Grassroot

Revolutions

Elections 

and Beyond

DEMOCRACY RISING

U.S. Agency for International Development

Building

Freedom

September 2005
Results

K

So it is the policy of the United States to 

seek and support the growth of democratic 

movements and institutions in every nation 

and culture, with the ultimate goal of 

ending tyranny in our world.... America will 

not impose our own style of government 

on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help 

others find their own voice, attain their 

own freedom, and make their own way.”

President George W. Bush

Second Inaugural Address, January 20, 2005

“

Democracy Rising was published by the U.S. Agency for International Development, Bureau for 

Legislative and Public Affairs. It was written and researched by Ben Barber, designed by Nan Dearborn,

and photo research was by Claire McIntyre, Kristina Stefanova, and Kyle McNeely. 
Overview: In a new wave of mass

demands for democracy in the past two

years, millions defied threats—from Kiev to

Ramallah to Bishkek—demonstrating or

simply voting in their first free elections. 2

Post-Soviet Revolutions

Georgia: The Rose Revolution swept 

the old regime of Eduard Schevardnadze

from power as thousands demanded an 

end to corrupt elections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Ukraine: After the government rigged

election results, a million people joined 

the Orange Revolution, leading to a new

election won by Viktor Yushchenko. . . . .8

Kyrgyzstan: In the Tulip Revolution,

angry crowds in Osh and the capital

Bishkek swiftly ousted the government of

Askar Akayev after election fraud. New

voting followed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Near East Democracy

Lebanon: The Cedar Revolution broke

out as almost a million people demanded

free elections and an end to Syrian

occupation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

West Bank/Gaza:

The death of Yasser

Arafat in 2004 led to new

Palestinian elections,

widely seen as legitimate,

for president and local

councils. Legislative

campaigning began in the

West Bank and Gaza. 18

Iraq: Defying threats, millions voted in

January 2005, for a new government

coalition in one of the most free and fair

elections ever held in the region. . . . . .20

ORANGE REVOLUTION

Peaceful Protest

Ukrainian riot police never

attacked protestors, whose

orange balloons symbolized

their call for democracy,

November 27 2004.

Page 8

Afghanistan: Loya Jirga traditional

councils wrote a constitution and set up

elections—8 million voted, nearly half of

them women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Legacy of Change

Democracy Takes Root: The new

revolutions follow decades of progress in

Latin America,

Africa and 

Asia, ending

dictatorial rule

and nurturing

governments

chosen by the

voters. . . . . 23

Strategy: The $1.2 billion annual

USAID democracy aid budget is based on a

four point strategy tailored to assist each

country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

COVER PHOTO: After voting in Iraq’s

first democratic election in January, 2005,

Iraqis triumphantly hold aloft their fingers stained with indelible ink to prevent

multiple voting. PHOTO: ADRIAN DENNIS / AFP

DAVID GUTTENFELDER /AP
Overview

Reaching for Democracy

2

Crowds surged through streets of Kiev, Tbilisi,

Beirut and Bishkek. Millions of men and

women defied threats to stand in line and vote

freely in Baghdad, Kabul and Ramallah. All 

of them asked for the same thing: democracy.

eign policy since the end of World War I,

when President Wilson promoted democratic self-determination for Czechoslovakia,

Poland, Hungary, Austria and Romania.

After World War II, the United States

helped write democratic constitutions for

defeated Germany and Japan—which remain democratic today.

When post-war Western Europe—weakened by war—appeared vulnerable to communism or fascism, the United States began

the Marshall Plan in 1948 to rebuild its

economies. All nations that got help are

democratic today, from Finland to Portugal.

In 1961, U.S. foreign aid agencies were

combined into the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) which focused on helping development in Asia,

Africa and Latin America. Among the advances towards democracy the United States

supported were the following:

● Over time, South Korea, Taiwan,Thailand,

the Philippines and many other countries

adopted democratic systems.

● In the 1980s and 1990s, Latin America

changed most of its leftist or rightist

authoritarian governments—Chile, Brazil,

Nicaragua and El Salvador for example—to

elected democracies with free press and

multi-party politics.

● Then, after the fall of communism, U.S.

democracy assistance helped Poland, the

Czech Republic, the Baltics, Slovakia,

Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary revive or

create new democratic systems.

● In Indonesia, President Suharto quit in

1999 amid public protests, after 25 years in

power. The country became the world’s third

most populous democracy in 2004 when it

held landmark direct presidential and

legislative elections.

THE NEW WAVE

The colorful revolutions were created by citizens from Ukraine to Lebanon, with U.S.

and other support.

Ukrainian journalists, five years before

the Orange Revolution, were trained by

U.S.-supported groups to deliver balanced,

fair reports on politics; to investigate and report on government abuse; and to throw a

spotlight on fraudulent elections.

Georgian political parties learned how to

organize and register their voters, train election observers, prepare party platforms and

communicate their agendas to the public.

Lebanese and Kyrgyz non-government

organizations (NGOs) got help from U.S.

NGOs such as the American Bar Association, Eurasia Foundation and Freedom

House. These groups trained people on legal

issues, elections, human rights and media.

The United States was the main supporter of democracy around the world, along

with the European Union and other donors.

For years, America realized that economic

and social development were unlikely to take

place unless people can investigate how their

governments operate, voice complaints, and

ultimately change their leaders through free

and fair elections.

The fallen rulers in some countries may

blame “outside interference” for their defeat.

But U.S. and other democracy aid only

serves as a source of ideas and inspiration.

The real work of creating democracy is carried out by courageous and committed people within the countries undergoing change.

Unless people are ready for democracy, no

amount of aid can make a difference.

As the dust settled on the new democratic revolutions, U.S. and other donors

helped new governments carry out promises

to serve honestly and fairly. International advisors helped national and local officials in

many countries to write tax laws, fight corruption, revive private markets, open up

e saw them marching for

democracy through the

streets of former Soviet

capitals such as Kiev and

Tbilisi. Millions more defied threats of violence and lined up to cast

their first democratic votes in Kabul and

Baghdad.

In parts of the world that had long been

ruled by despots, or those who still believe a

one-party state can control the lives of

mankind, a vast outpouring of people reaching out for democracy stunned the world in

the past two years.

One picture summed it up: in the cold

dark night of Tbilisi, Georgia, as people

marched towards the seat of government to

protest a fraudulent election, one firm hand

held up a model of the Statue of Liberty.

Millions are asking for the rights that statue

represents: elections to choose their leaders

and freedom of speech, press and religion.

The newly elected governments face an

enormous burden. They must respond to the

needs of the people, and provide the services

of the modern nation such as roads, electricity, health and education.

Governments must eliminate the corruption and nepotism that drain the economy.

They must be accountable to the public for

their spending and their actions. In short—

governments must learn to govern justly.

Many people watched in wonder as the

multicolored revolutions took place—the

Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose in

Georgia, the Cedar in Lebanon, the Tulip in

Kyrgyzstan. Each country had a different

form of government but all were denying

people a chance to chose new leaders

through fair elections.

Few realized that for years, the United

States and other countries and organizations

have been supporting this homegrown desire

for democracy.

Support for democracy around the world

is not new. It has been a key part of U.S. forW

▲ Germany, Japan

World War II ends,

U.S. authorities move 

to form democratic

governments

1945

▲ Western Europe

U.S. Marshall Plan 

brings economic aid 

to support European

democracies

1948

▲ Africa End of Cold

War support to dictators bring democracy

to South Africa, Mali,

Mozambique, etc.

1990s

▲ Asia Democratic

elections replace 

authoritarian regimes

in South Korea,Taiwan,

Thailand, Philippines 

1980s

▲ Latin America

15 strongmen replaced 

by elected leaders in 

Argentina, Chile, Brazil,

El Salvador, Peru, etc.

1978-94

▲ Soviet Union collapses.

Democratic systems 

emerge in Poland, Baltics,

Czechoslovakia, Hungary,

Bulgaria, Romania

1989-1991

“We should all look to 

a future when every

government respects the

will of its citizens—

because the ideal of

democracy is universal...

Millions of people are

demanding freedom for

themselves and democracy

for their countries.”

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Remarks at the American University in Cairo, Egypt

June 20, 2005
government to public scrutiny and create

city councils accountable to voters.

Democracy is nothing new. The word

describes the ancient Greek city states,

meaning “authority of the people.” It has existed in many cultures throughout recorded

history: Panchayat village councils of India;

Buddhist Councils of India and China;

Japan’s 7th Century constitution; and American Indian councils.

In the 13th century, the English King

John signed the Magna Carta, foundation of

British-American democracy, but it took

hundreds of years of before its ideas were applied to all citizens. And every democratic

country continues to defend and extend

democratic rights.

More than 180 countries have

signed the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights guaranteeing

people the right to chose their

own government.

But it is difficult to support democracy where the

leaders have no tolerance for it.

Burma, North Korea and other

countries will not allow freedom

or those who support it to enter

their borders. War and turmoil

in Somalia, Congo and other

countries make it difficult to

support democratic institutions.

Furthermore, China and Vietnam allow economic freedom

but permit only limited rights

to replace some local leaders.

However the United States remains committed to support

homegrown movements that seek

freedom.

This magazine tells the story of

the recent explosion of democratic

values in several corners of the world.

It’s the story of courageous people who

seized the chance to reform and improve

their own societies. One thing remains clear:

while U.S. and other aid can help local people overseas strengthen their democratic political parties, conduct elections and improve

their government, it is only when citizens

and local leaders in each country decide to

change things that countries move from authoritarian rule towards democracy. ■

▲ Serbia

uprising ousts 

Slobodan Milosevic

2000

▲ Georgia

Rose Revolution

2003

▲ Afghanistan

election

2004

▲ Ukraine

Orange Revolution 

(December)

▲ Palestine

elections 

(December)

▲ Iraq

election (January)

2005

▲ Lebanon

Cedar Revolution 

(February)

▲ Kyrgyzstan

Tulip Revolution 

(February)

CEDAR WAVE: Some of the million

Lebanese who demanded democracy after

the slaying of ex-Prime Minister Rafik

Hariri in Feb. 2005.

DAILY STAR, BEIRUT
ROSE

REVOLUTION

GEORGIA RISING:Thousands jam

Tbilisi to protest election fraud.

GEORGIA’S 

BESO GULASHVILI / 24 HOURS
5

LIBERTY: As crowds surge to the parliament, a Georgian holds up a Statue 

of Liberty, symbolizing the democracy 

they want.

For 10 years, thousands 

of Georgia’s journalists,

local officials, lawyers,

judges, political parties

and NGOs built grassroots

democracy which became

the Rose Revolution when

the government tried to

steal the 2003 election.

TBILISI, Georgia —In November 2005 it will

be two years since this ancient Black Sea

country produced the Rose Revolution,

when tens of thousands of people came from

across the land demanding freedom, fair

elections and democracy.

Without violence they came, after an independent parallel vote count showed the

government claim to have won the November 2 parliament election was a fraud.

Waving red and white banners bearing

the St. George’s Cross—now on the national flag—demonstrators grew in number and

determination for 20 days until President

Eduard Shevardnadze left his office peacefully. After 12 years in power, he was replaced

by opposition leader Mikhail Saakashvili,

who in January 2004 was elected president

by a landslide.

Georgia’s was one of four corrupt postcommunist governments to fall since Serbians ousted Slobodan Milosevic in 2000.

The Rose Revolution came next in 2003

BESO GULASHVILI / 24 HOURS
6

—Georgians borrowed

many Serbian pro-democracy innovations. Ukraine’s

Orange Revolution followed in 2004; and Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution

took place in March 2005.

Georgia, Ukraine and

Kyrgyzstan quit the Soviet

Union in 1991. But corruption remained entrenched

and old, repressive systems

of control were returning.

In 2003, Georgians

thronged the main square

of this city to say they

would not stand for the

pale reincarnation of communist rule with its corrupt

bureaucracy, fixed elections, muzzled media,

crony capitalism and authoritarian police.

The Rose Revolution—named after the

flower Saakashvili held as he faced down police ringing the parliament—shocked the

world. But not Georgia’s advocates of

democracy. They had been working for a

decade to build a base for freedom and the

rule of law, with help from U.S. and other

foreign aid donors.

“The success in Georgia is a result of the

people’s commitment to democracy, but

without foreign assistance I’m not sure we

would have been able to achieve what we did

without bloodshed,” said Levan Ramishvili

of the Liberty Institute, an NGO that received U.S. funds since 1996.

Although he was threatened and even

beaten up by ultra-religious thugs opposed

to his work on religious tolerance, Ramishvili continued to work with U.S. aid to “promote democratic and liberal values in the

broad classical sense — transparency, accountability,” he said in his office. “The Rose

Revolution was the climax of these efforts.”

For example, in 1999, U.S. funding

helped Georgians draw up and build support for a Freedom of Information Law,

which the government adopted. That law allowed the media and NGOs to investigate

government budgets, force the firing of a

corrupt minister and give people a sense that

they should regulate the government,

Ramishvili said.

U.S. democracy grants also paid for experts from the American Bar Association

(ABA), International Republican Institute

(IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI),

the University of Maryland and other groups

to train lawyers, judges, journalists, members of parliament, NGOs, political party

leaders and others.

“From the start, U.S. aid supported civil

society and created a network of civic minded people” who supported democracy and

were ready to join the Rose Revolution, said

the Liberty Institute leader.

Many have become leaders in the new

government, such as President Saakashvili

and Zurab Chiaberashvili, who was mayor

of Tbilisi until July, 2005.

“Under U.S. assistance, new leaders were

born,” said the former mayor.

“The U.S. ...helped good people get rid

of a bad and corrupted government—without it what choice did we have?”

The mayor said that “there is a conspiracy theory—that what happened was planned

in D.C. ...It’s not true. What this assistance

did, it made civil actors alive, and when the

critical moment came, we understood each

other like a well-prepared soccer team.”

The revolution really began when the

government tried to ban media coverage for

50 days before the November 2, 2003 election and “we asked other NGOs to please

create public resistance to this decision,” said

the mayor.

LAWYERS AND JUDGES

Training and support for lawyers and judges,

who had lacked the confidence of the public,

bolstered a desire for a Rose Revolution. For

example, NGOs organized a system of exams

by 1998 to test the competency and ethics of

judges, said Inga Todria, of the Association

of Georgian Judges, which was set up with

help from the American Bar Association.

By 2002, 90 percent of Georgia’s judges

had joined the group. It was a major change

from Soviet times. Now, the judiciary views

itself as independent from the government,

said an ABA official in Tbilisi, adding:

“There exists now a core group of judges

who are not afraid and can resist pressure

from the government.”

Judge Todria said “if not for U.S. aid

from 1998 to now, many judges would not

be in positions they hold now. It was not just

ethical and moral and financial support. But

unbiased and honest judges feel strong because of support from USAID.”

The new independence and honesty of

the judiciary bore fruit when the Supreme

Court threw out fraudulent parliamentary

elections in 2003.

THE FUTURE

No one should imagine the struggle for

democracy is over. But it has begun in

earnest— and it needs continuing support.

If democratic governments are to win

public support, they must provide services

and respond to the needs of citizens.

U.S. advisors on finance, energy, transport, management and other fields assist the

new Georgian ministers in improving service

to the public, ending inefficient roadblocks

STUDENT LEADER: Giorgi Meladze,

25, led student democracy movement

Kmara which ran non-violent street

protests against corruption, repression

and the killing of a journalist in 2000.

FACEOFF: Woman with

painted face from Kmara

movement at a protest

demanding democracy.

U.S. grants helped students create selfgovernment in schools which had been

so corrupt that bribes often got you

good grades. Students then went on to

form Kmara, a non-violent pro-democracy group inspired by Serb students.

Kmara ran pro-democracy graffiti

campaigns, street actions and rock concerts to raise awareness.

Student councils created a democratic spirit, said Mischa Chitadze, with

an NGO in Stalin’s birthplace, Gori.

Gori city council head Zakaria

Demetrashvili said “USAID has been

supporting self-governance by including

and involving the population in a democratic process” in deciding water, road,

school, drainage and other projects.

Students Led

Georgia’s Rose Revolution

BEN BARBER / USAID

KMARA

ROSES:The

symbol of the

Rose Revolution, wrapped

in an election

poster. KMARA
7

and stopping corruption. The economy was

badly damaged when Russia stopped the

supply of electricity, gas, fertilizer and other

essentials after Georgia declared its independence and stopped payments. Many

small villages are now unable to feed themselves. In Tbilisi one meets young men from

the countryside who work hard to send

money to their families.

Another obstacle lies in breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which

cut off land routes to markets in Russia and

Europe and left thousands of Georgian

refugees in need of assistance.

The main sources of future income

could be: exporting fruits and vegetables to

Europe; transshipping commodities between

the Black Sea and the Caspian and oil from

BREAKING OUT: Chants organized by

Kmara movement call for new elections

and an investigation of government fraud.

SPEAKING UP: A student protestor with

the Kmara movement explains to the 

independent media the group’s demands 

for clean, open democratic government.

SIGNING UP: Voters register Jan. 4, 2004,

in first free ballot since the Rose Revolution erased fraudulent elections.

Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean; and

tourism—the country’s hills are crowned

with ancient churches and castles.

In a broad valley an hour’s drive west of

the capital, farmer Eldar Midelashvili, 35,

told a visitor what democracy meant to him.

“Freedom,” he said, as a dozen men and

women planted cabbage seedlings in freshlyturned rows of black earth. On the northern

horizon, beyond the white-topped Caucasus

Mountains shrouded in clouds, lay Russia.

“No one wants the communists back,”

he said. “Here, if you work, what you make

is yours.” He said that in his village of 100

families, “we vote for whom we like for the

local council. In Shevardnadze’s time they

were appointed.”

“It’s good that America helps. Now we

have hope that the future will be better and

we are not alone. Someone will help us.” ■

$91 million in U.S. aid

since 1994:

● Helped train judges in

creating a code of ethics

● Trained journalists on

reporting, ethics

● Provided press clubs

for press conferences,

meeting places and

libraries

● Helped elected local

and national legislatures

develop skills in legal

wording, parliamentary

procedures

●Trained members of

democratic political

parties on campaigning,

organizing, media

For Georgian Democracy

● Supplied technical

experts to help the

president’s office

improve efficiency

● Sent experts in

transportation, energy,

economy and other

areas to improve budget

systems, personnel

systems,

communications and

other aspects of

accountable government

● Funded NGOs that

organized student

councils

● Improved local

governments

KMARAKMARA

BESO GULASHVILI / 24 HOURS
ORANG

REVOLUTION

UKRAINE’S 
GE Up to one million

Ukrainians marched to 

the main square of Kiev

November 2004, after the

government committed

fraud in the election.Tens

of thousands camped for

weeks in the freezing cold

of the Ukrainian winter,

waving orange banners as

they demanded that

Viktor Yushchenko be

declared president.

KIEV, Ukraine —Observers had reported massive vote fraud in favor of Prime Minister

Viktor Yanukovich. Two independent polls

of voters reported that Yushchenko had won.

But the government said he lost. The appearance of fraud unleashed widespread

anger and the determination by many ordinary people not to stand by while the country of 50 million slid back towards authoritarian rule. The Supreme Court agreed and a

new election December 26 gave Yushchenko

a clear victory.

The world lauded the unexpected peaceful, democratic revolution.

ORANGE POWER: Protestors crowd Kiev’s

main square Nov. 29, 2004, protesting election fraud, as opposition leader Yushchenko

addressed the vast crowd.

9

DAVID GUTTENFELDER / AP
10

BALLOONING PROTESTS: (above)

Yuschenko supporters carry orange balloons in a Dec. 2 rally in Kiev. Parliament

had just voted down the Cabinet proposed

by the government candidate.

MONUMENTAL DEMONSTRATION:

(above) Yuschenko supporters demonstrate Nov. 28, 2004 atop a Kiev statue

honoring the legendary founders of the

Ukrainian capital.

10 Ukraine’s Orange Revolution

DMITRY LOVETSKY / AP

STEPAN CHUYKO /AP

ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO /AP

ODED BALITY /AP

DEMOCRACY CAMP: (below left) An opposition supporter fills out a questionnaire

Dec. 5, 2004, in the tent city up in Kiev’s

main square.
11

TV ALERTS 

NATION

When the Orange Revolution began, 29-

year-old television anchorman Andriy

Shevchenko was news director of Channel 5,

the only regional independent TV network.

He had received media training through

Internews, a USAID-funded NGO, and

visited U.S. TV stations where he learned

about investigative reporting, balancing

many points of view and other aspects of the

free press.

“At 2:30 a.m. Monday after the second

round of elections, strange results came from

the election commission,” said Shevchenko.

“Yushchenko left the commission building

and said ‘we don’t trust the results.’ He asked

people to come to the Maidan Nezalezhnosti [Independence Square] in the morning. At

the station, we realized we would not go to

sleep that night, and we kept coverage of the

square for 15 days non-stop.

HOLDING FIRE: (above) Riot police 

face a Ukrainian woman in front of the

presidential offices in Kiev, Nov. 24, 2004.

DISFIGURED LEADER: (below) His face

marked from dioxin poisoning,Yuschenko

addresses a massive rally in downtown

Kiev Nov. 28, 2004.

IVAN SEKRETAREV /AP

11
United States and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe also issued widely publicized reports of fraud.

BUILDING

CREDIBILITY

Credible polls helped push the public into

action.

“U.S. aid helped us to conduct the poll

that showed Yushchenko won while the authorities intended to falsify the elections,”

said Anatoliy Rachok, director of the

Razumkov Ukrainian Center for Economic

and Political Studies which received U.S.

and Eurasia Foundaion aid.

“For five years, we polled people and reported that the attitude of people towards

the government was very negative. The population believed in those figures,” said

Razumkov.

Then, when the Center reported that

Yushchenko had really won the election,

“The first days we were the only channel

covering it. Then other channels followed.”

Soon hundreds of thousands would leave

their homes and villages to join mass

demonstrations.

“People were fed up with corruption, election fraud and the slide back to authoritarian

rule which the independent press was reporting,” said Shevchenko, one of 2,000 Ukrainian journalists trained over the past decade.

Support from the United States, Internews and the European Union created a

feeling that others stood with them “in the

trenches,” said Shevchenko.

Election observers from Ukraine, the

12

“our poll was believable and it was used by

the Supreme Court” in overturning the official tally.

“U.S. aid help for the poll was absolutely important—the poll results after the second round made people go to the street,” he

added.

Rachok rejects critics who say U.S. support caused revolutions in Serbia, Georgia

and Ukraine: “There must be natural conditions—wise people use assistance right.”

Another NGO—Development Associates—did its own democracy preparation

work with the Central Election Commission, training 100,000 commissioners for

the 2004 elections.

Even so, the second election round was

stolen through fraud and it was only when

the Supreme Court threw out the second

round that the commissioners carried out an

honest election count.

People stood up for democracy because

they were sick of corrupt police, schools and

tax inspectors as well as sales of big state companies to government cronies below cost.

NGO got 70,000 calls on its hotlines, asking

for information or reporting problems. 

Other NGOs helped farmers get titles to

land parcels when their collective farms were

broken up. Government officials were asking

fees and kickbacks but the NGOs provided

legal help for free. The people who received

this help realized it was time to get rid of

corruption in government.

Yet another NGO set up dozens of press

clubs in cities around the country—places

where reporters could meet, attend press

conferences, read magazines and newspapers, and use the Internet.

Said one press club official: “We have experts and officials who speak on the World

Trade Organization, privatization of state

factories, fiscal reform, pensions, voter education, anti-corruption, anti-trafficking of

women and corporate governance.”

Natalia Ligachova of Telekritika—an

NGO focused on press freedom—exposed

secret government instructions to the media.

Ukraine’s Orange Revolution

NEWSMAKER: Andriy Shevchenko, then

a Kiev anchorman, broadcast accusations

of election fraud all night long.

FREE WORD: Reporter Lesya Alexeyenko

from Zhytomyr newspaper Vilne Slovo,

received journalism training.

THINKER: Anatoliy Rachok, director of

the Razumkov Center, said his group’s

post-election polls helped Supreme Court

declare electoral fraud.

One protestor told a foreign diplomat he

had worked in Western Europe and saved

$8,000.

But when he came back to Ukraine, he

used up $5,000 of it on bribes and extortion

from government officials as he tried to start

a small business. He then took his remaining

$3,000 and came to Kiev to join the protest

and try and change things.

Freedom House gave additional aid to

Ukrainian NGOs that sponsored voter education, mobilized voters to get to the polls

and observed elections.

The groups also held meetings, youth

dances, rock concerts and karaoke to attract

young voters. They also ran public service

ads on TV stations, informing people about

their right to vote.

They brought democracy trainers from

Serbia, Slovakia, Russia and Croatia—former Socialist countries where conditions and

problems were similar to Ukraine.

Then, when the voting took place, one

“If you have a journalist

strong enough to stick with

standards, that’s a little

territory of freedom—

and Internews trained

thousands of them.”

Andriy Shevchenko, News Director, Channel 5

BEN BARBER / USAID

CHANNEL 5, KIEV

BEN BARBER / USAID BEN BARBER / USAID
It also collected signatures for a petition

against censorship and established the first

journalists trade union.

Reporters from a half-dozen regional

newspapers gathered around a table in one

press club and told how they had learned

through training not to be afraid and to get

rid of the old Soviet habits of writing whatever the government wanted them to write.

“Professionalism makes you a different

person,” said one writer for a bi-weekly

newspaper. Another said learning the inverted pyramid style of U.S. news writing puts

the main idea on top and helps readers get

the news.

NOT WITHOUT RISK

But it was not always easy. Reporter Olexiy

Yermolin from a Crimean newspaper was assaulted and beaten in 2003 after reporting

on black market land sales. The police did

not investigate. NGO officials have also

13

been threatened and assaulted.

President Yushchenko’s face was disfigured in a still unsolved dioxin poisoning before the election.

Nevertheless, Ukrainians were ready and

willing to carry out projects in support of

democracy offered by aid groups. They offered training to all political parties on election laws, running campaigns, drawing up

party platforms, communication with voters

and financial management of the campaign.

Top judges in the Supreme Court went

on a study tour to the United States where

they were able to observe how the courts

functioned.

Ostap Semerak, 33, who is now head of

the secretariat of the ruling Our Ukraine faction in parliament, said he too went to the

United States — to observe U.S. government

in action through an association of former

U.S. congressmen.

“I learned how to write laws, work with

other agencies and contact peers,” he said.

Now he drafts laws on the economy.

Unless new democratic government can

improve the economy, people may accept a

return towards the old, authoritarian rule, as

happened in many post-Soviet regimes.

Dmytro Solovey, 77, a solitary figure in

blue work clothes as he wielded a spray

against bugs, stood in his potato field and

agreed. “There is more democracy and if it

goes on like this it will be all right,” said the

farmer, whose parents died during World

War II when Ukraine was overrun by Nazi

armies.

He said “there was more order” in the

communist times and “nowadays we feel uncertain. But it’s good that the United States

helps democracy grow.”

“If it continues and our government succeeds, it’ll be all right. Under Kuchma, there

was no future. Our former presidents destroyed everything. They worked for their

own pocket, not for the people. Yushchenko

has started well.” ■

$213 million in U.S.

aid since 1994:

● Trained 2,000

journalists

● Funded civic groups,

opinion polls

● Trained 150,000

election officials

● Supported 96,000

domestic and 2,500

foreign election

monitors

● Printed 5 million voter

education pamphlets

● Broadcast election

guides on national TV

and radio

For Ukrainian Democracy

● Helped youth groups

hold dances, rock

concerts and karaoke to

attract young voters

● Assisted farmers to

obtain land titles when

collectives were broken

up, giving them a stake

in government

●Trained political

parties on election laws,

drawing up party

platforms, communicating with voters and

financial aspects of

campaigning

● Brought Supreme

Court judges to the

United States to visit

U.S. courts

ASSAULTED: Ukrainian journalist

Vladislav Savinok says he was beaten for

his views in 2002 and police failed to intervene. He still lives in fear as democratic

change moves slowly in his city.

NEW LEADERS: Election official Andriy

Mahera (left), who disavowed government

victory, and parliament official Ostap 

Semerak, both joined democracy training

projects.

BEN BARBER / USAID
14

The Rose and Orange

Revolutions were inspiring

democracy advocates

around the world. Now

the democracy movement

was to have its impact on

Central Asia.

Years of work by Kyrgyz citizens was

about to pay off—years spent in training

NGOs to end corruption in schools, to resolve local conflicts over water, land and ethnicity, to express themselves in independent

newspapers, and to monitor free elections.

It is often said that “the squeaky wheel

gets the grease,” and the Kyrgyz had learned

to speak out, join together in NGOs and

make their views heard. 

They grew to believe they could get the

government to serve them and listen to their

problems. Then, when the government tried

to steal the election, people spontaneously

rose up and threw out Akayev. However

many of the old regime’s officials remain in

place.

HOW DEMOCRACY GREW

Typical of the grassroots programs that supported democracy in Kyrgyzstan were grants

to train 60 representatives of community

self-help bodies or local NGOs in human

rights and lobbying tactics in 2003 in the

Jalalabad region.

The groups then published a guide to

the courts explaining how they worked , the

names of court members and meeting dates.

In the Naryn Oblast (region), the NGO

Chinar Bak used a small grant to run seminars and create information centers in libraries on women’s rights.

The group trained 160 women in six villages and this led to advocacy actions and a

change in the way the state dealt with some

of the women’s issues. They won free seeds

and a cut of 20 percent in water and land

tax—all critical in the dry plateau—and unemployed women got help starting businesses. The group also planned budget hearings.

While many people only see elections

and freedom of the press as signs of democracy, these efforts to help people bring their

issues before the government, and lobby officials to provide help, are fundamental to

democracy.

They allow people to take the initiative

instead of waiting for a remote and cumbersome central government to act—the pattern under Soviet rule for 70 years.

For example, Islamic clerics or mullahs

visited a civic education class in Karakol organized by the U.S.-based democracy NGO

IFES. Students asked the mullahs why they

bless the increasing number of forced marriages involving kidnapped brides.

After an uncomfortable moment, one

mullah said unless the woman agreed, the

marriage was improper and he would not

perform it.

In other towns, Internet service was provided to open up the flow of information to

previously isolated people.

Other grants to Kyrgyz NGOs trained

journalists on the practical aspects of balanced reporting; and political party members got training on organizing, spreading

their message and getting out the vote.

Before the February 2005 parliamentary

elections, thousands of voters were taught

that everyone was required to have a finger

marked with indelible ink after voting, it

would prevent cheaters from voting twice.

NGOs supported local TV coverage of the

voting in Bishkek, the capital, and in smaller cities and towns.

MEDIA MONOPOLY BREACHED

When the Akayev regime tried to prevent independent newspapers from publishing reports on corruption and election fraud, aid

officials used some of the $12 million in

democracy funding provided by the Congress to support independent newspapers.

Freedom House, with funding from the

U.S. State Department, shipped in a printing press, enabling the papers to publish exThe Tulip Revolution that rushed across the

plains of Central Asia in March was one of

the first signs of democracy in the former

Soviet republics of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Mobs of protestors took to the streets in

the southern city of Osh and then the capital Bishkek after the government was accused of fraud in the February 2005 parliamentary elections. 

A month later, peaceful protests grew

into a “people’s revolution”—or as others

called it, the Tulip Revolution—and President Askar Akayev fled the country after 15

years in power.

The Kyrgyz Parliament called a midterm presidential election, which was won

by the interim president, Kurmanbek

Bakiyev. Kyrgyz and international monitors

reported the election was not completely free

and fair but it was a step forward in a region

not generally friendly to democracy.

Ruled by autocratic offshoots of the defunct communist parties, the five Central

Asian republics had initially allowed a whiff

of freedom after the collapse of the Soviet

Union.

Kyrgyzstan was perhaps the most open

and democratic in the region. But it too

moved to control the press, sell off government firms to cronies and limit political

freedom by the mid 1990s. Poverty spread

but a few got very rich.

In this landlocked environment—

hemmed in by China, Russia, Iran,

Afghanistan, and Pakistan—it was a shock

when people rose up in March to protest the

rigged election.

But those who worked to build democratic institutions in their homeland and

those who supported these efforts were anticipating moves in this direction, even if not

so soon and not so vigorous.

The Kyrgyz rulers were not, after all, the

worst of the regional rulers.

But the Kyrgyz people had seen the

democracy movement succeed in other exSoviet republics—the Rose and Orange Revolutions were inspiring democracy advocates

around the world.

FED UP: Kyrgyz men in traditional hats

join in protests that brought down the

government in March 2005.

KYRGYZSTAN’S TULIP REVO REUTERS
15

$68 million in U.S. aid

since 1994:

● Trained human rights

NGOs to lobby

government

● Supported women’s

rights groups

For Kyrgyzstan Democracy

● Brought Muslim 

clerics together with

student councils

● Supported private

newspapers

● Funded the American

University of Central

Asia in Kyrgyzstan

POLICE WORK: Kyrgyz police officers

read “What Is a Fair Election?” booklets

as they guard the presidential palace in

the capital Bishkek on July 7, 2005, a week

before fresh elections took place.The

booklets were issued by foreign democratic institutes and distributed by volunteers.

NEW LEADER: Kurmanbek Bakiyev was

named interim leader after the president

fled the country during protests. Bakiyev

arrives for a debate days before he was

elected president in July. He has said he is

committed to democracy.

poses of the excessive spending and wealth of

the president’s family—facts that enraged

many in this nation of five million where per

capita income was just $1,700 in 2004.

U.S. funding also supported the American University of Central Asia in Kyrgyzstan

and funded exchange programs for students

and professionals in the United States.

The new president, Bakiyev, went on

one of the exchange visits. Parliament Speaker Omurbek Tekebayev is another Kyrgyz

who visited the United States last year under

the State Department’s International Visitors

Program.

While supporters of the ousted regime

and its allies abroad accuse the U.S. aid programs of seeking to change the government,

the American programs are only aimed at

promoting the rule of law and giving Kyrgyz

citizens the chance to have their votes count

and not accept rigged elections.

It was the local democracy movement

that removed part of the old guard—the

Kyrgyz themselves, some of them laying

their own lives on the line in confronting the

security forces, had decided to make their

voices heard at last. ■

LUTION

IVAN SEKRETAREV / AP

ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO / AP
to work trying to unite the communities

whose civil war in the 1970s and 1980s led

to Syrian intervention: Maronite and Orthodox Christians; Sunni and Shiite Muslims;

and Druze.

Standing behind Lebanon’s current effort

to build democracy are U.S. and other international aid groups. Many had spent the

past years building the foundations for democratic change. Now they can help ensure

the success of what is known as the Cedar

Revolution—named after the national tree

which is depicted on the Lebanese flag.

Because honest local government builds

support for democracy, aid groups helped

more than 900 municipalities improve tax

and financial records. In efficient offices

equipped with Internet access for the public,

people can now directly access their tax bills

on a computer, without dealing with tax officials. Reducing those meetings tended to

reduce corruption.

Guides were published for citizens who

needed licenses or permits. These explained

fees, the time to process applications and the

paperwork needed to open a store, put up

billboards or change the outside of a home.

Next, Lebanese NGOs backed by U.S.

funding printed guides to advise municipal

councils how to make meetings productive

and reach decisions, not fall into chaotic,

rhetorical sessions.

City and village officials were trained to

write up minutes of meetings and submit

LEBANON’S CEDARREVOLU

It was the assassination of the former prime minister

in February 2005 that set off almost a million

protestors whose demands ended two decades of

Syrian occupation and won free elections.

BEIRUT, Lebanon—Growing throngs of people

protested after a bomb killed former Prime

Minister Rafik Hariri. A month after the

killing, March 14, almost one million protestors took to the streets, bringing down the

government and forcing Syria to withdraw

its forces after 29 years of occupation.

Syria withdrew April 30 and by late

June, Lebanese voters completed a fourround election that was widely seen as free

and fair.

The new parliament, dominated by a

group formed around Hariri’s son Saad, set
them to the Interior Ministry for permanent

record-keeping.

Revenue officials received assistance in

reforming the tax system and balancing

budgets. USAID and the U.S. State Department’s Middle East Partnership Initiative,

also provided election support.

But it was the courageous outpouring of

Lebanese support for democracy in Martyr’s

Square on March 14 that created the Cedar

Revolution.

Voting won’t be enough to create democracy unless those elected learn to govern effectively, and unless the government is transparent and accountable. So new members of

parliament as well as municipal leaders received kits with pamphlets explaining the

nuts and bolts of democratic systems.

U.S. foreign aid provided more than

booklets: it provided trainers, computers,

phones, and fax machines so that officials

computerize tax systems. But he warned that

the “sickness of sectarianism is in our hearts”

and Lebanon needs to work to overcome it.

“When you have educated citizens who

will vote against people of their own religion

or family when they are not fit for the job,

that is democracy,” Zogheib said.

AFTER THE REVOLUTION

The mayor of Tripoli, a city of 500,000

north of Beirut on the Mediterranean coast

which received help from SUNY to improve

services, said that “Lebanese democracy is a

good solution to the variety of sects in the

country.”

Mayor Mohammed Rachid Jamaly was

referring to the ongoing agreement to have a

Christian as president, a Sunni Muslim as

prime minister and a Shiite Muslim as

speaker of parliament.

“Our election laws are undeveloped,” Jamaly said. “We have features of democracy

based on mutual understanding—an agreed

democracy. What we need is upgrading on

the municipal level.”

The Cedar Revolution took place so

quickly that democracy groups, NGOs, political parties and foreign aid officials are just

now preparing long-term plans for the next

stage of democracy-building.

“We need to double our efforts and engage civil society with government ownership,” said Osamma Safa of the Center for

Policy Studies.

“Lebanon needs a new electoral law, new

political parties law, programs to engage

youthful voters—the ones who took to the

streets—and get them involved in decisionmaking,” he said.

“I think the country is ready to get over

its communal divisions, its sectarian divides.

The civil sector is most secularized—most

[NGOs, media] have people from all confessions.”

Progress for democracy has gone too far

to fall back into clan hatred, he said: “I think

the process is becoming increasingly irreversible.”

But “quick action should be sustained”

and help should be offered to the new parliament seated in June through foreign support to the civil society groups who both

train the government and act as watchdogs

to see it reforms itself and cuts corruption.

“We should not stop here—our work is

starting now,” he said. ■

17

and the public were able to communicate.

NGOs brought together people from

different parties and communities to discuss

the burning issues of the day. For example,

some Shiite Muslim parties first opposed removing Syrian troops and holding elections.

But once Syrians left, the parties which had

joined in NGO-sponsored dialogue became

part of a new coalition government.

The opinion polls helped Lebanese understand the feelings

of their neighbors and

focus groups helped

political leaders feel

the country’s pulse.

Without these key

measures, many provided through the

State University of

New York (SUNY)

with U.S. funding,

the Cedar Revolution

might not retain support in the Eastern

Mediterranean nation

of four million.

And once the Syrians left and the old

government stepped

down, urgent aid went to NGOs to help

prepare the political parties for the elections.

For example, the Lebanese Association

for Democratic Elections taught political

parties how to draw up coherent and meaningful pamphlets and radio spots to communicate their message to voters.

Up to $2 million in aid since 1994

helped the parliament to function as an institution and develop a system so the public,

media and members of parliament had access to proposed laws while they are debated

in committee.

Another democracy project brought

NGOs together with members of parliament

to debate new laws. U.S. grants also helped

bloated agencies such as the civil service automate personnel files and eliminate ghost

workers. Computers and computer systems

helped the courts to track government transactions.

“You can’t talk about democracy without

transparency and accountability,” said Mahmoud Batlouni, Lebanon project director for

SUNY.

Improving local governance in more

than 700 cities and towns, at a cost of about

$15 million every three years, was the core of

U.S. support for democracy in the years before the Cedar Revolution, he said.

Since 1998, aid programs helped

Lebanese municipalities conduct elections.

Newly elected mayors and counselors were

given workshops and training on how to

write laws, draw up a budget—in short, govern justly. Municipal revenues increased 50

percent in the last few years as new financial

systems improved tax and fee collections.

Mayor Assad Zogheib of the mainly

Christian city Zahle said U.S. aid helped 70

percent of the country’s cities and towns

$20 million in U.S. aid

since 1994:

● Reformed tax offices 

in 700 municipalities

● Helped local councils

and the national

parliament speed and

open up debates

For Lebanese Democracy

● Printed guides to run

local council meetings 

● Supported intercommunity dialogue

● Funded opinion polls

and election training

TION

SEA OF FLAGS: Lebanese demanded

and won the withdrawal of Syrian troops

after 20 years and new elections. (Inset)

Woman and child clad in symbols of the

Cedar Revolution attend mass protest.

DAILY STAR, BEIRUT
West Bank/Gaza

18

other support to work as advocates for

women’s rights, students and other groups.

Ma’ali Shawish, a dynamic young Palestinian woman, is one of these. For years she

worked with Associates in Rural Development (ARD) which administered an $18

million U.S. aid program over eight years to

support the Palestinian Legislative Council

(PLC)—the parliament of the future state.

Legislators in the West Bank were linked

with those in Gaza by video-hookup, allowing them to hold joint meetings even when

travel between the two regions was blocked.

Legislators received computers, photocopiers, fax machines, phones, microphones

and a system to record meetings.

Experts helped them draft laws which

were then printed in booklets for the general public. Legislators were also sent to the

United States and other countries to observe

how other legislatures work.

battle of posters is taking place in

the dusty streets of Ramallah,

Nablus and Gaza these days.

Election posters of political

candidates in dignified suits vie

for space with posters of young men holding

rifles who carried out suicide bombings.

The two sets of posters symbolize the

choice that lies ahead for Palestinians—the

path towards democratic rule through elections and peaceful resolution of conflict, versus continuing violence among rival Palestinian groups and with Israel.

Even as the future remained uncertain,

and the Palestinian Authority (PA) sought

to assert its authority and protect a sixmonth cease fire with Israel, thousands of

journalists, teachers, students, women,

judges and civic activists continued a

decade-long process of building democracy.

Assisted by U.S. and other foreign

donors, work continues to create democratic

institutions which will be the foundation of

a new state of Palestine, living side-by-side in

peace with the state of Israel, once the peace

process is completed.

The PA held fresh rounds of municipal

elections in December 2004 followed shortly after by presidential elections won by

Mahmoud Abbas.

Thousands of Palestinians voted, conducted the elections and monitored them. It

was a sign of the widespread appeal of

democracy as well as the preparation that

went into the institution of elections. But

democracy work has gone on at all levels.

In a Ramallah hotel recently, dozens of

Palestinian men and women gathered with

foreign aid officials to celebrate the completion of their master’s degrees at American

universities. Now they are fanning out to

their jobs in the government or private sector in management, computers and other

fields, bringing with them their experience

in a democratic society.

Other Palestinians received training and

A

FACING CHANGE: Palestinian President

Mahmoud Abbas is shown on a billboard

just after winning a landslide election 

victory in January 2005.

The death of longtime

Palestinian leader Yasser

Arafat was followed by

municipal and presidential

elections as thousands of

hours of preparation paid

off and new leaders took

their seats.

ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO /AP

Palestinians

Choose

RAMALLAH, West Bank
In all its work, ARD said it works only

with “non-extremist, respected PLC members,” Shawish said.

To build confidence that the government

can address problems and is not just a source

of corruption, another U.S. aid project

helped PLC members get out into their

communities and fix basic services.

For example, a grant helped a legislator

from Nablus rehabilitate 13 schools. By fixing and cleaning the facilities—and by follow up visits to assure they remain in good

condition—attendance improved and the

bond between government and people was

formed.

Other American aid programs helped

renovate the PLC chamber; and brought

school children to see the sessions.

Additional evidence that democracy is

pushing down its roots into Palestinian society is that the PLC increasingly questions

ministers, asking them to explain their actions or policies. Recently, demonstrations

over various issues have taken place in front

of the chambers of the PLC.

In fact, the banners of protestors outside

the PLC reminds a visitor of the protestors

outside the Israeli Knesset or other parliaments around the world. “We are more

democratic than other Arabic countries,”

said Shawish. “We have better freedom of

expression.”

THE RULE OF LAW

Jericho is the world’s oldest continually-inhabited city, and the lowest—located at 800

feet below sea level near the Dead Sea. Now

it’s struggling to install democracy by improving its judicial system.

The courthouse in Jericho was old, shabby, hot and lacked space for the prosecutors.

The judges all shared one room. But U.S.

aid helped rent offices for judges and prosecutors—part of a project to upgrade judicial

offices in seven cities, said prosecutor Khalil

Awad.

“Before that, there was no privacy and

we had to interrogate suspects in the same

room,” said Awad.

Prosecutors also received computers with

standard indictment forms that can be filled

out on screen to speed work and access files.

“All this supports democracy and the public

opinion” of the judicial system, Awad said.

WOMEN SPEAK UP

Palestinian women have long been a force in

Palestinian affairs and now are working to

increase their role in the democratic government by running for office. 

One democracy group, MIFTAH,

trained 150 women on campaign techniques

and 95 of them won seats in municipal

councils, said the group’s Lily Feidy.

MIFTAH was also one of 100 NGOs

that trained monitors for the January presidential race in which 70 percent of 1.1 million registered voters cast ballots at more

than 1,000 polling centers.

“The few problems I’ve witnessed were

19

resolved quickly,” said Khalid Nassif of the

Civic Forum Institute, who coordinated a

team of observers.

“I wanted to participate in the democratic process and make it more transparent,”

said Rani Khalawi, a 21-year-old student

who donated his time to a small NGO involved in the election observation.

“For many participants, this is the first

time they take part in elections, not only as

observers but also as voters,” said Aref Jaffal,

head of the Civic Forum Institute, also supported by USAID.

As election monitors made their rounds,

a project known as Tamkeen or “empowerment” in Arabic deployed a team to “observe

the observers.” Project staff completed forms

capturing what they saw.

Aside from elections, NGOs are also

monitoring Palestinian and Israeli television,

radio and newspapers for signs of incitement

to violence.

Other NGOs prepare youth to take a

leadership role in society. Youth for Democracy trains children ages 13 to 16 through

workshops on elections, conflict resolution

and mediation—then the children run elections and write about their activities as well

as other local news in the Youth Times, their

own newspaper. The youth groups have also

tackled problems such as cleanliness and hygiene in the schools and villages.

One of the Palestinians who returned

from his U.S. master’s degree program

summed up his hopes for democracy.

“We have a chance to make a difference,”

said Ashraf Al-Zaghal, who studied civil engineering at Colorado State University.

“A nation is being built and it’s on the

road to statehood and independence.” ■

$126 million in U.S.

aid since 1994:

● Linked West BankGaza legislative meetings

by video

● Supplied legislature

with computers, faxes,

phones

● Trained political

parties on election

campaigns

For Palestinian Democracy

● Helped set up

women’s NGOs in 

small towns

● Trained prosecutors

and judges; repaired

courts and offices

● Helped 60 students

earn master’s degrees 

at U.S. universities

● Trained election

monitors

“I’m volunteering for 

the sake of my country—

I want to show that

Palestine is the first

democratic country 

in the Arab world.”

Maha Ahmed Issa, 19, election monitor

CAMPAIGN: Palestinian Legislative 

Council member Dalal Salamah speaks

with a constituent.

KEEPING TRACK: Election monitors 

observe the officials running the vote in

the Palestinian elections of January 2005.

TAMKEEN

TAMKEEN
group could apply for a computer from the

city government. Although at first some of

the men, especially a turbaned cleric, refused

to talk to her, they later grew to respect her

and voted to send her to the Baghdad City

Council representing their district.

U.S. Army Civil Affairs teams and USAID’s contractor Research Triangle Institute

helped Iraqis organize meetings of local citizens across Iraq. Neighborhood leaders,

businessmen, clerics, teachers and other respected residents were selected as members.

The local councils in turn elected representatives to district councils and those in turn

elected representatives to city councils.

The new councils, parent teacher associations, NGOs, human rights organizations,

and environmental societies are giving people a voice in their own affairs and a say in

how they are governed. A former official

from Colorado wrote a guide for local government meetings that was translated into

Arabic and distributed to the local councils.

The local councils were given small

budgets so they could fix street lights, provide water or clean up streets. At least 700

local, city and state councils were established

and they have run thousands of community

projects.

Aid programs also sponsored thousands

of meetings to help youth and other groups

form NGOs to tackle local issues. In schools,

teachers, parents and administrators got together to fix classrooms and washrooms or

get better textbooks.

That is grassroots democracy in Iraq. ■

$708 million in U.S.

aid from 2003–2005:

● $40 million for January

2005 election

● Helped civic groups 

inform and train voters

● Ran TV spots with

Sunni and Shia clerics

promoting voting

●Trained some of

55,000 election monitors

● Set up 28,500 democracy dialogues

● Helped set up government offices in cities

and governorates

● Gave $15 million to

municipal authorities 

for education, health,

electricity, sanitation,

and water

● Helped form 16 

governorate councils,

90 district councils, 194 

city or subdistrict councils, and 445 neighborhood councils

Iraq

Iraq Embraces Self Rule

20

For Iraqi Democracy

ight million Iraqis defied terrorist

threats January 30, 2005 and lined

up to vote in the first democratic

election in Iraq and one of the most

free and fair ever held in the Arab

world. Voting took place six months after

the Coalition Provisional Authority handed

over authority to the Iraqi interim government.

Candidates from many parties reached

out through television, newspapers, radio

and public meetings in a free-ranging debate

to win support from the electorate.

Men and women held up their inkstained fingers with pride to show they had

voted, and the entire Middle East—even the

skeptical Al Jazeera television network—appeared to gasp at the enthusiasm with which

Iraqis voted.

The election took place despite attacks

on politicians and election workers and

threats by militants to attack voters.

In April, Iraq installed its first democratically elected leaders: Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani was chosen as president and he named

Shiite Arab leader Ibrahim al-Jaafari as interim prime minister.

Struggling against the ongoing violence

by opponents of democracy, and against the

difficulties of uniting various ethnic or religious groups, Iraqi leaders continued with

efforts to build a democracy. In August,

2005, they drafted a new constitution and

worked on plans for new elections to choose

a constitutional Iraqi government.

The foundation for democracy was laid

down soon after the end of Saddam Hussein’s rule—in hundreds of local councils.

LOCAL COUNCILS

A man in a sport shirt energetically shouted

his opinions while a turbaned cleric, three

women, and other members of a district

council listened as Iraqis met in Baghdad for

the first time in their lives to explore democracy in September 2003.

“I saw that Americans are here to help us

and take us from the pits,” said a councilwoman who used to work in an office. “Saddam the criminal did nothing for us. The

Americans gave us food and gave us elections

in the neighborhood. The people chose me

to be on the council.”

They debated how to hire an administrator, how much to pay as salary, and how the

E

COMPETING:As boys chase a soccer ball,

Iraq’s new political parties chase votes

through billboards in January, 2005.

SAMIR MIZBAN / AP JIM MACMILLAN / AP

After the fall of Saddam Hussein, 

eight million voters showed they 

wanted to participate in democracy.

BAGHDAD, Iraq
he pink and blue posters stuck on

mud walls of Afghan cities and villages last year invited Afghan men

and women to register and vote in

the first presidential election in the

history of this nation of 30 million.

“We have never had elections but we

know that other people have them and we

want to decide who will rule us,” said an

Afghan farmer in a village outside Jalalabad.

In Tormay, Jalalabad and across this

Texas-sized country, candidates formed 20

political parties and joined coalitions preparing posters and radio advertisements to support their views.

For people who lived under a monarchy

and then communism and finally a medieval

theocracy that stoned people to death for religious crimes, this is a new era.

“A lot of people argued the [Afghans]

were not ready for elections—they were

proved wrong so far,” said the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan in 2004, Zalmay

Khalilzad.

The Taliban threatened to kill anyone

who registers to vote. But with U.S., UN

and other aid, over 10.5 million Afghans

registered to vote.

Moreover, in a land where only three

years earlier the Taliban barred women from

even leaving their houses unless accompanied by a male relative, 41 percent of those

who registered were women.

“The participation is amazing,” said

David Singh, spokesman for the UN Assistance Mission. “There was a lot of skepticism about this process at the beginning.”

October 9, 2004, three-fourths of the

registered voters turned out to cast ballots,

electing Hamid Karzai with 55 percent of

the vote. To avoid fraud, voters dipped their

thumbs in ink. The elections were widely acclaimed, despite some controversy, as reflecting the will of the Afghan people.

A poll by the Asia Foundation before the

vote said 81 percent of Afghan planned to

Afghanistan

Defiant Afghans Vote

21

vote and 77 percent said they thought the

elections would “make a difference.”

AFTER THE TALIBAN

Soon after the Taliban were driven from

power in 2001, steps towards democracy

were begun by Afghan leaders working with

U.S. and other international agencies at the

Bonn conference. It called for an Emergency

Loya Jirga or national council which met in

June and established the Transitional Islamic

State of Afghanistan.

A second Loya Jirga adopted a new constitution establishing an Islamic Republic in

January 2004. U.S. aid supplied security,

transport, constitutional advice and the giant tent in Kabul where it took place 

The United States gave $85 million to

T

WOMEN: Voting in Kabul at first 

presidential election in Afghan history,

October 2004.

“They are thirsty 

for this openness.

It’s like taking 

birds out of a cage.”

Abdul Rauf Lival,

Pashwak news editor

After two Loya Jirga

national councils set up an

interim government,

millions of Afghan men

and women defied threats

by the defeated Taliban 

and voted for the country’s

first democratically-elected

president.

support the elections, more than any other

donor. This paid for training of poll watchers, printing of field manuals, civic education for the public and security for the polls.

Beyond supporting the elections, aid has

constructed 20 courts, trained nearly 600

judges and printed 1,000 copies of

Afghanistan’s basic laws in Dari and Pashto

language. Training and other preparation are

going on for the next big step towards

democracy—parliamentary elections in September 2005. NATO had said it would send

2,000 more troops to provide security

against attacks by holdouts of the Taliban

ALBANA VOKSHI / USAID

KABUL, Afghanistan

ELECTION INK: An Iraqi man dips his

finger in ink after voting in January 30,

2000 elections to prevent voting more

than once.
22

$213 million in U.S.

aid from 2001 to 2005:

● Constructed 20

judicial facilities

● Trained 550 judges

● Printed Afghanistan’s

basic laws in Dari and

Pashto

● Provided funding,

security and logistics for

two Loya Jirgas in 2003

For Afghan Democracy

and 2004 which created

the interim government

and approved a new

Afghan constitution

● Supported 2004 presidential elections through

voter registration,

education, monitors,

logistics and security

● Built schools and a

dormitory for girls;

helped women run for

office

determined to intimidate the Afghan public

which remains equally determined to vote.

RADIO WAS KEY

Since 64 percent of Afghans cannot read and

many live in remote regions without the opportunity or the cash to buy newspapers and

magazines, radio is the key to building

democracy. Dozens of new radio stations

have taken to the airwaves, supported by aid

grants.

Aina, an NGO backed by U.S., French,

Finnish, Japanese and other aid, produces

newspapers, magazines and radio news programs distributed around the country.

In collaboration with UNESCO and the

Women Publishing Group, Aina started the

first community radio programming for

women in 2003, broadcasting four hours per

day in numerous local languages.

Aziz Ullah, 30, editor of Aina’s children’s

magazine Parwaz, runs articles that subtly

teach children to respect those who are different from them—not to hate them as the

Taliban did. “One article tells how bubble

gum is used by children around the world,”

Ullah said. “Indirectly, Afghan kids learn

that there are kids in America and elsewhere

who like gum.”

“My idea is that the magazine goes

through the children to the family,” Ullah

said. “In most of Afghanistan, the children

can read—not the parents.”

In another Kabul house, the first Afghan

news service—Pashwak—trains reporters.

Their stories are burned onto CDs and the

NGO Internews delivers them by taxis

around the country to 50 radio stations. The

Institute for War and Peace Reporting

trained the Pashwak staff, headed by news

editor Abdul Rauf Liwal, 46.

“This is the first time in this country’s

history we can write and say what we want,”

said the portly, middle-aged newsman as a

dozen young reporters wrote their stories for

him to edit. ■

LOYA JIRGA: Afghan men and women

delegates attend one of the Loya Jirga 

national assemblies which set up a temporary government and constitution.

USAIDUSAID
Mongolia

In the eight centuries since

Genghis Khan united its tribes,

Mongolia has been a nomad empire, an oriental khanate, a theocracy, a Chinese vassal state and a

Soviet satellite.

The ex-communist Mongolian

People’s Revolutionary Party

(MPRP) gradually yielded power

during the 1990s to the Democratic Union Coalition (DUC),

which won the national election

in 1996. Since then, parliamentary

elections returned the MPRP

overwhelmingly to power in 2000

and produced a coalition government in 2004.

The United States began

working with Mongolian democracy advocates in 1991.The initial

focus was on supporting demo23

Worldwide Democracy

In recent years in Africa, Latin America,

and Asia, countries have dumped their

strongmen for democratic elections.

Mali

Mali, a sub-Saharan nation of 12 million, has become one of the most stable and democratic nations in West Africa.

The United States worked closely with Mali

since the early 1960s. But it was only in the 1990s

that political developments allowed democracybuilding programs such as support for elections

and women candidates.

Dictatorial rule ended in 1991 and the first

democratic presidential election was held in 1992.

After reelection in 1997, President Alpha Konare

continued political and economic reforms and

fought corruption. In 2002, he was succeeded by

Amadou Toure.

Mali held the chairmanship of the Community

of Democracies in 2005.

The West African country also moved to hand

power to local officials and move away from the

highly centralized French colonial system.

Malian women such as Ba-Aminata received

U.S.-sponsored training to improve their villages

or run for office.

The number of women holding communal

council seats rose from 22 in 1999 to 41 in 2004.

he earlier articles in this magazine describe the powerful wave of democracy movements emerging in the last

two years in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon,

the West Bank and Gaza, Afghanistan and Iraq.

On this page and the next, we describe some of the

many countries that have moved towards democratic systems in

the 1980s and 1990s and ways the United States was able to assist them.

T

US-MALI: President Bush and Mali’s former 

president Alpha Oumar Konare at July 2005 

G8 summit in Scotland.

The Legacy 

cratic leaders and a civil society

movement. Soon afterwards, the

first major peaceful alternation of

political power took place when

these democratic leaders swept

into office in 1996.

Since then aid groups have

helped Mongolians to ensure that

elections and political processes

remain competitive. It has also

supported the birth of an independent judiciary.

In 2000, the MPRP re-gained

power, and for the last four years

the competitive aspect of Mongolian politics was at risk due to

MPRP dominance at all levels of

government. In 2004, Mongolians

held their seventh national election since 1991, and installed a

coalition government.

East Timor

In a climate of calm, the tiny island nation

of East Timor elected in August 2001 a

constituent assembly of 88 members who

were promptly charged with drafting a

constitution for the emerging nation.

Two years earlier, a referendum on independence from Indonesia led to a violent reaction by those against independence. Nearly 90 percent of Timorese

voted for independence and in reaction

groups aligned with Jakarta killed 1,000

people.The conflict displaced a quarter of

the country’s population, and sent many

fleeing into the adjacent Indonesian

province of West Timor. Most of East Timor’s infrastructure was destroyed.

Out of the chaos of 1999 that left almost nothing standing—either physically

or institutionally—aid donors have helped

Timorese to build an independent nation.

U.S. aid averages $20 million a year,

largest of all bilateral aid programs. It

helped civil society by providing grants to

Timorese NGOs and media organizations.

Many of East Timor’s future jurists and

legal professionals are being trained

through aid programs.The Agency is also

helping international efforts to address

past injustice by supporting investigators

and prosecutors of perpetrators of human

rights abuses and other crimes.

Doctors, lawyers, civil servants, health

officials and educators have received

training through aid programs.

AP
El Salvador

A decade after a 12-year civil war left

75,000 dead, El Salvador is a stable

democracy with a market-friendly economy and active civil society.

During the 1980s, El Salvador was the

largest recipient of U.S. aid in Latin America as it struggled against leftist insurgents. Since the 1992 peace accord, U.S.

aid went to elections, legislative and judiciary reform, and municipal services.

U.S. assistance helped former guerrillas reconcile with the government which

brought the Farabundo Marti National

Liberation Front (FMLN) into the electoral process.

Support for the Legislative Assembly

improved the caliber of deliberation and

provided political space for the FMLN to

emerge as a viable opposition party.

Before the peace accord, El Salvador’s

judicial system was seen as an instrument

of repression. U.S. aid helped the courts

investigate high profile cases of death

squads by providing funding, technical 

assistance, equipment, and training.

MARK CARRATO/ USAID

EAGLE EYED: Woman watches counting of ballots bearing party symbols.

24

of aid, leading to Mozambique’s steady

economic growth. In 2004, its economy

grew by an estimated 8 percent.

With each election, domestic observers played a growing role in assuring

fairness and transparency. In 2003 municipal elections, a parallel vote count helped

assure results were correct and accepted

by all.

In December 2004, voters elected 

Armando Emilio Guebuza as president.

South Africa

South African democracy and human

rights advocates received U.S. aid since

the 1980s, long before the fall of the

white-dominated apartheid government.

In April 2004, South Africa held its

third free and fair national elections.

Democracy assistance focuses on

fighting crime, improving local government services and beefing up civil society

to engage with government.

Another focus is victim support to

women and children; and bringing together counselors, officials and community

leaders to reduce the effects of the

HIV/AIDS pandemic.

But some are frustrated. Only 57 

percent of South Africans believed their

democracy was better than any other

form of government, a 2002 survey found.

Low voter turnout in 2004 was another

indicator of this frustration.

Mozambique

After the 15–year civil war in Mozambique ended in 1992, the southeast

African nation of 20 million people made

quiet, steady progress towards democracy, reconciling the former enemies and

improving the economy.

U.S. and other foreign assistance

helped move the country back from the

brink of total state failure by helping

Mozambiquans run elections, support for

the National Assembly, building civil society and training the two major political

parties that were armed opponents only

a few years earlier.

Fighting corruption was another focus

MANDELA AND MBEKI: The former

and current presidents campaign in 1999.

PICTORIAL BALLOT: A voter holds up

a ballot with presidential candidates on

the final day of voting, Dec. 2, 2004.

AP

AP

“The will of the people

shall be the basis 

of the authority of

government; this will 

shall be expressed in

periodic and genuine

elections which 

shall be by universal

and equal suffrage

and shall be held 

by secret vote or 

by equivalent free

voting procedures.”

Universal Declaration 

of Human Rights

1948
U.S. Democracy Budget $1.2 billion

s a matter of principle, as a part

of national security, and as an indispensable element of development, the United States supports

the development of democracy

and good governance throughout the world.

At the heart of U.S. support for democracy

is the fundamental goal of expanding the

global frontiers of democracy. This consists

of supporting fledgling democracies, consolidating democratic transitions, and backing

democratic openings in the world’s remaining autocracies.

Because every country has its own

unique political culture and circumstances,

democracy experts have developed a flexible

approach that works worldwide. At its core

is the ability to assess each country’s political

environment and to help sympathetic forces

expand democracy.

Country assessments are an early step.

They are guided by a unique system of

analysis for identifying critical democracy

problems in each country’s political system.

Through this assessment, U.S. aid adapts its

approach and emphasis to fit the local context and address the most pressing issues.

The assessment results in recommendations consisting of a mix of the following

four program elements.

Free Political Competition

The expansion of political freedom and

competition—the essence of a democratic

state and society—is supported through

multiparty elections, private voluntary associations (particularly watchdog groups), and

an independent press.

Free, fair, transparent multiparty elections and representative, responsive political

parties are promoted by U.S. aid projects.

These projects provide expert advice on election administration, law, constitutional provisions, and electoral commissions, as well as

supporting the UN and other international

bodies in the actual administration of elections.

Aid programs train domestic and international election monitors to ensure fairness

and transparency, and train civic groups to

conduct parallel vote counts ensuring a realtime public check on official election results.

Nonpartisan assistance is provided to

USAID

A Strategy for Democracy

Each country has its own

path to democracy so the

U.S. aid offered must be

adapted to help out.

democratic parties, including advice and

training on democratic campaign techniques, campaign messages, party platforms

and internal structure. Training is also given

to civic educators to aid in registration and

voting campaigns. The aid projects bring political actors to the table to discuss and address disputes, and political parties are

helped with internal governance, constituent

outreach, polling, leadership recruitment,

and training.

In addition to elections, U.S. assistance

focuses on structural competition such as

checks and balances between executive, judicial, and legislative branches; decentralization of authority; and on competition of

ideas through media outlets and civic organizations.

Rule of Law

No democracy can function without an effective and efficient legal system based on

clear rules, an independent judiciary and legal restrictions on the state itself, especially

for human rights.

U.S. aid provides legal advice on constitutions, codes, laws, and regulations. The

goal is to improve laws and institutions such

as the judiciary as a check on the executive,

while providing support for due process,

nondiscrimination, and representation of all

segments of society.

Support is given to local groups that test

human rights cases in court, as well as

groups that provide legal assistance, mediation, and dispute resolution. U.S. funded

programs support private law schools and

bar associations, and build the capacity of

the judiciary, prosecutors and other institutions of the justice sector.

Accountable Governance

Building democratic and accountable governance is the third major goal, in both the

state and non-governmental sectors. The

failure of democratic governments to meet

realistic needs is one of the reasons for democratic backsliding.

Support is offered for the effective, transparent and accountable provision of public

goods and services, public oversight, and

meaningful separation of powers with checks

and balances.

Corruption is tackled through independent audit agencies, anticorruption commissions, procurement reform, and legislation as

well as civil society groups, the press, and the

business sector.

The strategy is to strengthen local governments through the improvement of

budgets, financing, provision of basic services, and community participation.

Aid projects improve the effectiveness of

ministries, executive offices and legislatures

through staff training, policy development

and research, basic materials and hardware.

Support is given to human rights organizations focused on issues such as trafficking,

while civilian government offices responsible

for military oversight receive training. Democratic policing and dialogue between police and communities are also funded.

Citizen Participation

Helping NGOs to engage society and help

citizens to participate in and monitor government is the fourth key element. The most

durable democratic transitions are driven by

a broad-based civil society movement, crucial for transparency and pluralism. It often

serves as the link between U.S. support for

democracy and governance and that for economic reform, education, and the other

building blocks of development.

Civil society organizations hold government accountable, organize and mobilize the

public, and deliver better health and education services. Equipment and training are

provided to media as well as support for

production of radio programs for public information and civic education.

A key feature of U.S. assistance is flexibility: the use of a range of instruments to fit

the needs and circumstances on the ground.

These include grants to local groups, grants

for partnerships and contracts for specific

goods and services.

All these efforts are based on U.S. desires

to assist people in securing democratic systems to improve their lives and the future of

their children. ■

For further information on 

USAID democracy assistance see:

www.usaid.gov/our_work/

democracy_and_governance

A $0

$200 million

$400 million

$600 million

$800 million

$1 billion

$1.2 billion

1990 ’92 ’94 ’96 ’98 2000 ’02 ’04

Governance

Elections and Political Processes

Rule of Law

Civil Society
U.S. Agency for International Development

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20523

Tel: (202) 712-0000

Fax: (202) 216-3524

www.usaid.gov

ELECTORAL GER: Mongolian

votes at her remote ger, or tent,

in presidential election, May 2005.

NG HAN GUAN / AP