What is the state of democracy today around the world?

There has been a remarkable movement towards democracy in the last two decades. The mix of factors involved in the process of democratization is complex, and we are still learning all of its dynamics. In Latin America, failed economic policies and corrupt military regimes dominated the 1970s. Many of these countries had some experience with democracy, and activist groups and political parties pressed for civilian government and clean elections. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the sudden collapse of authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union opened the door for countries in these regions to establish more democratic governments. Africa, though, still struggles with democratic change, partially because its economic development has lagged behind other regions of the world.

Also important has been the expansion of trade and travel, the telecommunications revolution, and perhaps most of all, the growing strength and activism of civic groups. They, more than political parties and leaders, often have led social movements for political reform and often against much resistance from those in power.

It is important to remember that democratization is an uneven process. For example, many countries in Latin America experienced democratic transitions in the 1980s and 1990s but are now facing a range of problems that block the consolidation of democracy and threaten to reverse prior gains, such as increasing crime, corruption, and weak government institutions.

Mozambique is rebuilding its economy and democratic institutions after a devastating civil war that lasted almost two decades. How does The Carter Center help democracies struggling with similar conditions to carry out democratic processes?

Many of the countries where we work are in transition from authoritarian regimes to freely elected civilian governments. They struggle with the legacy of that past: underdeveloped political institutions, such as courts, legislatures, election commissions, political parties, and inactive civic organizations. One free election or the overthrow of a dictator is not enough to change the political culture of a society overnight. The Carter Center can offer measures to improve respect for human rights, reforms in the administration of justice, and strengthening of nongovernmental organizations and other civic organizations that wish to participate in the public affairs of the nation. We have to be patient but persistent, realizing that this is a task that can take decades and sometimes generations.

Why is election observation by The Carter Center important?

While democratization is a complicated long-term process, elections are critical moments during which international actors can have an important influence. In many cases, credible and impartial observers can strengthen an electoral process by providing an independent assessment and reassuring all sides that electoral fraud will be detected. The presence of observers can increase voters' confidence that they can safely and secretly cast their ballots and that vote tabulation will be conducted without tampering. International observation helps establish standards for transparency in decision-making and for independent scrutiny of electoral processes.

How is election observation conducted?

Effective election monitoring begins long before voters cast their ballots and continues well into the post-election period. Months before the elections take place, observers analyze election laws, assess voter registration processes, voter education efforts, and the openness of campaigns, focusing on competitiveness, unhindered participation in the election process, and access to the media. Following elections, observers monitor the consolidation of official results, the filing and resolution of electoral petitions, and the assumption of office by the elected leaders.

The Carter Center only observes an election after a country has extended a formal invitation. Why is it important to secure an invitation?

The Carter Center becomes involved in a country only when it is clear that our participation is desired by the major political forces in the country and will be well received. As foreigners, and in accord with the Carter Center's philosophy, we respect a country's sovereignty and are careful to ensure that we do not intervene in their internal affairs.

The Carter Center is working in many countries that are criticized for human rights violations. How does The Carter Center address the delicate balance of promoting democracy without sidestepping the issue of human rights?

Although there are sometimes tensions between these two objectives, it is often the case that strengthening democracy and promoting human rights are compatible, mutually reinforcing goals. In countries with serious human rights violations, The Carter Center makes a judgment as to whether our proposed activities promoting democracy can reasonably be expected to increase respect for human rights and whether the host government is prepared to work with us in meaningful activities. In all the countries where we work, we bring human rights issues to the attention of the governments, sometimes speaking out publicly, as part of our global commitment to human rights. In some cases, we continue to work in a country with human rights problems in an effort to improve conditions. In Liberia, we decided that the government was not taking steps to ensure conditions favorable to our continued work, and we closed our office there. In Indonesia, Nigeria, or other countries struggling to consolidate democracy, we might choose to get involved even though respect for human rights is not well established.