Press Room

"India, Canada and the Universality of Democracy"

Notes for an address
by the Honourable Stéphane Dion,
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Centre for Canadian Studies
University of Delhi South Campus

New Delhi, India

April 23, 2002

Check against delivery

          This speech, which I have the honour of giving today as part of the Pearson Lectures, comes at roughly the same time as three important events for Canadians: first, the visit to Africa by the Prime Minister of Canada two weeks ago; second, the Canadian trade mission currently underway in your country, led by Canada’s Minister for International Trade; third, the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which Canada celebrated a few days ago, on April 17.

          A visit to Africa, a trade mission to India, the anniversary of a charter of rights and freedoms: the link between these three events is not immediately apparent. And yet, in addressing each of them in turn, I will convey the message I so much want to talk about today.

          I would like to share one of my most deeply held convictions about your country. I believe that India is a source of hope for humanity. India well illustrates the yearning for the triumph of democracy and the rule of law. For all those who may have thought that democracy was made only for Western countries, or that it is a luxury that only the wealthiest and most developed countries can afford, India, in spite of all the difficulties, many pitfalls, many detours, offers a most eloquent refutation. For over a half-century of independence, you have proven to the whole world the universality of democracy.

          Between this past April 3 and 13, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien visited seven countries in Africa. This African visit is in part a preparation for the G-8 Summit, which will be held this year in Canada, and where the Prime Minister, as the host, has included Africa as one of the key themes of the agenda.

          In each of those African countries, our Prime Minister delivered the same message. He expressed his faith in a new partnership, between Africa and Canada, certainly, but also, ideally between Africa and the international community. This new partnership provides for development aid to be tied to democratic progress. Inasmuch as a government is born of free and honest elections, acts within the framework of democracy and the rule of law, respects the rights and freedoms of its citizens and adopts good governance in public management, it will have access to special assistance to expedite its development.

          Thus, on April 11, speaking to the Organization of African Unity in Addis Ababa, the Prime Minister stated: "For your part, it means giving life to the NEPAD [New Partnership for Africa’s Development]. African countries that are demonstrably committed to the implementation of the NEPAD in all its aspects –– including good governance –– will have claim to an enhanced partnership. One that promises to improve the quality of life by strengthening good government, democracy and sound economic policy [...]."¹

          In other words, the Prime Minister is convinced that African countries ought to be given the same incentive to good governance as that which Europe gives to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Those countries know it will be impossible for them to be admitted into the European Union without embracing democracy and the rule of law. In Africa as well, there must be a clear link between economic assistance and democratic progress.

          Two arguments will certainly be levelled against the Canadian Prime Minister’s proposal. It is appropriate to examine their validity. The first is economic in nature: it will be said that when bellies are empty, you must start by offering food, clothing, housing and essential services to a population before worrying about individual freedoms and the rule of law. In short: bread before democracy. The second argument is cultural: it will be held that Western-style democracy, based on pluralism and human rights in relation to the state, ought not to be imposed on other cultures founded on the respect of tradition and the strict duties of the citizen toward the state.

          In my opinion, no one has better refuted those two arguments than a citizen of your country who, incidentally, has taught at the University of Delhi, where he has said he experienced "the most intellectually challenging period of [his] academic life."² I refer to Amartya Sen. This professor, who in 1998 won the Nobel Prize in Economics, demonstrated that democracy is a universal value, which must continue to advance on every continent and which fosters economic development and quality of life everywhere.

          Sen summed up his thinking in a keynote address delivered here in New Delhi, in February 1999. His fundamental observation is that a democracy has never experienced famine, even though that scourge still plagues countries under the yoke of dictatorship: "Even the poorest democratic countries that have faced terrible droughts or floods or other natural disasters (such as India in 1973, or Zimbabwe and Botswana in the early 1980s) have been able to feed their people without experiencing a famine."³ The explanation for this phenomenon is simple: "Famines are easy to prevent if there is a serious effort to do so, and a democratic government, facing elections and criticisms from opposition parties and independent newspapers, cannot help but make such an effort."⁴

          Democracy is connected to three different types of values, according to Sen. First, an intrinsic value: political participation in community life meets an aspiration shared by all humans. Then, an instrumental value: the free circulation of opinions and ideas enable the expression of economic and social needs. Finally, a constructive value: it is through free debate that the understanding of those needs and the ways to meet them increases.

          The statements of Prime Minister Chrétien echo Professor Sen’s conclusions. Like him, Mr. Chrétien believes that political incentives should be used to foster economic development. To quote Professor Sen: "Many economic technocrats recommend the use of economic incentives (which the market system provides) while ignoring political incentives (which democratic systems could guarantee). This is to opt for an unbalanced set of ground rules."⁵

          In fact, to those who doubt the universal application of democracy and of its economic virtues, I will speak about India. Your country, despite the sizeable challenges it faces, is a remarkable example of what democracy can achieve. This is a conviction I will elaborate further.

          As I speak, a delegation of Canadian business leaders, including over 150 participants, is visiting India. My colleague, the Honourable Pierre Pettigrew, Minister for International Trade, has explained why he felt it so important to organize this trade mission, which follows up on an initial mission led by Prime Minister Chrétien in January 1996. Minister Pettigrew wrote in a Canadian newspaper before his departure: "With an economy growing at a rate of five to six percent a year, a market of one billion consumers, and a rapidly growing middle class of some 150 million well-educated, outward-looking business and professional people, India’s potential to invest in, partner with and trade with Canada is immense."⁶

          Despite the tremendous and considerable difficulties that India has faced since 1947 and still faces, your country has made impressive progress. Today, India has become the fourth largest economy in terms of GDP at purchasing power parity, according to the World Bank. Such progress has been achieved by a country that has adopted democracy.

          Am I right in thinking that this is a remarkable achievement? Once again, I defer to the authority of Professor Sen. In his lecture in New Delhi, he stated: "It was hard to have faith in the future of a united and democratic India. And yet, half a century later, we find a democracy that has, taking the rough with the smooth, worked relatively well. Political differences have been largely tackled within the constitutional guidelines, and governments have risen and fallen according to electoral and parliamentary rules."⁷

          It is a remarkable fact that, despite all the immense political and economic challenges, a democratic and independent India has never experienced famine, the last instance of it dating back to the colonial regime, in 1943. Democracy has served Indians well, and they are attached to it in return.

          Democracy is not the magic formula that would lead us to nirvana. In the imperfect world in which we struggle, it offers the least worst solution, to paraphrase Churchill. Similarly, democracy does not eliminate conflicts in society. It simply helps in the attempt to address them without violence. It does not make differences of belief or culture among diverse populations disappear. Rather, it invites these populations to live together peacefully within a single state. To accomplish this, one must rely upon tolerance, notably the spirit of federalism, the form of government both our countries have adopted. This is the topic I will now examine with you.

          I am going to talk about unity in diversity by using as a starting point the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This great achievement is credited to our renowned Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau and his then-Justice Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, now Prime Minister of Canada. Canadians marked the 20th anniversary of their Charter on April 17. For two decades now, they have been able to avail themselves of a constitutional document to ask the courts to strike down federal or provincial laws that would violate their fundamental rights.

          Twenty years ago, many Canadians feared that the logic of the Charter ran counter to Canadian diversity and that, in the name of equal rights, the decisions and opinions rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada would gradually make the country more uniform. In other words, it was feared that the Charter would weaken the principle of unity in diversity, a principle on which Canada has founded its existence.

          Canada, a federation of 30 million inhabitants spread out over a quasi-continent, is a very diverse country, which has two official languages, English and French – with one province, Quebec, being majority French-speaking – regions very proud of their specificity, Aboriginal peoples and a multicultural population originating in all continents, including 800,000 of Indian origin. The imposition of a single charter of rights for all Canadian citizens, it was feared, would erode their rich diversity. In particular, it was felt that the Charter would centralize the federation, to the detriment of the autonomy of the ten provinces and three territories that make up the country.

          That is not what has happened. Canadian diversity is just as rich today as it was 20 years ago. The courts have preserved the logic of federalism. They have even made it stronger. In effect, the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that "what may work effectively in one province (or in a part of it) may simply not work in another without unduly interfering with the legislative scheme."⁸ It has established that the provinces could apply different remedies to similar political problems without this producing discrimination: "Clearly, in a federal system, province-based distinctions do not automatically give rise to a presumption of discrimination."⁹

          In relying on the Charter, the Court has helped minorities. For example, in granting Francophone minorities in the Anglophone provinces the right to manage their schools and school boards, or by recognizing the rights of Aboriginal peoples, the Court has not made Canada uniform, but has on the contrary strengthened its heterogeneous nature.

          In the same way, the Court has taken account of the distinct or unique nature of the majority Francophone province, Quebec. As it has stated, "The principle of federalism facilitates the pursuit of collective goals by cultural and linguistic minorities which form the majority within a particular province. This is the case in Quebec, where the majority of the population is French-speaking, and which possesses a distinct culture."¹⁰

          Once again, Canada has demonstrated that unity is possible in diversity. Our Charter has helped us rally around common values, while respecting our differences and the decentralized nature of our federation. I am saying this as a Quebecer. As you know, some citizens in my province believe that belonging to Canada is incompatible with their Quebec identity. For this reason, they advocate Quebec’s secession from Canada. Fortunately, they are less and less numerous. A growing majority of Quebecers feels it is better to be both Quebecers and Canadians and that we ought not to renounce one of these two parts of ourselves.

          Unity in diversity: this is the only way forward for Canada. You can tell me whether I am mistaken in saying that this holds true for India as well.

          A Canadian cannot fail to be impressed by the sight of a country of over one billion inhabitants – one sixth of the human race – who speak, according to one estimate, 1,652 languages or dialects, including 18 languages that are recognized as "languages of India,"¹¹ and where a Hindu majority lives alongside over 200 million fellow citizens of other religious affiliations.

          Your practice of federalism is certainly much more centralized than ours. As another Indian professor has noted: "It is a truism that the Indian Constitution of 1950 was not a federal document in the sense in which the Canadian (1867) and Australian (1900) constitutions established federations."¹² But your 28 states – as well as 7 union territories – nevertheless have not inconsiderable powers in such areas as health, education and agriculture, to name but a few. And in 1993, the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution granted your municipalities and your local governments (that is, the panchayats) a constitutional existence that our municipalities do not have. Moreover, you have gone further than we have in terms of constitutional protection of minority rights, for in addition to the guarantees provided to your linguistic and religious minorities, your Constitution also provides for affirmative action for disadvantaged groups (members of tribal communities, Dalits and backward castes), in the form of quotas for parliamentary seats, jobs in the public service, and available spots in educational institutions. And in local government institutions, one third of seats are reserved for women.

          At the same time, this very diversified country is enriched by a civilization five thousand years old, another reality which fascinates Canadians. Your experience with unity in diversity is much longer than ours!

          Since its independence, India has based its unity simultaneously on democracy, tolerance, federalism and secularity of the state. Allow me to refer once again to Professor Sen, as I find it easier to express myself on your country through the thinking of an Indian professor. "India has also survived the tremendous challenge of dealing with a variety of major languages and a spectrum of religions. Religious and communal differences are, of course, vulnerable to exploitation by sectarian politicians, and have indeed been so used on several occasions (including in recent months), causing massive consternation in the country. Yet the fact that consternation greets sectarian violence and that condemnation of such violence comes from all sections of the country ultimately provides the main guarantee against the narrowly factional exploitation of sectarianism."¹³

          Professor Sen spoke those words in New Delhi in February 1999. Essentially, he was saying that the right attitude to adopt is to reject sectarianism. I truly believe you will agree that this attitude is also suitable in light of the recent troubles that have affected India. A Canadian political scientist, Professor Jean-Pierre Derriennic, has written: "It is not, as is often believed, cultural, linguistic or religious heterogeneity that is dangerous for civil peace; it is the refusal to accept this heterogeneity [...] India, where Hindus are the largest religious group but where the state is secular, was founded on the acceptance of its own diversity."¹⁴ [Translation] This principle of tolerance gave birth to your country: humanity would despair if it did not also characterize its future.

          I have spoken about your country but, in so doing, I have spoken much about Canada.

          It is important to Canadians that Canada, as a good global citizen, advance everywhere the ideals they believe in, notably democracy. The example of what your country has achieved, in becoming the largest democracy in the world, inspires us to pursue our endeavours to achieve democracy on all continents.

          Canadians want to increase trade with countries that respect human rights and who, in so doing, give themselves the best means to pull themselves out of misery. By linking democracy and economic growth, India is an inspiration and a source of hope.

          And Canadians know that unity is possible in diversity. They want to continue to believe that differences of language or religion are a strength and not a problem within a state. They want federalism to be a means for living together, not a step toward breaking apart.

          Proof of the virtues of unity in diversity can be found by Canadians within their own history. But nothing could provide them with better confirmation than the success of the great Indian federation. It seems to be mutual, and in Canada’s success, Indians can find a meaning to their struggle for democracy, for unity and for greater justice. At least that is what is suggested in the following quotation by Indira Gandhi, which is one of the greatest compliments that could ever be paid my country: "Your greatest success is not the high economic level you have attained, but the fact that the international community views Canada as a nation of friends, working for international peace and harmony. Canadians have a broad and opened-minded view of the world and life. They have fought for peace and justice for all humanity. They have made every effort, both as individuals and through international organizations, to help those less fortunate than themselves. Canadians have no colonial past to regret nor any of the obligation of a «great power» to hinder them in their activities as human beings, in the fullest sense of the word."¹⁵

          Those who named this annual lecture in honour of Lester B. Pearson, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate whose work gave rise to the Blue Helmets, made a decision that speaks volumes about both Canada and India. What I have sought to express in my own Pearson Lecture, to you, Indian academics interested in Canada, is that when I look at your vast country, I see, in a manner more solemn, more dramatic and more imposing, the growing reflection of the most fundamental challenges facing Canadian society: the unceasing quest for democracy, justice, the federal spirit, and unity in diversity.

NOTES

1. Jean Chrétien, "Address by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa," Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, (April 11, 2002). http://pm.gc.ca
   
   
2. Amartya Kumar Sen, "Autobiography," The Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1998, (The Official Web Site of the Nobel Foundation)
   
   
3. Amartya Kumar Sen, "Democracy as a Universal Value," Journal of Democracy. Vol. 10.3 (1999), p. 8. See also: Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1999).
   
   
4. Sen, Democracy, p.8.
   
   
5. Sen, Democracy, p.9.
   
   
6. Pierre Pettigrew, "Pettigrew’s pitch: Canada wants to do more business with India" The Hill Times, No. 632, (April 15, 2002), p. 14.
   
   
7. Sen, Democracy, p. 5.
   
   
8. R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713, at par. 193.
   
   
9. Haig v. Canada, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 995.
   
   
10. Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217, at par. 59.
    
    
11. Reeta Chowdhari Tremblay, "Living Multiculturally in a Federal India," in C. Steven LaRue (ed.), The India Handbook, Regional Handbooks of Economic Development Prospects onto the 21st Century (Fitzroy Dearborn, Chicago, 1997),  p.158-169.
    
    
12. Balveer Arora, "Adapting Federalism to India : Multilevel and Asymmetrical Innovations," Multiple Identities in a Single State, Centre for Policy Research, (New Dehli, 1995), p. 71.
    
    
13. Sen, Democracy, p. 5.
    
    
14. Jean-Pierre Derriennic, Les guerres civiles Presses de Sciences Po, (Paris, 2001), p. 87.
    
    
15. Indira Ghandi, Commons Debates Hansard, (June 19, 1973), p. 4929.