Mr. Chairman, the efforts that we deploy are made through the electoral body that is there, in light of its mandate to educate the public about the electoral process. That's something that we do in Canada through our outreach programs and our different advertising for an election. Obviously, what we look for and what we encourage is for the electoral body to get its expertise from within its own country and to reach out to its own citizens in ways that makes sense to them.
I'm pleased to hear your comments about the participation rates—not that I'm pleased about the participation rates, but I am about hearing your comments about them—because they do highlight what I consider to be practically unfair expectations on the part of the international community about how quickly democracy will install itself after an election. Initially, a lot of people—I'm not saying members of the committee, but a lot of people in the world—thought that because there was an election there, democracy is there. We saw this in Latin America, and my remarks were about the Latin Americans thinking that democracy doesn't work because they're not seeing the change in their lives. In my view, it's not that democracy doesn't work, it's that the democratic system or the democratic actors or undemocratic actors who are there are not helping the situation evolve. That is the real problem, not democracy. There is no alternative to democracy.
Your point is well taken about the fact that it will take several generations and that more has to be done in the schools. But that is much longer-term and something that I'm not sure the electoral body is best placed to handle in that country.
I think the educational system in those countries is there. If we had a holistic approach to democratic approaches and to democratic development, we could start to address in a very significant way, at primary school and at high school, the flaws that need to be addressed in the electoral system or in the education system concerning elections.
I'll make one further comment. The participation rate of 30% for the second round was better than anything they've ever achieved on the second round in Haiti. In terms relative to Haiti, that's significant progress. In terms of comparing it to the 60% turnout from the first round, it does indicate that there is a problem, and this is the question to which your colleague was alluding a little while back.
No matter how well you explain it, the people perceive that the important elections were for the president and were not for the others. That is because there's a concept that the authority will be vested with the president. This is why the municipal elections and local elections turn out to be so important in Haiti. In essence, as Mr. Bernard was saying before this committee, they will set about a countervailing power base at the local level, so that everything does not flow from the presidency. Perhaps that will have added value for the democratic process in Haiti.