the democratic principles mentioned in the CSO statement were in the Democratic Charter, which should be “the foundational document for all of us.” Blinken was keen to emphasize the value of interactions with civil society: “This is what the Summit is all about” he said, meaning engagement of all stakeholders, business, labor, youth. “It will animate what we do.” We cannot get sustainable results unless we bring the stakeholders together, he argued. Minister Joly followed, highlighting the role of strong women leaders (some of whom she had met just prior to the dialogue). In terms of democracy, she spoke of Chile’s President Gabriel Boric as a shining light, but noted backsliding in the region due to three threats: authoritarian regimes and leaders on the world stage; democratic challenges at home; and online misinformation and disinformation.

The two other civil society representatives then had a chance to respond. Panezo asked how leaders would follow-up and implement Summit commitments? Mohammed-Oxley complained about being “a part of but apart from” the SOA. Noting that they are not practicing politicians, and it is “not part of our culture to fight or oppose,” how, they asked, can we partner to implement these commitments? This highlighted a bit of a divergence between the CSOs who seek more meaningful participation and officials who seek CSOs more in terms of accountability. Minister Joly’s answer nicely reflected this by noting her dual rule as elected official and member of the cabinet. As a cabinet official she has to work to get things done, but she also has to get elected in her riding. Blinken’s response was a little different. He called for better connectivity with stakeholders who need to be willing to participate in the process, but again emphasized accountability by suggesting there should be a report card on SOA progress.

Neumann attempted to bringi pressure to bear on the leaders by asking for concrete measures to fight corruption. While this was a valiant attempt to exercise accountability, it would have been more effective had civil society generated more specific proposals and then demanded agreement from the leaders. The leaders had no difficulty offering solutions. Minister Joly recommended an international anti-corruption tribunal. Blinken argued for protecting journalists and watchdogs, working with the UN, and sanctioning corrupt officials.

The CSOs might have been more effective in holding governments accountable had the overall process been better structured. As one participant noted, the loudest voices in room where the CSOs deliberated were not necessarily those who had been the most active participants in the process prior to coming to Los Angeles, nor were they those with the best access to the documents as they were drafted. CSOs are highly diverse, yet governments tend to think they can work well together, or at least that was the view of this participant. Effective CSO action requires building relationships and trust. Without a well-designed process, vague declarations that are less helpful to governments are more likely to result.

Today the Working Group on Democratic Governance met to hash out a statement to be read tomorrow in the “Dialogue Between Civil Society, Social Actors, and High-Level Government Representatives.”We were informed that three different subregional civil society groups had worked independently since March to produce drafts that were integrated into one document. That integrated text was presented at this meeting. The goal of the meeting was, ostensibly, to finalize the text, but it quickly became clear that it would be difficult, given the format, for changes to be introduced at this late stage in the process. This led to further complaints about the process.

After the statement was read, there was an immediate objection to the lack of any reference to sexual orientation and gender identity and this, it was implied, was not an accident. Speakers argued that it was necessary to discuss the lack of economic inclusion of women, Afro-descendent communities, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ groups. A working group spokespersons suggested that there was still time for inclusion of such items, but another spokesperson said these issues were outside the remit of the working group. (Interestingly, sources I spoke with indicated that the issue of gender–the definition of “woman”–had emerged as a stumbling block among government leaders in their deliberations as well).

A further obstacle to the inclusion of gender identity and expression in the civil society statement arose in relation to whether it made sense to list marginalized groups. Some argued that any attempt to reference one group would necessarily exclude another, and thus inclusion of  a specific group facing discrimination should be supported by references to international humanitarian law. An example was used that seemed persuasive to some members of the working group: if you highlight the situation of journalists in repressive contexts, you could be seen as overlooking the problem of assaults on academics (in Nicaragua, it was noted, 12 universities have been closed). The decision about who should be listed should be based on human rights law. It struck me as interesting that LGBTQ+ rights in this context were considered more of a matter of cultural difference than universalistic human rights.

Another topic of considerable contention was whether to list (that is, “name and shame”) dictatorships. There was great clarity with respect to the non-democratic status of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, perhaps because civil society groups from these countries were either well represented or especially vocal, but perhaps also because it is clear that they are in their own category. There is much backsliding in the region, but these three countries do not meet the most minimal standards of democracy. Speaker after speaker made it clear that they felt that the situation of human rights in each of these three countries was notoriously bad, whether in terms of numbers of political prisoners, the use of torture, silencing of dissent and persecution of civil society. Some of the rhetoric was frankly anti-leftist (“The Foro of Sao Paulo wants to end democracy and establish totalitarianism in Latin America” said one) or even conspiratorial (another speaker claimed Russian vaccines were killing people in Venezuela, which caused some eye rolling) but in general participants insisted the issue was not ideology so much as dictatorial practices that would be inadmissible in any regime.  Thus, participants overwhelmingly supported the exclusion of these three countries from the Summit and asked them to be named directly.

For some reason, which I could not really grasp, this seemed to cause considerable difficulty. It may simply have been that there were too many cooks in the kitchen for anyone to come up with a solution that everyone could accept, but there were also challenges in adhering to the speakers’ list, following rules of order, and maintaining decorum. Indeed, at times, it was unclear who was chairing the meeting or whether anyone was chairing at all, and at the end the meeting degenerated into chaos and yelling and a few insults. That said, there were also moments of genuine passion, including heart-rending speeches by a Nicaraguan mother whose son was killed in protests, a former prisoner, also from Nicaragua, and an audio recording from the child of a political dissident in Cuba.

Most of the dialogue focused on human rights issues, with, initially, few if any references to the Democratic Charter. One participant talked about the need to protect electoral institutions, but the topic garnered little attention. Nobody addressed political parties or campaign finance. When the Democratic Charter was mentioned it was not to suggest ways that its application could be strengthened but rather to insist Article 21 should be applied to Nicaragua (even though the horse has left that barn).

As the meeting progressed, it became clear that there were more and more themes that participants wanted to add: children and youth, healthcare, racism, inequality, cyber-harassment, diasporas, and so forth. Finally, the spokesperson responsible for presenting the position of civil society before the high-level government representatives attempted to read what she would say, taking note of the various suggestions and additions. However, she could not get past the first paragraph without loud objections and a new round of speeches, many of which repeated what had already been said. The meet was not so much adjourned as abandoned as key participant, including those who had been chairing the meeting, began walking away. There was some talk of re-grouping and continuing to work into the evening.  Tomorrow, we shall see what finally came of all the fuss.

A couple of final observations are perhaps worth note. First, on process, it would help in these meetings to have stronger chairing, clear rules of order, and mechanisms for incorporating amendments. Without this, civil society participation becomes “more functional than real,” as one participant put it. Second, there is always a tendency to conflate democracy and human rights, and this seems inevitable when participants are heavily drawn from the world of NGOs. It would help to have more participation by experienced politicians and experts.

Today is the first day of the IX Summit of the Americas. I have accreditation to participate in the Civil Society Forum, which happens in tandem with the meetings of the leaders, but apparently we will have an opportunity to engage in a Dialogue with the High Level Government Representatives later this week. Today, the Civil Society Forum was opened with remarks from the Secretary General of the OAS, Luis Almagro, and a representative of the US government, as the host, in the person of Brian Nichols, Assistant Secretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs. This was followed by working group meetings, and the one I attended was on democratic accountability and civil society, and it was moderated by Richard Feinberg, who is a regular participant in these summits.

The Summits are preceded by months of hard work by public servants and diplomats, and apparently some of these negotiations are still ongoing (in other words, they have not yet agreed on the final declarations to which  the leaders will ultimately commit themselves). There are several “baskets” of issues, the one that interests me deals with democratic governance and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. I was in a civil society forum in the III Summit of the Americas in Quebec City that led to the Democratic Charter, and so inevitably I find myself thinking back to 2001 and drawing comparisons with today.

Perhaps the first comparison is that while the air in Quebec City is normally better than Los Angeles, today I can breath more freely here than I could in Quebec City in April 2001 when tear gas burned our eyes and choked our lungs. Here there are no mass demonstrations or fences. The Summit is being held in the heart of Los Angeles in a downtown hotel. There is a police presence but nobody seems to be anticipating major disruptions.

On a related note, civil society is now much more prominently part of the process.  Organizers of this Summit call it the most inclusive yet, and civil society engagement has been institutionalized since 2015. In the first Summits, like in Miami in 1994, consultations with civil society was regarded by governments as quite problematic.  It is hard to know exactly who is selected to participate as civil society in these summits, and why, but apparently the large number of civil society participants (which filled a ballroom in the downtown hotel) represents only a third of the number of applicants.

It has to be said that so far the format for civil society participation leaves much to be desired. Despite excellent moderation, the format has been more like a conference than a participatory process. Participants, and even panelists, complained about the format which did not permit everyone who wished to speak to do so.

My sense from talking to many of the Summit organizers is that they are somewhat exasperated by the attention that has been given to who gets invited and who is coming. The issue of the exclusion of Venezuela and Nicaragua, which has led several leaders–most notably Mexico’s AMLO–to say they will not attend, has generated considerable discussion and it came up in the Civil Society Forum as well. One participant argued that all countries in the region should be invited and there should be a fuller discussion of the meaning of democracy, but many more participants insisted that dictatorships should be excluded.

Richard Feinberg noted that the Quebec City declaration indicated that participation in Summits was to be on the condition that countries respected democratic rule, and all countries of the Americas signed onto that declaration. He also noted that we have a definition of democracy in the Democratic Charter.  Of course, this is right.  But it is also clear, as Feinberg noted, that there has been considerable fragmentation in the region.

It may well be that the Charter needs to be supplemented to recognize that there are diverse democracies in the region, as well as non-democracies. On this point, see the excellent brief prepared by my students IADC Policy Brief). We need to do a better job of understanding under what conditions democratic backsliding is reversible and when it leads to dictatorships that are hard to dislodge. One panelist suggested re-examining the democratic transitions of the 1980s to better understand how to foster democratic change in countries like Nicaragua and Venezuela.

It would also be useful to have a dialogue with a sharper focus on the Democratic Charter. Often in discussion of democracy many issues are conflated. Today we jumped from issues of open government to conflict of interest to organized crime to freedom of the press to the treatment of LGBTQ+ communities. Policy minutia mingles with existential issues. There are issues that transcend democracy. For example, Almagro insisted that Latin America is the region with the most discrimination, inequality, and violence in the world, and if democracies have to show they enable citizens to find a way to tackle these problems. And there are issues that go to how democracy is practiced: the need for freedom of the press, judicial autonomy, active citizenship, respect for human rights, migrant rights, and so forth. In such a discussion, it can be hard to see a clear agenda for reform.

Perhaps tomorrow’s working group on democratic governance will bring some clarity and focus.

During the week of June 6-10 I will be observing the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles and posting my observations here. Comments and reactions welcome.

For now, if you want know about the summit, here is the official website.

You can also follow me on Twitter here: @MaxwellACameron