Contents

Introduction by Adrienne Clarkson
Enhancing Pluralism · Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Is Civil Society Bankable? · Tashkent, Uzbekistan
The Knowledge Revolution and the End of Ignorance · Karachi, Pakistan
Canada as a Global Leader · Gatineau, Canada
The Nature of True Regime Change · Toronto, Canada
Underwriting Human Progress · Berlin, Germany
Architecture as a Force for Change · New Delhi, India
Democracy, Pluralism and Civil Society · Oslo, Norway
The Bridges That Unite Us · Ottawa, Canada
What Makes Democracy Work? · Evora, Portugal
Renewing Democracy’s Promise · New York, U.S.A.
The Spiritual Roots of Tolerance · Tutzing, Germany
Towards a Common Future · Ottawa, Canada
“Pluralism Is a Work in Progress” · His Highness the Aga Khan in conversation with Peter Mansbridge

Canada as a Global Leader · Governor General’s Leadership Conference

It is a joy and a privilege to address the young leaders of Canada, who represent different walks of national life as well as Canada’s social, cultural and regional diversity. I am particularly happy at this opportunity, as you have been jointly exploring a critical aspect of the role of leadership: how leadership—political and civil—can help sustain the moral and dynamic coherence in public life that Canada has so successfully constructed, predicated on the ethic of respect for human dignity. This coherence recognizes and builds on difference, enables a spirit of compromise and consensus in public and legislative policies, and marks out a healthy space for the role of civil society as a sound—indeed an essential—bulwark for democratic processes.

Canada has an experience of governance of which much of the world stands in dire need. It is a world of increasing dissension and conflict, in which different ethnic, tribal, religious or social groups have often failed to search for, and agree upon, a common space for harmonious coexistence. This situation of conflict and instability poses a grave risk for the future relationship between the industrialized world and the developing world. The polarizing and paralyzing Cold War, which impacted millions of people in the developing world, has gone. The new issue that demands the attention of the international community is the need to create stable states with self-sustainable economies and stable, inclusive forms of governance.

Much of the world’s attention is periodically focussed on the phenomenon of so-called failed states. But of the global threats that face us today, apart from nuclear war or HIV/AIDS, the most preoccupying is not failed states. It is the failure of democracy. The global picture at the beginning of the twenty-first century is a story of failed democracies in the Muslim world, in Latin America, in eastern Europe and in sub-Saharan Africa. A startling fact today is that nearly 40 per cent of UN member nations are failed democracies. The greatest risk to the West itself, and to its values, is therefore the accumulation of failed democracies, which, in turn, will cause deep undercurrents of stress, if not conflict, among societies.

It is essential, in its own interest, that the West admit to itself that democracy is as fragile as any other form of human governance. It is essential that every nation and each society ask the following question: “If democracy is failing, why is this the case?” They must make every effort to help correct the situation rather than referring dismissively to “failed states.” To my knowledge, democracy can fail anywhere, at any time, in any society—as it has in several well-known and well-documented situations in Europe, as recently as the last fifty years. It is self-evident, in Europe and across the globe, that the existence of political parties and elections does not alone produce stable governments or competent leadership.

Three concepts seem to me essential in creating, stabilizing and strengthening democracy around the world, including among the people of Africa and Asia with whom I have worked in the past. These concepts are meritocracy, pluralism and civil society. What role can Canada play, drawing upon its national genius, in creating or enhancing these great underpinnings of democracy in the developing world?

A recent UN audit of democracy, covering eighteen Latin American countries, reemphasizes the virtues of democracy in advancing human development. But it also warns that stagnant per capita incomes and growing inequality, in access to civil rights as well as in income, are producing doubt, impatience and civil unrest. Thus, the report underlines a key concept that you will all know instinctively and that my experience working in the developing world has illustrated decade after decade: the primary daily concern of peoples everywhere is their quality of life, which is intimately connected to their value systems. The report recognizes a crucial fact: “An important relationship exists between citizenship and organizations of civil society, which are major actors in the strengthening of democracy, in the oversight of government stewardship and in the development of pluralism.”

My interest in these themes of development and governance arises from my role as the hereditary spiritual leader—Imam—of the Shia Ismaili Muslim community. Culturally very diverse, the Ismailis are spread across the globe, mostly as a minority, in more than twenty-five countries in South and Central Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. In recent decades they have also established a substantial presence in Canada, the U.S.A. and western Europe. Since succeeding to this office as the forty-ninth Imam in 1957, I have been concerned with the development of the Ismailis and the broader societies in which they live. The engagement of the Imamat in development is guided by Islamic ethics, which bridge faith and society. It is on this premise that I established the Aga Khan Development Network. This network of agencies has long been active in many areas of Asia and Africa to improve the quality of life of all who live there. These areas are home to some of the poorest and most diverse populations in the world. Our long presence on the ground gives us an insight that confirms the UN’s detailed assessment in Latin America, which is that a democracy cannot function reasonably without two preconditions.

The first is a healthy civil society. It is an essential bulwark that provides citizens with multiple channels through which to exercise effectively both their rights and their duties of citizenship. Even at a very basic level, only a strong civil society can ensure both isolated rural populations and the marginalized urban poor a reasonable prospect of humane treatment, personal security, equity, the absence of discrimination and access to opportunity.

The second precondition is pluralism. Pluralism means peoples of diverse backgrounds and interests coming together in organizations of varying types and goals, for different forms of creative expression, which are valuable and deserving of support by government and society as a whole.

The rejection of pluralism is pervasive across the globe, and this rejection plays a significant role in breeding destructive conflicts. Examples are scattered across the world’s map: in Asia, in the Middle East, in Africa, in Europe, in the Americas. No continent has been spared the tragedies of death, of misery or of the persecution of minorities. Are such high-risk situations predictable? If the answer is yes, then what can be done about them, to pre-empt the risk that the rejection of pluralism will become the spark that sets human conflict aflame? Is the onus not on leadership, in all parts of the world, to build a knowledge base about such situations and consider strategies for preventing them? I deeply believe our collective conscience must accept that pluralism is no less important than human rights for ensuring peace, successful democracy and a better quality of life.

I am optimistic that much constructive work can be done, and I would cite one example—from the forty years of experience of the Aga Khan Development Network’s agencies—in which the careful, patient development of civil society institutions helped to create the capacity to manage and legitimize pluralism. In Northern Pakistan, once one of the poorest areas on earth, our Network has been working for over twenty years, with CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, as our lead partner. Isolated and bypassed rural communities of different ethnic and religious backgrounds—Shia, Sunni and non-Muslim—struggled to eke out a meagre living, farming small holdings in the harsh environment of this mountain desert ecosystem. Relations among the communities were often hostile. The challenge for the Network was to create sustainable, inclusive processes of development in which diverse communities could participate and seek joint solutions to common problems.

To summarize two decades of our work there: over 3,900 village-based organizations, comprising a mix of broadbased representations and interest-specific groups in such fields as women’s initiatives, water usage, and savings and credit were established. The quality of life for 1.3 million people living in a rural environment, representative of the majority of the population of Asia and Africa, has dramatically improved. Per capita income has increased by 300 per cent, savings have soared, and male and female education, primary health, housing, sanitation and cultural awareness have seen major improvements. Former antagonists have debated and worked together to create new programs and social structures in Northern Pakistan, and, more recently, in Tajikistan. Consensus about hope for the future has replaced conflict born of despair and memories of the past. This micro-experiment with grassroots democracy, civil society and pluralism has also underlined, for everyone involved, the enormous importance of competence and advancement by merit. Inherent in the notion of merit is the idea of equality of access to opportunities. Citizens who possess potential, whatever the community to which they belong, can realize their potential only if they have access to good education, good health and prospects to advance through enterprise. Without this equity, merit does not develop.