the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party (MPRP, now the Mongolian People’s Party or MPP) on the left and a variety of party coalitions now labelled the Democratic Party on the centre right.
In 2003, Mongolia went through a remarkable process of self-reflection in which it assessed the quality of its own democracy as part of the UN Fifth International Conference on New or Restored Democracies. Reflection and reform were prompted by a growing disdain for corruption and several contested election results. By this time the procedural elements of democracy were firmly in place, but with government coalitions collapsing and electoral results being contested it was clear that neither the party system nor the electoral system had become entirely institutionalised. As Mongolia underwent its dual transition away from Communist rule and a command economy, intolerance towards corruption soared and political actors across the spectrum called for reform — a call that resulted in an assessment of Mongolia’s democratic credentials.
One of the crowning achievements of the assessment was the passage of a ninth Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on democracy, zero tolerance of corruption, and human rights. A uniquely Mongolian innovation, MDG-9 links the quality of democracy to eliminating corruption and protecting all categories of human rights. But since this commitment was adopted in 2005, Mongolian democracy has seen a series of significant interruptions, including dissolution of the government in 2006; political protests, violence and a brief state of emergency in 2008; and continued fractionalisation of the left between elements in the MPP and a new form of the MPRP.
With this brief overview as a backdrop, it is possible to reflect on recent events involving the arrest and arbitrary detention of former president Nambaryn Enkhbayar. The thirst for anti-corruption measures was ostensibly used to detain Enkhbayar, but the detention itself can be called into question for two reasons.
First, many commentators see this as a stunt and a distraction before the upcoming elections of June 2012, in which the former president seeks to compete. Second, the detention was enforced without due process of law, which undermines the very norms relating to democracy, anti-corruption and human rights that lie at the heart of Mongolia’s MDG-9.
There is increasing concern in the international community that this event is another case of democratic ‘rollback’ in which consolidation of predatory executive power undermines the values of democracy. Enkhbayar was detained and later released on bail for charges of corruption and personal enrichment, but the world will need to wait for the trial outcome to see the veracity of the charges and decide whether his arrest and detention were politically motivated.
But before such a judgement is reached, it is helpful to compare Mongolia to the ring of Central Asian states that became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Unlike these countries, Mongolia has seen neither the rise of a personalistic authoritarian regime, nor of military intervention — and it has not seen widespread repression and large-scale violations of human rights. While it has certainly travelled a rocky road to democratic consolidation, Mongolia has not experienced the perverse forms of rule evident in countries such as Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Other comparisons are being made with Ukraine, which detained, charged and convicted its former prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, for tax evasion — a conviction many felt was politically motivated.
Beyond the questions relating to Enkhbayar’s case, Mongolian democracy will continue to confront a number of significant challenges. These include poverty, corruption, economic distortion and inequality, as well as some continued problems with human rights violations. The quality of democracy is measured through a wide range of indicators, and Mongolia has shown real improvement across many of them. The trial of the former president joins a list of aberrations seen over the years, but is not a fatal obstacle in the country’s transit toward democracy.
Todd Landman is Professor of Government and Director at the Institute for Democracy and Conflict Resolution, University of Essex. He was an academic advisor for the UNDP-sponsored project on Mongolian Democracy Assessment.
I disagree with the assessment of the Enkhbayar saga that Dr. Landman offers here. Neither Enkhbayar, nor almost any other politicians in Mongolia are innocent bystanders when it comes to corruption. Through video recordings and photographs that have emerged since Enkhbayar’s release it is not at all clear that he was as surprised by the arrest as he makes it out to be. The PR campaign organized by his supporters was also surprisingly swift and professional. So much so that it’s hard to fight the suspicion (also frequently voiced in Mongolia) that Enkhbayar may have had an eye on the election and was quite happy to appear the martyr and thus promote the spurious Ukraine comparisons.
There is much that’s not quite right with the NY Times report that Dr. Landman refers to, as my blog co-author Byambajav Dalaibuyan also notes (http://blogs.ubc.ca/mongolia/2012/mongolian-democracy-tested-by-ex-presidents-arrest/). Just because of some politicking around the edges, let’s not jump to the conclusion that this dooms democratic progress. If a more public debate on corruption results from these shenanigans, Mongolian democracy has much to gain.
I never said in the piece that he was innocent nor did I say democracy was under threat; quite the opposite. The main argument is about the resilience of Mongolian democracy and how this event is not akin to any democratic ‘rollback’…rather, it involves politics in the run up to the June elections. I too welcome a debate on corruption in Mongolia precisely because it forms a key part of the MDG-9. Whether Mr Enkhbayar actually relished his arrest and wanted to be martyr I leave the speculations of others. I watch the trial and the elections with keen interest to see where events will lead the country.
Don’t know about the MDG 9 being “a crowning achievement.” It’s a stretch to describe a government dissolution as “an interruption of democracy.” Does democracy get interrupted in Japan every time a PM resigns? And who is the ‘international community,”the world?’ The WSJ? Senator Feinstein who is a personal friend? Her statement was so-o-o unfortunate, to say the least (to borrow her words). It’s really odd that the guy’s refusal to appear before the authorities – after ten summons and one year – never gets mentioned. Where does this sense of entitlement come from? Those who care for the rule of law should say loud that you’re supposed to show up when you’re summoned. And you’re not supposed to resist police when they come to arrest you. Or are you? And he was arrested not because he was charged of anything but because he failed to appear. According to the criminal law, you get arrested for the obstruction of justice after you fail to appear after two summons. He was formally charged when in detention. And did you see him covering his ears refusing to listen when the charges were read? And OMG! do not compare Mongolia to Ukraine. We don’t speak Russian, for starters (meaning it’s an entirely different sensibility). You should read “Mafia States” in the last issue of FA. And: do you mean to say that government should stop functioning because an election is around the corner and a former President happens to be thinking of running? Did you see a very expensive piece on page A10-NYT of May 25? There are quite a few corrupt guys out there. The question is, will there be zero tolerance as the MDG9 says.or permissiveness will continue to reign, as in the 2000s?
Thanks for this. I have not compared Mongolia to Ukraine, my brief for writing this was ‘is Mongolia like Ukraine?’ and I clearly say that it is not.
You will note that I said ‘Other comparisons are being made to Ukraine’ (that is passive and refers to a third party comparison, not mine.)
Which again is the whole point of the piece. I am opposing the global panic about what has happened here, I am opposing the ‘rollback’ thesis, and merely making the point that Mongolian democracy has survived crises similar to these in the past. The 2008 violence could be conceived as an interruption (again I was asked if this was the end of Mongolian democracy at that time and argued that it was not). I do not think government should stop functioning and no on where in what is written is that suggested.
Finally, to repeat, I have never said that I think he is not corrupt. It is helpful for readers to read what I have actually written and not what they think I have written. Zero tolerance of corruption is a value worth upholding and as I said in my answer above would make Mongolian democracy stronger as a result.
Here is a link to a huge Wikileak-type exposure of corruption from a courageous Mongolian. http://www.mad-mongolia.com/news/mongolia-news/spider-web-6-10530/
It was published a couple of weeks ago in Mongolia and translated into English. This is the most easily readable, in terms of text size etc., of the versions that I’ve seen.