Pat Noonan and Ron Schiffman From Oregon: Building Democracy Around the World have worked in about 40 different countries from Southeast Asia to the Middle East, and from Northern Europe to Sub-Saharan Africa. The short list includes Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Latvia, Bulgaria, South Sudan, Kenya and Rwanda. Their adventures in law, setting up legal systems and implementing judicial reform have not been without experiencing conflict first-hand. While battle was still raging in South Sudan, Pat’s “commute” from Nairobi meant boarding a small plane to Lokichokio (on the border between Kenya & South Sudan), then taking another old plane that landed on a dirt runway in the temporary capitol Rumbek. Pat describes the charm of Lokichokio as including rival militias, arms dealers, thieves, con-men, and spies. Setting up the new nation was not entirely a peaceful endeavor. In Rumbek, life was in a makeshift tent camp where only one U.N Soldier guarded the encampment.
Back home in Oregon, Pat and Ron live in the quiet coastal town of Arch Cape in a charming clapboard house built circa 1945 on land that is a quiet haven and a wildlife retreat filled with flowering fruit trees, berry bushes, and a vegetable garden that is marked by the natural boundary of woods and a creek. Their son Matthew just completed his Master’s degree in Occupational Therapy at St. Catherine’s University in Minneapolis. Pat and Ron are both community-minded activists on the home front too. Pat was part of the group that set up the Arch Cape sanitary and water systems. Ron has also served on the water-sanitary management boards. Both of them are proud of the water quality in their rural oceanside community!
PR4P: What led you to work in international law reform?
Pat Noonan: It was serendipitous and it came at a time when my son Matt was a little older. My professional work experience included being a lawyer, law professor and judge. I had also earned a post-graduate certification in educational administration which was helpful for my volunteer work in the schools setting up a community funded arts in the schools’ program. My work experience and education were the qualifications needed when I was asked by some colleagues from the University of San Francisco to participate in a project in Cambodia to set up a couple of legal education programs immediately after the UN brokered elections.
Ron Schiffman: Serendipitous. Nothing is really serendipitous. We made friends with people, specifically U.S.A.I.D contractors. Pat was fascinated with living overseas, to travel and work. She started seeking programs where her skills would fit. So she was out there looking, networking and making contacts.
PR4P: How do you go about setting up legal systems, i.e., is there a specific protocol or is every nation different?
Pat Noonan: Every nation is different and the people who do the work are unique. Setting up a legal system depends on the human resources that are available and country’s experience. Ultimately it is the people on hand who will be able to define what can be done and what cannot be done.
For example, working in South Sudan immediately after the peace accords, there were no banks and no currency. The new banking law needed to be simple and straightforward, and could not be copied from another country.
Ron Schiffman: Pat’s process was never based on boilerplate statutory schemes. She always sat down with the client and talked about their needs, and then worked backward from that. Her work was defined as Democracy and Governance. Essentially, she helped to architect the infrastructure on which a fledgling nation can hang democracy. Some of those components include the judicial system, a free media, separation of powers in government, free elections and the ability to combat corruption in government—that is the Bag of Democracy, and she’s done it differently, in different countries depending on their immediate needs. Her work most always involved some aspect of the judiciary, and more often than not, there was a technology component and a training program.
PR4P: How has the work transitioned as governments’ adopted legal systems?
Pat Noonan: With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the initial tasks were creating the basic foundation, a Constitution and laws. As those pieces fall into place, the work shifts to focus on education and training. The transition reflects the different history and culture of each country.
Many of the countries chose to adopt constitutional courts which have the power to declare an act of the other branches of government to be in violation of the constitution and therefore invalid. These decisions can be controversial, particularly in the early years of a new government, and not always accepted. Several constitutional courts were removed after controversial decisions that limited executive or legislative power. Working with these courts we explored how best to assume and establish legitimacy and power. Often that meant initially choosing cases carefully, and finding consensus based unanimous decisions.
Ron Schiffman: Almost without exception, we are working in Civil Law countries. The role of the judiciary in Civil Law legal systems differs from the Anglo-American legal system in many respects. In the United States, we have a strict separation of powers between our branches of government. Often the lawyers and judges in countries we are called upon to assist have a deep respect for this particular aspect of our democracy and want to replicate it. Because this can involve a shift in governmental power sharing, it necessarily requires delicate negotiation with those holding power. Another important difference is that the Anglo-American system depends upon legal precedent - the controlling interpretation of statutes on subsequent cases within a given jurisdiction.
As a consequence, Pat often walked a tightrope with lawyers and judges who wanted equal respect and authority on par with the controlling branches of government. Part of the job was to help them improve the judiciary in order to accomplish this goal. Frequently, it is judiciary that is the most progressive and democratic of government institutions. This is the reason why taking control of the judiciary is often the first thing an authoritarian government will do to gain power. In order to achieve authoritarian control, they have to - paraphrasing from Shakespeare, kill all the lawyers. *
In Rwanda, one of President Kagame’s goals was transitioning to an Anglo-American legal system from its existing Civil Law system. This was massive task. Because the Anglo-American system relies heavily on well reasoned, written legal decisions, this transition required retraining every judge in the country to write clear, law based, well analyzed decisions for publication that could be accessed and understood by the non-lawyer citizens. The task was somewhat easier because they had a tradition of education and they were highly motivated. The project in Rwanda was extraordinary example of success in a very short period of a few years.
PR4P: Is it more challenging to set-up legal systems in countries that have never had a democracy in place?
Pat Noonan: Yes. For example, Latvia had a vibrant democratic history. After independence from the Soviet Union there were still Latvians who had lived during that period of democracy and honored those democratic traditions. Bulgaria, on the other hand, had never held an election prior to independence. Many Bulgarians favored the former Soviet system and were in fact sorry to see it go. As a result, Bulgaria had a more difficult time implementing democratic reforms.
PR4P: What is the mission of the U.S.A.I.D and the United Nations, or rather why are they engaged in international law reform?
Pat Noonan: U.S.A.I.D and the United Nations have different perspectives. Both entities are dedicated to improving civil liberties through education, health, agriculture, etc., and maintain programs to achieve these goals. Funding for U.S.A.I.D/Democracy and Governance projects is to a large extent driven by commerce—to lay the legal groundwork that will ensure that contracts can be enforced and international business can be conducted. This goal has an underlying presumption that vibrant commercial interdependence will reduce the potential for armed conflict. The United Nations is primarily the broker of treaties, human rights, and aspires to keep the peace.
PR4P: How does international law reform help the citizens of these newly formed nations to become more autonomous and self-reliant?
Pat Noonan: Law reform can provide the space for civic engagement. The constitution and laws define the rights and responsibilities of both the government and citizens, and in the best case provide reliable guideposts and a certain amount of safety.
Ron Schiffman: Often law reform includes the computerization of judicial systems. In Rwanda, a web portal was created that could be accessed by citizens to see what the legislature was doing, what bills were in process toward becoming law and the influence of lobbyists. Also citizens could look up cases. Case law was going to be the law of the land and transparency was part of this process. In any democracy, transparency is the foundation for fighting against government corruption.
PR4P: Can you share a few stories of the dangers and the obstacles in doing this type of work?
Pat Noonan: Typically, the countries in which I worked were torn by war or impoverished by the circumstances of their histories. For example, in Rwanda, there was a reasonable underlying fear of another genocide. The collective societal memory of the previous genocide was palpable. There was some thought that unlimited democracy could result in a plethora of diverse political parties based on ethnicity, precipitating another genocide; consequently, a limited democracy might be preferable. Democracy can be a messy business.
In the Middle East, there were times when spontaneous firefights erupted. A few times, I have had to hit the floor or immediately evacuate areas before dark or before border crossings closed.
In Jordan, the hotel where I stayed had been bombed two days before I arrived, much of the interior boarded up, the smell of explosives and blood was still strong. In Iraq, the transport vehicle I was traveling in broke down, and people began to gather while we waited for another vehicle. While it’s tense at the time, it’s only in retrospect that you realize how bad the outcome could have been.
Ron Schiffman: As it turned out later, we learned that Pat was infamous for being in the wrong place the wrong time.
PR4P: What are the rewards you’ve experienced in helping people to become self-governing and to experience democracy?
Pat Noonan: This work is all about the people. I have worked with law students who were committed to ending corruption and were able to successfully expose corrupt activities which resulted in government actors being removed from their positions and prosecuted. Many law students, young lawyers, judges and teachers with whom I worked have gone on to assume government leadership positions.
A personal success was my involvement in a science and math education project in Swaziland designed to encourage high school girls to go on to college. All of the girls graduated from the program and some did in fact go on to college. One unanticipated outcome of that program was that because we provided bus transport to and from the program, the girls were safe from sexual predators. Occasionally, girls were raped walking to and from school – there was a superstition that sex with a virgin would cure AIDS, making the girls targets.
PR4P: Will your future working in international law reform be supported or thwarted by the Trump administration?
Pat Noonan: I think our work is over. (At the time of this writing) The current administration is proposing major reductions in democracy and governance programs in favor of the military security.
In the past, the United States has supported the empowerment of people who are smart and dedicated to having a better country for their citizens. Now we are throwing these people off the bus. Many leaders in developing countries, or countries in transition, tolerated citizen activism because the United States supported these activities. The United States is now no longer seen as a moral compass.
*“Let’s kill all the lawyers?” is one of Shakespeare’s most famous quotes from his play Henry VI. Rebel Jack Cade thought if he created social chaos and disrupted the political order, then he could become King, thus kill all the lawyers.