Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles, June 2022

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.