IPI HomeNewsComment & AnalysisDemocracy Day at the United Nations?


print print |  share share back back

Comment & Analysis - September 14, 2010

Democracy Day at the United Nations?

Adam Lupel l Director of Research and Publications

Three years ago the United Nations General Assembly declared September 15th the International Day of Democracy, an annual event to assess the progress of democracy around the world.

It may seem strange to some that a body that counts representatives from Nicaragua, Libya, and the Kingdom of Bahrain among its recent presidents should present itself as a promoter of democracy. After all, the UN is a member-state organization with clear nondemocratic elements. Its membership includes many authoritarian states, and its internal structure and procedures often diverge greatly from the ideals of liberal democracy. Notably, the UN’s most powerful body, the Security Council, is unrepresentative, dominated by five permanent veto-wielding members, without a single African or Latin American country among them.

The UN is not a democracy of the world, nor does it claim to be. Rather, it is an international organization with 192 members founded on a commitment to state sovereignty, whether the state is democratic or not.

However, the UN is also a values-based institution that carries at its core a commitment to democratic principles. Although the UN Charter does not mention the word “democracy,” Article 1(3) cites “promoting and encouraging respect for human rights” as a primary purpose of the organization, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly in 1948, declares that regular elections and “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.”

In fact, each year the United Nations system conducts a host of activities supporting democracy worldwide. Through a variety of agencies and departments, including the UN Development Program, the UN Department of Political Affairs, the UN Democracy Fund, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the system provides direct technical assistance to countries organizing elections and promotes the growth of institutions vital to the rule of law.

Thus, the UN as a whole works to support democratic norms, but it is also structurally committed to the sovereign equality of states, no matter what their form of government. And at times, this dual commitment to both independent states and free individuals creates a tension at the center of the international system.

Whether this tends to be a productive or a destructive tension is open to question. It can be productive when it leads to normative developments in international affairs, such as the recognition that both states and the international community have a responsibility to protect individuals from atrocity crimes. This was most recently evident in the aftermath of the 2008 election-related violence in Kenya. But it can also be destructive when, for example, an authoritarian leader such as Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe is insulated from international criticism on the grounds of national sovereignty.

Which tendency comes to the fore depends upon how one balances the need to remain committed to the principle of the sovereign equality of states—which is fundamental to the legitimacy of international law—and the need to fulfill what Sir Brian Urquhart has called “the imperatives of international responsibility.” And this is no easy circle to square.

The UN’s legitimacy is based in its universal membership, and in order to fulfill its function of facilitating diplomacy and the quest for multilateral solutions to global problems, it must represent its entire membership and remain impartial among its members. However, as Kofi Annan wrote, “Impartiality does not—and must not—mean neutrality in the face of evil; it means strict and unbiased adherence to the principles of the Charter—nothing more, nothing less.” And prominent among these fundamental principles is that the will of the people is the basis of authority.

What does this mean for the UN’s commitment to democracy today? Admittedly, the UN promotion of the norms of democracy and human rights has always been in part aspirational, meant to guide practice along a gradual, evolutionary curve toward a future fulfillment of potential. Thus, it is altogether fitting to take this day to reflect upon how far we have come and upon how far we have to go and to remind the world, and the UN itself, that the commitment to advancing democracy is indeed at the very heart of the UN mission and all that it stands for.


The Global Observatory

Can UN-led Talks Bring Together a Fractured Libya?
The success of the negotiations hinges on the UN's ability to bring all parties to the table.

Key Global Events to Watch in January
A list of key upcoming meetings and events with implications for global affairs.

2015: Ten Multilateral Events to Watch This Year
A list of ten events that are likely to impact international peace and security in 2015, compiled by IPI’s Francesco Mancini.

The Global Observatory, produced by IPI, provides timely analysis on peace and security issues, interviews with leading policymakers, interactive maps, and more.

Recent Events

January 20, 2015
Mongolian Foreign Policy Between ''Two Giants''
On January 20, Mongolia’s new Foreign Minister Purevsuren Lundeg visited the IPI Vienna office and gave an informal briefing on Mongolia’s contemporary foreign policy priorities and challenges.

January 20, 2015
Dutch FM Koenders: ''The Security Council Has to Change''
Speaking to an overflow IPI audience on January 20th, Dutch Foreign Minister Bert Koenders acknowledged how far the United Nations has come since its inception 70 years ago but said that the organization still “has a lot of growing up to do.”

December 15, 2014
Fathi: Iran and the Struggle Between Hardliners and Reformers
Discussing her new book The Lonely War: One Woman’s Account of the Struggle for Modern Iran at IPI on December 15th, author Nazila Fathi said that 35 years after the revolution, Iran is divided between hardliners and a large moderate middle class, but admitted that it is still unclear which of the two sides will gain the upper hand.

View More