 The microphone is working. Let us get started. Yeah. Well, welcome everybody. Thank you for being here to all those here physically present at the global launch of international ideas, global state of democracy report 2021. Thank you also to all of those watching from home or wherever you are online. I'd like to thank especially the co-hosts of today's meeting. That is first and foremost the permanent representation of Germany to the EU where we are currently physically recording from. And the other co-host is the democracy network 21. Now we are here today to launch the global state of democracy report. And that comes at a very opportune time because as we all know, democracy is under threat. It's under threat and we'll hear more about that in the course of this afternoon. But there are also glimmers of hope as we all know. Just yesterday in Sudan, we learned that the civilian government was reinstated. The prime minister was placed back in his position after a coup took place just a couple of weeks ago. And I hope that that will be the threat running through today's discussions that even though democracy is under threat, that there's also glimmers of hope where people come together and when the international community combines forces with those on the ground. Now we're going to start with a word of welcome by His Excellency, Michael Klaus, the permanent representative of Germany to the European Union. Mr. Klaus, the floor is yours. Well, thank you very much. So, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, colleagues, and the friends, let me welcome you to the German permanent representation to the European Union for the launch of IDIAS Global State of Democracy Report. And it's a pleasure to be here with you today. As you know, Germany is currently holding the vice chair of IDIAS Council of Member States. And so we are honored to co-host today's event in cooperation with IDIAS and our colleagues from Demokati Network 21 here in Brussels. Today's global launch of IDIAS Report, I guess, is an excellent opportunity for all of us to discuss current challenges or, as you were saying, threats to democracy worldwide, aggravated by COVID-19. Democracy worldwide is under pressure, freedom of media and of expression, rule of law and the principle of separation of power are facing challenges in many fold ways. Unfortunately, also in Europe, in the European Union, where we do see these worrying trends. On top of this, the COVID-19 pandemic has created additional unprecedented challenges to human rights around the globe with impacts on access to health, education, employment and social protection across societies. Restrictive measures have been regulating the freedom of movement and peaceful assembly, election dates and the procedures were adapted in response to the pandemic. Lockdowns forced the children and students as well as educators to adapt to new education methods. Moving exchanges to virtual platforms and increasing challenges for less fortunate people and vulnerable groups as well as limiting physical contact to home. Lockdowns and tensions have led to a rise of domestic violence. The pressing question of how equal access to medical care can be guaranteed is yet unanswered in many regions of the world. IDIAS analysis on how the COVID-19 crisis changes decision making by political leaders at the local, at the national and global level is an important contribution to the debate on how democratic resilience can be strengthened and protected. I believe that the report discussed today will help the European Union, its member states, civil society and other actors to further enhance the protection and promotion of democracy. And I also propose that we all try to feed the findings of the report and the key messages covered or conveyed in today's discussion into the upcoming U.S. Summit for Democracy which is going to take place 9th and 10th of December. Before handing over to Kevin Taza-Samora, the IDIAS Secretary General, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to making today's event a success. In particular, our esteemed speakers and our audience, well, both offline and online here in the room, as well as our partners from the International IDIAS and Democracy Network 21. So I wish all of us a fruitful discussion with many interesting insights and hope that the global launch of the report will be followed by successful regional launches also in other places on all continents. Thanks very much. Thank you, Ambassador Klaus. We'll now move on to the next word of welcome by Dr. Kevin Taza-Samora, the Secretary General of International IDIAS. Well, thank you very much. Sam, thank you very much, Ambassador Klaus, for your kind words, and good afternoon and welcome to you all, also from my side, to the global launch of International IDIAS, Global State of Democracy Report 2021. I am very happy that we can gather here today both in person and online, and I want to start by thanking Ambassador Klaus and Germany, the Vice-Chair of our Council of Member States, for hosting us in these beautiful premises here in Brussels in collaboration with Democracy Network 21. Almost exactly two years ago, I stood not far from here at the launch of our previous iteration of the report. Little did we know then how much the world would change only a few months later. Two years ago, our analysis was pointing out that while the number of democracies was increasing, the quality of democracy was decreasing. The message nonetheless still had a hint of optimism. The number of countries holding credible and competitive elections had continued to grow, and previously on democratic regimes like Myanmar, Ethiopia, and Sudan, to name a few cases, were undergoing inspiring democratization processes. Then the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, threatening lives, livelihoods, but also democracies. And as with humans, the virus hit those with pre-existing conditions the hardest. The pandemic accelerated and amplified ongoing political trends while adding a whole new plethora of unprecedented challenges to democratic institutions and processes. Virtually overnight, all democratic systems found themselves dealing with enormous obstacles, from holding safe and credible elections in the midst of a pandemic to ensuring the functioning of legislative and judicial institutions during lockdowns and limiting circumstances. At the same time, governments all over the world fell compelled and also tempted to deploy wide-ranging emergency powers to confront the calamity that had befallen the world. As I'm sure you've guessed by now, the diagnosis is pretty dire. The two years since our last report have not been good for democracy. The monumental human victory achieved when democracy became the predominant form of governance now hangs in the balance like never before. It is not simply that the number of democracies has decreased, but that some of the worst reversals have happened precisely in places like Myanmar, a country that two years ago was being hailed in our report for its democratic progress. More worryingly still is that the quality of democracy continues to decline across the board, including in established large democracies where this would have been unimaginable until a few years ago. Democratic backsliding, namely the sustained and deliberate process of subversion of basic democratic tenets by political actors and governments is threatening to become a different kind of pandemic. It now afflicts very large and influential democracies that account for over a quarter of the world's population. In the context of the pandemic, many democratic governments have adopted questionable restrictions to fundamental freedoms that in many cases mimic the practices of authoritarian regimes. And all of this is happening while authoritarian regimes in turn intensify their repressive practices and engage in ever more brazen attempts to silence their critics and distort the workings of democracies. Just think about how Belarus re-routed a plane full of passengers so that it could arrest a democracy activist. We have never seen something like that. It is clear that the effects of this global crisis will take many years, if not decades, to become clear. Yet, over the past two years, we have researched and gathered enough data to evaluate some of its initial consequences, but also to identify many of the dangers and opportunities for democracy that come with that. This is the research that we are presenting here today. A health check of democracy in the age of COVID-19. An examination that aspires to be comprehensive, rigorous, nuanced, and constructive. Our comprehensive conceptual framework unpacks and dissects the many facets of the democratic construct, including the workings of representative institutions, the protections of fundamental rights, the robustness of checks and balances, and the vibrancy of popular participation. We have also tried very consciously to be nuanced in our analysis and go beyond the incessant negativity of the most recent headlines about democracy. Always predicting a bare market for democracy is easy. It is also inaccurate and unhelpful. We want to give visibility to the positive events that we have seen in the past few years. Because there are promising trends that also need to be displayed to keep the hope alive. And we want to be constructive because democracy needs help. It needs solutions and proposals. That's why our report makes a point of putting forward policy recommendations to not only guide but inspire those working on the trenches of democracy. With this report, we hope to convey a sense of urgency about the global plight of democracy but also of opportunity. We want to press upon our audiences the message that this is the best time for democratic actors to be bold. This is the time to revitalize the democratic project in order to prepare it for the even sturdier challenges that lie ahead, including those posed by the climate crisis. This calls for a global endeavor. That's why efforts such as the EU Democracy Action Plan, the upcoming Summit for Democracy and the longstanding efforts to support democratic institutions that Germany has done through, among others, is strong party foundations matter more than ever. We need to let democratic reformers know that they are not in this alone. In the process of doing that, we should never forget why this work matters. This is about more than safeguarding abstract principles or winning geopolitical battles. It is about protecting the dignity of real human beings which democracy does better than any other political arrangement. Every democratic reversal is not a geopolitical battle lost. It is a constellation of lives that goes dark. As we are witnessing in Afghanistan today, it is a group of human beings that lose their opportunity to fulfill their potential and dreams. And that is also our loss. This report is a small contribution to this global struggle. It is very small compared to the deeds that are performed on a daily basis by the brave, young pro-democracy activists in Myanmar, by the women who refuse to be cowed by fanatics in Afghanistan, by the citizens that have not withdrawn their umbrellas in Hong Kong, by the jail of position leaders in Nicaragua, by the dissidents that are daring to say out loud what the rest of society whispers in Cuba, that no amount of repression can hide that their absolute rulers are naked and lost. Each of these acts of defiance is a triumph of the human spirit that deserves that we paid homage and recommit ourselves to the democratic project. In this report, it's our small tribute and our sincere pledge that we will use the knowledge we gather and the experience we accrue to help reformers improve democracy where it exists, to support those who fight for it where it doesn't exist and to inspire the million others that need to join this cause if democracy is to endure and prevail. Thank you. Well, thank you so much to both words of welcome from both speakers, the importance of democracy that Ambassador Klaus mentioned, but also the hope and the inspiration that Secretary-General Kevin Casa-Somora referred to. We're now going to move to the second part of today's event, which is the keynote speakers. And we're first going to hear from the European Commissioner for International Partnerships, Miss Yuta Erpline, who's going to address us through the recorded video. Please go ahead. Dear friends, today democracy is under threat. As international Ideas 2021 report, so clearly and sadly shows, the world experienced a decline in global freedom long before COVID-19. The global pandemic accelerated its decline. Across all continents, many countries are heading towards authoritarian regimes. We must meet this challenge with an equally robust response. When COVID-19 struck Europe, we realized the magnitude of the crisis was too vast for any country to cope with on its own. So, Team Europe approach was born. By pooling the resources and expertise of our 27 member states, we have had a powerful response both within our own continent and around the world. A similar collective approach to democracy will enable us to slow the trend towards authoritarianism. Rebuilding global democracy in the aftermath of COVID-19 requires evidence-based, coordinated, and bold action. And that's why I am proud to announce our Team Europe Democracy Initiative, our collective effort to support the democracy. Our aim is clear, to do more, to do it better, and to do it together. At its heart will be a network using shared data and analysis to prioritize and target support where it can be most effective. As already the world's biggest supporter of democracy, Team Europe has a great responsibility as well as an opportunity. Together with our partners, including civil society, we can build an inclusive international coalition to promote democracy. We can invest in global efforts to increase the rule of law and accountability, supporting inclusive and transparent governance. And we can engage the world's change makers, youth. Friends, as the pandemic has shown, it is precisely during times of crisis that we need democracy most. Europe has an opportunity to lead by example, together with its partners at the Summit for Democracy. Let's match our words with action. And thank you also to the European Commissioner. We'll now move on to the next keynote presentation by Dr. Jürgen Zattler. Jürgen Zattler is the Director General for International Development Policy, the 2030 Agenda and Climate at the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Mr. Zattler, the floor is yours. Yes, thanks a lot and thanks for having me. Thanks also to IDU for having organized this event together with us. Thanks a lot to you, Dr. Scha and in particular, Mr. Kazas Zamora. It's also a great honor for us, for Germany, to have, it has been mentioned, the role as Vice-Chair this year. And that's also why we took the initiative to have this discussion and this organization of the event today. So as already has been said, it's a crucial time. It's also sad to see that in the context of this pandemic, there have been really threats to democratic institutions, to democratic processes. I think it's on top of our minds when we read the newspapers every day, we can see those instances. And as the Ambassador has said, not only in the South, but also in our own countries. So checks and balances have been at least partly suspended in many countries. Media freedom and freedom of expression have been under enormous pressure in many, many countries. And we have seen misinformation and disinformation undermining democratic processes. And we also have seen a divisive populist discourses disrupting public debate. But there are also, as has been said, glimmers of hope. We have seen more and more people across the globe having become aware of their rights and also claiming their rights in the streets and elsewhere. And we have seen protest movements considerably increasing both in terms of frequency and also in terms of force. Belarus, Myanmar, Hong Kong, and the example of Sudan has been referred to where only a few days ago we have seen this, for me at least, a surprising turn in the country. So some of you or all of you might know the famous word by Winston Churchill, democracy is the worst form of government except for those other forms that have been tried from time to time. So that's where we stand. And this means that we remain deeply convinced that democracy is and remains the relatively best way to organize a society. And this is not only because of the respect of political and civil rights, which is a sense and an objective and a value in itself, but it's also because democracy performs quite well in terms of the economies. And I think this is also one point which comes out of the report. The economic outcomes on democracy on average are still quite good. In terms of shared prosperity, so the objective to spread the benefits of the economy more broadly is also relatively good. And when you look, for example, at social spending levels, it's also relatively good. So the economic performance is not bad. But despite this evidence, we cannot take democracy for granted. We need to defend democracy. We need to react. We need to promote democracy. And I would like to quote another famous man which is Carl Valentin coming from my home country, Bavaria, and already dead since 70 years. But he said, democracy is nice, but it comes with a lot of work. And I think it's still what it is that this means many things. It means, for example, it means, for example, that we have to be open to debate. We can't lean back and just say, yes, democracy, that's what we stand for. No, you have to fight for it. And we have to discuss also and open to discussion what works well in our societies, in our democracies. And perhaps what doesn't work well. And it's also clear that democracy is not a blueprint. This means that there are many forms of democracies. Of course, there are common patterns, but there are different shapes of democracy. And also democracy changes over time and in a way must change over time. And this means that, for example, democracies in developing countries look different than democracies in advanced countries. And therefore, we have to ask ourselves, how can we help countries to transition to democracies over time and we have seen, and I think that's another point the report highlights, we have seen many problems when democracies, for example, in the context of the Arab Spring, move from some kind of autocratic regimes to more rule of law-based societies. There are many, many problems of violence, of setbacks and so on. So what are the reasons? How can we better understand and perhaps even give advice to our partners how to do, how to sequence, how to face democratic processes? I think there's a lot to learn. And if we want to defend democracy, we have to look at that. We can't really lean back. And I would like to highlight perhaps two specific issues the first one I've already mentioned to transition from autocratic regimes. So there are setbacks, there are violent conflicts. There are years of stagnation and also instability. How this can be addressed in which countries have we seen the biggest problems? Where have we seen perhaps the processes which worked relatively well? Understanding the reasons and also best practice is important. And another point I would like to raise specific point is in many democratic countries, you can see problems of corruption and problems of inequality. And we know that inequality in particular extreme levels of inequality can really disrupt democratic processes and undermine democracies. And therefore this is something we have to look at. We have to understand what is conducive to democratic processes and perhaps what factors can undermine democracies. And I think inequality is one and corruption is another one. But it's not easy to overcome these problems. Corruption is an institutional issue. It's a bad functioning of institutions. But on the other hand, we know developing countries and poor countries almost by definition have bad institutions. If the institutions were perfect, they weren't really, they wouldn't be a poor country. So these are complex issues which we have to look at and we have to understand and only on that basis I think we can give best advice and best assistance to our partner countries. So I'm very happy to work with the EU and also our European partner countries together on that issue. And we have launched this Team Europe Democracy Initiative which is the right way to go. But of course we are looking beyond, it's not only European Union, we are looking to our American friends and to other like-minded partners and really are interested in a close cooperation with those countries. And a very important point in time will be the summit of democracy later this year. So with that I will end and again, the report is key for us, the cooperation with IDR is a very important element of what we are doing in the area of promotion of democracy. Thank you. Thank you Dr. Zatler for these inspiring words. And I see two points coming out of your speech and the speech of the commissioner. One is that democracy is hard work, requires maintenance, requires a lot of effort every day but secondly that we can't do that alone and that we need local but also international partnerships. And every speaker thus far has mentioned that. Thank you very much. We'll now move to the highlight of this event which is the presentation of the global state of democracy report 2021. And for that I invite Dr. Shima Shah, my colleague who heads the democracy unit, democracy analysis unit at International Idea. Shima, the floor is yours. Good afternoon. Thank you to our co-hosts and to all of you in the audience around the world and here in person for the chance to share the most recent findings from International Idea's global state of democracy report which presents trends and democratization for 165 countries around the world beginning in 1975 and going through the end of 2020. The findings I'm about to present to you focus on global trends and patterns but we encourage you to read our regional reports and our thematic papers for more in-depth coverage. At International Idea we understand democracy as a broad concept and one that can have very many different manifestations depending on a particular society's history, culture and set of priorities. Although there are of course core tenets of democracy, the way these are operationalized may vary widely. There's no such thing as a perfect democracy. Overall at International Idea we measure democracy along five attributes which we consider integral to democratic growth. These are representative government, fundamental rights, checks on government, impartial administration and participatory engagement. As you can see each of these attributes has a number of sub-attributes and then a number of individual indicators belonging to each. And now to the findings. First the world is becoming increasingly authoritarian. We see this in a few different ways. First the number of democracies has been declining as you can see on this graph. During the pandemic the world has lost at least four more democracies through either flawed elections or military coups. These include Mali, Serbia, Cote d'Ivoire and Myanmar in 2021. It is worth noting right now that what we are saying is that the number of democracies is declining but that was not the case two years ago when we last presented our report when a reflection on the previous two years actually showed that the numbers were increasing. Second for the fifth consecutive year the number of countries moving in an authoritarian direction exceeds the number of countries moving in a democratic direction. This graph shows the number of countries moving towards democracy in green and towards authoritarianism in red starting in 1975 and going through today. Outside of 2020 the other notable peak in the move towards authoritarianism was in 2009 in the wake of the global financial crisis. Since 2016 the number of democracies, the number of countries moving in the direction of authoritarianism exceeds the number moving in the direction of democracy by three. Third authoritarian regimes are acting in ever more brazen ways. The pandemic has provided additional tools and justification for repressive tactics and silencing of dissent in a diverse set of countries. These regimes are buoyed by a lack of sufficient geopolitical pressure and support from other like-minded regimes. Some of them thrive on the narrative that authoritarian governance is better for economic prosperity and pandemic management. In 2021, as Kevin pointed out we saw the president of Belarus reroute an international flight to be able to arrest an opposition journalist. We have also seen authoritarian regimes expand their toolbox with increasing use of transnational disinformation campaigns. Overall then most of the world is struggling. This graph shows you the trends in regime types over the years. We are currently in a situation where hybrid regimes shown here in blue and authoritarian regimes shown here in orange outnumber high-performing democracies in green. In fact only 9% of the world today lives in high-performing democracies. Perhaps more worrying than the numbers however is the decline in the quality of governance in existing democracies. More democracies than ever are suffering from democratic erosion which refers to a loss in democratic quality along at least one of our indicators. In 2020, 43% of democracies had suffered declines in the previous five years. Some democracies have declined slightly in one area but others have declined deeply and across many attributes. Brazil for example has significant declines across eight of its sub-attributes. This graph shows the democracies that have declined the most in the previous decade. All countries on the list started out as democracies. Those that are green at the arrowhead side on the left of your screen remain democracies today. Those that are blue at the arrowhead are now hybrid regimes and those that are red are now authoritarian. Turkey, Serbia and Benin moved from being democracies to hybrid regimes while Nicaragua moved from democratic to authoritarian in this time period. One of the most serious forms of decline is what we call democratic backsliding. Backsliding refers to the gradual dismantling of democratic building blocks from within the democratic system. The striped countries on this map are backsliding. As you can see, since many current backsliders are large countries with large economies, we are in a situation now where more than two-thirds of the world live in countries that are either backsliding or authoritarian. Research has shown that the most significant indicators of backsliding are executive action against checks on government and civil liberties. We identify a backsliding episode when declines in the average of our measures of checks on government and civil liberties over a five-year period cross a certain threshold. The number of democratically backsliding countries today has never been as high as in the last decade. Our latest round of data shows seven backsliders, the United States, Brazil, Hungary, Poland, India, the Philippines and Slovenia. As you can see, three of those are in the EU. The pandemic has only deepened the trend of democratic deterioration, putting a halt to democratization processes that had seemed promising and adding a new layer of challenges to democracy today. The democracies that have experienced the most concerning developments are those that were already ailing before the pandemic. So just as with individuals, COVID-19 has hit hardest those democracies that had preexisting conditions. Examples of fragile new democracies with worrying reversals include Mali, which held challenged elections in 2020 and which has suffered two coups since then, Myanmar, Tunisia and Sudan, where an evolving situation leaves that democratization process in question. But the pandemic has also impacted even the strongest democracies. In fact, all countries in the world have imposed some kind of basic restriction on basic freedoms and democratic rights during the pandemic. Worryingly though, it was in less than half of all countries that these restrictions were temporary and imposed in the context of constitutionally defined states of emergency. And according to our global monitor of the impact of COVID-19 on democracy and human rights, as of the end of October, almost half 45% of democracies had experienced at least one concerning development defined as something that violates human rights or democratic benchmarks because they are considered either disproportionate, unnecessary, illegal or indefinite. An example of this is in Sri Lanka where the government had banned burials of COVID-19 victims, disproportionately impacting the Muslim community. This ban has since been lifted. Still, there is reason to be hopeful. Many democracies have proved resilient to the pandemic, introducing or expanding democratic innovations and adapting their practices in record time. Countries around the world learned to hold elections in exceedingly difficult situations and they rapidly activated special voting arrangements like postal voting, mobile voting, early voting and proxy voting to allow citizens to continue exercising their democratic rights. What you see here is a pretty remarkable story of learning. As time went on, you can see that the number of postponed elections shown here in blue decreases dramatically. Authorities learned how to hold credible elections even in the most challenging of circumstances. And an example to point out here is that of South Korea where the 2020 election really stood out as a milestone. There, authorities used early voting and extended home voting provisions to COVID-19 patients in hospitals and in self-isolation and instituted safety and hygiene protocols in polling stations. Worth also highlighting is the country's use of augmented reality technology which allowed for virtual election campaigning. Candidates ran eye-catching campaigns with 3D leaflets, for example, in virtual spaces which allowed voters and candidates to stay safe. These measures resulted in a turnout of 66%, the highest in legislative elections in that country since 1992. We've learned a lot from the deployment of special voting arrangements, including how to gain consensus between multiple stakeholders in a short time, how best to communicate with the public and how to work with new partners like health authorities in the context of elections. One of the most important points here to keep in mind and take forward is how to build on the sometimes significant success of these special voting arrangements, which helped electoral management bodies reach parts of the population that have long been marginalized. Also, protest and civic action is alive and well. Pro-democracy movements have braved repression in places as diverse as Myanmar, Eswatini, Cuba and Belarus, just to name a few, and global social movements for tackling climate change and racial inequality have emerged. More than three quarters of all countries in the world experienced protests during the pandemic, despite government restrictions. And we know that protests matter, especially in the long term, because they cast doubt on the legitimacy of a regime without which that regime will fall. They direct attention toward an injustice, force a conversation on that injustice, turn activists into life, turn protesters into lifelong activists sometimes, which influence society as a whole in the long term. One expert says protests are known as a gateway drug between casual participation and lifelong activism. It is clear to us that we need a new plan, one that builds on and responds to the public energy we have witnessed spilling out all around the world. We propose a three point agenda for democratic renewal. First, deliver. Governments must deliver a new social contract that closes the gap between what people want and what governments are currently delivering. By designing responsive, inclusive, and accountable institutions, oriented toward achieving sustainable development for all. These contracts must make commitments to constituents, specifically with regard to inequality of all kinds, corruption, and environmental sustainability. In sum, they must demonstrate that democracy can deliver the things that people need to live their lives with dignity and pursue the opportunities important to them. A compelling example of this can be found in Chile, where the people and the government are currently renegotiating the social contract in an institutional way. The constituent assembly responsible for drafting a new constitution is showing us what the process of coming up with this kind of contract can look like. The assembly is mandated to contain equal numbers of men and women and have space for indigenous groups. The vote for members of this assembly resulted in a major victory for non-mainstream blocks and more than half of the assembly is made up of the hard left and leftist independence along with indigenous groups. The president is an indigenous woman. It remains to be seen what the new constitution will look like, of course, but this is a very good example of how these kinds of processes can be done. Second, rebuild. We must bring existing institutions into the 21st century by updating practices in established democracies, increasing capacity in new democracies, and protecting elections, rights, and the checks and balances essential to a thriving democratic system. Political institutions, elections, respect for rights, checks on power, and pathways to participation must be redesigned so that they are people-centered instead of elite-centered. This is the time to be bold and to disrupt the status quo and those who have vested interests in retaining it so that more people and more kinds of people can have access to the levers of power at all levels. And finally, prevent. Prevent rising authoritarianism and democratic backsliding by investing in education at all levels of schooling by supporting independent civil society and the media and by addressing the behaviors that are driving the spread of disinformation. This has to be done by an increased focus on accountability. One example that stood out to us is the economic community of West African states, which in 2021 suspended Mali from the block after the country's second coup in nine months. At that time, neighboring countries also closed their borders and suspended financial transactions with that country. Days after a military coup in Guinea, Iqawas, this block, also suspended that country, demanding an immediate return to the constitutional order and the release of the detained president. We believe that this is a very strong example of what good accountability can look like. We must work together to make democratic values into cultural values, adapted to all the different contexts in which they exist around the world. Thank you. Thank you so much, Sima, for those highlights. And I think this demonstrates that the things that have been mentioned by the keynote speakers, those big trends that we're all seeing and feeling around us, it's really backed up by data and it can be visualized and we can all really dig down deep to see not just what is wrong, but also what can we do about it. I'd like to see if there are any questions from the audience, either online or here in the room. Yes, Ken got free from the European Partnership for Democracy. There is no microphone, so please shout out and I'll repeat. So summarizing, could you tell us a little bit more about the recommendations? How did you come to those recommendations specifically? Sima, go ahead. Sure, the recommendations are based on sort of an overview of the trends that we saw coming out, along with conversations with our regional offices, which are on the ground and are able to provide us with what has worked in their cases and what they recommend going forward. But also, we saw trends that even Dr. Zutler talked about, like inequality and corruption and people feeling like they didn't have access to power. And so what we've done in the report is under the three pillars of deliver, prevent and rebuild, we have specific examples of countries that have done innovative things, which we think could work. And one thing that has come out, for example, under rebuild is the use of citizens' assemblies and the fact that that kind of deliberate democracy has been shown to successfully break deadlock, to inspire public confidence, and to result in more informed decisions on the part of citizens. And so that's one example, but we have lots in the report, for instance, lowering the voting age promotes more turnout and more engagement. We see that, I believe in South Korea, they sort of rethought about how they look at national debt and they spent a lot on pandemic response in particularly with a focus on the parts of the population that were not being reached and that were suffering the most. And this is what we're saying about sort of upending the status quo by bringing in people who traditionally have been the hardest to reach. Thank you, Sima. Thank you for the question. Ken Gottry from the European Partnership for Democracy. There's another question online from one of the participants. Sima asks, you mentioned that backsliding is happening all across the world. And if we want to fight back, what is that particular attribute or sub-attribute that cuts across all regions and that we should stay mindful of? What is the threat throughout that backsliding? There are two red threads that are pivotal to backsliding. One is checks on government, so under checks on government, you think of things like judicial independence, media integrity, effective parliament, and then the other one is civil liberties. So respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. Those are the things that we look at that signal a backsliding episode when there have been declines on those that cross a certain threshold over a five-year period. And so what you want is to address to make sure that you have strong checks on government and accountability for respect for fundamental rights. Right. This leads us to the next question which is related by Olenna Karbu asked this question online. What are the best defense strategies and tools of democracies in the EU between brackets from the attacks by authoritarian states? So can you tell us a little bit more about the tools and the instruments for fighting back? I mean, I think one of the biggest challenges we're facing is the spread of disinformation and the way that authoritarian states are using the resources they have to permeate borders and influence citizens and voters in countries all around the world. And I think the question of how to tackle disinformation is one of the key ones for our time really. It's hard to say what works. We do know that things like criminalization of disinformation does not work. We know that fact-checking is only effective up to a certain point. And so we feel that we really need to get to the root of what drives disinformation and of course also public education and awareness on how to identify and differentiate. Please. Come in, come in. This is a really important question. You know, the question of what to do in the face of a playbook and authoritarian playbook that by now is known by all because we know how these things work. And one of the crucial parts in this discussion, it seems to me, has to do with the fact that the mechanisms that we developed in the past to protect democracy are not suited to the kinds of threats that we're seeing. And we see this very clearly within the European Union, but we also see it in my part of the world, in Latin America, in the application, misapplication or lack of application of the Inter-American Democratic Charter. The Inter-American Democratic Charter, to give an example, is in terms of the clauses that were included there to protect democracy, the idea was that democratic governments had to be protected from an external democratic assault from the military or from other sources external to the government. The crucial difference now is that it is democratically elected governments in many places that have become the source of the problem. And the mechanisms that we have to protect democracy have not adapted to this very different set of threats. So one of the crucial things that I think needs to happen within the European Union but elsewhere as well, is that we have to rethink democratic clauses. We have to rethink the legal instruments that we have to protect democracies when democracy is being threatened. Thank you very much. There's another question from the audience, Patrick Costello of the European External Action Service. Thanks, I'd like just to think up on the last two responses that it is absolutely essential that it's addressed and my question would be because I agree that criminalizing this information is not to have the opposite play. So to what extent do you think that the problem will be addressed by or is part of the solution to the problem is addressing money and addressing the money that goes into it. That there are certain, if you like, rules of the game around democratic practice which are well established and which had to be developed, for example, with the rise of the mass media, that need to be applied to the online space. I'll have to repeat that for the online audience. Patrick Costello asks if instead of criminalizing this information, we can attack it at the source, the financial source of this information whether money comes in that funds media in all kinds of ways. Who would like to take a shot at that question? I think it should be you. It should be me. I'm there and seen. I can try. I can try too, if you want. I think it's key, of course, to address the profit side of it. But I also think we need to figure out how to address disinformation through instruments of human rights. So we need to figure out how to embed and integrate addressing disinformation into the way that we think about freedom of expression and freedom of opinion and institutionalize it so that it sort of then permeates down or trickles down into national laws and that we have a framework that helps us regulate but while keeping in check people's rights, keeping respect for rights at the forefront. And it's a very delicate balance that we obviously have not achieved yet but I 100% agree that the profit side is probably fundamental but of course that is complicated because of the industry that we're dealing with and private companies that are in charge here. Of course, follow the money. The thing is that it's very difficult to do in this case. I've spent a lifetime working on the question of the regulation of money in politics and I'm baffled by what I'm seeing because the online space when it comes to the role of money in politics is the wild west and we are at a loss. And the thing is that things like Troll Farms and Organized Information Campaigns are costly. They cost money. Tracking down where that money comes from is exceedingly difficult. So this is yet another example of an issue with respect to which the instruments that we've developed in the past are in the past. They're no longer suitable to the kinds of threats that we are seeing. I mean, we have to up our game in terms, we have to adjust our mental maps to the new set of threats that democracies are facing and we are yet to do that for the most part. Thank you very much, Kevin. Thank you to all speakers in this first part of the global launch. We're now gonna move on to the next part but not without thanking the speakers that we've had in the past. This just session that just ended. The Commissioner for International Partnerships Jutta Erpelainen, of course, Dr. Juergens Adler and Sima Shah for her presentation of the Global State of Democracy Report itself. Kevin, we'll see you back at the very end. We're now gonna move panels. So I'd like to invite all those that are up front on stage to move to the audience. And we're gonna meanwhile be looking at a number of democracy testimonials, a number of videos that will highlight the issue of democracy and the threats and opportunities it facing across all continents. Stay with us. Democracy, it's everything. Democracy to me means freedom, means justice, means right, means power. It means so much to me. I was 19 when I had the opportunity to vote for the first time and I had lived half of those 19 years under military era. And I was angry at the helplessness of not being in a position to choose who become my leader. And when democracy came to my country, I grabbed it. I was so, so empowered. And I knew that, yes, it meant everything. And I went out and I voted for the first time in 1993. The votes were canceled. That election was canceled and I was devastated. It took me a long time for me to recover. So democracy is something that I do not toy with, especially democracy in my country where people had to die. People had to lose everything. Some people pay the ultimate price for me to have the democracy that I have today, to have the opportunity to have a say and choose who becomes the leader of my country. Democracy is something that we cannot joke with. And we must hold there and remember the people who died for us to have the democracy that we have today. Democracy today is under attack and we all must be voices for democracy. We must stand for democracy and fight for democracy and ensure that the rights of everyone to vote is given, is ensured. We must ensure that we have a situation where there's rule of law, there's separation of power, there's good governance, there's development. Right now, when we don't have those things, the problem is never democracy itself. It's the people that are the players, the people we put in place to be the leaders and we that are supposed to hold them accountable. And so therefore, every one of us must participate in democracy. We're voting the people who are going to rule over us at the same time also, we hold them accountable. And that's how we'll get indeed the true dividends of democracy. Thank you. My name is Aisha Yusufo. I mean, it's not possible to say that democracy is in the hands of the Arab world because it wasn't in the hands of the present day. But there is a violation of democracy and the rule of law system with the consequences in the Arab world and with the need to enter the positive, with the need to return the game, with the need to put a complete system from the negotiations and from the institutions and the respect of rights and freedoms and from the implementation of the civil society. The opportunity to build democracy in the Arab world is available especially in the social sector, in the current generations, in the generations that have themselves a part of the global system that is dedicated to democracy and human rights and a complete system of participation in the rule. And therefore, this opportunity has not been established by the Arab world and it has continued to be in the control system and in some parts of the world that is connected with democracy. And this is the challenges of the great and continuous rule from the respect of the citizens' understanding of the rights of individuals and communities and from the continuation of the control and the mentality of the human and human rights. There are a lot of practical steps in the beginning of the negotiation and the implementation of the real institutions and the respect of the power. And the main reason for the real elections in different fields and in different levels. So these are practical steps but there are changes in the freedom and respect of rights and freedoms and there are changes in the elections and there are changes in the respect of the law and the leadership of the law. It is difficult to see that there are changes in the real democracy. But the opportunity has still been there. Especially if this youth power has entered and if there is a real cooperation in the Arab world, in the Arab people as well, in order to learn the system of democratic understanding and the right to justice. I am a member of parliament elected by the people of Cambodia but I am now living in exile. Democracy is about the people having the right, the freedom, the liberty, the security to choose their own representatives at all levels without the fear of being prosecuted and for that elected representative to serve the people without being prosecuted. Democracy is about separation of powers. Democracy is about a vibrant civil society and an independent media that can bring the truth to the people. Democracy is so fundamental for social justice, for sustainable development and for real peace. Welcome back everyone online and here in the room for the second part of the Global State of Democracy 2021 launch event. Now, before this short break, we listened to the analysis of how democracy is varying around the world. We listened to the calls for action. Now it's time to listen to the activists themselves, those that have fought for democracy in country and around the world and we'll be hearing from a high level panel. I'm gonna introduce them to you. First, we're gonna hear from Musuchoa, a democracy activist, former vice president of the Cambodia National Rescue Party. We saw her online in the video just before this. We're gonna hear from Samson Itodo online. He's joining us from far away. The executive director of IAGA Africa. We're gonna hear from Christophe Delvar, secretary general of reporters without borders and the panel session will be moderated by Dr. Massimo Tomasoli, the director of global programs of international idea. Massimo, the floor is yours. Thank you very much Sam and thank you also to all the preceding speakers because they introduced very well the conversation we are going to have now in the panel. As Sam said, we are shifting a little bit the perspective and we are getting into the point of view of democracy actors who should make use of these recommendations. But first, before getting into that element, I would like to hear from each and one of you very briefly what you think about the findings of the report. Are they relevant? Are they inspiring for your action? Please, let's start with Christophe. You're at the floor. Congratulations for this report, which is incredibly interesting. I will just focus on what was just said previously to the bright, which is about the question of disinformation. And I totally share the views that criminalizing disinformation is difficult and very often, unfortunately, not very effective. But it remains clearly one of the biggest challenges for democracies. We do have new symptoms. Disinformation, hate speech, remorse, misinformation. But there are causes. And in order to be able to find solutions and to develop solutions, and we as reporters without borders, we launched systemic solutions. We have to really identify the causes. And the causes are that in these three of democracies, safeguards were established for the public debate, for freedom of opinion and expression, democratic safeguards, through constitutional guarantees, media regulation, which is not visible for the public, but which has virtues in democracies, and self-regulation and professional methods of journalists. And all those safeguards have been like swept away in the digital space, purely destroyed. So clearly, one of the main tasks of all those who want to promote democracies in the future is to rebuild the system of safeguards. Because the public space we had, the public space developed by Jürgen Abomas, for instance, does not exist anymore. What we have for the first time in these three of democracies is that all types of contents, state propaganda, advertising, remorse, journalism, insults, et cetera, are in direct competition. And this direct competition gives even a competitive advantage to hate speech and extremism. And this is totally new. And those who see plots everywhere, those who say totally crazy things, they did exist in the past, but they were not in the heart of the public space. They are now in the heart. So we have to find ways to rebuild those guarantees and we have also to find ways to reduce the asymmetry between despotic regimes and democracies, open societies. Nowadays, despotic regimes also enjoy a competitive advantage since they enjoy the openness of the digital space while controlling news and information internally and exporting propaganda. And this asymmetry is very dangerous for democracies. So that's why we have to work on it and I will deal with the solutions later because what can lead us to optimism is that there are very concrete solutions that we have and I totally agree with what the head of idea said that we have to find new ways. We have to reinvent our legal systems because the former legal system cannot on many aspects even be an inspiration because the new ecosystem is totally different. Thank you very much, Khrisov. Let me turn now to you based on your experience as a democracy activist and in a country where you experienced the sum of the challenges highlighted by the report. First, do you find that that analysis is relevant to your experience and how would you get some indications for action? Well, first of all, I would like to thank the organizers, especially those who have contributed to this extremely important report on the global state of democracy 2021. It is indeed an examination that inspires. I have read this report on the plane coming here, on the train coming here, going back and forth and back and forth almost sleeplessly and saying some of these recommendations, some of these findings that totally point to the criminalization, the weaponization of law, all this is being repeated again and again. But I'm so inspired because the report gives you raw data, field studies, things that I come from Cambodia so that we can relate to whether it is happening in Europe, in Africa, in the Middle East, in Cambodia or in America, the attack on democracy, these attacks are real, totally real. And what I learned from it, and we learned from it, is that democracy is not for free. And once you have democracy, you should not keep it for granted. It's a fight and it should not be a person's fight, a country's fight, a regional fight. It should be a global fight. Since you say you introduced me over and over again that I am an activist, then I speak as an activist. And as an activist, I ask you, I look around and say who's an activist around here? I think we are all activists and that's why we are here. And I ask you to join me in saluting the memory of Sikkun, a 30-year-boy man, a law student from Cambodia, a true activist, a member of the opposition who was hacked to death two nights ago, hacked to death. He had been attacked before, but the regime did nothing about it. Two nights ago, hacked to death, please join me in saluting the courage of Sikkun. He's not the only one. There are millions of Sikkuns around the world. And that's why we not only read this report and this report relates to the real fight of the real people, especially of the youth. And as I read this report, I say to myself, how can we honor the people that we represent? I'm not just an activist, I'm a member of parliament that my seat was taken away by a regime, unconstitutionally. You are looking a traitor. You are looking at someone who is wanted by a regime. On the 9th of December, I had to appear in court again for treason. Of course, I will be sentenced for the second time. And then the prison sentence will be for 25 years. 25 plus 25, that makes 50 years. Yet I am here speaking with the European Parliament, members of the European Parliament, speaking with the Commission, the EU Commission, what can be done? Yet, this Friday, the same dictator will chair the Asia-Europe summit in Cambodia. Can you imagine, can you imagine this? How can we accept it? I totally agree with every single solution. Solution that is in this report. What it needs from all of us, especially for leaders around the world, is courage. Don't sit with dictators again and again and say nothing. I think accountability to the leaders who will meet and say nothing and using the same strategy of backdoor diplomacy must come to an end and let the voices of those who are more brave to join those dictators in these world conferences in this summit. That's my response to how I can use this report and I wish, and I'm looking at it and I ask that this report be translated, not in full, but the most important part into Cambodian. So I can, we can teach to present this report online because we cannot go back home for the moment. To those activists who are hungry for this type of truth, of verity. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mo. And certainly, certainly we salute the memory of Sincong and all the Sincongs who are fighting in the front of the repression for the values that we are expressing today. Let me now move on to Samson who is online. And I'm posing to you the same question. You have an experience which is regional based and also focused on the initiatives and the energy of civil society. So how do you see this report and what is its value for your action? Thank you very much. Just to confirm, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, let me thank Idea for the invitation and to congratulate the organization for which I'm a part of for this feat and this fantastic report. To your question, this report provides answers to critical questions that both democracy promoters and authoritarians have been asking. And if there's one inspiring thing about this report, it has showed us that for those who think who justify repression on democratic rights during the pandemic will have an answer to the report provides an answer to them. That first, if you look at the report, one of the lessons that we see is that there's no evidence anywhere that authoritarian regimes better managed the pandemic. That democracies with higher level of fundamental human rights and more impartial administration have been more effective in managing the pandemic. So for authoritarians who justify repression and assault on independence of institutions during the pandemic, this report has clearly shown that authoritarianism does not in any way contribute or lead to effective management of the pandemic. The truth is, yes, democracy is encountering challenges across the world and I want to say that, yes, democracy does thrive on accountability, checks and balances, inclusion, power sharing amongst different actors. But the fundamental question that this report actually provides is it highlights a couple of lessons that the pandemic has shown us. That first, crisis is a driver of change that in the course of the pandemic, we see electoral commissions devise new ways of addressing electoral integrity issues and conducting elections on that difficult and uncertain circumstances. The second lesson that this report highlights is that community spirit is powerful. That, yes, the world is more connected than we imagine. And so we need to leverage community spirit, the same kinds of partnership that we observe and witness between nations, both developing and developing nations and tackling the pandemic, that same kind of community spirit should be translated into this renewal of democracy. The third lesson from this report is a role that civil society plays, that civil society and media remains a buffer for democracy because in the pandemic, when there was assault on legislatures and other agencies of protection within a democratic center, that civil society and media played a critical role. They provided oversight as vanguards of democracy across different parts of the world. Be it Mali, be it Nigeria, be it South Africa, be it Hong Kong, in several countries across the world. And the last critical point that the report unveils and re-emphasizes is the point that for government to succeed, public trust is essential. And we have to build trust on the part of the citizens, on the part of institutions to perform their roles and their functions. And I want to make a call that this report, encourages and it's actually an inspiration. It's provided a primer for nations, for stakeholders who are interested and invested in democracy to defend democracy. This is the time. If you look at the recommendation section, three key words were used, deliver, rebuild and prevent. These words are verbs. And the definition of a verb is an action word and is a call to action. And I hope that we would rise and respond to this call to action. But I cannot conclude by highlighting two major questions that this report puts before us. That first, how do we restore the trust and confidence of citizens in democracy as a system of government that promotes prosperity, stability and justice? The second critical question is, can democracy restrain rulers from the abuse of power that they seem to idealize and cherish so much? And I hope, and it's my expectation, that for everyone who reads this report and sees the state of democracy across the world would be inspired to take action in your own space to defend democracy because democracy advances prosperity. It empowers citizens, it's grant them agency, but above all, it fosters justice. And so that will be my sort of remark and to once again congratulate idea for this fantastic report. And thank you for providing the strategic and intellectual leadership that is required in such an uncertain time. Thank you. Thank you so much, Sanson. This was just the first round of impressions and I heard very important verbs. To me, the most important one that I heard is inspire and I heard it from you, Mo and from Sanson. In fact, one of the missions of idea is to inspire people. People like those in this room, people who are listening to us, those people who need this type of narrative. I also heard something about defend, the other important element. And the term solution that you, Christophe, mentioned with respect to this information. So before opening up the floor, I wanted to have your quick views on what are the solutions that you may consider relevant from those proposed in the report or those that you have highlighted from your own work in order to cope with the challenges. Starting again with you, Christophe. We at reporters.borders, we have developed two solutions for systemic change. One at a micro level, another one at a micro level. At a macro level, we as citizens, we like delegated the management of the public space to digital platforms and social networks. They do create the norms, the architectures of choice. We gave to them the keys of democracies. We have to take back those keys. How do we proceed? With an independent commission with 25 prominent figures from 18 nationalities, we published a declaration on information democracy to establish the basic principles of the global information and communication space. Among them, Maria Ressa, who has just awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but other Nobel Peace on economics laureates. On this basis, we succeeded to get a partnership on information democracy now signed by 43 countries. 22 of them are members of the European Union, but we have signatory countries on all continents. We have created a civil society led implementation body, which is named the Forum on Information Democracy to produce evaluations of the public space and its impact on democracy. It will be the equivalent of what the IPCC is for climate change. This Forum on Information Democracy, which we've created with other think tanks and geos all over the world, will and has started to publish very concrete recommendations for governments for the management of this public space, about the transparency of platforms, private messaging systems, promotion of tertiaryness of news and information. And we have entered into what I would say the equivalent of the climate change process with regular summits. There was a first summit on information democracy at the ministerial level. In New York City last September, they will be annual with the equivalent of the IPCC. We will have the basis for the decisions and we will have the recommendations. And we will do our best so that those 43 countries on more tomorrow work together as a coalition of democracies. This is a sort of multilateralism of democracies to really establish a democratic public space, digital space. This is at a macro level. At a micro level, there is a question of journalism itself. Journalism is at risk. Journalists are in danger. Press freedom predators sometimes they kill journalists but platforms do kill journalism. And journalism is under pressure, even economic pressure, and it can lead to a deterioration of the contents. So what we have to do is to find a concrete way to give a competitive advantage to those who comply with journalistic methods and Essex because journalism is composed by both rights and duties. How do we do this? We've established a reference for journalism through a standardization process with 100 unions, organizations from all over the world under the ages of the European Standardization Committee. And so we now have a European standard but which is available for everywhere on earth about basic principles of journalism. We are finalizing now a compliance system to verify the compliance of media outlets everywhere with this reference, with this standard. It is based on self-assessment on the digital platform which we launched but mostly on the certification market. And this will be open for use in let's say two months. And we have tested the market, we have certifiers of certifiers in different countries so that it can start. So it's really scalable. At the end, the objective is that those who comply with Essex methods can have some advantages. In the algorithmic indexation, because we need an integrity factor, there is no integrity factor in the algorithmic indexation but also for advertisers so that they make better decisions to give their money not to these information websites but to journalistic websites. That's also useful for philanthropy or for development agencies because more and more when they provide money to media outlets either internally or in foreign countries. This is more and more difficult to take good decisions. Don't say to whom will I give my money? Is it really a media outlet that exercises journalism or is it the remorse? So we need to have a sort of distinction, capacity to distinguish and then to reward good journalism. This is the Journalism Trust Initiative which is supported by the European Commission, by the DigiConnect which has its origin in Europe but which will be used everywhere. And we see that there is an increasing interest for such an initiative because it really helps to promote the good instead of just fighting the bad because fighting the bad could be a good idea but it's legally speaking very difficult to identify it. You suggest an approach that is based on working at macro and micro level and you had a very elaborate proposal that could be food for thought also in view of the forthcoming summit for example. So let me take the same question now to you more you have been already very practical in saying something that we could do. You refer to stopping a backdoor diplomacy and being more clear and coherent in our policies. Would you like to add and build a little bit on that point and tell us what would be the solutions in supporting democracy activists in difficult and challenging spaces like those in which you're working? I also want to go back to the report because it talks about challenges, opportunities and I joined Christophe in thinking about micro level, micro level and even lower than a micro what is lower than a micro, the personal level and very concrete examples of the Aung San Heroines and Aung San heroes. Specifically, this morning I read in the New York Times a story incredible movement of the accomplishments of homemakers, house workers, also called maids. We don't call maids house workers, they work. That have formed this woman when she was Mirtel to be from South Africa, she was 18 then. She's now seven, during the apartheid, she's now 74. She has formed this movement of homemakers house workers into the movement with the informal sector. You know that this sector represent 2.41 billion workers, representing 60% of the work global workforce. If there were not, if there were no such leaders like Mirtel mean or others to organize, to mobilize, to stand up against the employers, the big companies, you would not have this movement of those who dare challenge the power. And I think it is this type of movements at the ground level that we should look more for it and to be reported by the media. Combined with it are foundations, companies that are, that invest truly in this form of democracy, local democracy, global democracy. Like for this group of independent workers, the Ford Foundation have put in $25 million in for five years. It is this type of investment, the collaboration between those who stand up, those who suffer, or those who benefit from the work and the sweat of those who contribute to the economy. I think that is fair. Not all, but at least there. And I think of other movements, global movement, movements like Me Too. And today, the Chinese tennis player story is an incredible story of the federal, tennis federation and the International Olympics Committee saying no to China. The two forces saying no to China, that's talking about change. That's talking about is no longer benefit. It's about quality. It's about dignity. It's about justice. I think it is this kind of combination of power, of forces that we should look more into. Thank you so much. So micro level, macro action, but also investing in grassroots action. And the combination of these may actually bring about change over time. Let me, yes please. Another example in India. Last week Prime Minister Modi had to pull back his draft law. I see that you are nodding. Yes, we have to take this type of power from the farmers in India who there stand up against the power. And why can they stand up? Because they're mobilized. Why do they stand up? Because they have enough. There is no more that they can lose. There's no more land. What do you want from us? But it should not be until there is no more land for the farmers because land is life. It should be from the very beginning when you talk about policy, economic policy, development policy, where does it go wrong? It goes wrong exactly from the beginning because these policies don't involve the real people. The policies are supposed to empower, to make their lives better. That is where the problem is. Thank you. Also Kristoff made reference to economic empowerment in a different way with respect to journalists. And you are raising the same issue with decent job, access to land, very, very interesting topic. Just one quick feedback from Sanson about what really do you think civil society organizations should do in order to address the challenges? Consider that the shrinking civic space has been a common discourse over the last decade. So what is new and what should be addressed now in the face of these challenges highlighted by the report? The report provides or highlights three opportunities for democratic renewal. First, it talks about the explosion of civic activism across the world. Nigeria experienced the Ansar's protests. We've seen the Hong Kong protests. We've seen Free Senegal in Senegal. We've seen an exponential growth in protest. And it's just citizens speaking that enough is enough to this oppression by the state and attempt to seize political power at all costs and not use power to advance the common good, but to either settle into elite wars or for primitive accumulation of wealth. The other sort of opportunity, is this stride around democratization? Zambia in Southern Africa conducted one of the best elections that we've seen with a high number of turnout. And thanks to young people who altered the trajectory of their country. But to your question, I'd just like to propose a new political mobilization strategy. And it just synthesizes the comments made by the two previous speakers. That one, we need a new political mobilization strategy that does four things. First, how do we raise the quality of citizenship? It is critical to the point that Sotral made that we need to put citizens at the center of power. And it's going to take a new form of political education and political mobilization and political parties, the media, civil society have a critical role to play. The second is, how do we improve civil society engagement with the state? The state has failed to build constructive relationship with civil society. And civil society actors need to rise to the occasion to build and improve the relationship between the state and citizens. The third pillar of this new political mobilization strategy must be one that dislodges inequality. And that's the point that was made around economic or political inequality. And the last point and the last pillar of this political mobilization strategy is the one that has a clear plaque for leadership and political transition. That across the world we're experiencing demographic shifts. Young people are asking difficult questions. They want to organize in a different manner. They want a new set of values and they're using technology and social media to alter the balance of power and ask those difficult questions. We cannot ignore them. We have to engage them. We have to understand their grievances, their aspirations, their cultures and their values that the discourse around renewing democracy across the world has to be a discourse between we and young people, both young men and young women. If we employ this as part of a new political mobilization strategy, then we can shift the needle on our efforts to renew democracy across the world. And this looks like an amazing roadmap, very much in line with the elements contained in the report. Let me open up now the floor for any questions from those present in the room, if any. And please identify yourself and tell whom the questions are addressed to if you want to pose them. If not, then yes, please. Thank you, Christian Leffler. I have to quickly summarize the two questions for our audience online. They are both addressed to Moussutra. And the first one is about her assessment of whether EU's redirection of aid to Cambodia was right but not enough. And how would you comment on that? Second question is about the role of the Asia that took some cautious action recently on Myanmar but didn't on Cambodia. So how would you assess that too? Please. I was just going to talk about that as part of the strategy but I will answer that question. I think in terms of sanctions, it has always been the question between those who are against sanctions because it would affect the poor, the people, the workers. But the workers are already affected anyway. For 35 years already in Cambodia, the workers are making less than minimum wage. To more sanctions, is that going to hurt them more? They will lose their jobs. Yeah, but work it so that these sanctions are not just something that is not going to make any difference to Mr. Hun Sen, the prime minister of Cambodia, the regime leader of Cambodia. I don't call him the prime minister. You know, it is 20% of benefits that Cambodia will lose. For the immense, for the serious violations of human rights, for the total destruction of democracy in Cambodia, and Mr. Hun Sen is slapped with a 20% withdrawal, partial withdrawal of everything but arms, meaning that anything, especially clothes that are, garments that are produced in Cambodia can be sold in the EU market. 20% is not enough, and it should not have been done alone. It should have, the EU and again, the European Union should catch mass, work with other countries, like the US. The US has GSP, like with Canada, for example, to bring it all together and make it very clear, one message clear to the regime. You don't do this, this is what you get. Not the EU doing this, and then Canada keep on saying, yes, bring me more. The UK now is saying, bring me more. You know, it's not going to work. And ASEAN, Hun Sen now, Cambodia is chairing ASEAN for 2020-22. ASEAN is a region that is so much, the system doesn't work because it's a system that supports those in power. Not support the peoples of ASEAN. That's why ASEAN as a whole cannot sanction, and to finally purchase sanction, the military junta in Myanmar. It also has to be timely. You can't wait six months later. You can't wait for genocide to take place to think should we invite or not invite this military leader to our meeting. That's why I mentioned earlier, it's about leadership with courage, with principles, and do it together. Is this a force that can't be used? It is a force that should be used, that it should be, when you work with this authoritarian regime, you have to talk about using the force with on the position of strength, not of weaknesses, not of begging for to the regime to go into Myanmar or to go into Cambodia or whatever. It has to be a position of force or strength, the international and the democratic governments together, working together. Thank you very much, Mu. I think we are left with very little time, so I would hand over now to Sam for. Thank you very much. Can we get an applause for all the speakers both here and online, and of course for our moderator. Please stay seated. We're gonna now invite Kevin to take the floor for the last time and give a couple of closing remarks. The podium is being moved on stage. Just a couple of words, and please go ahead, Kevin. The floor is yours. No, I have my own mic here. I don't know if the mic is on though. It is on. Good. Well, this has been wonderful. Let me say that right off the bat. We've seen here energy, we've seen here eloquence, we've seen here ideas, we've seen proposals. This is exactly what we need. And we've heard here a number of different strands to this very complicated story about what's happening with democracy globally. And here, I would just want to say a couple of things. I think the report does what I think is a very good job in telling the story of what's happening to democracy. What are the trends? That's one part of the analysis that we need. I think the report also tries as Ken in a very generous way mentioned, tries to provide recommendations, tries to provide a way forward. This is something that we had done before, but we've spent a lot of time this time trying to hone that part of the analysis. But let me confess that what the report does less well is related to the question that ultimately, I think all of us are asking ourselves, which is why? Why is all this stuff happening? And here is, let me just in one minute or so give you my impression of what's happening and how the different aspects of what's been mentioned here sort of come together in at least the inklings of an explanation. I mean, my impression after thinking a lot about this and after thinking a lot about this and seeing a lot through the work of idea is that there are at least two things or three things happening. I mean, one first thing is that democratic communities are being torn apart all over the world, are being torn apart by disinformation, are being torn apart by polarization, are being torn apart by grotesque levels of inequality. And the instruments that we're supposed to aggregate demands and aggregate interest in society are in a shambles everywhere. And as a result of all that, democracies are being weakened and weakened from the inside. That's one part of the answer, I think. The second part of the answer is about the loss of faith on the part of the citizens on the ability of democracy to solve real problems for real people. It's about the growing gap between social demands and the ability of democratic governance to respond to those social demands. And this is something that we're seeing everywhere. And this really begs the question about the crucial, the crucial importance of helping democracies to deliver better, to put the question of democratic, of the quality of democratic governance at the heart of public debates. And add to this the really toxic disease of corruption that is having a pulverizing effect on democratic legitimacy everywhere. So you have a second cluster of factors connected to the loss of faith on the part of citizens on the ability of democracies to perform. And then there's a third factor, which was alluded in your presentation, Mu, which is the fact that when democracies are under attack by autocrats that cater to that sense that people are more willing to give up on democracy and democracies and autocrats appear and cater to that demand. The price that they pay is much less than it used to be. They get away with it. And the example that you provided Mu is a very eloquent one. I mean, here we have the dictator of Cambodia chairing a very prominent international meeting as though nothing was happening. So working on the ability of the international community to react to those trends is really of the essence. We have to increase the price that autocrats pay. So this is, in my view, at least the makings of a story explaining what's happening. Let me just add my second point, which is about an issue that has been mentioned here, time and again in the course of this discussion. One of the findings of the report is about this strength of civic activism all over the world. And this is obviously a very positive piece of news with regards to the health of democracy. If you ask me, it isn't civic activism. It isn't the workings of civil society where the energy to renew the democratic project is to be found these days. And that has a practical implication. And with this, I finish. There has been a lot of talk about the future of democratic assistance, of democracy assistance, particularly in the wake of what happened in Afghanistan. And let me tell you something. One of the biggest mistakes that we could make would be to think that the pursuit of democracy assistance is a lost cause. And that we should all throw up our hands in the air and say, this is not worth it. This would be throwing the baby out with the dirty water. In actual fact, the evidence of the past 20 years in places like Myanmar and Afghanistan shows that the support the international community provides to civil society outlasts many of the reversals that democracy may suffer in those places. And it is of course a tragedy that the military are back in power in Myanmar. It is of course a tragedy that the Taliban are back in power in Afghanistan. But those countries are not going back to square one. They're going back to square two. Those countries are not the same countries they were. They have a population that is more conscious of their rights. And that at least gives some measure of hope for the future. And that shows that this is a struggle for the long haul and that when we provide democracy assistance, we should be in for the long haul. This is not a struggle for the faint-hearted or for the fickle. This is a struggle for those who are committed to the processes of building democracies which are never easy and never short. So with that, let me just close by saying that this is precisely why we are counting on all of you. Why we are counting on the European Union, why we are counting on Germany, why we are counting on all the different actors that contribute to this effort of helping the people that are in the trenches of democracy to make their case. And we need to succeed in this because the alternative to a world in which democracy prevails is one and only one darkness. Thank you so much. Thank you, Kevin. And thank you to all speakers. The only thing that I can add after all these presentations, each of which were fantastic, you've summed it up very well, Kevin, is to read the reports. www.idea.int.gsod, that's where the report is, but also all the underlying data that you can play around with for your own country, compare countries. This is where we really see what is wrong with democracy and where the opportunities for democracies lie. So please visit our website, please read the reports, and please attend all the other launches that will be happening around the world for the different regional chapters. I will leave it at that, and I would like to thank all the speakers that we've had today, another round of applause. Please, I'd like to thank the co-hosts of today's meeting here in the German Permanent Representation to the EU in Brussels, but also Democracy Network 21, and of course you, the audience here in the room, and at home. Thank you very much, and stay tuned.