The only purpose of parties developing policy and campaigning is to persuade the electorate to support them. If the political parties are based on other than intellectual foundations there is no point in attempting to persuade the voters. Unless parties put forward genuine reasons of principle for changing party allegiance the whole democratic apparatus is in danger of being discredited.

Democracy and its challenges
The challenges to democracy that exist in the developing world are the same challenges that face Western Europe and North America. Democracy is in grave danger in the developed world, where economic growth has traditionally provided the means to obscure the complex and deep problems that have to be tackled. Western politicians still try and bribe their electorates with promises of increased wealth, even though there is now little prospect of being able to deliver, particularly without risking still further damage to the global environment. Western politicians and western democracy in general currently appear unable to cope with the problems of decline. There are a few signs of hope: the European Union, for all its faults, is one of them. Here for the first time in history there is a democracy in which MPs are elected across more than one nation state, and in which MPs sit in political rather than in national groups. Perhaps there is a lesson here for other continents, particularly for Africa with its often peculiar and arbitrary, colonially imposed, boundaries to seek the progressive diminution of national sovereignty. Pan-Africanism may well be needed for democracy to thrive in Africa. Like the European Union, Africa well have to start with an existing regional organisation, such as ECOWAS in that unstable and conflict torn corner of West Africa.

"Peace" in its wider connotation, which our own countries also need to perceive, requires that crucial "consent" to be governed which in theory is the purpose of the electoral process. But unless there is an awareness of the minimum required quality of elections, rather than just the quantity, disillusion with democracy is inevitable. Certainly even a large parliamentary majority in an election where the competing parties are each based on different tribes, fighting to control a country whose artificial boundaries militate against any long-term unity, is unlikely to be able to command a lasting peace. I recall ruefully a conference in Washington DC in 1995 on democracy in Africa in which almost all of us participants were members of that travelling circus of electoral specialists who tend to descend on a new democracy and offer genuine and useful assistance. We discussed in an atmosphere of mutual warmth various examples of our "battle honours" and their beneficial outcome.

Eventually the Conference reached the final paper, presented by Professor Claude Ake of Port Harcourt University, Nigeria, an academic whose support for democracy in very difficult circumstances was beyond reproach. Claude presented a devastating argument that unless elections were built on the firm foundation of civil society, and involved non-ethnically based parties, then at best elections merely legitimised a dominant tribal elite, and, at worst, were themselves the instrument of conflict. Given the audience, the silence was palpable and he concluded with a shrewd observation: "Elections, specifically free and fair elections, are the effect rather than the cause of democracy".

There is a "Gresham's Law" which relates to politics as well as to economics. Bad politics drives out good! It is much easier to devalue the political currency than it is to enhance it. Also, once devalued it is very difficult to reverse the electors' disillusion.

The Democracy Industry
Democracy today is big business. Elections are very labour intensive and, to ensure the security of the ballot, also require sophisticated equipment and materials. For instance, some two million poll workers were needed in Indonesia, plus everything from ballot boxes to indelible ink. To deal with voter registration and the election itself will cost even a smallish country of, say, five million electors, around thirty million US dollars. Clearly such levels of expenditure are beyond the financial capacity of most of the new democracies and in recent years considerable international aid has been centred on assisting the practical details of the transition to democracy. A significant amount of the procurement has, at the moment, to be supplied from the developed world and some of the aid thus goes back to the donor countries.

The high cost of the electoral process is an inhibiting factor to a country that may need to advance the date of its next election for legitimate purposes. It is also a significant factor in considering whether or not to have provincial and district voting separate from parliamentary elections, as a way, for instance, of focusing attention on local issues.

In addition to all the direct election costs, there is also an increasing democracy industry providing technical assistance and co-ordinating observer missions. Increasingly, with substantial operating profits at stake, this has become a commercial business enterprise, fuelled by the introduction of competitive tendering by some governments and by the European Commission - probably the biggest current player on the electoral pitch. Although a number of the organisations employed in this field are specialists, such as the London based Electoral Reform Society and its international subsidiary Electoral Reform International Services (ERIS), and the American International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in that they do no other consultancy work, many of the large consultancy companies, such as the UK based GJW. and the Dutch firm, Planet, have spread into the election market. Another generalist public relations company, The Public Affairs Company, based in the north of England, has set up a separate company, Democracy International, to compete for work. Professional bodies, such as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) and the Association of Election Adminstrators (AEA), both UK based, also have separate commercial organisations. There is also the Westminster Foundation which now almost exclusively works through the parties represented in the House of Commons.

Although most of the formal organisations are based in the UK and USA, other countries are active in the field, often using their development organisations, such as SIDA in Sweden, or research bodies, such as the Eberhausen Institute in Germany. The German political foundations are also very much involved in broad "pro democracy" work in new and young democracies. Other European countries, such as France, have until recently had no effective channel for identifying and promoting specialists in electoral and related fields. There is now an NGO "ProDemocratie" formed by consultants in the field which is aiming to fill the vacuum. A large Italian consultancy firm, Italtrend, is increasingly working in the electoral field.

Although this work burgeoned following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) was actually founded in 1884, and has been involved in international assistance work since 1910. The Society has a formidable reputation for independence and neutrality, and is the only such NGO with consultative status with the UN's ECOSOC organisation. Unusually in this field, ERS has a large Ballot Services subsidiary - with ninety-three permanent staff - which conducts actual elections for trade unions, housing associations, professional bodies etc. With the advent of so many new democracies clamouring for help by 1991, ERS hived off its international consultancy work to another subsidiary, ERIS. Unlike its Ballot Services partner, ERIS has not yet been expected by its parent body to produce a profit - a situation which its more commercial competitors complain gives it an advantage when tendering for work.

IFES was set up in 1987, with its first reports, on Nigeria and Paraguay, appearing the following year. Its first foray into Europe came with the opening up of Hungary in 1989, an event which signalled a coming opportunity to other specialists. GJW, for instance, opened an office in Budapest shortly afterwards, with Andrew Ellis in charge.

Essentially, all these companies, whatever their antecedents, are now highly commercial. The compulsory tendering process, started by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Government in the UK, and followed by the European Commission, has forced the companies into competition for work. Arguably, their very different structures, particularly whether not for profit or completely in the private enterprise sector, ensures that the competition is far from being on an equal basis, but there is also a potential bias in that some organisations can put in lower bids as they use mainly older consultants who have a substantial salary or pension and, therefore, do not require as high a consultancy fee as those who depend on this work for a living. Nor can bids for the same contract easily be evaluated between, say, ERIS, who traditionally have used a high proportion of consultants with a political background, and SOLACE whose main background is the local government civil service. Stories abound of square pegs in round holes. Given the nature of the work, negotiated contracts with individual organisations, based on their experience and expressed specialisms, would produce better results. Alternatively, the direct employment of individual consultants by the implementing organisation, as was done by UNDP in Indonesia, may even be easier and less expensive.

Those who now specialise in international political consultancy work, like myself, are essentially on a big global circuit and we meet up at election after election, or at the same workshops, seminars and training sessions. The regulars are certainly highly professional and very often have to rescue registration or electoral processes from impending disaster by their sheer ability to improvise. Again, the stories of such battle honours abound on the circuit. Our CVs are with many of the same companies and we are often approached for the same project by two or more different companies! Basically, all of us, companies and individuals, maintain a watchful eye on what elections are coming up in which countries, and then ascertain whether an international organisation, or a particular country, is taking on a significant role in funding aspects of the electoral process. Then, for the companies, it is a question of getting in on the act, putting together the specialists with the relevant expertise, and bidding for a contract. To a greater or a lesser extent, the companies have had to become predatory - some much more than others. It is big business and there is considerable money at stake on the larger contracts, with companies making upwards of 15% on each consultant's remuneration, in addition to management fees.

The democracy industry has grown rapidly and haphazardly over the past decade. It plays a crucial role in underpinning the democratic process in very many countries. Without the accumulated experience and expertise of the teams of specialist consultants - probably numbering in total no more than 250 - it is unlikely that many of the young democracies would even survive, let alone get to the stage of coping without external assistance, as some are now doing. But it is high time there was some examination of the industry, its structure, the basis of tendering and competition, whether direct employment would be more effective, and so on. One of the more recent independent bodies in this field, the Stockholm based International Institute for Democratic and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) has as one of its aims to provide a forum for interaction and exchange of experiences among a variety of global actors involved in the promotion of democracy. Perhaps it would be appropriate for IDEA to take a long cool look at the workings of the democracy industry.

Expectations
After the first flush of hope and enthusiasm the new democracies of eastern Europe and of Africa are already in trouble. Although there are immediate practical steps that can be taken to assist new democracies, the basic problem is that expectations of democracy were always far too high. Envious eyes were all too often cast towards the western democracies and their apparently ever rising standards of living. Over simplified, the equation ran something like this: the west has free elections and free enterprise; the west has affluence; therefore free elections and free enterprise lead to affluence. Particularly in eastern Europe, so close to its western neighbours, too many people believed that they were voting for the supermarket, and failed to see the tell tale signs of communities whose values are arguably much too skewed by economic considerations and whose neighbourhoods are being undermined by their failure to come to grips with the more enduring and real values of human society. As a consequence, when democracy failed to deliver their high hopes and expectations, democracy was blamed and disillusion set in.

In Poland the party structure is fragmented, voter turnout has been desperately low, with for many years a President, Lech Walesa, in constant strife with parliament. Former Soviet Georgia staggers from one state of emergency to another in its attempt to cope with revolt in Abkhasia. In Hungary constituencies have had to be rerun in an attempt to reach the minimum legal turnout necessary to legitimise the election. In Russia the Communists dominate the Duma and polled 35% against President Yeltsin in 1996, despite the abuse of state power and media against them. The election last year of Vladimir Putin as a "strong" leader provides Russia with a further opportunity to entrench democracy. The newly unified and democratic Yemen fell apart in a north-south civil war within months of its first genuine election in 1993 and in 1997 the main opposition party felt so discriminated against that it boycotted the elections. The artificial coalition which followed the UN run elections in Cambodia staggered from crisis to crisis until it was fatally undermined in a coup in July 1997 - though happily, the new elections a year later seem currently to have produced a stronger democratic base, with a separation of powers between executive and legislature and, most unusually, a formal opposition. The elected Palestinian National Authority appears to be unable to restrain the undemocratic excesses of President Arafat. Different registration rules had to be applied in Bosnia - and rigorously policed - in an attempt to prevent the elections further entrenching ethnic cleansing. Poor Sierra Leone, having struggled successfully to vote out its previous military dictatorship, then found itself overthrown by a yet another army officer, with whom the legitimate President has had to compromise. And, in what is probably the most contentious situation of all, an election in Algeria had to be called off when it became clear that the fundamentalist party was going to win - and in the following election the main fundamentalist parties were excluded from competing.

Fortunately, none of these traumatic experiences have - as yet - seriously undermined the various regimes' commitment to democracy and to pluralistic elections. Indeed, in Romania and Serbia there have been healthy signs that the former Communist regimes elected on the back of public disillusion can be replaced through the ballot box, but unless we realise what is happening, and confront the growing belief that democracy cannot transform society, there are dangers ahead from which even we in Western Europe will not be able insulate ourselves. A commitment only to the electoral process is not enough. At very least elections buy time, but the time thus bought is not being properly used. Quite apart from the moral case for assisting those struggling to survive, an unstable, nationalistic and fragmented former Soviet Union could make Bosnia look like a side show, and would have serious implications for us all.

Among the practical and urgent necessities of new democracies are sympathetic assistance with the development of parliamentary processes and with the infrastructure of an open, democratic, civil, society. Where the transformation also requires economic changes, this too needs to be underpinned from outside. Such support is not only altruistic but it is also enlightened self interest: it is not in the interests of western society to have widespread instability and insecurity in whole regions of the world.

It follows also from the problems of sustaining democracy that politicians need to avoid bribing the electorate with policy promises that cannot be delivered. Here again this points to the need for parties to emphasise their view of society rather than to place too much stress on expensive specifics.

Manipulation through state resources and the media
The two particular ways and means used to undermine the legitimacy of elections are, first, the manipulation of the state's power to assist the government's electoral prospects, and, second, the dominance of the media - particularly the electronic media. In a number of elections in new democracies the Dusseldorf based European Institute for the Media has done a highly professional job of monitoring the media output, both in quality and quantity, and has issued a number of powerful indictments of the abuses practised. Control of television channels is particularly crucial, particularly during the campaign period, not only to ensure that allocated party broadcasts are transmitted on a fair rota, but also to attempt to determine and impose balance on news, commentary and discussion programmes. So much is subjective that it is impossible to succeed completely, but the attempt must be made. Other "ordinary" programming allegedly has an effect. I recall in the Russian Presidential election in 1996 receiving complaints from Zyuganov supporters that on the eve of poll and on polling day the pro-Yeltsin television channels were filling up their schedules with feature films showing the worst excesses of Stalin's regime!

There is a case for the electoral law to provide for an independent Electoral Commission actually to assume control over all television output for, say, two hours each evening of the campaign period. In some countries each party has its own television channel - and the technology to enable this to be affordable is now available. In other countries, including the UK, no paid political advertising is permitted at any time, but "major" parties are allocated free time both in and out of election periods. In Malaÿi the UN Electoral Assistance Mission found the money to "sponsor" election broadcasting on radio - there being no domestic television. In Cambodia in 1992, Radio UNTAC provided the only objective domestic news output. Personally, I believe that in virtually every country, and particularly in new democracies, television and sometimes radio is so pervasive and so influential that the need to regulate its output, at least during the election campaign period, needs to be accepted. Without regulation the aim of free and fair elections is even more of a chimera.

Tackling the problems
Politicians are always in danger in creating an aura of elitism around themselves, often almost suggesting that their work is not for ordinary mortals. At its heart the problems facing every man and woman in each country are essentially very straightforward. The need for food, shelter and for health care; the desire for education and, above all, for a sense of security and contentment. It is, however, also true that the achievement of these aims is desperately complex. In addition the wider problems of the world are also incapable of simplistic answers. It behoves all politicians, however, to speak as simply and as straightforwardly as possible and to avoid deliberately over complicating issues. The electorate deserves to be told the truth as plainly as possible and the politician who acts on the need to be accountable to his or her voters is much more likely to be trusted than the modern snake oil salesman who seeks to give bland assurances or, even worse, avoids meeting with the public.

Five interlocking components are required for a healthy democracy and for politics to succeed:

Intellectual rigour: it is vital in the world of today, with its complexities and its competing interests, to approach political problems with real intellectual rigour. The world is full of charlatans with simplistic answers to baffling problems. For those who seek the high calling of politics there is no substitute - alas - to reading as widely as possible, to debating and discussing with as many experts as are available, and to working out with one's colleagues the best means of improving the social, political and economic conditions of the people; 

A mission to explain: it is important to use every means possible to take the public into one's confidence, not only via the media but also including the face to face encounter with ordinary people at public meetings. The oral tradition has largely disappeared in western politics, and with it has gone the exposition of a case, followed by cross-examination under questioning from the floor. The electorate must not be under-rated. Even the most unsophisticated of rural people have a real sense of justice and an instinctive and practical awareness of their individual and communal needs.

A desire to involve: politics and democracy work best when there is a genuine and expressed desire on the part of the parties to involve the public in their activities. If parties seem to be elitist and are organised from the centre downwards then members of the public are inhibited from joining and participating. Internal party democracy is important to a healthy political system. The need to have local party officials who recruit members and who hold local meetings. The need to have a method of electing officials at all levels. The need to have a democratic process for determining the party's policy. These are all important aspects of a political process that regards the public as partners in democracy rather than as lobby fodder or as a nuisance to the party leadership.

Neutral public authorities: the transfer of power, and the principle of the potential of democratic alternance, mean nothing if not accompanied by the transfer of support to the elected regime by neutral public authorities, in particular the security forces and the civil service.

Appropriate levels of authority: in one form or another there needs to be "federalism", with an identifiable, accountable and acceptable level of authority for the delivery of each service - preferably on the principle of "subsidiarity". In the modern world, with rampant globalisation, many artificial national boundaries, and an immense environmental challenge, this has to involve a supranational dimension.

None of these things will be achieved without hard work and even sacrifice on the part of those who dedicate themselves to the political life. But, however tough politics is, all other ways of organising society are worse! There is a deeply rooted instinctive wish on the part of all peoples to participate in their own governance. Individuals may not know why they wish to take part; they rarely know how to do so, but it is up to politicians to liberate those feelings and to make sure that there is the most involved and best informed electorate possible.

Politics an art not a science
In academic institutions politics is often taught as "Political Science". I believe this to be a misnomer. Politics is much more of an art than a science. It is part of the art of living. Being able to govern oneself peacefully and progressively and, in particular, being able to achieve the transfer of power through the democratic process, is a sign that a country is truly civilised. There is, however, one key distinctive feature compared to other arts. The "ordinary" artist works with the paint or the clay to produce the finished product and the materials he or she works with are less important than the final artefact. But the political artist is working with people and they are more important than the final product. In other words, the end does not justify the means. Indeed the means will influence the ends and may even mean that one's policy aims have to be revised to avoid using means which harm individuals.

The best example is probably that of the search for equality. Equality of esteem and of opportunity do not cause too many problems, but the attempt to achieve equality of distribution, whilst in theory a perfectly legitimate and even laudable aim, has invariably been the excuse for the most vicious confiscatory policies, requiring an autocratic and repressive regime. Even then it is unsuccessful as the consequence of such a policy is the destruction of the economic base itself.

International aid for democracy
In the light of the experience of the '90s, five extensions of western governments' policy are needed. These are set out here in the context of young democracies generally, rather than for any particular country.

Economic stability
First, even though the new economic aspirations of the post totalitarian era are impossible to fulfil, a stable currency is a key component of political stability. Historically I know of no country that has successfully achieved the transition to democracy without outside assistance to underpin its currency. We recently celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Marshall Plan, which put, at today's prices more than 150 billion dollars into a war ravaged Europe. Where today is the George Marshall with a vision - and a plan - for Eastern Europe? The European Commission needs to underpin the rouble just as West Germany paid - and is paying - the price for the integration of East Germany. International financial commitment is urgently needed to deal with the debilitating dangers of rampant inflation. It would be cheaper in the long run than picking up the pieces if democracy fails.

Civil Society
Second, there needs to be an awareness of the importance of civil society. The component of democracy that we from established democracies particularly tend to take for granted is the wide variety of civil society, which my former UK Liberal parliamentary colleague Richard Wainwright calls, in a metaphor taken from weaving, the "warp and the weft", and which enables us to have - some - influence over the local school, the council estate, the community health services and the workplace. In western society the establishment of voluntary organisations, pressure groups, and community bodies is normal practice, rarely warranting comment, but in most new democracies it was previously unknown and is still revolutionary. I vote in an election most weeks - for my trade union officers, the housing association, the school board, the Liberal Party, etc, and without a developing civil society, in which such democracy becomes part and parcel of everyday life, occasional public elections are unlikely to be much more than a democratic veneer giving the semblance without the substance. This appeared to be recognised recently by US Senator John McCain, who said, in relation to the current situation in Cambodia "The lesson is that it's more than an election that makes a democracy."

Political Party development
Third, there needs to be greater attention to the development of political parties. As set out above, without a basis in philosophy, rather than on tribes or in religion, or even on charismatic leaders, there is no long-term future. Only in Namibia has a liberation movement won two elections in a row - and even there the governing party's main base lies in the majority Ovambo tribe. As Neal Ascherson pointed out in the UK broadsheet newspaper Independent on Sunday, the idealists who led the revolutions have been swept away. South Africa, having coming later to the electoral scene, is still just about imbued with hope, but the ANC had started to look at its future structure and basis rather than holding the complacent assumption that it can rule for ever. Alas, the ANC was unable to act on its foresight within the current political imperatives in South Africa. A liberation movement is not a political party as such, and when liberation is achieved, the wide coalition that such a movement requires for success makes the task of consistent and coherent government impossible in the longer term, as even the Congress Party of India finally discovered.

Post-Election
Fourth, assistance to the transition needs to extend to the newly elected legislature. It is crazy to say on polling day "goodbye - you're democratic now", when most, if not all of those elected have never previously sat in any elected body. No wonder it all too often falls apart.

Constitutional Review
Fifth, constitutional and electoral systems need to be reassessed. A strong presidential system, underpinned by unrepresentative election results, gives too little influence to the opposition and tempts those out of power to undermine a fragile democracy by force. There needs to be a legitimate role for all those committed to the electoral process, whether or not in power. In particular the concept of loyal opposition is vital and is, as yet, hardly known. An electoral system that combines proportionality and accountability is needed to enhance even the best constitution.

The global opportunity
Acceptance of these components of democracy will ensure that elections become a key aspect of the process and underpin their rôle as the means of resolving conflict peacefully. The question of principle for the donor community is how far it uses its aid to force democratic change. The issue of "conditionality" is always difficult for governments worried about neo-colonialism. I have fewer and fewer qualms. A country which misuses aid to benefit the ruling clique and its followers, rather than those in need, for whom the aid was intended, is not entitled to remain immune from pressure for change from those paying the bills.

The potential to create a new democratic and progressive country lies within the grasp of the political forces that step into the electoral limelight. Winning an election may well be the greatest satisfaction and achievement but, without those who campaign and lose, democracy would not be a reality. Many years ago, when I was first contesting municipal elections in my own city, a much more experienced politician said to me "if you can't afford to lose, you can't afford to win". That advice I pass on to all those involved in all elections, and particularly in new democracies! Participating in the electoral process is itself a vital contribution to democracy. Whether or not a particular political party does well or badly - or whether it even survives these elections - is not necessarily the only thing that matters. The party structure may well change before the next election in the light of the pressures of events and the demands placed upon it, but those who take part in genuinely multi-party elections are participating in history and are contributing to the emergence of genuine democracy.

New democracies may be fragile creatures but they are also dynamic. There may well be a honeymoon period after the election of a new President and the inauguration of a new Parliament. The electors will always watch intently to see whether they have elected men and women of stature. How those charged with the awesome task of preparing their country for the twenty first century fulfil their mandate remains to be seen but one thing is very certain, after the introduction of democracy things will never be the same again. In young democracies, as everywhere else, politics is far too important to leave to politicians! It is up to every citizen in a democracy to be aware and alert to opportunities and challenges.

Michael Meadowcroft has been active in public life in Britain for over forty years. He was a City Councillor for fifteen years, a County Councillor for six years, and was Liberal MP for Leeds West from 1983-87. He has held a number of national offices in the Liberal Party. He has also written numerous books and pamphlets. He was the chief officer of a large UK voluntary organisation and was also on the staff of a major UK foundation. He Chaired the UK Electoral Reform Society from 1989-1993 and inaugurated its international arm, under whose auspices he led many delegations to assist new democracies in Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. Among his thirty-seven missions in twenty-six countries, he was the Co-ordinator of the United Nations Electoral Assistance Secretariat in Malaÿi in 1994, and was Co-Director of the European Union's Technical Assistance Mission in Cambodia in 1998. He was the Post-Election Advisor to the UNDP Technical Assistance Mission for the 1999 Indonesian elections and has led a number of international observer missions.

The views expressed in this paper are personal and do not necessarily represent any organisation which has had responsibility for missions described in the text.