Commonwealth: Democracy and Development

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord on initiating this debate on the linkage between governance and development. It is being increasingly recognised, perhaps first by the World Bank and, over the past few years, by DfID that unless rulers are challenged and made accountable, there will be corruption and inefficiency. I follow the noble and learned Baroness in saying that, rather like Monsieur Jourdain and prose, the Commonwealth has been doing it all the time from the very start. One thinks of the contribution of the common law—which has been touched on—and of the contribution over the decades by Lincoln’s Inn, not just in the substance of law but also in procedure, which has had a major effect on Commonwealth development. It is important to be realistic about what the Commonwealth can and cannot do. The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, made this point as did the current Commonwealth Secretary-General, Kamalesh Sharma, in an excellent speech on human rights at the November CHOGM, where he drew the distinction between the rhetoric and the reality. The rhetoric is the Harare Declaration; the reality is that, often, perhaps because of bureaucratic problems, many Commonwealth countries are unable to implement even the Convention on Torture or the two major UN human rights conventions. Fourteen members are yet to ratify the two 1966 conventions. We can help in that. In terms of governance, part of the Commonwealth’s strength is negative: the response to peer reviews in respect of the Harare principles; the role of the CMAG over the fluctuating membership of Fiji and Pakistan; and now Zimbabwe being self-excluded. It is also important that at the recent CHOGM it was decided to hold the next CHOGM not in Sri Lanka, because of repression and human rights problems, but in Australia. That also has some effect. The strength of the Commonwealth in part derives from the informal Commonwealth, a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young: the Commonwealth People’s Forum—in the genesis of which we in the UK had a major part in the Gleneagles CHOGM—and the networks of non-governmental organisations. Concerning South Africa, I have enormous respect for the civics which flourished in the apartheid years and which may now be a bulwark against authoritarianism in South Africa, challenging the Executive and asking the Government to explain themselves and the pretensions of power. All those are intermediary bodies which are part of the informal Commonwealth. I think, too, of the way in which the very diversity of the Commonwealth that we saw in the November CHOGM perhaps paved the way for Copenhagen by reaching informal agreements on financial support for poorer countries. But the major contribution of our Commonwealth, as has been rightly said, in terms of Parliament and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, is vital. It is the parliamentary dimension which can profitably be strengthened. Much useful work is being done by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association generally, headquartered here in London, and by our own UK branch. For example, the UK branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association organised the International Parliamentary Governance Seminar held in London in November, looking at the role of Parliament in governance, parliamentary democracy, the role of the press, the role of opposition and so on. I shall make two quick points on this. First, there are a number of other organisations in the field; for example, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the European Union, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the foundations in the US and Germany and so on. There is an important role for co-ordination. I make a specific case for co-operation with France, particularly in west Africa. That was symbolised by the appearance of President Sarkozy at the CHOGM in Trinidad and Tobago. A number of the Commonwealth countries are now bilingual; for example, Mauritius, Cameroon, Canada and Rwanda. La Francophonie, which has 53 members—and the lusophone members, which are eight in the world—can usefully work with the Commonwealth in this area to promote democracy and good governance. In the current climate of this Parliament being vilified by the press in the UK, many parliamentarians in the UK feel under threat by taking part in the overseas work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to strengthen democracy. Perhaps our press fails to appreciate the hard and valuable work done by parliamentarians in terms of seminars and conferences worldwide. Finally, I praise the initiative of the Royal Commonwealth Society and of our Foreign Secretary on the Commonwealth Conversation. The key question asked is whether the Commonwealth is spreading itself too thinly. In so many of the other things that it does, many other international organisations do the work perhaps in some ways more professionally and with more money. It is perhaps in governance that the Commonwealth can make the most important contribution. The Commonwealth Conversation reported back to CHOGM last month. I understand that a full report will be made by the Royal Commonwealth Society in January. It would be helpful to have an interim assessment by the Government today. I have attended many Commonwealth conferences. I value the family spirit, the instant rapport and the fact that small countries can walk tall. It is important that many countries are still seeking membership. The Commonwealth can add value not only to their democracy but also to their development, as the mover of the Motion said.