Europe, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

POLITICS: Commonwealth Produces Principles for Governance

Sanjay Suri

LONDON, May 12 2004 (IPS) - The Commonwealth launched a new set of principles Wednesday as a model for governance.

The principles set out guidelines for relations between the parliament, judiciary and the executive authority in member states.

The Commonwealth is a group of 53 nations that includes Britain and countries once a part of the British Empire.

"These principles will strengthen democracy and adherence to the Commonwealth’s fundamental values in member states by outlining the limits of power in the three branches of government, enabling them to interact better in the promotion of good governance and the rule of law," Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon said at the launch of the principles in London Wednesday.

The principles govern issues such as the harmonious balancing of power and the interaction between parliament, the executive and the judiciary in democratic societies.

They set out in detail the consensus arrived at by representatives of the three branches of government in the Commonwealth on how each of their national institutions should interrelate in the exercise of their institutional responsibility.

"The principles specify restraint in the exercise of power within their respective constitutional spheres so that the legitimate discharge of constitutional functions by other institutions are not encroached on," the Commonwealth said in a statement.

But in declaring that the principles apply to democratic states, the Commonwealth acknowledged that there is not much it can do when its members chose to quit the democratic path. Commonwealth statements have for years condemned the lack of democracy in Pakistan. The position seems to have affected Pakistan very little.

A hostile Commonwealth position on the election process in Zimbabwe led that country to quit the Commonwealth around the time of the heads of government meeting in Abuja, Nigeria in December last year. There is little evidence that Zimbabwe is suffering as a result of quitting the Commonwealth.

But the principles do strengthen moves towards good governance in member states who choose to pursue that path.

The Commonwealth Principles were finalised by Commonwealth law ministers and endorsed by heads of government at the Abuja summit.

The principles have been developed from the Latimer House Guidelines on Parliamentary Sovereignty and Judicial Independence (named after Latimer House in London where the Commonwealth Secretariat is located).

The principles were first drawn up in 1998 by four prominent Commonwealth organisations, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), the Commonwealth Legal Education Association (CLEA), the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association (CMJA) and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association (CLA).

"This process by which these principles were drawn up provides an excellent example of how Commonwealth civil society can have a key impact on decisions made by member governments," McKinnon added.

The principles also call for a constructive relationship between government and civil society and a broader opportunity for women to participate in the democratic processes.

The principles were given a stamp of approval by law ministers of Australia, Ghana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Singapore, South Africa and the UK.

"What we now wish to see is the sharing of best practices and dissemination of agreed values and principles," McKinnon said. "This will enable member countries to move to that optimum state of governance which is predicated on the rule of law in our Commonwealth member states."

The principles themselves contain no new principle. They set out usual desired practices. But codifying them will help small states struggling with setting up democratic institutions "and others where these institutions are shaky," a Commonwealth official said.

In setting out desired relations between the parliament and the judiciary, the principles speak of respect for parliament’s primary responsibility for law making on the one hand and for the judiciary for the interpretation and application of the law on the other hand.

But the Supreme Court of India has often set laws where parliament has failed for lack of will or due to weak coalitions. In legal circles the court has been admired for taking bold steps.

Many of the principles are of a broad and general nature. They speak of the need to "promote rule of law in a complementary and constructive manner" and of making sure that parliamentarians function free from unlawful interference. The principles speak of the need for an "independent, impartial, honest and competent judiciary".

They say judicial appointments must be based on "clearly defined criteria and by a publicly declared process." They uphold the need for security of tenure and protection of levels of remuneration for judges.

Holding of public office should be decided on "merit and proven integrity" but should also "reflect the composition of the community in terms of gender, ethnicity, social and religious groups and regional balance." Parliament and governments should "maintain high standards of accountability".

Commonwealth officials acknowledge that the principles are standard stuff, but they say they can be useful for fledgling or erring democracies.

Following pressure at the Abuja summit for a greater say for civil society in the processes of the Commonwealth, the principles have a word now for civil society too.

"Parliaments and governments should recognise the role that civil society plays in the implementation of the Commonwealth’s fundamental values and should strive for a constructive relationship with civil society to ensure that there is broader opportunity for lawful participation in the democratic process," the principles say.