18. April 2007

(Doc. 11203),
Protokoll Europarat

Transnationale Demokratie ist eine Voraussetzung dafür, dass die Märkte, die Wirtschaft, im Interesse der Menschen
zivilisiert werden können

Read the whole report

Andreas GROSS, Schweiz, SOC

Der Kern der Menschenrechte ist die Würde. Es gibt keine höherwertige Existenz, ohne dass ein Mensch über sich selber verfügen kann. Deshalb ist auch die Demokratie ein Menschenrecht und nicht ein Privileg irgendwelcher Staatsbürger. Es gibt keine würdige Existenz ohne die Möglichkeit des aufrechten Ganges, und man kann nicht aufrecht gehen, wenn man nicht das Recht hat, über sich selber zu verfügen.

Die Demokratie ist aber mehr als ein Menschenrecht. Sie ist ein Mosaik aus Tausenden einzelner Stücke, die erst zusammen die Qualität von Demokratie ausmachen. Und es ist eigenartig wie wir, obwohl wir hier in einem Haus der Demokratie sind, in der Geschichte Kriterien zur Beurteilung der Menschenrechte entwickelt haben, aber bisher fast keine Kriterien zur Beurteilung der Demokratie, die über die Menschenrechte hinausgeht.

Ich möchte ganz offen sagen, dass ich manchmal denke, wir sind kein Haus der Demokratie, sondern ein Krankenhaus der Demokratie! Das wäre eigentlich gar nicht schlimm, denn wir müssen alle klüger und gesünder werden, und auch der Präsident schreibt in seinem Vorwort: «Demokratie ist ein ewiger Lernprozess». Aber man muss sich dessen auch bewusst sein, dass man noch nicht so ganz gesund ist, sondern gesünder werden kann. Und an dieser Selbstkritik hapert es meines Erachtens manchmal.

Es gibt hier niemanden, der nicht von sich sagen würde, er sei ein Demokrat. Wenn wir jedoch zu Hause bei den Bürgern nachfragen (und dieser Bericht ist sehr aus der Sicht der Bürger geschrieben, denn die Qualität der Demokratie entscheidet sich aus der Sicht der Bürger, nicht aus der Sicht gewählter Repräsentanten der Bürger und der Zivilgesellschaft), dann gibt es fast keinen, der nicht von der Qualität unserer Demokratie enttäuscht ist.

Es ist eines der drei größten Paradoxa der heutigen Zeit, dass noch nie so viele Menschen in einer Demokratie gelebt haben, dass gleichzeitig aber kaum jemals so viele von der Demokratie enttäuscht waren. Ein anderes Paradoxon ist die Tatsache, dass die Demokratie, seit sie sich als einzige Quelle legitimer politischer Macht durchgesetzt hat, was erst vor etwa 16 Jahren endgültig und universell geschehen ist, und seit kein Politiker mehr sagt, er sei kein Demokrat, seltsam schwach und ihre Krisenhaftigkeit deutlich geworden ist.

Um sich dies bewusst zu machen, muss man an die Wurzeln zurück, und dies sind in der modernen Gesellschaft eindeutig die Amerikanische und die Französische Revolution, die viel miteinander zu tun hatten. Z.B. gab es mit Thomas Paine und Condorcet demokratie-orientierte Akteure in beiden Revolutionen, und die Menschenrechtserklärung des französischen Volkes war der erste Referenztext für die Demokratie.

Wenn man dort nachschaut, was eigentlich mit Demokratie gemeint ist, dann sieht man, dass Demokratie viel mehr bedeutet als die alle vier Jahre stattfindende Wahl zwischen Politikern, zwischen Pepsi Cola und Coca Cola. Freiheit ist viel mehr als die Wahl zwischen Eliten. Demokratie und Freiheit bedeuten, dass wir zusammen auf unsere eigenen Lebensgrundlagen Einfluss nehmen können.

Demokratie stellt die Rechte, Verfahren und Institutionen zur Verfügung, damit die notwendigerweise erfolgenden Konflikte möglichst ohne Gewalt ausgetragen werden können. Und wann immer Gewalt auftritt, ob ausdrücklich oder versteckt, dann stimmt etwas mit der Demokratie nicht. Das ist ein untrügliches Zeichen für die Qualität von Demokratie.

Demokratische Macht ist die Fähigkeit, das Recht und der Wille, mit anderen zusammen auf die eigene Existenz Einfluss zu nehmen. Leben ist kein Schicksal, das war auch der große Slogan der Französischen Revolution. Und die Repräsentanz, d.h. die Wahl jener, die wie wir das Volk im Parlament vertreten, war nur eine Krücke zur Realisierung der Demokratie, nicht ihr einziger Bestandteil. Dass dieses System heute als das einzige gesehen wird, ist eines der großen Probleme und Krisenphänomene der Demokratie.

Das ist das zweite große Paradox: Wie die schöne britische Zeitschrift "The Economist" – keine linke Zeitschrift, wie Sie wissen – gesagt hat, war die Repräsentation vor 200 Jahren ganz sicher das Wichtigste, weil damals viele Menschen nicht lesen und schreiben konnten, nicht ausreichend informiert waren, um über ihr eigenes Leben bestimmen zu können. Auch heute sind Repräsentanten immer noch nötig, das ist absolut richtig.

Doch heute ist der Unterschied zwischen einem Repräsentierten und einem Repräsentanten praktisch gleich Null. Es gibt sogar viele Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die in gewissen Elementen unserer Gesellschaft besser Bescheid wissen als wir. Und das ist das zweite Paradox, welches die Frustration über die Demokratie ausmacht, von der ich am Anfang gesprochen habe. Es gibt in der Gesellschaft einen Überschuss an Fähigkeiten, an Know-how, der von den Institutionen nicht wahrgenommen wird.

Die demokratischen Institutionen erlauben es der Gesellschaft nicht, ihr eigenes Potenzial zu realisieren. Und dies frustriert viele Menschen, weil sie viel mehr tun könnten, als nur Repräsentanten zu wählen. Deshalb ist eine Perspektive des Berichtes die, dass wir über die Wahlen hinaus zu Hause auf allen Ebenen – national, regional und lokal – die verbindlichen partizipativen Rechte der Menschen erweitern müssen. Über die Wahl hinaus, nicht gegen die Wahl, aber die Wahl ist nicht das einzige Moment des Freiseins. Wir sind nicht nur am Sonntag, wenn wir wählen gehen, frei, sondern auch werktags und vier Jahre lang jeden Tag.

Und das dritte große Paradox, welches die Krisenhaftigkeit der Demokratie heute deutlich macht ist folgendes: Demokratie ist viel mehr als ein Zählrahmen, viel mehr als Rechte und Verfahren; Demokratie ist auch ein Versprechen, dass Lebenschancen gleich verteilt werden, dass keiner zu kurz kommt, wie es Herr Glesener von der Sozialen Kommission gesagt hat. Damit dies jedoch möglich ist, müssen Demokratie und Wirtschaft auf der gleichen Ebene spielen.

Heute gleicht die Demokratie dem Steuerruder eines Schiffes, das so kurz ist, dass es nicht mehr ins Wasser reicht. Da gibt es Leute, die sagen, dann könne man das Steuerruder ja gleich auf den Misthaufen der Geschichte werfen, doch andere Leute sagen, das Steuerruder müsse verlängert werden. Deshalb ist die transnationale Demokratie als Voraussetzung dafür, dass die Märkte, die Wirtschaft, im Interesse der Menschen zivilisiert werden können, dringend nötig.

Denn Demokratie steht auch für die Vertretung des Allgemeininteresses, des Allgemeingutes, und das müssen wir auch als zweite Perspektive sehen.

Wir müssen Europa demokratisieren. Europa hat die Demokratie genauso nötig wie die Demokratie Europa nötig hat. Und wenn wir beides tun, nämlich zu Hause verfeinern und national erweitern, dann können wir zu Hause und im Europarat dafür sorgen, dass die Demokratie den Weg aus der Krise findet und wir das Vertrauen der Menschen, die heute kein Vertrauen mehr in uns haben wieder erlangen.


-------


Diskussion

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Skard.

I now invite Mr Ugo Mifsud Bonnici, Vice-President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), to make a statement. The Venice Commission is one of the various prestigious institutions of the Council of Europe.

Mr Bonnici, you have the floor.

Mr BONNICI (Vice-President of the European Commission for Democracy through Law). – Thank you, Mr President. I am honoured to be asked to represent the Venice Commission and to speak to you today. I was impressed by the analysis of Mr Gross in his speech this morning, as I was with the contribution of Mr Pourgourides. I speak as a former politician – I was in parliament for thirty years – and I am now a member of the Venice Commission, examining the various institutions and considering what can be done to remedy the present situation. We have now arrived in Europe at a formal complete victory for democracy. In some way or other, however, we are all dissatisfied with the performance. That is the problem: in 1932, when I was born, Germany was a democracy, and the result of that was not only the failure of democracy in Germany but a cataclysm in Europe. We should consider whether we can overhaul the institutions of today and remedy certain problems.

First, with regard to the rule of law, laws alone do not make a democracy; one must have something else – good laws. I am happy that I am a member of the Venice Commission, because that is what the Venice Commission is concerned with. The achievement of the Council of Europe is mostly in law: in the Convention on Human Rights and in the Court of Human Rights. The Venice Commission is also in the tradition of considering laws and how they can help.

That part of Europe that is in the European Union has still not resolved the problem of its constitution. Other institutions also need to be considered. Is parliament, its procedures and the way in which it works conducive to participation by the people? Are those who watch a parliamentary debate, as our friends in the public gallery are doing now, enamoured of the workings of democracy? What are electoral laws producing? According to Mr Gross’s analysis, representation and the quota system – 5% or 2% – is a problem. On the other hand, we have the problem of governance and the forming of coalitions after elections: what do citizens think when they see that laborious process take place in many European countries? Can we have fuller representation as well as an executive that has power?

Another problem with our laws and arrangements, as Mr Gross said this morning – I repeat his point with qualification – is that we still approach our democracy as if we were dealing with an electorate who have a primary school education, whereas the electorate today are much more sophisticated than that. Another, higher system is necessary. I must also tell Mr Davis that the Venice Commission has considered the point about surveillance of security forces. My whole argument is for better laws and better democracy.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. We now open the speaker’s list in the debate. I remind members that the Assembly agreed on Monday that speaking times should be limited to three minutes, except for spokespersons of political groups. I call Mr Mota Amaral who speaks on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. You have four minutes.

Mr MOTA AMARAL (Portugal). – It is customary to greet and thank the rapporteur at the beginning of each speech. I gladly abide to that tradition, as I recognise the high level of competence, political wisdom and dedication to the purposes of our Assembly and the Council of Europe demonstrated by our Swiss colleague, Mr Andreas Gross.

I also consider it mandatory in this case to compliment you, Mr President – on behalf of myself and of my political group, the European People’s Party, over which you have presided so brilliantly previously – on this debate, which is an important achievement of your presidency.

We tend to feel comfortable about human rights, parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in Council of Europe member states, which are considered to be the trademarks of freedom and democracy. They denote an outstanding victory of the citizens of Europe, which could be designated the European political model. The success of civil liberties across our continent is the glory of the Council of Europe, which, in its conventions and institutions, remains a beacon of enlightenment and reason and an example and symbol for the whole world.

Only countries organised as democracies can become members of the Council of Europe. Democracy, along with human rights, has proved to be an evolving and therefore demanding concept. In these times of mass education, economic and technological progress and the globalisation of information, markets and society, democracy is no longer simply a form for organising political society based on the guarantee of civil liberties and regular, free and fair elections.

We are all seriously concerned about the quality of democracy. Civic participation, social inclusion, gender equality, transparency, accountability, and the prevention of and fight against corruption became the top priorities in a balanced judgment on the type of democracy existing in every society. The purpose of Andreas Gross’s report is to identify the requirement for excellence of democracy in Europe, including in the old member states of the Council of Europe.

For both political scientists and political leaders in Europe considering the functioning of our democracies, red lights are flashing. A large number of citizens do not vote or participate in political parties. Demagoguery and populism became serious threats to democracy and are generally associated with terrible prejudices, which have plagued our societies in the past.

Measures must be taken with wisdom and determination to heal the illnesses identified in Europe’s democracies. A new, younger face must be presented to our fellow citizens across the continent that is capable of motivating them, enthusing them and even inspiring passion. On behalf of myself and my political group, I strongly support Andreas Gross’s suggestions. We have challenging homework to do, in this Chamber and in our national parliaments, in the next few years. We must commit ourselves and our best energies to that mission, which is genuinely worth while.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Hancock to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Democrats and Liberals in Europe.

Mr HANCOCK (United Kingdom). – As others have done, I congratulate the rapporteurs and others who have contributed on the success of today’s voyage of discovery by the Council of Europe in considering itself, its record on human rights and now its record on democracy.

What has been sadly missing from both the reports and booklets produced is a sense of how we have systematically allowed many of our supposed democracies simply to drift into being managed democracies. They are not political democracies in the true sense of the word. They are about politicians who are elected and then want to manage. It is because they like to manage that they trust themselves with more and more power, and that makes it very difficult for the process of democracy to work. The very people who have the power create the environment in which that is the only way.

The report claims to identify four reasons why we have that problem: the democratic deficit; corruption and the absence of trust between the public and politicians; suffrage and disenfranchisement; and non-governmental organisations and their roles in trying to create an environment in which people can understand what is going on. We kid ourselves that that is happening, yet the report offers only management solutions. The authors have fallen into the trap of wanting to manage.

If democracy is to flourish, it has to be about political ideas and thoughts, about providing platforms for people, about encouraging the population to take part in elections, about having an enthusiasm for a belief and the realisation that things can be better. People do not want always to be managed. They want to be excited, to be given opportunities and to see that there is at least a small prospect of something in their lives changing.

All four problems are clearly associated with politicians. The remedy is in the hands of politicians. I trust the rapporteur’s opinion and listen to him keenly on many subjects, but he has also fallen into the trap. The report states: «The Assembly notes, with great concern, the increasing feeling of political discontent and disaffection among citizens, which is well illustrated by a declining turnout at elections».

People do not vote because the choices are not there; they get so much of the same. In Britain there has been a merging of belief which has made it unbelievably difficult for people to see the difference between parties. We go from Conservative to Labour and Labour to Conservative seamlessly, as if nothing has happened. That is not political change. Why should people vote for the same thing? They might as well stick with what they have, and that is what most politicians insist on and hope will happen. Some rig the results. Of course, some try to do so and get the wrong result, and that is when the real trouble starts.

If we are to have a real debate, it must be about why politicians chose not to provide people with deliverable choices. They do not provide a challenge; they do not excite the population. This is not about the young and the old. It is about the whole community having no reason to vote. In our country, most people participate in elections reluctantly in order to vote against what they have. They do not vote for a better choice, because on paper that choice is not there. The politicians have not bothered to think it through and present a choice to the people. Lack of choice – that is what is wrong with democracy in Europe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Wilshire, who speaks on behalf of the European Democratic Group.

Mr WILSHIRE (United Kingdom). – The European Democratic Group fully supports the whole process in which we are involved. We congratulate you, Mr President, on making it possible. It is an important initiative. We have given ourselves a difficult challenge. It is a good first attempt, but as always, there are lessons to be learned when embarking on something as difficult as this. Perhaps we could have allowed more time – I do not know. Perhaps the usual procedure for producing reports is not appropriate for such a major undertaking.

Personally, I have hugely enjoyed being involved in the process. On behalf of my group I congratulate Mr Gross and thank him for allowing me to be involved as he wrote his report. The report has improved as it has been worked on. I am sure that the rapporteur will accept that it is not perfect, but it is an excellent start, on which we can build for the future.

I have learned a lot of lessons in this process, but time allows me to mention only three. All three are controversial. I have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to define democracy. We all know it when we see it, but each society of the 47 member states has its own definition. There are so many variables: geography, history, the state of development of the country, culture and, perhaps most important of all, the way in which the values and beliefs shape democracy. I say this to you: beware of trying to impose our definition on others – it is a dangerous idea.

The second lesson that I have learned is that the relationship between democracy and human rights is very easy to misunderstand. Democracy itself, in a simple way, is all about the transfer and exercise of power via a majority of citizens voting for it. All too easily, that can become a dictatorship of the majority. Human rights exist to speak up for and protect individuals and minorities. Human rights are a counter-balance to democracy and not its partner. I have reached the conclusion that we should beware of human rights undermining democracy. It could happen.

The third lesson that I have learned is that democracy is constantly changing and developing. The democracy that we know today developed alongside the development of the nation state in the nineteenth century. By the end of the 20th century, the nation state was in decline and other things were taking its place. Could it be that democracy is declining as well? Is that one reason why the public are going off what we know?

I end by saying again: beware of believing that 20th century democracy is adequate for the 21st century. Beware of the work that we do that simply tries to maintain the status quo and our own positions, but undermines the democracy in which we so passionately believe.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Kox, who speaks on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – On behalf of my group I thank colleagues in the Assembly and particularly President van der Linden and our staff who have worked so hard to make the debate possible. They have done a great job. I also thank our guest speakers who have participated in this debate on what is, and always should be, our core business at the Council of Europe: the protection of human rights and the promotion and development of democracy in Europe.

As Rapporteur Gross rightly states, democracy is an open and ongoing process. We should be proud that Europe was able to create democracy, to develop it and to return from dark periods of authoritarian rule, fascism and other forms of undemocratic government in our recent past. The fact that democracy is an open and ongoing process means that there is always the possibility of a decrease in it – of a growth of authoritarian behaviour among governments and politicians. Therefore, we must always be alert.

If democracy is government by and for the people, it is the people who have to guard it and oppose any violation of democratic rights. For members of my group, that means that we should plead for the promotion, protection and ongoing development of democracy, not only in this Assembly but at home. We must demand a further exploration and development of democracy in all fields of society. An example is the development of real democracy in the economy. It is important to recognise that democracy has made huge progress in recent decades in the spheres of politics and of private relations, but in the economic sphere democracy has lost power in the past quarter of a century. Instead of the principle of one person, one vote ruling the political and the private sphere, the economy in Europe is increasingly ruled by the principle of one euro, one vote. Our group would like to emphasise that and have it included in next year’s debate on the state of human rights and democracy.

Democracy as an ongoing process also means including the protection of our environment. Without a healthy environment, we will not have anything, democracy or otherwise. I believe Rapporteur Gross agrees with our group that this aspect should receive greater emphasis in next year’s report.

Because democracy means government by and for the people, it is extremely dangerous to see a decrease in people’s involvement in politics and democracy. We should do our utmost to find new means of increasing the involvement of the people in democracy. Democracy without people is like an Assembly without members – it is unthinkable, impossible and unacceptable. We agree with Andreas Gross that democracy is an ongoing process from which much is still to be gained, but if and when democracy fails, we will be the ones to blame. We must realise that.

Democracy can and will be our future if we protect and promote it now. My group feels a deep commitment to democracy and will do its utmost to get this excellent report on to the order of business of our national parliaments. It would be great if other groups could deliver that same commitment. In our opinion the debate does not end today. It merely begins.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Lloyd, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

Mr LLOYD (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President, and may I congratulate you on the debate taking place? I was one of those who voiced concerns about how the process would work out, but our concerns proved to be unfounded and those who, like you, wanted us to pursue this course were right. Today is a good day for the Council of Europe.

We frequently use the mantra of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Our colleague from the Venice Commission was right to say that many of our real achievements are in the area of the rule of law. We should be grateful for those non-corrupt institutions, where they exist, such as the Venice Commission, which can offer profound and sensible advice on how we move forward. We can be proud of the body of legislation that exists throughout Europe through the various conventions that have come into force, which make a material difference to people’s way of life, protecting minorities and protecting the vulnerable in our societies. Those are the people who need the rule of law, because democracy of itself will not protect their basic human rights.

We can be proud of those steps. We should perhaps be less proud of the extent to which we have embedded the culture of democracy throughout our continent. In my own country and in many other European countries, rates of participation in our elections are dismally low. That is extremely dangerous because democracy works only if people participate. Democracy is not about the election every four or five years of dictators or monarchs. Democracy works only if power is widely distributed throughout society and if people participate in the use of that power at different levels.

I agree with the previous speaker, Mr Kox, that we have a long way to go to entrench democracy in our societies. I come from a trade union background and I am very proud of the long tradition of democracy in the British trade unions. I do not see that in trade unions everywhere, and even in my own country I see it coming under threat now. Democracy is not just about the ballot for members of parliament or the president. Democracy is about how we live our daily lives.

I did not agree with everything that Mr Hancock said, but he was right about the management of democracy. We see in some of the newer members of the Council of Europe, such as Russia and Azerbaijan, which we discussed yesterday, that the authorities there seek to control the things that make democracy work. They seek that control as a way of managing those societies, not in the interests of the proper entrenchment of democracy and the opening up to pluralism in those societies.

The reduction in the power of the media is important. It matters enormously when we see journalists killed in this continent of ours, whether they are killed in Ireland by the IRA or in Russia, like Anna Politkovskaïa, by people unknown. It ought to concern us when nobody is brought before the courts when they attack journalists. An attack on the freedom of the media is an attack on our democracy. Media freedom is central to the entrenchment of democracy in our society.

We still have a long way to go on all this. Today is important not because we have the finished article, but because, as you say, Mr President, this is work in progress. We are only scratching the surface. We must begin to develop measures of democracy. Yes, we do have a right as the Council of Europe to interfere in the internal affairs of our member states – you who are not from Britain in my country and me in yours, because democracy matters to us all. We must establish the benchmarks whereby we can test the robustness of electoral systems, not just in terms of the ability to submit a clean ballot paper, but in terms of people’s ability to take control of their politicians. That requires a genuinely pluralistic democracy which protects majorities and minorities, and a society based on proper rules of information and the media, where we can examine how far we progress or regress. In many cases we are regressing.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The next speaker is Mrs Durrieu.

Mrs DURRIEU (France) began by defining a democracy as a construction; a deliberate attempt by citizens to create a shape for their society. A democracy required laws that were recognised by the citizens. Individuals within a democracy also had a duty to perform certain roles within their society. These citizens must be informed and educated and in turn be given rights. She defined one of these key rights as the choice to select a government through elections held on the basis of universal suffrage.

The process created under the Council of Europe and the Venice Convention was helping to ensure that these rights continued. The 1950s’ Convention on Human Rights was an important element in this, but it should also be remembered that it must be applied universally to every individual. She gave an example of the abolition of capitol punishment as one success in this field but also warned that member states and the Council of Europe must remain vigilant if such developments were to continue.

(Mr Schreiner, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr van der Linden.)

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Legendre.

Mr LEGENDRE (France) said that today’s debate was a credit to the Assembly. Children now were hardly aware of what had caused the Second World War. Therefore, fundamental rights needed to be constantly re-presented and re-developed. Sometimes, the press and media were called the fourth estate. The first Republic of France established freedom of expression as a fundamental right, and the law of 1960 afforded both liberty and the means to limit excesses in pre-established circumstances. The threat of terrorism should not be allowed to limit these values. Instead, freedom of expression should be available for all. Together with UNESCO, attempts were being made to secure intercultural dialogue, and the Council of Europe needed to play its part.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Rafael Huseynov.

Mr R. HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan). – Saying nice words about democracy and being a true democrat are different things. Demanding that others respect democracy and trying directly to apply democracy in reality are also different things. The tree of democracy grows not as a result of slogans but as a result of deeds.

As an organisation safeguarding democratic values, the Council of Europe should pay more attention, and give more care, to the countries that need assistance with democratic reform. No double standards are acceptable in that approach. We sometimes fight until the end to restore the rights of several people while ignoring the thousands of people who live in the same environment but who are subject to injustice. We do not fight for their rights.

There is an example of that not too far away. Azerbaijan has been subject to occupation. Nearly 1 million citizens of Azerbaijan have lost their homes, wealth, health, comfort and the opportunity for a normal education because they have been forced to live as refugees and internally displaced persons. This process has been going on before the eyes of the world and of the Council of Europe for fifteen years. Azerbaijan is the only country in such a situation.

The Council of Europe has launched many efforts to solve this problem and still continues its activities. Nevertheless, if there is no resolution to the problem and if 1 million people continue to live as refugees and IDPs – the instigator of their problems is among us and in the Council of Europe – we will not be entitled to speak loudly of democracy and human rights. We should bear in mind that those 1 million people do not believe in the sincerity of the words that they hear.

For that reason, all of us – and the Council of Europe, which unites us – should do our best to get down to business and to move away from mere words. A joint fight involving all the member states is one of the most effective means of doing that. Those, such as Armenia, who are in the Council of Europe but who do not observe the principles of this Organisation should be subject not only to oral reproach but to economic and other types of pressure from member states.

If we are going in the same direction, let us communicate with each other. If we are to engage in co-operation and partnership, let us do so in democratic, economic and other spheres and let the Council of Europe co-ordinate our efforts. The possibility of keeping out those who violate the rules in a big way should always be on the agenda.

Today I have the big desire that the many sweet words said about democracy should not remain in the reports but should come true. If that is the case, the life of all of us will certainly become better.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. Mr Islami is not here, so I now call Mr Nessa.

Mr NESSA (Italy) said that the Council of Europe had played a major role defining the Europe’s democratic model since its establishment in 1949 with particular efforts being made in 1989 following the collapse of the communist system and the emergence of a number of fledgling states. It fell to the Council of Europe to find the right set of tools to monitor the democratic process. It was important to take geo-political realities into account, and to remain flexible in judgement. Democracy should not be seen as a forced process run to a political timetable but should take account of people’s differences. The Council of Europe and the Assembly could assist both new countries in their path towards democracy as well as more established countries in consolidation of their democratic structures. The observation of elections was an important tool in ensuring that democracy was applied properly and should not be used as a last resort. Democracy could not be achieved by force.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I now call Mr Chelemendik. He is not present. I call Mr Kucheida. He is not present either. I call Mr Matuši?. He is not here; the place is deserted. I call Mrs Tevdoradze. We are not in luck this afternoon. I call Mr Milo. Not here? I call Mr Wach.

Mr WACH (Poland). – Democracy is one of our greatest assets. This belief has been expressed here in this hemicycle many times. We, the citizens of Poland, longed for freedom and democracy for a long time, because for nearly 200 years, with the short exception of twenty years between the First and Second World Wars, we were deprived of it.

The very successful, wide and strong social and political movement of solidarity in the 1980s brought back freedom and enabled the development of democracy in Poland and other neighbouring countries that were ruled by communist regimes, at the head of which stood the Soviet Union and its local partners. However, now comes the time to review the state of democracy, and it would be best if everybody did this in his own name and the name of his or her party and country.

Generally, we are proud and happy with the democracy in our country, and we owe it so much, but it is far from ideal. First, the participation rates in the elections are low, as one group of people is disappointed with the functioning of democracy while another group is too nonchalant to fulfil its duties. The other problem is the passing of a law by parliament that does not fulfil democratic standards. Here I have in mind the so-called Lustration Act concerning alleged co-operation with secret services in communist times, which requires individual declarations of co-operation or lack of such activities under the threat of losing a position or a job. In my opinion, the Act is going too far, as it concerns not only politicians and governmental officials, but, for example, widely known academic staff. This Act requires the above-mentioned declarations from more than half a million people in Poland. The next problem of democracy in my country is the limited social education of people, which appears, for example, in the potential acceptance of the reintroduction of the death penalty.

Those are only examples. Democracy needs constant concern, care, tradition, education and good practices. I wish unchallenged democracy in written law and in practice for my country as well as in all other countries, and excellent leadership in these fields from the Council of Europe and our Assembly.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Korobeynikov.

Mr KOROBEYNIKOV (Russian Federation) thought that the report of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development was excellent. Although there were more than 300 economic organisations, the nature of what was happening was a disaster for many countries. World trade amounted to around $7 trillion, most of which constituted trade exchanges between the richest countries. This needed to be changed, but none of the international financial institutions did much to assist the financial participation of less-developed countries. It was not enough to be able to vote every four years. People needed to eat every day. Therefore, the Council of Europe needed to strengthen the standards of living across the whole of Europe.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Err. She is not here. I call Mr Lindblad.

Mr LINDBLAD (Sweden). – Thank you, Mr President.

Colleagues, do you have any ideas? Do you have any ideology? Or do we wake up every morning just trying to steer the boat, not knowing where we are going? I think that there is too little ideology and passion in political debate these days. We need more passion. We had a little passion in one of yesterday’s debates, about the Court and the issue of one country not nominating a woman. Otherwise, there is too little passion in the discussions in this Hemicycle, as well as in our national parliaments.

Personally, I am a passionate liberal conservative, and I am very much into being passionate and discussing ideology. In talking about that, I must also say that the process regarding this report has been very good. Indeed, it is a very good report, Mr Gross, and I congratulate you on it. We have had a lot of compromises; for example, we had a compromise on the threshold in the Political Affairs Committee this afternoon, although it is not an issue of consensus. The consensus principle, which was mentioned by Mr Roth earlier in the debate, is difficult. Consensus is like a wet blanket, taking away all debate and the possibility of voting when we disagree. All of us parliamentarians are used to voting when we disagree. If we do not get our way, we will try another time and there will be other votes. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers has a bad habit, however – I agree with Mr Roth on this – of using consensus too much. We must be very careful, or consensus will lead away from democracy instead of promoting it. Colleagues, do not be afraid about that.

We cannot be sailors without a compass. Some people have some iron in their pockets, so their compass is simply going round and round. We need a strict compass so that we can promote democracy. We need to promote ideals, even though they may vary, and then we will vote and decide.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Lindblad. I call Mrs Had?iahmetovi?. She is not here, so I call Mr Symonenko.

Mr SYMONENKO (Ukraine) said the report showed that, in the third millennium, threats to democracy, such as child labour, were still under discussion. The President of Ukraine had violated the constitution and the rights of the Ukrainian people. There could not be democracy in Ukraine when there was such a difference between the rich and the poor – of such a significant order of magnitude – and the rights of the poor were ignored. In many countries, democracy was ephemeral because people’s rights to work were not protected, people were forced to migrate illegally in order to seek work. Poor migrants had so little protection and old democracies in Europe benefited from these illegal migrants; this was in fact a new form of slavery.

Politics had double standards, and this was a threat to democracy that needed to be monitored. More demands needed to be made of the leaders of those countries where poverty threatened stability.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Tilson from Canada, which is an observer country.

Mr TILSON (Observer from Canada). – Allow me to begin by commending the Assembly on initiating an annual debate on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. The Council of Europe has made impressive strides in the implementation of democratic standards in the European continent.

Canada shares with the Assembly a deep commitment to implementing democratic principles and to finding solutions to the key challenges confronting democratic governance today. Canadians believe that governments – whatever the country or culture – should be accountable to their citizens. In the long term, democratic systems provide the most effective guarantees of accountability, human rights, stability and prosperity. Our government has identified democracy as one of four core values that guide Canadian foreign policy, along with freedom, human rights and the rule of law.

The Canadian Parliament has launched a major study to explore how we can improve our support for democratic development. In the meantime, we have already begun to intensify our diplomatic and development efforts in support of new and fragile democracies, and to oppose serious violations of democratic rights in other contexts. For example, our government has taken a strong stance in response to violations of democratic principles in countries such Burma and Belarus.

We have asserted the importance of the promotion of democracy and human rights in our aid policy. Support for democratic governance from the Canadian International Development Agency totalled about Can$ 375 million last year. This included major investments to assist Afghanis and Haitians in building functioning democratic states. It also included grants to the Council of Europe to support judicial system reform and prison reform projects in Bosnia and Serbia, and the development of an independent and efficient judicial system in Kosovo.

One key principle that emerged from recent discussions in Canada is the importance of a demand-driven approach to democracy assistance, in which the recipients solicit and manage support for democratic reform. This principle has already shaped Canada’s involvement in Europe. Ukraine is a key example of our approach to supporting democracy, in which we have endeavoured to support national actors directly, while also working through existing regional organisations, including the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, to uphold commitments to democratic principles. Our involvement in this area in Europe – bilaterally and through the OSCE, the Council of Europe and other organisations – has given Canadian parliamentarians and officials an appreciation of the importance of the Council and its Assembly in defending and strengthening democratic governance in the continent.

Once again, let me commend the Assembly on your initiative in organising today’s debate, and congratulate the rapporteurs on their work.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Tilson. I now call Mr Iwi?ski.

Mr IWI?SKI (Poland). – I congratulate everybody concerned on holding for the first time such a crucial debate on the state of human rights and democracy in Europe. As the Italians say, «Meglio tardi che mai» – better late than never. I hope that we will continue the present discussion on an annual basis. We cannot do without it – otherwise, the Council of Europe could be marginalised. Democracy and human rights are of course closely interlinked, so it is proper that the forthcoming meeting in Sweden of the Forum on the Future of Democracy, as a follow-up to the Warsaw and Moscow meetings, will be devoted to the interdependence of both the above-mentioned phenomena.

Mr Gross’s courageous, versatile and non-schematic report can be characterised in a positive sense, in that it takes both a scientific and a practical approach. I entirely agree with the findings and explanations of our Swiss colleagues. Yes, democracy is a basic human right and a necessary precondition for political power to be legitimate and accepted by citizens. Yes, democracy is an open and never-ending process, and we should establish concrete criteria to evaluate its maturity, and more deeply examine the application of democratic standards.

Are any of us here fully satisfied with the state of democracy in her or his country? I do not think so – neither in western or eastern Europe, nor in even Scandinavian or Benelux countries – and unfortunately not even in Poland, despite significant progress in this field in the previous two decades. At the same time, only last week in my motherland, the centre-left forces were able to block an extremely dangerous attempt to change the constitution that aimed at significantly limiting women’s rights, mainly regarding abortion.

Overcoming the increasing number of democratic deficits is a must, especially from the point of view of the average citizen, as is improving the quality of representative democracy. We need to avoid distortion of the generally important political role that the media play – a role that has been particularly visible in the past in, for example, Italy and Slovakia. We cannot be passive in view of the autocratic tendencies flourishing in so many places. I am thinking not only of those considered “black holes” in our continent; the same point also applies to the so-called demokraturas.

We ought also to improve the functioning of basic institutions and existing procedures, and to increase the level of political culture, which is the crux of the matter, as, theoretically, everyone agrees on the principles of fundamental rights.

On the approach to national minorities, the situation is a dynamic one. Who could have imagined years ago that Poles would today be the biggest national minority in both Ireland and Iceland? Like every other minority, of course, they need their rights properly defended. I therefore support both the rapporteur’s proposals in chapter 14 that would further democratise democracy.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mrs Jaz?owiecka.

Mrs JAZ?OWIECKA (Poland). – After fifty years of fundamental acts of democratisation, today, towards the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we are discussing anxiously democracy and the state of human rights in Europe. That fact alone should induce reflection. What has happened to the enthusiasm and hope of not so long ago? Where are the ideals and values towards which we thought that the world was heading? What is the reason for this anxiety?

We are heading in an unexpected direction. One of the most important reasons for that is terrorism and the war against it. What is at the root of the problem? It is the repressive character of political systems, especially in Arab countries, but also the social exclusion that affects Muslim emigrants in Europe.

We should pay attention to western society’s methods of fighting terrorism. In the name of security, certain principles have been abandoned. Secret prisons have appeared, kidnappings by secret investigation services have taken place, people have been held prisoner without honest legal proceedings, and the presumption of innocence and the right to an adequate defence have also been questioned. Illegal wire tapping and surveillance have taken place. Most of these have had the general approval of society. It is time to ask the question: where are we heading? Did not the experiences of the 21st century teach us anything?

In the eastern part of our continent, the Council of Europe is constantly monitoring the situation in Belarus and attempts to liberalise the regime. But what about the situation in Chechnya? Why do we so rarely ask about Russia? Should we only seek better economic contacts in pursuit of oil and gas, and turn a blind eye to what happens in that country? Are Russians and Chechnyans worse people than western Europeans? It is time to finish with this hypocrisy. In terms of democracy and human rights, a country’s “internal affairs” or “specific culture” are irrelevant. Each man has the right to live in a dignified way, and not to be held prisoner illegally or killed just because he has a different appearance, different views or comes from another country. Human rights cannot be sold for oil. If we do not prevent those in power in some countries from conducting reprisals and persecutions, how will we be able to look our children in the eyes?

Dear colleagues, I appeal to you not to be indifferent or to turn a blind eye to human tragedy in return for short-term profits. Let us propagate democracy and human rights and fight for their observance, so that the 21st century brings common peace and welfare.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I call Mr Kosachev.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation) thanked the President and said that, when talking about the state of democracy in Europe, people were really talking about the rights of people to rule themselves. There were still black holes in Europe in terms of basic principles of democracy. For example, in Kosovo, a large proportion of the population had been forced out of their country. They had lost their rights to participate in elections and achieve representation for themselves. Kosovo would not be a democratic place until the Serbs were allowed to return. In Estonia and Latvia, people were denied citizenship and therefore prevented from engaging in democratic processes; if allowed to vote, the people might vote against those in power. In Estonia, the government had sought to move a memorial to those who had given their lives in the fight against fascism. This might not have been successful had all migrants had the right to vote. The approach of the Estonian Government to the Russian people and all those who had fought against fascism was appalling.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Riester to speak.

Mr RIESTER (Germany) said the debate was very important and reflected the issues at the heart of the Council of Europe. He was pleased that the report recognised the tensions that existed between democratic and human rights issues. There were different historical, social and economic processes which influenced the situation. Five years before the formation of the Council of Europe, Germany was under a fascist dictatorship. Other countries represented at the Council of Europe had maintained colonies in Africa and Asia in the 1950s and 1960s. Others had only recently emerged from socialist regimes. Thus, all countries had a different starting point.

He would like to emphasise that differences did exist between member states within the Council of Europe and that these differences should be acknowledged before any accusations are made.

He concluded that Europe and the United States of America were no longer the only predominant forces in world government and that, as new players emerge, the Council of Europe should influence the development democratic institutions within these nations.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Lipi?ski.

Mr LIPI?SKI (Poland) began on the theme of multiculturalism and multilingual families and called for more support in this area. He recognised that Multilingual Day on 26 September 2001 was an important step towards this.

He stated that equal status should exist between all the languages within a multilingual family and gave as an example the situation in Germany – in particular, the situation with a number of Polish families in Germany that had Polish as their first language. He stated that in such families, where the parents had separated, the children were being encouraged by the German Government to adopt German as their principle language. He then referred to a report from the German Government that had suggested that bilingualism may be detrimental to a child’s development.

He concluded that the rights for both parents to contribute to their children’s education must be maintained.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Gülçiçek.

Mr GÜLÇIÇEK (Turkey) commended the rapporteurs for their comprehensive report. He said that members of the Council of Europe were concerned with human and economic rights and that they should continue to defend the rights of those less able to defend themselves.

He referred to the issues of intolerance, terrorism and xenophobia and noted that there were difficulties in dealing with these. As concepts hostile to democracy, they should always be tackled.

He moved on to highlight his concerns about young people’s participation in the democratic system and again stated that this was something the Council of Europe should be prepared to act on.

In closing, Mr Gülçiçek called for these issues to be tackled in all countries. Balanced representation was important to everyone and must be developed where it did not exist; and maintained where it did.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Berényi.

Mr BERÉNYI (Slovakia). – I would like to withdraw my request to speak. I give the floor to another speaker.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Berényi. In that case, I call Mr Szabó from Hungary. He is not here, so I call Mr Kozma, who is also from Hungary. I do not see him in the Chamber. Therefore, the last speaker will be Mr Prorokovi? from Serbia.

Mr PROROKOVI? (Serbia). – I take this opportunity to draw colleagues’ attention to several problems that we face today, some of which were recognised by Mr Gross in his excellent report. What are the problems facing democracy today? First, an imbalance between economy and democracy has caused important decisions increasingly to be adopted outside parliament under the influence of various values or lobby groups. Secondly, citizens are starting to have doubts about democracy because they do not believe that important decisions are taken in parliament and also because they feel distant from politicians and unable to influence the decisions that politicians make.

The third problem is one of perception. There is often an enormous difference in perception between the international institutions that make the decisions and the national states to which those decisions refer. Consequently, the means which are considered to be a form of assistance in Strasbourg are perceived in the target country as a form of pressure. The desire expressed in Strasbourg to stimulate countries to step up their reforms has unfortunately led to the establishment of extreme movements in those countries. The people living in those countries feel under pressure to change their customs, traditions, way of life and rhythm of life.

The fourth problem is the implementation of double standards by the international institutions. That undermines trust in international organisations and in international order in general. I had the opportunity to meet a distinguished German politician and I asked his opinion on Iran. His position on the issue was simple. He believed that Ahmadinejad had realised that if Milošovi? had had nuclear weapons, NATO would never have bombed Serbia. That is the reason that he started to develop nuclear weapons. He recognised that to be the best method of protection. The problem is the fact that it was also accepted by a number of dictatorial regimes all around the world. Where will it all end? We must keep insisting on respect for international law and international order. We must not apply double standards, create gaps in perception or mistrust in democracy, or allow key decisions affecting our citizens to be made outside our existing institutions.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report. I call Mr Gross, Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee, to reply. You have four minutes.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – It is true that the report is not perfect and that it is only a beginning. It should be seen as a base for learning.

The best suggestion was the one from Mr Kox, that we should take the reports to our home parliaments and discuss them in the relevant committees. We should learn from them when we come back for next year’s report. If I prepare the report for next year, I will stress what Mr Riester said. We should show the different conditions and different positions that applied when we started to learn to become better democrats. That would enable us to understand each other better. Often, part of the dialogue is missing. People provoked others but they did not react, and still others were provoked. Even in our Hemicycle, a dialogue is not always successful.

I must criticise one of the guest speakers, but I will do it in the spirit of Mr Fellini, who was quoted yesterday by the Prime Minister of Ukraine. He said that happiness is criticising someone without hurting them. I am not sure whether that is possible with respect to the representative from Amnesty, but coming here and saying that this is the first time that anyone is representing civil society is a reflection of the biggest crisis of democracy. We represent our civil societies. The NGO is another way of representing the same people, but we do not need NGOs to represent civil society. We acknowledge them and we are open to them as partners because they are another way of representing civil society, but we do not have to undermine our own representation in order to do that.

I thank Mr Wilshire for his co-operation, but we must be clear that whenever power is used, it must have democratic legitimacy. That is true in the 21st century and the 22nd century. The way we achieve that may have to change, but not the aim. The nation state cannot guarantee democracy any more but that is not a reason to give up democracy. It is an incentive to enlarge democracy on a transnational, continental and global level.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). –Thank you.

The debate is closed.

----

I remind members that the votes on the draft resolution in Document 11214 and the addendum and six amendments will take place after the summing up by the rapporteurs and chairpersons on the three main committees.

I think that we have most of our complement of rapporteurs and chairmen, but Mr Ate? is not with us at the moment. Does anybody know whether he is due to join us? In any case, we now come to the summing up of the three debates.

To conclude the debates today, I will now call on the rapporteurs and chairmen of the three main committees. I will the call the rapporteur and chairman of each committee in the order of the debate.

I call first Mr Pourgourides, rapporteur of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human rights. You have four minutes.

Mr POURGOURIDES (Cyprus). – I have already spoken twice, and I think that speaking for a third time in this debate would not serve any useful purpose. I would like to grant my time to the president of our committee, who has done an excellent job in supporting us throughout the period of doing this work. At this stage, I think that he will be in a position to say more useful things than I would say after having taken the floor twice this morning.

THE PRESIDENT. – Your words are always very welcome to us, Mr Pourgourides, but your courtesy is also appreciated. Mr Marty, if you were to use Mr Pourgourides’ four minutes instead of your two, that would be acceptable to us.

Mr MARTY (Switzerland) thanked the chairmen and rapporteurs who had made the debate possible. He said that at this stage he did not have much to add, and just wanted to outline a few ideas. The debate was very important and fundamental, but there was a risk that all concerned thought they had done their bit. The debate had meaning only if it spurred member states on to uphold the values of the Council of Europe with more resolve.

In other words, members needed to turn words into deeds. They were under an obligation to pay attention to serious issues such as those faced by the European Court of Human Rights; an important institution which the Assembly had brought into being and which therefore should be given sufficient resources to operate effectively. The Assembly should concentrate on its core business – it needed to be much more inclusive in terms of its links to the Committee of Ministers. It was true that there had been a deafening silence from the Committee of Ministers on the subject.

Mr Marty urged those present to act when they saw erosions of human rights in their own countries, particularly when implemented in the name of the fight against terrorism. The energy released in the debate needed to be harnessed in order to take the fight forward.

(Mr van der Linden, President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Lloyd)

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Gross, Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee. You have four minutes.

Mr GROSS (Switzerland). – I want to thank you, Mr President, for insisting last September that we have this debate; you did indeed have to convince some of us to have it. I was ready to do have it, but I had to invest about ten days between Christmas and early February in preparing for it. I would like to thank Mrs Nachillo for her help; it was a unique and worthwhile experience. We should follow the advice of Mr Kox and take these reports to our home countries and committees and discuss them there, so that others can learn that what we are doing is important for them, too.

I turn to an issue that I was a little disappointed that we did not speak more about. If we want to overcome the crisis of democracy, we have to think about constituting democracy on a transnational level. Constitutions do not build states – they legitimise democratic power on any level at which such power is handled. Some might think that revolutionary, but it is just old stuff. This Assembly was founded by those who wanted to make it a constitution-making body for the 10 founding members of the Council of Europe. Fifteen years after the end of the Cold War, which prevented democracy-building in the west, as well, we come back to the old rules. We want better democracy in the west, the east and at a transnational level, and it is very important to remind ourselves of the need to achieve that.

I hope that we will not forget the original criteria for judging, evaluating and assessing our democracies. There is a gap that we need to fill, because although human rights are developed conceptually, democracy is under-developed. There are too many elite persons in the scientific community who, although they have power and position, are no longer interested in sharing their power with the people. As many colleagues have said, democracy is the sharing of power with the people, and we must do that. We cannot chose people but people can choose politicians, and they will choose different ones if we do not fulfill these obligations. Between now and the next report and debate, we must work to produce an even better report that will help even more in our daily work in our own countries.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Ate?, Chair of the Political Affairs Committee. You have two minutes.

Mr ATE? (Turkey). – The beautiful book that you have in your hands, Mr President, was not produced easily. The Political Affairs Committee has confronted many difficulties, one of which was choosing the methodology for this excellent report. Another even more difficult task was defining democracy. What is democracy? The third hard question that we had to deal with was how to strengthen democracy. Any political affairs committee anywhere could easily fail to answer these questions. Fourthly, we had to avoid writing yet another academic textbook on democracy. Nobody wants to read another scientific, academic textbook on that subject. However, one has to be an academic in order to write a book such as this. Fortunately, this Political Affairs Committee and this Chamber have politicians who are also academics. One such person is Mr Gross, and I want to thank him for his excellent work.

We tried to find answers to those questions, and the rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee viewed the problems associated with democracy through the eyes of the citizens. That was very important, because the committee agreed that the citizens are the only source of legitimate political power. We strongly believe that democratic politics should be all about people’s interests. Our report took the citizens as its central reference point. Our rapporteur, Andreas Gross, was absolutely correct to follow this methodology, and the excellent book that you have in your hands, Mr President, is proof of that.

I want to thank all our rapporteurs, chairpersons and the secretariat. Putting all the various elements was another difficult job, and I should also thank Mrs Dinsdale in this regard. It was a very painful job. A democracy is a living organism. It is not possible to write a report saying that we solved everything; the situation changes. Different communities require different things at different times, so we must do such work periodically. However, we must also allow more time for the discussion of the adoption of such reports. The experience of this report will probably give us a better final outcome.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Lintner, Rapporteur and Chairperson of the Monitoring Committee. You have four minutes.

Mr LINTNER (Germany) acknowledged his previous opportunity to make comments in the light of the debate and promised to be brief. He was pleased at the number of people who had underscored the message that monitoring meant dialogue rather than criticism. Much progress had been achieved as a result of personal dialogue over extended periods of time. He advocated this approach, which took both personal conviction and integrity, and thanked those involved.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Lintner. The debate is now closed.


Kontakt mit Andreas Gross