 Welcome everybody, we will now see a video by the International Ideas Secretary-General Evin Calza-Somora and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden. It will start in a few seconds. Honour guests, member state representatives, partners, colleagues and friends. I want to welcome you to International Ideas' 25th anniversary conference. We are here today to celebrate our achievements, but most of all to launch a conversation about the future of democracy and the role of international idea. I would like to thank all the speakers that have accepted to be part of this global conversation. Our member states and especially our current chair and host country, Sweden, that has made democracy a priority of their foreign policy. 25 years ago, 14 countries signed the founding declaration of international idea. In 1995, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the first post-apartheid election in South Africa and the spread of democracy all over Latin America made the expansion of democracy seem irresistible and irreversible. However, the founders of our institute understood that the progress of democracy was not inevitable. They understood that they had a collective responsibility to nurture it, to protect it and advance it. They understood the need for multilateral action and support. They understood the need for comparative knowledge about the fundamentals of democracy, about elections, constitutions and political participation. Those insights have defined our mission ever since. Today, international idea encompasses 33 member states from all regions. In the past 25 years, we have played a decisive role in activating regional and global networks of practitioners and activists. We have contributed through publications, databases, events and advice to global debates, regional collaborations and national actions. We have supported dozens of electoral, constitutional and political reform processes all over the world, where our evidence-based advice has made a difference to our partners on the ground. It is a record that our member states, our donors and partners and our wonderfully talented staff can be proud of. And we are proud, but not satisfied. The challenges to democracy are greater today than they were in 1995. Democracy was facing severe headwinds even before the COVID-19 pandemic. From our global state of democracy report, we know that while the number of democracies kept increasing, the quality of democracy was decreasing. In many democracies, checks and balances were becoming weaker. Civic spaces were shrinking and freedom of expression was under sustained assault. These challenges have been accentuated by the pandemic. Over the past few months, we have seen many cases where emergency powers have been invoked to do things that have nothing to do with the pandemic and everything to do with the intention of shutting down critical voices, limiting civic spaces and harassing minorities. And there are also the problematic political consequences that stem from the global economic crisis, which are only now beginning to be felt. If there is a moment to monitor the health of democratic systems, it is now. And this is precisely what international idea has been doing through our global state of democracy report. And more recently, through our global monitor on the impact of COVID-19 on democracy and human rights supported by the European Union. We need trustworthy information more than ever. Yet, these times also demand that we use our voice in defense of democracy. Last June, together with our partners from around the world, we launched a call to defend democracy, where we argued that the pandemic threatens the future of liberal democracy. This open letter enlisted the support of over 70 pro-democracy organizations and more than 500 global leaders. This is the task in our hands. We must build the global coalitions needed to protect democracy, but we must also strive to revitalize it. Now is the time to help democracies return to the drawing board and renegotiate their social contract. Now is the time to act against the spread of this information, an existential threat for democracy. Now is the time to protect the ability of democracies to hold free, fair and safe elections. Now is the time to discuss how to best equip democracy to tackle intergenerational challenges, such as the fourth industrial revolution, the sustainable development goals, and especially the climate crisis. Above all, now is the time we must be unapologetic in defense of democratic values. The good news is that the case for democracy remains strong. To a much greater degree than any other system, democracy protects our agency and inherent dignity, allows for the correction of policies, and makes a difference for key tenets of sustainable development, particularly for gender equality. Sustainable development requires sustainable democracy. Making sure that democracy can reform and revitalize itself is the cause that international idea pledges to take forward for the next 25 years. We will do this by teasing out the lessons from democratic experience from all over the world, by leveraging that knowledge and putting it in the hands of leaders and activists, by continuously monitoring the health of political systems, by accompanying democracy-building processes and lending our impartial advice, by building regional and global coalitions of practitioners, activists, and academics, by speaking out in defense of democratic values, by insisting that democracy is a global public good that requires multilateral action, by working closely with our member states and our supporting partners. This is our pledge to you. It is a pledge infused with the hope that the sacrifices made by millions of people in the quest for democracy, from Soweto to Santiago, from Prague to Jakarta, from Jengon to Hartoom, from Hong Kong to Minsk, will not have been in vain. Our collective responsibility is to ensure that the memory of those struggles to advance the democratic cause is honored and preserved for generations to come. This is the challenge of our time, and we at International Idea intend to meet it in full. Thank you. 25 years ago representatives of 14 countries met here in Stockholm for the first council meeting of the newly founded International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, or International Idea. Following the developments around 1990, countries needed an international forum to exchange and learn from others how to shape their form of democracy. Because democracy cannot be exported, it has to grow from within a society, but there are lessons to be learned and experiences to be drawn, and the International Idea was to be the place for countries to do just that. International Idea has faced a chair of challenges, but is today steadily forging its role as a centre of excellence for the advancement of democracy worldwide, as a universal human aspiration, and an enabler of sustainable development through supporting the building, strengthening and safeguarding of democratic political institutions and processes, quoting from its mission statement. While the conviction that democracy was the way forward seemed to be uncontested in the 1990s, things have since changed. Democratic backsliding, challenges to human rights and the undermining of the rule of law are trends we have witnessed for several years. Idea's Global State of Democracy report, a reference point when it comes to monitoring the development of democracy around the world, provides an invaluable evidence base in this regard. The most recent addition to Idea's toolbox, the Global Monitor of COVID-19's impact on democracy and human rights, clearly shows how this negative global trend has been further accentuated the pandemic. Dear friends, we need to act against and formulate a counter narrative to these negative trends. We know that authoritarianism is not the answer to today's challenges. We are as convinced today, as we were in 1995, that democracy is the best form of governance for stability and development, but we need to make the case again. Democracy provides political accountability and therefore a mechanism to correct mistakes and do better. Democracy ensures transparency and access to information, without which there can be no progress. While the fear of COVID-19 has understandably triggered dramatic measures, we need to remain vigilant. The current pandemic must not be allowed to become an excuse for governmental overreach to undermine democracy or its institutions. It takes times, sometimes generations, to build up stable and impartial democratic institutions, but they can be dismantled very quickly. Any limitations to the enjoyment of human rights must be in accordance with international law. The response to the pandemic must be based on gender equality, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, because only that can ensure the confidence and credibility in societies to make it sustainable. Democracy allows for civil society to mobilize, for inequalities to be confronted, for policy issues to be openly debated, for trustworthy information to freely flow and governments to be accountable to citizens. All essential tools for successfully dealing with the current public health, emergency and its consequences. Precisely for this purpose, the Swedish government last year initiated the Campaign Drive for Democracy. Through diplomatic activity and a series of events and democracy talks, it aims to promote and strengthen democracy and the aspects that in our view must be part of a sustainable democracy. Equality, participation, sustainable development, inclusive growth, governance, human rights and security. We have particularly focused on supporting civil society actors, human rights defenders and trade union leaders as their role is central to upholding democracy and holding governments to account. This includes strengthening free and independent media and the safety of journalists and media workers. But we must also build global coalitions. In connection with this year's virtual United Nations General Assembly high-level meeting, we launch, as a follow-up to our Drive for Democracy, a cross-regional partnership together with a core group of countries called the Friends in Defence of Democracy. With two exceptions, the countries in this partnership are also members of International Idea and I see Idea and its Member State as a platform and partner in this continued struggle of narratives. Dear friends, Sweden is proud to be an initiator, founding member, host country and this year's Chair of the Council of Member States of International Idea. And I want to congratulate its current Secretary-General, Mr. Casa Zamora and all its dedicated staff around the world on this special occasion. The current circumstances show the absolute necessity of multilateralism and the continued pursuit of rules-based international order. International Idea will continue to be a central partner in this work and we look forward to the next 25 years of democracy promotion. Good afternoon and a warm welcome to all participants in this panel discussion. Greetings from Yangon to our audience online around the world. This panel discussion is part of a day-long conference to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the foundation of International Idea. Our discussion for the next hour or so will focus on the future of democracy development in Myanmar and in particular the lessons and outlook from the 2020 elections which just took place less than two weeks ago on the 8th of November. We have just heard welcome remarks by Kevin Casa Zamora, the Secretary-General of International Idea and Anlinda, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden. Our discussion today will bring together some of the leading experts on democracy and transition in Myanmar and I'm glad that we have been able to put together such an expert panel. We will start with our keynote speaker Motusar, the coordinator of the Myanmar program of ESEA in Singapore. And then we will have a discussion among our panelists with Janan Latao, the Executive Director of the Nien Foundation, Minza U, the Executive Director of the Myanmar Institute of Peace and Security, and Shreshe Sain Lat, Member of Parliament of the Amyota Luta. We will also be joined by Dr. S. Y. Kurashi, a member of the Board of Advices of International Idea and the former chairman of the Election Commission of India. My name is Marcus Brandt. I'm the head of program of International Idea in Myanmar. You can find all the bios on our conference website. Ladies and gentlemen, let me start by just saying a few words about our work of International Idea in Myanmar and also provide a little bit of context which might be useful for all those who are not following political developments in Myanmar on a regular basis. International Idea's program in Myanmar is one of the largest in the world and it comprises projects across all our areas of expertise, from electoral support to democracy and participation, constitutional development and parliamentary support. We have been present in Myanmar since 2013 and now have offices in Yangon and Nipita where we have close partnerships with the Election Commission and the Union Parliament. Our assistance to democracy development in Myanmar is made possible by the generous support of the European Union, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom. We are meeting today at a particular moment in Myanmar's history. This last week only the second democratic elections took place under the 2008 constitution and the first return of an incumbent elected government since the transition away from military rule in 2011. These elections were widely described by observers as orderly and peaceful, although they took place at a very difficult time, most importantly the COVID-19 pandemic, which has recently seen a surge in cases after Myanmar had long been spared from the first global wave, and of course the persistent challenges related to numerous armed conflicts in different parts of the country. In the end, the elections went ahead under strict sanitary hygiene precautions and although we have seen a small uptick in infections since then and even a number of election officials have unfortunately fallen ill after the election, it was by and large assessed as a successful endeavor from a public health perspective. The conflicts and tensions in many parts of the country, as in previous elections, led to the cancellation of polling in a number of constituencies, leaving hundreds of thousands effectively excluded from the vote. In addition, a restrictive and discriminatory interpretation of stringent citizenship law provisions led to the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands, especially in Rakhine region and especially affecting the Rohingya population. However, modern 30 million voters were still able to vote, and despite fears related to COVID, with almost 75% turnout seems to have been a record high across all areas where voting took place, dispelling all those concerns about democracy fatigue or disinterest among the population. The result was a resounding victory of the NLD led by Aung San Suu Kyi, which took around 90% of the available elected seats, including in many non-majority ethnic areas, while of course notoriously 25% of the seats in the Union Parliament and the assemblies of the states and regions are reserved for the military. There had been fears in the run-up to the elections that there would be an upsurge of hate crimes and ethnic discrimination, especially online. Luckily, these fears have not quite materialized, thanks partly to much more vigilant online platforms such as Facebook, but also it seems due to the fact that a large majority of the population is not as susceptible to hate and racist agitation as had previously been assumed. It is also very encouraging to see that despite the absence of quota, the number of women elected at all levels has increased significantly, and that if this trend continues, Myanmar may be able to reach a third of women representatives by 2030, the target set by the sustainable development goals. Some of the key challenges that emerge from these elections and its results are how the NLD will use its supermajority to pursue an agenda of deepening democracy, in particular how will the essential functions of checks and balances from a parliamentary opposition to independent institutions of accountability and the judiciary be exercised. Also, how will the NLD transform the legal framework from the 2008 constitution to legacy laws that date back to colonial times or the military dictatorship. This also includes electoral reform. And how will the new leadership address the long term challenges of resolving the conflicts, forming a federal democratic union in peace, and festering issues around identity and citizenship, while also having to address the COVID pandemic and its significant socio-economic impact. Today we want to take a step back and take a look at the state of Myanmar's evolving democracy, which I believe everyone agrees is in transition, but with important questions of where exactly it is going and how long on the way it has come. And finally, what we as international partners can do to assist the people in Myanmar along the way. Now let me turn to our first speaker, Ms Mokusar, who is one of the most renowned observers of Myanmar's long term transition towards democracy and is joining us from Singapore. Thank you, Marcus. A very good afternoon to everyone. It is an honor for me to address the esteemed panel members and all the participants in international ideas worldwide audience tuning in for this session. At the outset, I wish to thank International Idea for giving me the virtual floor to share some of my thoughts on the conference's theme in relation to Myanmar. Indeed, our panel moderator, Dr. Marcus Brandt, and our panelists, Dr. Nanlator, Dr. Minzo Wu, and Dr. Shui Shui saying that our people whose ideas and passion have inspired my continuous learning journey of what democracy means for Myanmar. The theme of this 25th anniversary virtual conference is democracy now and next. It is indeed timely to assess where we are now to enable us to look into what lies ahead and how we shall get there. I believe it is also important to look back to look forward because past events can both instruct and inspire us to improve what we attempt or do next. Ladies and gentlemen, I am not an expert on democracy. I have not examined it systematically as a course or a discipline of study, though I have read, listened and followed many discussions in print and in conversation on the many dimensions of democracy. But I have lived through the democracy awakening in Burma later in Myanmar, and I have participated in one of the rituals of democracy elections. I have cast my vote for democracy in the four multi-party elections in Myanmar, starting from the vote in 1990 to the present one just passed on November 8. There are millions like me in Myanmar who have had the same personal experience of democracy through such participation. I believe that is what makes democracy more real to many of us in the country as the term itself was assimilated from the English. If we were to explain what democracy means in Burmese, it would be something like a system of government by representatives elected according to the will of the people. So in the Burmese psyche, elections and the will of the people are viewed as central to the democratic process. And our aspirations for what we would like to see from that democratic process are in turn realized through our participation in that process. I am very much aware that elections per se are not the sole arbiter of a healthy democracy. But I do view them as an important part of a functioning democracy and for countries such as Myanmar, one of the few platforms through which people's voice and expression can be heard. In the time allotted for my opening remarks, I would like to first share the story of my lived experience with democracy and elections in Myanmar. Then trace, through the lens of that lived experience, Myanmar's quest for democracy to the present and I will conclude with some observations about Myanmar's recent vote and my hope for the future. My first brush with elections, but perhaps not democracy, was in 1970s Burma. I belong to a diplomatic family and I spent my childhood years outside Burma for the better part of the 1970s. Newly returned home to Rangoon in 1977, I was relearning at age nine an unfamiliar mother tongue. 1977 was the year that the then Burma Socialist Programme Party or BSPP was holding elections. The BSPP had been consolidated by General Nguyen who had seized power in 1962 and constituted a one-party authoritarian rule in the country. I would learn much later as an adult that Nguyen actually lost those 1977 BSPP elections, but back to my story. The Burmese word for polling station is meh-yong. It was a strange word to me then. When the space in front of my grandfather's garage was commandeered for the erection of a temporary polling station for those 1977 BSPP elections, I heard the word meh-yong and repeated it as a meh-yong, which is slaughterhouse in Burmese because it sounded more phonetically familiar. It was only when adults around me went into convulsions upon hearing me cry out to my mother that grandfather was overseeing the slaughterhouse construction that I learned for the first time what a polling station was. Little did I know the power of polling stations and votes then, but I experienced that exercise of power in the small confines of the polling booth in 1990, when the country, now called Myanmar an under-authoritarian rule again, convened the first multi-party elections since 1960. As a first-time voter and with images of the 1988 democracy protests flitting across my mind's eye, I voted for change and for democracy. What happened next was a travesty of many people's voice and choice. The National League for Democracy, the NLD, won an electoral landslide but lost in the political stakes and people in Myanmar would not see polling booths nationwide again until 2008 when a referendum was held to ram through a military-drafted constitution that frames Myanmar's political life today. The State Peace and Development Council military government justified this constitution and the referendum to endorse it as the third and fourth steps of its seven-step roadmap to democracy. The role of a constituent assembly elected through national elections is implicit in this roadmap and even mentioned integrally in the roadmap's three final steps. But this democratization process was not the one imagined by the people. Instead, it was willed into reality by the military government. Nevertheless, I continued to vote for change in 2010, despite the very limited and constrained choices available to voters then. In 2011, along with many others in the country, I was surprised by the changes initiated by then-President Dingsin. I cheered the 2012 by-elections and their outcome, ushering in the NLD as the legal opposition party. I followed with interest the legislature taking up its check and balance role to the executive. I started daring to hope that greater change might be around the corner and once again threw in my vote for that in the landmark 2015 election that brought a new dawn for democracy in Myanmar. And in 2020, Myanmar's vote has capped that 2015 historic win to continue with the NLD in constructing a new democratic state. Ladies and gentlemen, we are still in that final step of the journey framed by the military's roadmap to democracy. We are still striving to realize that imagination and vision for a peaceful democratic transition. We are still seeking to heal the many breaches of trust within and across the diverse communities in our country. National reconciliation, the NLD's priority since 2015, has never taken on more significance. Earlier this month, as Marcus has also outlined, Myanmar's electorate spoke with a resounding vote that returned the incumbent NLD for a second term with a supermajority of 396 seats in the Bidansu Lutto, Myanmar's union level legislature, as well as sweeping most seats in state and region assemblies. But we must acknowledge the different aspects and experiences of this historic vote for Myanmar. For the over 30 million voters who went to the polls on November 8th or earlier, the elections were fair because the results reflected the will and the participatory experience of the majority of voters. The 2020 vote was also a safe experience for many, despite being held amid a worrying COVID-19 surge, which in fact today the cases are still climbing. Taking place simultaneously in 315 townships across the country, the 2020 vote was the largest democratic exercise for the country. Political parties who competed for seats and lost conceded defeat graciously with one rather egregious exception. But there were some people who could not vote at all. The Rohingya communities in Myanmar and in the refugee camps would be top most in the international community's minds when we talk about disenfranchisement. There were also many eligible voters in Rakhine, Shan, Kechin, Chin, Geyah and one states where voting was cancelled for security reasons, they were also disenfranchised. For these people, there was no participatory experience and the landslide win was an abstract event. This is unfortunate, but it does not disqualify the democratic mandate received by the incumbent. So the future task that lies ahead for our collective experience of the exercise of democracy is not about binary choices or decisions. It will be about further improving and developing the democratic institutions so that Myanmar's democratic processes will be more inclusive and participatory and that the elections will become a level playing field for all citizens. It takes time and effort to achieve this with the best of wills. In 1935, Burma under the British was the first Asian country to give women the vote. Women in the United States had gained suffrage earlier in 1920 and women in the United Kingdom in 1918. In the United States, African American men gained the right to vote in 1870, nearly a century after the United States had become an independent sovereign state. And the news that we see in here in the present moment remind us of imperfections in systems and practices and the continuous need to improve. So democracy and electoral practices are not perfect and change is incremental. These imperfections point to the need for continual improvement so that they are inclusive for all of us who call Myanmar home. Be they women, youth, the various ethnic nationalities or the Rehingi communities and improve the quality of democracy in the country. And the process of improving that quality of democracy is for the country, for its citizens and its leadership to own and to lead. I believe we are fortunate that Myanmar's interlocutors in the international community, including international idea, stand ready to support us in building these capacities for change. Looking around Southeast Asia and ASEAN, I can certainly say that Myanmar's democracy is not that bad in terms of voice and expression and freedom of choice. We have proved that we can elect the government we want to chart the future. We have rejected any hint of a larger military role in politics. And our social collective action in the time of COVID-19 has also shown some universality of democracy's consultative and communal action. Democracy can be and is compatible with Myanmar culture, I believe. And the International Ideas Global Democracy Index also shows Myanmar squarely in the mid-range of democratic performance. There is still much more to be done, of course. The recent vote has shown up some areas where Myanmar's nascent democratic institutions can be further strengthened. And with the challenge to respond to the economic and social fallout of COVID-19 at the top of governance responsibility for many governments around the world, topics of inclusion, equality, consultation and evidence-based decisions will underpin national, regional and global responses. These topics are also important ingredients for democracy in Myanmar. Ladies and gentlemen, I shall conclude with what I hope the future of democracy will look like in Myanmar. My hope, as a constructivist, is that through continued dialogue and with the support and assistance of partners like International Idea, we can chart a new course for building, nurturing and supporting democracy in Myanmar to realize that vision of a federal democratic union. This would mean working together among ourselves and with partners to foster the sense of shared ownership in working for peace in Myanmar. This would mean identifying areas, institutions and processes that would benefit from more inclusion, diversity and a level playing field. And this would be not just in elections but in building a democracy in which all of us in Myanmar can believe and participate, a democracy that institutionalizes freedom of expression, of worship, of assembly and of participation, bringing effective government and civic administration closer to the people and finally making the transition irrefutable. I thank you. Thank you very much, Motosar, for this very inspiring and really hopeful presentation. And I thank you also for bringing in so much of your own personal experience. And it sort of struck me how much the experience of democracy for all of us is not just about constitutions and laws and institutions, but it's our own personal acts. And most people remember the first time they went into a polling station and it makes it a very personal experience. And I think that is a very important aspect. But you also rightly stress that this experience is a very different one for different people in this country. And ultimately what we want to see is a democracy that all see equally as giving them a voice and space. And that is obviously very much related to the ability to resolve the conflicts, the long standing conflicts and to also address the long standing issues of exclusion. And that brings me now to our first panelist. But before that I would like to say again to the audience that if you would like to ask a question. You cannot speak, but you can use the chat function if you are joining us through the WebEx software. And so please feel free to ask chat questions. And I will try to get back to them after the end of the presentation. So now let's move on to Danon Latah, who is of course extremely experienced with everything related to the peace process. And with working with various actors and stakeholders. And it would be very good to get your perspective and your view on the recent elections on what it means for further democratization. Danon. Important event of international idea 25th anniversary. So again, I want to say thank you for inviting me to be part of this panelist. As been said in the introduction and also thank you my mother's up for your remarkable keynote message. It's very inspiring to to hear your message. As, as we, as we know, Yama is still under the transition to democracy, I must say. If we count 1990 elections, I must say the recent election 2020 election is fourth round of democratic election for many of us, many of the citizen in Yama. So I must say this recent 2020 election shows that democratization process in Yama is irreversible now. So, you know, we all have concern, you know, whether the more democratization process going to be reversed back, you know, to military dictatorship, but I must say this 2020 election indicates that democratization process is irreversible. So, therefore, along with international idea and other international friends. We still need to nurture to build sustained our democracy in Yama. So this is the time. Just looking at where are the strengths and weaknesses in the recent electoral process and election. There are a few things in terms of a few things I would like to share from my own reflection of the recent 2020 elections in terms of expectation of the election results. Everybody expect that NLD would win in this 2020 election best everybody expectation, but there were many expect many saying that NLD would win but they might not win landslide this time. But that was that's calculation was quite surprising to all of us, you know. So that surprised everybody that this year 2010 election NLD surprise every citizens that they won more seats than 2015. So this also simply indicates that the citizen of Yama needs democracy, we want democracy, which also mean we need to advance the democracy in Yama. You know, I, I asked my family member, you know, and friends who grew up in neighbor, you know, who grew up in Yangon. You know, during the election time on the 8th November. They said, you know, we don't know who is going to be our candidate for this this year the the campaign is also being done very, very limited situation so many of my neighbors don't know who are the candidates. So and they were saying, oh, we will vote NLD because we don't want military. So it was very simple message for many of the citizen that we don't want military so that's why we will vote NLD. So this again shows that many of the citizens wanted to move wanted to further advance democracy. So this is the time so that's why I want to re emphasize that democracy in Yama is not going to be reversed back. So this is irreversible process. Second thing I would like to again highlight is the strategy of the political parties this time is also quite advanced I would say, and we can observe there are the strategy of some ethnic political parties are based on the ethnic base parties and some are region state base and some are nation nationwide base. So, based on the strategy some did very well and some, some, some, some are not done very well because, for example, in gas day ethnic ethnic base political parties they did very well in some of the constituency. Only in some in some constituency they did very poorly. So therefore, the campaign strategy for ethnic base party also need to be further advanced you know in for the, for the next five years election. So that also shows the political parties in the strategy in the next five years. They also need to think they need to understand their population, they need to understand who are the constituency. Some did well based on the ethnic parties strategy, some did better on the state based party. So we, we also hear the, the debate among the biggest party between NLD and usdp both were claiming. Oh, we are all, we represent all ethnic nationalities, but people do not proceed them as representing of all ethnic parties. So this is the problems of Yama situation. In the coming years, how political parties, particularly winning party now in LD is going to represent it as a government that yes they represent all ethnic nationalities, and they are representing ethnic nationalities and they are part of the ethnic nationalities that need to perform well in the coming five years. So that is another, another point that I would like to mention. The third thing is, in terms of participation in the 2020 election. We can see in this recent election, youth and woman candidates have the number of youth and woman candidates have quite increased. And as as per the data in 2020 elections, women candidates have increased to 18% compared to around 12% women candidates. But this is also quite encouraging. And youth are also youth candidates are also increasing by number. So this, this is also the momentum that we have to look after, you know, during this in the coming five years and for the for the 2015 election. In terms of public participation. This year, it was quite challenging under COVID-19, because many of the political parties are not able to do the campaign very well. So, in terms of voter education, we still for the public for the citizen to be able to participate in the democratization process, meaningfully, we still need to do a lot of civic education. We need to understand what does it mean to what does democracy mean for them. Yes, they know we have to cast the vote, but that is not enough, but they have to know who they who they should choose, who is why they should choose this particular candidate. So at the moment, they are just looking at the party, you know, they don't even know who are the who they are voting for, they just look at the party. So of course, in this moment, the smaller party they have less chance to do campaign so they don't even know who are contesting in the election. They only know two big parties, and one party being perceived as associating with the military so that's why they chose the other party. So that is also the education level political education level of public is also still needed to advance for the coming years. People understand that they need to participate in this election process, but they need to further understand what does it really mean for them. What does democracy really mean for them, I think this education will still be needed to further improve. So lastly, I would like to conclude by saying the momentum of democratization process through election through constitutional amendment, which is going to take place in the coming five years should be continued to advance and should be continued to nurture by people inside the country. And also by organization like IDA and other friends, we need to continue to work in the coming five years, particularly as Marcus and also modus are also mentioned earlier. We the new government, the, the 70 years long conflict is also waiting for the new government to address. Along with that will be the federalism issue, which is waiting in advance, and which I didn't cover now is the election, electoral process. You know, we have all this free and fair process fraud, etc. So those we will have to look at the long term electoral process as well. So we still have lots to do in the coming five years to make to really make the democracy works in NEMA. So again, to conclude this momentum should not stop. We need to further advance and we need to further nurture the democracy that is that is emerging in the country. Thank you. Thank you very much. And John and what struck me a lot in your presentation is when you spoke about the irreversibility of democracy on the one hand, but on the other hand also the need to further deepen democratic education or let's say to create more of a democratic culture and explain of what democracy means for people. But interestingly, this is a problem we really see around the world and even in some of the oldest democracies, where this question what does democracy mean for us is a very, very current question. From North America to Western and Eastern Europe. There are many countries where, you know, they struggle with with, let's say, giving themselves reassurance that democracy isn't irreversible. So I think it is interesting also to put Myanmar in this global and to just acknowledge that there is always a risk of reversibility. And that it will continue to rely on on on education and on making the case for why democracy matters how it matters and how it can actually serve to solve the problems that people face. So let me turn to means and maybe also we can talk a bit more about how this connects with the peace process that down on already mentioned the federalism discussion, the sort of the whole idea of what is Myanmar as a country. Thank you. Thank you very much. And good offering the ladies and gentlemen, thank you for inviting us to share our perspective on the future democracy are looking the animal beyond 2020. I remember the debates among the opposition groups in 2010 right before the election. It was about the 2010 election and the incoming government right after. So most of us, I mean the people in exile, assess that election will not be free and fair. That was correct. And the USDP, the military proxy party of the time will make this win. So that was a correct. Then what come after next was the critical questions coming up. That is, whether there was an extra change in Myanmar under the USDP government. So that debate split the exact communities. So the majority of the exiles and oppositions did not think there would be a real change. Almost all Myanmar analysts wrote that there will not be a real change in Myanmar that was just the transfer of power from the uniform military guys to non uniform military guys. But a small minority of exiles consider there will be an opportunity to create a real change using that windows opportunities. After six years from the 2010 elections we observed the success of peaceful handover or power to elected political party for the first time in Myanmar in 2016. So that transition was facilitated by three factors. The first, it was an elite driven transitions. So the elite at the time was the military and the USDP. And they were the institution that had the capability to shift a gear of transition in Myanmar towards more liberalizations. The process was not bought out. And it was a transition facilitated by the all good under the carefully orchestrated constitutions, which is still currently in effect. The second is the political will, which was also driven by the currency of political legitimacy. The government at the time was angry for both domestic and international legitimacy and the political will for more reform was fostered by the legitimacy and recognition provided by both domestic and international actors. But that factor was the incubation of policy ecosystem, which allowed the inputs from technocrats and mobilize technical support from various entities towards the government policy making. So government was eager to adopt technical inputs to drive the refund for them. So from this three factors, we witness a transitions from the military rule to a government elected by the elections. The elections in 2015 and 2020. On the other hand, did not change the coal paradigm of transition in Myanmar. That is, the transition remain an elite driven. But in this case, it was driven by a God like figure or popular leader, Donaldson sushi. The people be still horrible with confidence to leave the country to more reform from a bitter memory of military dictatorship. So the era of military hunter was a chosen farmer for me and my people. The farmer was hand over from one generation to another. The people voted overwhelmingly to the NLD in 2020 again, because of their details to the dictatorship. But people did not even question the performance of the NLD economy peace process, constitutional reform and civil liberty. People cast their votes for their trust on those are sushi and the abomination to the military dictatorship. This abomination of the military dictatorship was a part of the DNA of Myanmar people for generations. Because they witnessed the failure of successive military regimes in Myanmar since 1962. At the same time, entire dictatorship did not necessarily make us for democracy. Entire dictatorship does not necessarily foster pro democracy liberal values, which tolerate criticism, which celebrate diversity, foster check and balances. So we still have a long way to go when it came to restoring liberal democracy values in our society. So this paradigm of super elite driven transition prosper by populism will remain thrive in Myanmar for years to come, probably in next two election circles. That is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on how the elites move forward. So the NLD leaders and also said he spoke about their political will for more liberal transitions in this regard. We will have a government with some degree of political will to foster democratic transition and the peace process as well. But the success will depend on three factors. One is the restoration of functional civil military relations. So that which is very critical because without functional civil military relations, we will see a meaningful constitutional amendment and also the peace process where the military hold a major stake and also a significant decision making power. The second is the inclusive governance. So NLD government must include ethnic minorities at both union and state level governments to demonstrate that they are considering more inclusive governance in upcoming five years. And the NLD victories of the second time also reaffirmed the suspicion of the ethnic minority that a simple federalism will not work for them. Sharing power to the state government is not an answer to them because sharing power to the state government just increase the power of the state government but not necessarily to the minorities under the dominance of the NLD parties. For that reason, there will be an increasing calls in coming years to change the current fast-pass opposed electoral system. So this will be a part of the discussion in the peace talk as well. We can anticipate that a lot of these calls and the peace process to change the current electoral system will be the one of the main agenda for the political dialogue. And it will not be an easy dialogue, however. The third is the NLD government must foster and restore a political ecosystem that facilitates the group of expert communities in Myanmar. The ecosystem should allow evidence-based input for policymaking. The system should incubate the prowess of analysis and analysis both within and outside the government. The government must be able to bring in various expertise to support their policymaking. In conclusion, the next four months will be very critical for Myanmar and its future. How the new government is structural will determine not just next five years but also beyond this tenure. Once the court is set, the past five years of experience show that it can change the coast significantly. How it begins is quite deterministic to how it ends in the last five years. The government has now spoken about the formation of the National Unity Government. But the idea appears to be an early infant stage and some entity leaders were not even informed of what it was. So we are hopeful that the government of National Unity is formed in both essence and effectiveness to steer the course of real reform effectively in the next five years. Thank you. Thank you very much, Minzo, for this excellent contribution and for your sharp formulations that bring it to the head, which is that an anti-dictatorship is not yet a democracy. And even though Myanmar has made a clear choice stepping away from its past, where it's coming from, but it is not quite exactly clear on how it will reach its destination. And that, you know, most people would agree want to be a democracy, but what exactly that means, which you were very well outlined and how to get there. I think it's also true that the next few months will be absolutely crucial on how the next steps that the NLD leadership will take. I would say normally, under normal circumstances, if I look at an election result with this kind of one-party dominance, you know, democracy promoters would get rather nervous and jittery about the democratic prospects. But here, you know, it may actually be an opportunity, in particular for the big systemic changes that we still need to see. So I hope that you're right, that the right momentum is in place. And I would now like to ask Shwetra Sainloth, who has a very interesting background as coming from civil society, being a very well-known activist, in particular for gender equality and women's empowerment, who has been in parliament with the NLD for the last five years and has basically seen these efforts from inside and can share maybe some interesting experiences of how, you know, these general aspirations can be transformed into decision-making and actual policy. Shwetra, go ahead. Yeah. There you go. Hello, Mingalaba. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm very honored to be here at this important event. And also, I congratulate IDEA for its 25-year anniversary, and I wish to continue 100 years of anniversary. Again, I also would like to tell IDEA, IDEA is support to Mimakamima, more than two decades. I'm happy to share my experience and my insights. Why? I'm ashamed of my career because entity party and some people from my constituency had requested me for my candidacy in 2015 election. They choose me because of my educational background, my experience, and also my interest to enter into the politics. I'm also decided to involve more effectively and efficiently in democratic transition as an activist citizen. Another reason is I want to be a lawmaker and advocate so that I could either to draft or propose or discuss or approve gender-sensitive laws, right-based law, gender budgeting, et cetera, in order to guarantee for the human rights in Mimakamima, which I'm a little bit lacking in here. I believe it would definitely have established the peaceful, equal, fair and justice society in Mimakamima. I also want to find and hold the opportunity to change 2008 constitution. And other people already discussed and mentioned about that. So at the beginning of the my political journey, I had faced a lot of challenges, difficulties and discrimination, whatever. I tried my best. Later, I have also got more opportunities, as I intend to do, and I can also prove the go results for my constitution and my constituency, as well as for the parliament. I want also to involve more than 20 new bills and 30 motion to start and drafting a new budget law, national planning law, and new decision law, et cetera, that I had never experienced before. It hit me a lot of, how to say, thinking and also what the gender kid vote in the parliament and the vote in the government, vote in the local level and everywhere. So, I always had gender and women issue, whenever I discuss, whenever, wherever, then I can buzz with MPs, especially male MP and also our committee members are thinking about how gender issues and women issues are important to build at the democratic society. And also I am a member of ASEAN parliamentary assembly, so I have participated in the ASEAN parliamentary assembly and other international events and also other study trip. Whenever I go, I chair, I had the responsibility and I have given assignment by the parliament to discuss about gender, to learn about gender and women and how they are working for women and decision making, something like that. So, I had a lot of experience, like me, many women MP were also working hard, frankly speaking, than some of the male MP. For example, women MP raised more questions and then proposed more motion at the parliament. They worked actively and who fed the needs of children, women, worker, disabled society and also this, you know, marginalized people, violence against women case, peace negotiation with the include and then also development, etc. So, you can name it, whatever assigned to them, whatever they feel, they can do it, that is, they show their rights, their capability. If they get the seat, they can do it. If they don't get the seat, they cannot show their ability, because there's a many hidden agenda and barrier. And traditional belief that polarity is especially for the men, because in the education also, our education long term, we can see that women, polarity sheet and a woman hero, women in a polarity area, they have never been, we have learned, only mostly men, men agenda. However, our women MP could not do as much as we could, because of many limitations and barriers. We are, as you all already know, we are working with undemocratic constitution in stability of peace and security, insufficient institutional capacity, insufficient of weak system and weakness of rural law, outdated rules and regulation, lack of gender-sensitive and gender-responsive governance, gender-sensitive, gender-responsive budget, etc. For example, we have signed the international convention on CEDA, then we also had the policy, national policy and mechanism for women empowerment and women development. And also we had the, how to say, sustainable development goals on the UN Sustainable, and also we also had the National Strategy Action Plan for Sustainability to implement the sustainable development. However, very sadly, within five years, our parliament could not approve violence and women law, which has been working since last seven years ago by the different etters. We could not initiate gender budgeting at any budget law yet. We could not amend interfaith merit law, which was really against our women rights. We are working very hard to amend the 2008 constitution. In this case, IDI and other international institutions held us a law in capacity building and bringing other constitutional reform experience around the world. But we are not satisfied because of constitutional barriers. More importantly, fighting among the uncrews are still going on. So we try, but we cannot achieve it. But we are not given, we will continue our effort. Although we are more than 52% of women throughout the population, we only have 13% of women represented in this current parliament. And only one woman speaker and one woman deputy speaker at the state region, the top parliament. And there is no woman union speaker or deputy speaker at the union parliament level. We also have a lot of women employees in the public sector, but two women decision makers in the union cabinet are sitting. There's only one woman chief minister and few, very few women minister as some national government, as consequences. Most are law, rules and regulation, but yes, decision are not gender sensitive, not gender responsive. I also want to mention that most are developed and proposed by the consent department, not mostly by the other actors. There are also a lot of violence against women cases in my constituency and also throughout the country, even this COVID period, we had a lot of cases. And I'm also handling this case since the beginning, and I found so many gender gaps in different levels of all institutions. And look for clear understanding about existing rules and regulation mechanism among the key sector and weakness of cooperation among the related departments. There is weak mechanism to handle the cases as well. As well as that. What happened? You can think of it. Nevertheless, I have shared, I'm going to use it, other people share, you know, 70% of women candidates were elected in 2020, general election, and all state regional parliament have women seat. Because last time we do not have three parliament, regional state parliament had no women seat. Now we have all full, all see our full with the women MP. This is the policy outcome by not only what are the women and the current women, but also political world and also the people trust and believe and because see how women can do it. So we can do it, then they give vote us. So I hope there will be more women decision making at new government institution like the union election comes in. I really said about there is no woman and the union election comes in. So in my constituents, I appoint one woman, I had the, I had the right, I had the vote for one woman to apply at the township level union committee. So I appointed one woman. So now she has a lot of issues at first she refused it. She refused it. Oh, I cannot do again. I said, no, if you cannot do how we can empower you down. Now she replied me, oh, I can do it. She's just really do the good things now at the township level. And many times I have been raised a question, why women met us? What? So I answer, of course, she is a citizen. She is a citizen. So, and also she must, so she must get her citizen right. And she must get opportunity as a citizen, whatever she is, she must be protected and family, find the family, find the society, find the state as our potential is very enormous. You cannot measure it. So I would like to conclude here. The all address, including the idea, please try to support, continue our support to involve more women in decision making road at a different level, different set up in terms of our democratization, democratization process and peaceful movement in process. Why be meaningful, peaceful and inclusive as women have compassion and need loving kindness to share others like our mother. So please include women and girls and children and you for that this democratization democratization process and peace process. Thank you very much. Thank you very much lot and, and it's just wonderful to see, you know, how, how much you show what being a politician can actually look like in this country. And I think for a lot of people, this changes their expectations their perceptions of what politics is about what representation is about, and how, you know, even within very strict limitations you can actually make a difference. I would know we have a number of questions and we should conclude in about 15 minutes. I still now want to ask Dr courage to come in. The election commission already came up a number of times, but I would like to ask you as a member of the board of international idea and the global democracy expert. Sort of from your perspective, what do you make of of what you have just heard and end of sort of the state of democracy in Myanmar, and especially with regard to the elections. Thank you Marcus and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, I'm delighted to be here to interact with you. I was very privileged to participate in the historic election in 2015, which was nothing short of a democratic revolution. Idea had played a very active role in that we had been around for two years before the election, preparing the election commission to conduct an election without much experience without much infrastructure. We were working along with the consortium of International Organization, and I'm glad that I participated in that historic activity any further wonderful election, a very successful and very peaceful well organized election. I struck a personal chord with the UEC chairman and other members having been the chairman of India's election commission, and we thought we could share some of our knowledge and experience with them, and they were extremely receptive to that idea. I was very impressed that UEC conducted a very independent election, despite the fact that there was still military rule, and in that to be able to conduct a free fair election was a marvelous achievement. Then we were very happy, we were impressed to see a whole army of observers, domestic observers and international observers, which showed that the intention of the government, even the military government and of the election commission was good. They were very transparent and they wanted the whole world to see, and that's exactly how we found the election. Now the new UEC, which came after the election, took a lot of time. I remember they organized a workshop immediately on coming to power, and today workshop I think it was and they invited me also. What impressed me particularly was the chairman of the entity sat through both the days of the workshop. Normally the VIP comes and inaugurates the workshop, the written his speech and goes away, but he participated from beginning to the end and took active interest, asked questions, that was very, very touching. Then we also, UEC also struck a partnership with India International Institute of Democracy and Election Management, which I'm very happy to say that I had created in India in 2011. And within six years about 90 countries have come to train with us and UEC also came and they sent their middle level, senior level election managers, in fact even the commissioners came and some of them repeatedly. So India played a pretty big role in preparing the election machinery to conduct the elections. Now all the speakers before me have mentioned how the transition is taking place and all of them were very positive. There are of course some continuing concerns. First of all, first of all of course is the discrimination against ethnic minorities, which seems not only to continue, but even perhaps it is growing. One third of Myanmar population consists of ethnic minority and this kind of discrimination of such a large scale is a matter of great concern. And Daw Aung San Suu Kyi's role, we earlier bracketed with her, Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Gandhi and as just now somebody mentioned that she was a godlike figure. We also treated her as a super human superhero, but she turned out to be, I must say, a big disappointment. This is not what global leaders are made of. Then again, one of the concerns is freedom of media. It is still under the great threat. So even during this election, our 250 lawsuits we read about the fact that a filmmaker in a theater group, those guys were arrested, it's a matter of concern. Women's participation continues to be low, although it has improved slightly from 13% in 2015 to 15.6%. But one wishes that this will improve faster and it was very nice to see a woman politician expressing her views. Then cancelled voting, which also was referred to by previous speakers, mostly ethnic minority area, which disenfranchised more than a million in Arakan street alone and all together it must have been a lot more. Then we also saw hate speech and disinformation, which is not a problem unique to Myanmar. In India, we have unfortunately that problem and in fact in the social media age increasing. But there are several positives also, which we must add on. Citizens continuing concern for the democratic transition is very encouraging. They are very concerned, they want democracy and as somebody says that this process is irreversible, which is very nice to see and nice to feel. The fact that the number of political parties in such a short time has gone up to 91 or 93, I don't know, both the figures I read somewhere, I don't know which is the exact number. That 7000 candidates participated in relatively small country is a big number. That also shows political interest of the citizens, which is good. 70% turnout, almost like last time, also is very, very encouraging. Now, then in the COVID scenario, in fact, the shadow of COVID is a writ large on democracy and elections all over the world. We know that more than 70 countries have cancelled their election, have used this opportunity to cancel the election and nearly half of that 35 countries have held elections and held elections very successfully. Therefore, those who cancelled probably their action needs to be questioned. Now, the UEC also managed the COVID scenario extremely well, except for a report of some crowding in 25% of the politicians, which again is maybe part of the thing that people's enthusiasm was responsible. They came in very large numbers. I hope it did not lead to a spurt in COVID cases, but for the crowding, all the COVID arrangements were perfect and elections were well conducted. Restrictions on campaign because of physical distancing required by COVID disturb the level playing field. And here again Myanmar is not unique. We recently had an election in a big state of Bihar in India, which is larger than Myanmar in fact. There also we had similar problems, similar issues, but we had to live with it. We also saw the UNFRED giving a good report to improvement in voting procedures where displaced persons, migrants and students voted more easily in their temporary residence, which is another positive. Now, internet blackout and race is a negative that we have to be concerned about. Government one thing which I came across which upset me a bit that in September government declared journalism in non-essential business. Journalism media is supposed to be the fourth pillar of democracy and to be declared as a non-essential. I thought this is something which is a matter of concern and voices should be raised against it. As a result of this, journalists were restricted from visiting some election area partly in the name of COVID and partly because of sensitivity. Now, in conclusion, I would like to say that all said and done by negatives and positives taken together on the whole, I think the situation is positive because these are all feeding troubles of democracy. And Marcus had said in the beginning it takes years to build democratic processes, although they get demolished in no time. But these are after all, this is only the sixth year of democracy and some teasing troubles were expected and I'm sure the country will get over them soon. And for this, I do feel that the both UEC and the government require more global exposure and more global interconnectedness so that you are in tune with the global development. And finally, I'm sure that idea will continue the hand holding which it has been doing for the last seven years. And we will be very proud and we'll be very happy to be of assistance to Myanmar in its search for democracy. These are the opening remarks and after that, after Q&A, maybe I'll have another entry. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Dr. Kurashi and I'm afraid we're already soon running out of time. So what I would suggest now is that we have seen a number of questions in the chat and also in the Q&A they have come in, but they have all been reposted in the chat. And so I would like to give the floor once again to each of the speakers and maybe to ask them from myself a question and they could in their answer in their statement maybe also reflect if they were asked a specific question in the chat. I would like to ask you to conclude basically what would be your key advice or key wish of the incoming government and of international idea in order to strengthen democracy, deepen the democratic culture and consolidate democracy to such an extent that it is irreversible. There are many things, of course, but I would like to ask you sort of one key takeaway or one key wish that you have to the incoming authorities, but also advice to international idea. Since this is our 25th anniversary, this is our birthday. And so we would like to get some advice from you as a birthday present. So can I ask you in the same order as we had the speakers so we start with Motusar. Thank you Marcus. I think I'd just like to highlight the point, let me go a bit deeper into the broad suggestions of the hope that I had expressed as a constructivist I believe in discussion and dialogue and I think that's something that really needs to be you know that we really need to see more off in Myanmar, the kind of constructive discussion and dialogue geared towards building up those capacities for change that I mentioned also. I mean, yes, we need to nurture the democracy that Madanan has said is irreversible because it can be reversed with just one flick of a finger if somebody's not happy. So I would like to see Myanmar, the government working together with international partners like idea in having more of that constructive discussion and dialogue towards building those capacities for change that strengthen democratic institutions and processes. And I think through that kind of continued conversation, we will be able to start trying to overcome those very polarized or divided views that currently challenge our societies and communities today. Thank you very much Motusar. Janan, what would be your advice. Thank you. As my final, final thought. I will see some questions. The concern in the with the new incoming, the same government and LD government are looking at from the civil society perspective we wish to see more open engagement with the civil society and also more civic engagement open civic engagement we would like to see from the government in the coming five years and plus I wish to see the new government along with the dialogue partners would seek would seek the federal union for the for the interest of the people for the interest of the country rather than for the interest of their own party for the interest of their own organization. So let leave your own position, your organization position, leave that behind, but actually come to the table for the interest of the country for the interest of the people. In that whole process, I would also like to encourage international idea, continue to support building of the federal federal union, the way that they are supporting now. In the coming five years, we would need to bring up more resources on different topics, different issues that will be discussing on the very specific issue that will be discussing in the coming five years. So, bring all your expertise to Myanmar, bring from all over the world to Myanmar. Thank you. Thank you. We will certainly try our best to do that means what would be your contribution on this. I would like to bring in two points in this regard. Number one, what is the most pressing threat to a liberal transition in Myanmar. A lot of political scientists agree that instability is one of the potential outcome for the type of a liberal transitions. Myanmar have all ingredients for instability and conflict, ethnic conflict, and also several military relations, and also communal conflicts. So, the only way we can deepen the week is to strengthen its confidence, is to dialogue, because the institution will remain weak for many decades. The civil society will remain weak. The pillars will remain weak. So, we are talking about how to hold, how to do the patchwork together through the political dialogue with many different actors and also expanding the pies to different actors. The government should bring in different expertise in the policy making, engage with the civil societies, and also engage with different ethnic groups, armed groups, and also restore civil military relations. So, that is number one. Number two is the international community should also lower the expectations in Myanmar. Myanmar will not become a consolidated democracy in probably two, three decades. So, we will remain to be a weak democracy for many years to come. We're going to be a lot of this roller coaster up and down moments in Myanmar democratic transitions. So, international idea should also bridge the reality in Myanmar and also expectation from the international community and bring the change to more gradual. So, for us, if we don't reverse, we are good. We're good enough. So, as long as we are moving even slowly forward, I think we are good enough. So, that will be the role of the international idea, bridging the reality in Myanmar and expectation from the international communities. Thank you very much, Minzo. This is really very good advice and this fits well with international ideas, basic approach and philosophy of being a non prescriptive assistance provider. Of course, it is as our Secretary General said, we stand up for democratic values whenever we need to. But in a country setting, we try not to be judgmental. We try not to present solutions, but to really support capacities and knowledge and expertise for national homegrown ownership to develop and for this growth to be sustainable. So we will certainly keep your good advice in mind in our further steps. Shreya Lat, what would be your advice? Yes, I advise. I would like to just request our energy government, newly government to effectively fully implement that they are manifesto, 2020 manifesto. And also the newly government must practice a good governance and then also gender responsive governance practice at all, at all, and also capacity building for the downward or upward. And another one is the now the energy has the winning the majority seat at all parliament expect from the chance stage and other sense only chance. So, well, why not we practice that physical system, even though we have that we have a constitutional limitation. We can practice it because this is our hand or the government and also MPs to practice more physical federal recent regulation. Yeah, and also that the leaders as or as I have mentioned the inclusiveness and all the process dialogue or peace process or whatever decision making process, please bring the woman and also the civil society already they mentioned, I really agree. The civil society engagement is the essential for building the democratic society and also like international idea and other et cetera, you are doing the good things and also now you can learn a lot so that you can decide what is within your capacity, what you should, and then we should support and really appreciate whatever because you had done a lot good things for us. Even you have still some, some, maybe, and some gaps, and then so please also you also trying to engage with the all state order, and also to implement your activities and good participation. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will certainly continue to do that and we hope that we can continue to count on you and work together with you in in whatever format you will be doing that. Certainly, thank you very much for all the good cooperation already in the last few years. Dr. Kourashi. You have the last word now of all the speakers, since we have to wrap up. But I think that you've heard that there is a lot of potential for our work as international idea. A lot of open doors and a lot of good, good partners to work with. What would be your final advice. Have we lost Dr. Kourashi already. Now I can hear you. Now it works. Go ahead. My wish list is very simple. I would like discrimination against ethnic minorities to go because that is the only black mark on the upcoming democracy of Myanmar. And secondly, the media freedom, if that happens, Myanmar will come up on the level of other good democracies in a very short time, that's my hope. And this is the wish list which you wanted all four of us to mention. Just a little sum of a couple of sentences each from everyone. Now Kevin had, of course, started with the history of international idea, 25th anniversary, which we are celebrating. And new challenges which we are facing post COVID globally that COVID's biggest threat has been to democracy worldwide. And the minister also mentioned about the backsliding of democracy and she was very right when she says that it is difficult to build and very easy to demolish. And that is what we seem to experience worldwide. And she also stressed the need for global coalitions and in which of course the idea has a very important role to play. Mark, I would like to mention that you gave a very good background and overview of Myanmar's 2020 elections which was very helpful. Both of them mentioned very rightly that good elections do not necessarily mean good democracy. That is the distinction she has flagged extremely beautifully and we should remember that. Even in India, unfortunately, we face that problem. We get very good rating for a good election. But the fact that we have people with criminal background coming into politics, we have still very poor women participation. So there are some black spots there. So then Mo Mo also gave a very interesting historical perspective of democracy. And when she mentioned that in 1935 Myanmar was the first country to give women equal voting rights. And who gave those voting rights? UK, Britain, which itself took 100 years to give those voting rights to its own women. So this was a very interesting bit of information for me also. And Jana Latha also mentioned about the very positive and worth something that is music to my ears that is a democratic process is irreversible now. I'm very happy to hear that and I agree with you. But please remember as we have been saying that it is difficult to build but easy to demolish. So hope we are able to maintain momentum. And Minzau mentioned about transition towards liberalization and political legitimacy and recognition and domestic and international pressure. So maybe more exposure, more interaction with the global world in which international idea can facilitate that will help broaden the vision. And of course the most interesting statement from Minzau was referring to Aung San Suu Kyi, the godlike figure. I wish he had proved with that and I hope she now comes around to prove that. But in the last six years we haven't seen those signs. We need to wrap it up soon because we have the last sequence. The prospect of debate on electoral system on first part of the post. Again that I thought is very interesting because that is the debate which is being raised internationally including in the mother of FTPT which is UK and in India. And I think all the suggestions which have come from all the members will benefit us in our dialogue. And on behalf of international idea I thank everybody and promise that we will continue to do the hand holding which we have been doing and do whatever little we can to support democracy in Myanmar. Thank you very much. Thank you Dr. Karachi and thank you to all the panelists and the participants. I'm sorry if we didn't have time to go into every question in detail. We will try to find another way to get back to you. But this is part of a whole day series of events and the the organizers are already pushing us to wrap it up. But of course we here in Myanmar will have plenty of opportunity to continue these discussions to continue working together and we look forward to that. For today we want to thank you all and wish all of our colleagues around the world who have been listening at international idea and otherwise a good birthday celebration and again greetings from from Myanmar and we look forward to future collaboration. Thank you very much is a team by the bye bye. Thank you.