US Ambassador to OAS Outlines Threats to Democracy in North and South America – The GW Hatchet

The US ambassador to the Organization of American States discussed the methods the group uses to combat threats to democracy Monday at the Elliott School of International Affairs.

U.S. Ambassador Francisco Mora and adjunct professor of international affairs Michael McCarthy assessed OAS’s approach to combating authoritarianism in the Americas by promoting democratic leadership, condemning disinformation, and strengthening public diplomacy. LATAM@GW — an organization that brings together students interested in Latin America and the Caribbean — hosted the event, which was moderated by Cynthia McClintock, a professor of international affairs.

The OAS, a regional organization founded in 1889 and comprising 35 countries, is the oldest regional organization in the world created for the purpose of maintaining peace, justice and independence through diplomacy and cooperation. Countries such as the US, Mexico, Canada, Panama and Guatemala are active members.

According to Mora, some countries in the Western Hemisphere are caught in a “vicious cycle” of crumbling democracy, climate change, transnational crime and inequality, because one problem triggers another. According to Mora, it is difficult for the state to solve all problems at the same time, causing citizens to lose confidence in democratic leadership.

“People are dissatisfied, frustrated and dissatisfied with the implementation of democracy, and not just in this hemisphere, but actually all over the world,” Mora said.

Mora said that citizens decreasing confidence in their countries’ democracies, a rhetoric reinforced by the 2008 financial crisis, has led many to consider the possibility that authoritarianism might be a “more effective” alternative to democracy. He argued that the most effective way to combat a failing democracy is to continue democracy and increase international cooperation, rather than authoritarian rule.

“We see elected leaders all over the world undermining election results, attacking independent judiciaries, and undermining human rights, right?” Mora said. “So it’s quite a challenge, no matter what. But the way to address these challenges is not with less democracy, as we often hear, but with more democracy.”

Mora presented five possible actions the OAS could take to address the challenges undermining democracy: strengthening the democratic charter, engaging civil society and youth, combating disinformation, investing in economic growth and enhancing regional cooperation on security.

Mora also stressed the need for a collective effort between Member States to ensure that countries can protect themselves from the influence of armed militias that seek to control government policies and actions through coercion. He explained that while criminal organizations threaten the rule of law of countries, states can strengthen their authority by cooperating on regional security issues.

“Criminal organizations always said it penetrated the government,” Mora said. “No, they’re not penetrating it, they’ve captured it in a sense, some more than others.”

Mora also emphasized the Inter-American Democratic Charter — an agreement drawn up by the OAS in 2001 that affirms their shared commitment to democracy — as the “instrument” that all OAS states use to confront threats to democracy. He said the document requires all member states to commit to defending and promoting democratic ideals.

McCarthy said the new, growing threat to democracy, as highlighted in the 2001 Inter-American Charter, comes when a democratically elected leader fails to govern democratically. He explained the prevalence of “presidential self-coup,” which refers to when leaders consolidate their power under the executive branch and weaken democratic principles.

“That’s something that we as scholars of international affairs have to keep in mind, because the OAS set the bar very high for itself with the Inter-American Democratic Charter of 2001,” McCarthy said. “The idea that a presidential self-coup would be considered equivalent to a military coup, in terms of the rules of the charter, was, quite frankly, revolutionary in terms of international norms for democracy.”