 On behalf of the United States Institute of Peace, we're delighted to welcome everyone to today's side event and discussion ahead of the summit for democracy, which President Biden is hosting later this week. My name is Elise Grande, and I'm the head of USIP, which was established by Congress in 1984 as a nonpartisan independent national institution dedicated to preventing, mitigating and helping resolve violent conflict abroad. USIP is what's known as a think and do tank, which means that on the one hand, we produce research, consult widely and provide policy recommendations. But as a do think tank, we also design ground tests to implement and evaluate peace building activities and programs on the ground in countries where conflict is likely already present or being resolved. Right now, the Institute has more than 300 programs and initiatives in 85 countries, and we have offices in 16, including Iraq, Libya, Colombia, Nigeria, Mali, Niger, Myanmar, and Sudan, among others. The aim of today's discussion is to focus on the links between democracy and peace. We're honored to have with us a singular and very distinguished group of civil society leaders and activists from five democratic countries, Ukraine, Nigeria, Colombia, the Philippines, and Iraq. There are two aspects of today's discussion. The first focuses on the pressures these five democracies are facing. Democracies are celebrated for being more internally peaceful than any other form of government because of their commitment to resolving grievances, disputes, and inequities through peaceful, inclusive, transparent institutions and mechanisms. Democracy is a constant struggle, however, and very often the mechanisms, the institutions, and the powers which preserve it come under pressure. Truthfully, there are times when these pressures are so acute, democratic structures start to fail, and lose the confidence of their people are worse, collapse altogether. This is why we've asked each of our speakers to share their views on the pressures that are undermining and threatening their democracies. The second aspect of our conversation focuses on the role that democracies play in securing global peace. One of the enduring principles of multilateralism is the commitment of democratic countries around the world to stand up for each other and protect each other's rights. Democracies need to help each other, and we especially need to do this when a sister democracy is under pressure or threat. This is why we've also asked our speakers to share candidly what they want the US and other democratic countries to do to help them stay on the democratic path. The panelists joining us today are truly exceptional. We are honored to welcome Olexandra Mafichuk, who is the chair of the Center for Civil Liberties in Ukraine. We're delighted to welcome Idiat Hassan, the director of the Center for Democracy and Development in Nigeria. We're very pleased that Maria Hemened Duzan, the distinguished journalist and current host of the Al Fondo podcast in Columbia will be with us a little bit late. She'll be joining in a few minutes. We're very pleased to welcome Glenda Gloria, the co-founder and executive editor of Wackler in the Philippines, and also to welcome Farhad Aladine, who serves as the chair of the Iraq Advisory Council. It is a particular honor that Uzrazea, a distinguished diplomat and lifelong peace activist who now serves as the US Department of States undersecretary for civilian security, democracy, and human rights is presenting our keynote speech. Before welcoming Uzra, we'd like to invite everyone to follow this discussion on Twitter with the hashtag democracy and peace USIP. Now we have the honor to turn to Uzrazea. Thank you, President Grant. Distinguished participants and guests, I'm pleased to speak with you today on how democracy can address conflict and how we can work together to strengthen democratic governance and peace. I wanna thank the US Institute of Peace for convening this timely and important discussion. Organizations such as Freedom House and Varieties of Democracy are tracking a trend of democratic recession that now stands at 15 years. Democracies old and new, including our own are threatened by authoritarianism, conflict, societal division, corruption, and declining faith in public institutions. Significant democratic backsliding is occurring in every region of the world as the number of liberal democracies fell from 41 in 2010 to just 32 in 2020. At the same time, government repression and exclusion are increasing around the world, exacerbating grievances and fueling instability. In the past 10 years, the number of countries where state sanctioned murder, torture, and disappearance affect the entire population doubled according to the political terror scale, and the number of countries engaged in systematic discrimination against ethnic minorities increased 13% according to the Ethnic Power Relations Project. We've also seen elected governments displaced, deficient and fraudulent elections, democratically elected leaders adopting authoritarian tactics to hold on to power, such as amending or flouting constitutional provisions on term limits, exclusion of women from decision-making, human rights protections under attack, security force abuses, broken ceasefires, and other situations contributing to democratic reversals installed peace processes. The international community also faces challenges that know no borders. This includes not only the COVID-19 pandemic, but also a significant economic downturn, record levels of displacement, spreading transnational conflicts in a deepening climate crisis. This complex set of challenges may seem overwhelming, but we have a way forward through two broad approaches. First, we know that we must invest in conflict prevention and resilience-building efforts. Progress towards democratic governance, peace and prosperity endures when countries undergo regular democratic transitions of power from one democratically elected government to another, resist the lure of authoritarian models, proactively engage in conflict prevention, and have systems in place to respond to climate disasters or health shocks. For the United States, our first 10-year strategy to prevent conflict and promote stability will guide our efforts to identify the underlying causes of fragility and conflict, foster greater transparency and partnership with governments, international partners, and other local and international stakeholders, encourage adaptive and locally-based approaches to prevention and stabilization, and demand meaningful and measurable outcomes. President Biden is committed to the implementation of this strategy. Second, we know that we must demonstrate that democracy delivers for all people. We must ensure our efforts are inclusive and participatory from the start, and this is not simply about elections. It means establishing inclusive institutions and processes, particularly for women and members of marginalized groups, enabling people to be involved in decisions that affect their lives, ensuring public administration is transparent and accountable and advancing the protection of human rights. This fosters societies that are resilient against authoritarian influence, corruption, conflict, and both natural and human-made crises. Together, we must make the case to people all over the world that democratic governance, non-discrimination, and respect for human rights deliver. Democratic governance is the way to reduce fragility, advance sustainable government, and mitigate risks of violent conflict and instability. President Biden has called it the challenge of our time to demonstrate the democracies can deliver by improving the lives of their people in tangible ways and tackling the greatest problems facing the world. He launched the Summit for Democracy, the first iteration of which occurs on December 9th and 10th to serve as a rallying point to advance this goal. Summit participants are encouraged to make concrete commitments to support democratic renewal aligned with the Summit's three pillars. One, defending against authoritarianism. Two, addressing and fighting corruption. And three, advancing respect for human rights at home and abroad. Activists, advocates, and other members of civil society, like many of you here today, are essential to equitable, responsive, and legitimate governance. So we have an interest and a moral imperative to protect civic space and empower civil society organizations, allowing civil society to play its unique and positive role in democracy, especially during hard times. On behalf of the U.S. government, we look forward to working side by side with you to demonstrate the critical role that civil society can play in ensuring democracies truly deliver during the upcoming Summit for Democracy, the year of action that will follow and beyond. Thank you again for the opportunity to address you today. I look forward to hearing more about the lessons you've learned in joining democracy in peace and how the international democratic community can better support your efforts in this vital space. Thank you. For the next hour, we're going to spend time with each of our five very distinguished panelists. We'll start first with Ukraine and then we'll move to Nigeria. We'll then have a discussion on the Philippines, on Iraq, and then we'll conclude with Columbia. We're going to ask each of our panelists to focus on two sets of questions. The first is to share candidly with all of us their analysis of the factors and dynamics which are putting pressure on the democracies that they represent. Secondly, we'll be asking each of our panelists to share candidly with all of us what they think the United States and other sister democracies around the world can and should be doing in order to help them ensure their country stays on a democratic path. We're very pleased to start first with Oleksandra from Ukraine. Oleksandra, the floor is yours. Thank you very much for providing me the floor. It's an honor to speak on this event. Last week, we celebrated the anniversary of revolution of dignity in Ukraine. Eight years ago, people came out against the corrupt authoritarian regime that decided to stop European integration. They fought to live in a country where everyone's rights are protected, the government is accountable and controlled, the court are fair and independent, and the police don't crack down peaceful student demonstrators. And they paid a pretty high price for it. When the authoritarian regime broke down, Ukraine was given the opportunity to undergo democratic transformations. This was a direct danger to the authoritarian Putin regime. To stop Ukraine on this path, Russia occupied Crimea and launched a hybrid war in the Donbas. Thus, if during the Ebro-Maidan events, we fought for our democratic choice, now in this war with Russia, we are fighting for the rights to have a choice as such. Ukraine faces two challenges, first to build stable democratic institutions and to survive the war. Democratic transformations are hampered by occupation and war, the weakness of state institutions, low public legal awareness, and sometimes irresponsible attitude of the Iranian elite. And at the same time, maintaining an alternation in government, democratic elections, and strengthening local communities as a result of decentralization reforms, as well as even small but positive changes in the number of indicators of the Freedom House annual report nations in transition under these difficult conditions is a significant achievement. This year, Putin published an article outlining his vision of Ukraine's history. He denies the very existence of Ukraine and claims that Ukrainians and Russians are one people. The question that arises is why this article has appeared now, probably because Russia is currently concentrating troops near the border with Ukraine. And according to intelligence reports, it's preparing to attack by the end of generally beginning of February. We all live in very interconnected world and only the spread of freedom make it safer. There is a civilization war between authoritarian model and the values of democracy. And Ukraine is one of the core bridgeheads of this war. I think that United States, together with its European allies, in this situation must now publicly articulate a package of serious comprehensive sanctions to be imposed in response to Russia's new aggression in order to raise the price for a potential attack. Also, the United States, together with its European allies, needs to develop a long-term strategy to support democracy and economic growth in Ukraine. Given the large number of democratic sitback around the world, we need to redouble our efforts to strengthen Ukraine's democratic transformation. Ukraine's success will have an inevitable impact on the entire region, where freedom in some countries is reduced to a prison cell size. I often mention the worlds of my colleagues, Russian human rights defenders. When I ask them what we can do to help them, they keep saying be successful. Thank you very much. Alessandro, thank you very much. We would like to turn now to Idayat from Nigeria. Idayat Hassan is the director for the Center of Democracy and Development. Idayat, over to you. Thank you very much, Alessandro. It's a honor to be speaking here. And what is very important to note that this is the longest stretch of democracy in Nigeria has actually experienced in over 61 years of its existence. We are talking about six electorate circle with the forthcoming elections during less than 14 months itself. And both currently, it's not just about the failure of democracy to deliver development to the people, but more about the raging conflict and insecurity pervading different parts of the entity called Nigeria. And importantly, there are lots of structural issues responsible for this. First and foremost is that of marginalization, both view and perceived. So we are talking about people feeling marginalized economically, politically, ethnically, socially on different basis in the country itself. And this has led to lots of non-state actors to all of a sudden evolve taking up arms against the state. Another very important factor closely linked to that will be the uneven handed of the Nigerian government. So one minute Boko Haram people are said to get amnesty for the Eastern security network in the, which is the secessionist movements, the arms part of the secessionist movements, IPO view in the Southeast do not even get a seat at the table to dialogue. So this is very difficult for people to be big. Then you are talking about a high level of poverty and exclusion in a country where more than 50% are young people and they feel and they see on daily basis that the political class are plundering the common world itself. This has allowed grievances to grow and translate into rebellion in the country. Now, while elections are important, and like I said earlier, we've had six elections. Six, these elections have also been a source of conflict, especially when results are disputed. And a very important one that comes here, of course, is the win attitude. And in reaction to it, protest movements is now becoming a very important thing in Nigeria when you see the young people frequently going onto the streets to protest as a means of civil disobedience. But while you talk about this protest, what we should note is that with each protest, it becomes more brutal, with more lives lost, successively, really. But all these violence we are talking about in Nigeria is not so new. They can actually be classified as repeat violence. So when you talk about the conflicts for secessionist agitation, which is leading to a lot of deaths in the Southeast part of the country, it evolves from the rested civil war between 1967 and 1970, and the refusal of any successive governments to bring closure to this in such a way that justice is seen to be done. The same for the banditry, which is now in the news more than Boko Haram. This is a repeat violence, with the last one being in 1972. The only thing that has actually changed is this kill and the numbers of actors involved in this violence conflict. And put together everything. You now have insecurity. You have more state actors all fighting. So Nigeria is not fighting one group like Boko Haram, all the Islamic state in the West African province, because it's pop enhanced against the ESN, the bandits, the just every group kidnapped us in a country. And when you zero everything, it goes back to the lack of justice. The every-handed security approach towards carbon-violent conflict itself, perceived marginalization, a broken justice system, where citizens only seek corruption and believe that justice delays is already justice denied, or there is even an impossibility to actually experience justice in this entity called Nigeria. Now, immediately today ask and deal with it. I think three things are very, very important that the US government can actually do for Nigeria at this point in time. One, of course, is ensuring that there is civilian oversight over security forces. How do we get more people involved in that? In such a way that we've, we prevent reciprocal radicalization, where more people will then keep picking up arms against the Nigerian state. The second issue is looking at the youth bulge, the poverty in the country. And same in the children, not even youths now, who are out of school and who lack health care system and jobs. Any response that the US will be having in its plan is one that targets this set of people to prevent violent conflict from becoming more aggravated in the future. And thirdly, and lastly, actually, our focus should not just be supporting elections work. It should actually be looking at the quality of democracy itself. And looking at the quality of democracy as a peace-building strategy and a conflict prevention one. We have to put all our conflict prevention framework into that one that makes democracy more enjoyment and deliver to the people to prevent a breakdown into Hanaki in the future. Thank you very much. Yeah, thank you. We're very pleased to turn now to Glenda Gloria in the Philippines. Glenda is the executive editor and co-founder of the exceptional news service, The Rockler. Glenda, over to you. Thank you. Good evening from Manila. Thank you for inviting me here. It is worth noting at the start that five months from now, the Philippines will be electing a new president to replace Rodrigo Deterte. His daughter, after all, is running for vice president and the daughter's presidential candidate. And who is at present topping election surveys is the son of the late dictator, Ferdinand Marcus. So to a large extent, at stake in the May 2022 elections is the 40-year-old democracy project in the Philippines, which started in 1986 when a People Power Revolution ousted the dictator, Marcus. I'd like to summarize the current situation through the lens, of course, of a journalist and then, and cite four major stumbling blocks to democracy as we now experience them. First is really the weak state accountability and continuing cultural continuity in the face of the crimes committed in the last six years under this regime. More than 20,000 people have been killed in the bloody Dargore and there is virtually executive capture of the criminal justice system. Law enforcement authorities who are behind these killings and attacks have not been held to account. In fact, the international community has shown more concern. The prosecutor's office of the International Criminal Court has launched an investigation into the bloody Dargore, but that investigation is getting lukewarm support from the government. Second would be what I would call the militarization of the peace process with the communist insurgents in my country. These weakened civilian voices at no other time since we ousted the dictator. There have been decades long effort to have a negotiated settlement with the communist insurgents, but this militarization of the peace process has allowed the military to bring the war beyond the battlefield, targeting civilians working in non-government organizations and various political parties. The third situation I would suppose is the weakening of the watchdog institutions, the media, civil society and human rights movements brought about by the erosion of public sphere through state-backed attacks and propaganda. Such attacks being enabled by technology and I think this would be our biggest stumbling block right now. The fourth would be outside Metro Manila and in the provinces. There's really a lack of rigorous oversight and transparency of social development projects in conflict areas, most especially in the Muslim South, where there is still a Muslim rebellion and where situations thrive that appeal to extremist ideology such as terrorism. And I think thinking both as a journalist and a citizen of a democracy under siege and under attack, I could think of probably three quick discussion points that we can later on expound on, what can be done. I think the biggest threat is really the manipulation of reality and social media, which we believe will have direct impact on the May 2022 presidential elections, which many of us believe will make or break for this country. The battle for truth after all is not just journalism's battle now. And so what we'd like to see is for civil society, NGOs, media organizations to come together in meaningful conversations that would help carve a path that is more sustainable and more optimistic than what we have now. Atrapper, for example, we have gone beyond exposing wrongdoing. As we speak, we have convened what we call the Hold the Line Coalition, which brings together lawyers, members of the academia, the NGOs and journalists, both to plot short-term and long-term plans to combat not just this information, but really to hold platforms who really control our information highway now to account. And last would be, I think this would come from the journalists in me. For journalists, we need to amplify each other. And I think what we would need is really support and encouragement for more collaborative work, such collaboration, not just within the Philippines or Southeast Asia, but with cross-border reporting in other parts of the country. I think this is very urgent because the business model and media, as we know, is dying and therefore what we would need is some space to grow again, independent media that has been attacked and that has really suffered tremendously under this regime. Thank you. Linda, thank you very much. We're pleased to turn to Farhad Aladin, who is the chair of the Iraq Advisory Council. Farhad, over to you. Thank you, Lisa. And thank you for the invitation to speak here in this distinguished panel. Talking about democracy in Iraq, maybe it's interesting in some way. Asking to establish a democratic state in the Middle East is a tough ask by any stretch of imagination. Having said that, Iraq have adopted the democracy very well. We have held five elections since 2005 and we had five handover, peaceful handover of power between one government to another. And interestingly enough, October 10 was the latest election where we are still working on, Iraq is still working on ratifying the results and getting into forming a new government and yet a new handover of power. But democracy in Iraq is not without its troubles, given that we live in a very troublesome region. And you have asked for looking into the drivers that really put stress on the democracy process and so on. So I'm going to stick to that rather than anything else. And I have identified the four different external and internal drivers that affects the process itself. Given that we are in a conflict zone and we have lived in many wars since 2003 starting with the Iraq liberation and what we call it the Gulf War and after that we had the Al-Qaeda terrorists taking over in some areas and all the conflict that followed. Then we had ISIS. Obviously ISIS with occupying three governments in Iraq was very tough and what followed in the ISIS war and that has created big divides in the society and we are still living with its aftermath dealing with the aftermath of the ISIS war and the atrocities they committed. A second one would be the U.S.-Iran conflict where Iraq has become an arena for that conflict in many ways. And given that both sides have a huge leverage over Iraq and Iraqi politics and each one pulling Iraq to its direction and that created big trouble for Iraq and its democracy and especially in the past where we see this conflict reflected in the pulls and push for in government formation where one party wants something and the other side wants something completely opposite and that was vividly displayed in 2018 in government formation. Thankfully this time around it looks like that they both have a hands length distance to this process until now and from our conversation with both sides that seem that they are not going to be diving into the same process this time again so that would be a really important factor in that point itself. Clearly the other thing that affects the process, the democracy process in Iraq is sectarianism. The Iraqi society due to all the conflicts that it lives through, we are now living in a sectarian society in general where we are divided among many sects and perhaps the most obvious three is the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish divide where based on religion and nationality and that has rooted down into the democracy process itself where now we see that we have Shia parties, Sunni parties and Kurdish parties and we don't have really a cross sectarian party or coalition where they could come down to participate in the process and get votes a Kurdish party will not get voted in the Arab area a Shia party will not get voted in the Sunni area and so on. There has been some attempt to break this sectarianism but with a limited or no success although it's very much present in the minds of the Iraqis and many of the Iraqi nationals believe this is a really not a healthy fact to have within the society and within the political process but nonetheless it is something that exists and need to be eradicated to and go to citizenship rather than sectarianism. Another driver that really puts a lot of pressure on the on the democracy process is corruption and mismanagement we have lived through various governments and the political process has been one of consensus every government that we have formed in the past been consensus among the political parties and this has resulted in total mismanagement in the infrastructure in reconstruction of Iraq after going through so many wars and obviously the ISIS war and all that and the corruption that also accompanied this process we have not been able to fully get rid of this although there are calls for reform and there are calls for fighting corruption and so on so that on its own contributes to a lot of money which is money from corruption money from embezzlement that channels through the democracy process in a way that many candidates are able to spend big amounts of money or many political parties who are benefiting from the corrupt system that existed now they are funneling back some of the money into the elections and then create even more leverage and more power for themselves in that process so it is something that we are looking into helping with that or the reform could help in terms of correcting this aspect but this is also the corruption and mismanagement and the elitism that created the process created affects the democracy process and the elections the positive aspect of the latest election that we have seen if I mention would be that the Iraqis now realize through the ballot books they can make change we have seen the protest movement in 2019 and resulted in the resignation of the government and those protestors took part in the latest election and they have won many many seats through either running as independent or as a political party that derives from the protest movement and now that encouraged the others because the protestors were divided between those boycotting the election and those who took part and now even those who boycotted the election are thinking to run in the next election and we will have a local council or provisional election next year many of them now saying that we will take part in the upcoming local elections because now they see the fruit of the democracy and the fruit of the process where you don't have to go through a revolution to make change but you can go through the ballot books to bring about change and change on the local level perhaps is an easier and better start to have so all in all in my opinion the democracy process works in Iraq it has its shortcomings here and there but we have managed successfully to adopt it and to work with it and hopefully it will continue in that way and thank you all right thank you we're going to now turn to a second round of questions and Alexandra since you went first we're going to come to you first with this second round we have two very interesting questions from our audience one of them picks up on a point that you raised about the pressure that Ukraine is under because of neighboring Russia and the question is how can you realistically expect to build and reinforce democratic institutions when your country is threatened every single day by the possibility of a major war a second question has to do with your very striking comments about the expectations you have from the US that the US will take the lead in putting together a package of sanctions on countries which are addressing your democracy and secondly the expectation that the US can invest in a long-term strategy that will help to grow your economy and at the same time build institutions now the question is can you really trust that the US will do that so very strong question it's an uncomfortable one but we'd be very interested in reflections on both of those over to you Thank you very much the first question I think that it's existential question but I will try to answer I am a human rights defender and since the beginning of the war I'm documenting war crimes and other serious human rights violations I spoke with people who survived from captivity it were men and women I spoke with the people who were beaten who were raped whose fingers were cut who were smashed into wooden boxes who was tortured with electricity whose eyes were pulled out with spoon so now in this war with Russia, with our neighbour we are fighting not only for our territories we are fighting for our values and for our democratic choice and for the principle that human rights and human is matter so how our allies and well developed democracies around the world can help us with long term strategy or with announcing package of sanctions and why we ask for such support Ukrainians will resist to Russians aggression and we don't want to transfer the responsibilities to our shoulders for sure Ukrainians will fighting for democracy and for freedom and for our independence but the problem is that this is a threat and this is a challenge which couldn't be solved in the national borders and that's why we need a reaction of international community a real interference in this situation if we look to Eurasia region we will see that authoritarian regime in our part of the world gains trade the new gray zone will appear and even in well developed democracies the populist movement openly questioned the universal standards of human rights and freedoms and this make us all in one boat and make us thinking together how we will overcome this challenge together as a human rights defender who documented war crimes in Ukraine and closely cooperated with human rights defender from Russia from Georgia from Moldova I had to admit that when we cooperated with our colleague from other countries we underline the several dozens of people who committed war crimes in Crimea in Donbas in Transnistria in Chechnya in Abkhazia and this means that Russia use the war like geopolitical instruments to obtain their geopolitical goal and this answer to the point that it's not only Ukrainian story if we will not stop the circle of impunity it will be only a matter of time which new gray zone in which country will appear thank you Otsander that was an extremely powerful example that you gave of the way in which the same networks of terror that appear in one country are being instrumentalized and appearing in many countries and the necessity of a coherent response across the democracies to respond to that thank you very much we would now like to turn to Idayat in Nigeria Idayat you said something that was just so striking right at the beginning of your intervention when you said in the history of my country this is the longest stretch of democracy that we've had and then you went on to list a whole number of factors which are putting this stretch of democracy at risk and you talked about the consistency of the government in the way that it deals with marginalized groups you talked about the cycles of violence that have been generated by first protests then the repression of those protests and then new protests you talked very importantly about the lack of civilian oversight over security institutions and if I remember well you characterized the justice system as a whole as being nearly broken if you look at that list of all of the pressures on Nigerian democracy and then you call for a coherent peace building strategy that addresses though the immediate question that comes up is how are you going to prioritize all of the challenges that you're facing of the many things that you describe what are the things that need to be reformed and changed first over to you thank you very much it's simple and actually the simplest is about trust building trust building between the government and the government at this point in time there is a total breakdown of trust and it's even intergenerational so the young people who form who are the bulk of the citizens in this country do not trust the government do not even trust the old ones older generations at every decrease there is this divide how do we rebuild trust and that would be the work of the Nigerian government and there are different ways of actually doing that I think that it's now time for a dialogue to happen a dialogue at all levels between the government and the government that's one then two again it will have to be democracy delivering developments that will be one in particular security to citizens to avoid the situation like we have seen in Guinea and in Mali of the military takeover those countries are not exclusively different from Nigeria or any other country in Africa they have the same problems and where people with the citizens themselves are the people who should yearn for democracy but if they have to fight if they have to take care if they have to take up arms to protect themselves with those fights in the states definitely they will welcome a coup d'etat if it happens so it's about resourcing it's about oversight it's about knowing that when there are actually conflicts in our countries which is also shown itself up in most of Africa with the COVID-19 pandemic with the enforcement of different COVID regulations measures that an every-handed security approach towards carving violent conflicts ends up in radicalizing the people and this is where the oversight comes in really in itself how do we ensure that it is not just America that is oversighting these people they are not the one releasing the reports for us to use given capacity to civil society organization to grassroots movement to using those kind of networks like Yali which they have actually created is about having the citizens themselves empowering the citizens to demand for democracy because the quality of citizenship will determine the quality of governance they will actually expect themselves they will enjoy themselves so we have to build the citizens and Uncle Sam will again have to come back and be who it is without pushing responsibility to other people it's not because Africans actually want Uncle Sam to do all these things for us it is generally based on the fact that the only thing the US hold against other system even with the flaws in its own democracy itself is the democratic credentials its own democratic credentials that is all what we look at generally could have happened but we saw that in spite of that with endurment institution it felt as a boa against ensuring that authoritarianism never to hold in the united states that's an extremely powerful argument for broadening the approach it's not just the democratic governments help other democratic governments it's that the peoples of a democracy help the peoples of other democracies and that there is a constant focus in all of the peace building strategies in all of the pro-democracy movements to help the civil societies and the citizens of every other democratic country so they can do what's necessary to hold their own governments accountable it's a very powerful argument we're going to turn now to Glenda in the Philippines and Glenda it was I mean when you talked about the executive capture your country and the way that that capture has accelerated the militarization of public order has accelerated the use of the security apparatus for repressive means only the way that information is being manipulated by forces which are not transparent and very difficult to regulate you know I think all of us know and honor the work that you do realizing that more journalists are being killed in the Philippines than anywhere else in the world and it's in that vein that we would be particularly interested in your reflections on the responsibilities what organizations like yours can do in order to keep promoting the democratic practice even though you are doing so under conditions of nearly unimaginable repression Glenda over to you Hi Lisa really we have the one of the biggest reasons why Rappler has survived the derde if I may say that is precisely our realization and recognition of the fact that this battle for democracy and for the truth it's not journalism's battle alone and therefore even as we speak and we try to engage our colleagues in the media not just in the Philippines but out of the Philippines that for journalism to regain its public space in the public sphere it really has to engage communities of action it really has to go out of its way to help educate people beyond publishing stories and beyond telling the stories of the nation is really engaging communities and networking with the academe with the Filipino youth you know we've gone out of our way to hold forums public advocacy outside just to talk about this information because when you live with this information for six years this information becomes a reality and that reality will reshape our future and therefore that's the kind of engagement that we want and what we hope other journalists would recognize as a valuable contribution to democracy is to really engage non-journalistic sectors who are also fellow democracy frontliners as you may see Glenda thank you Glenda can we ask do you feel that other journalists around the world are with you in that are you getting the kind of support that you would hope and expect the need well it's far from ideal I think each country has its own unique problems vis-a-vis its profession we're in a way we're fortunate that we have a history of democracy project in the Philippines the Philippine media has always been an activist media it's always taken pride in its role in transitions from dictatorships to democracy other countries don't have the same experience but the effort there is really has to be something international and the support has to come from outside the reason Rappler one of the reasons Rappler has also survived the attacks is precisely the global spotlight on us and without the global spotlight there would have been no support that only the global community could give in certain situations such as when your president closes access to other channels of grievances such as when your president wants to shut you down or controls congress and tells congress to end the franchise of the country's TV network it's difficult but I think it's far from ideal but I think we're headed there towards more collaborative effort that is in other parts of the world Linda thank you Farhad we'd like to reflect with you on several of the points that you raised in your very interesting comments you talked about being an 18 year old democracy and how much progress has been made in the 18 years including the glowing recognition the change is something which can be brought about through engagement with electoral processes through the ballot but what was very very interesting about your presentation was your honesty and saying look my country my democracy right now is in many ways a proxy battlefield between a neighboring very powerful force and the United States and that our ability to develop democratically is shaped by that context if you allow us we'd like your reflections on what you would like these two powers to do that would give you more democratic space to develop the democracy in Iraq as the people of the country want. Yes certainly keeping Iraq out of that conflict is key I mean Iran US conflict is not only about Iraq it's much bigger much bigger domain where it spans to more or less the entire Middle East region and certainly Lebanon and Gulf and then you have Yemen and Lebanon and so on so it's a much wider issue as well as the atomic SAGA and JCPOA and so on so Iraq is probably a small part of it however Iraq has become an arena and what we asked both sides is really keep Iraq out of this conflict where whatever you are engaged in Iraq should be about peace we have asked the Americans many times over you shouldn't look at us through the prism of Iran so your policy about Iran should not be reflecting on whatever you do in Iraq and I must admit that lately and especially with the new administration this is nearly entirely shifted where now they have Iraq policy as Iraq policy rather than Iraq Iran policy so we're glad about that at the same time the United States engaged with Iraq with the strategic dialogue what I would like to see is really shift US policy to shift from military more to investment education health and so on there are so many areas where United States could help Iraq to develop and it could very well help its democracy I mean you have asked to expand on that in the brief we got and I would say United States could easily the government support organizations like yourselves USIP also the good work that organizations like NDI and RII did during these elections where they engaged with the candidates they engage in the process they train new candidates and provided healthy support within the democratic process by really hiring increasing the education level of the of the candidates into how to organize campaign how to deliver messages how to use the media and so on so this is really great work also engaging and supporting the international effort like the UNAMI and the funds that United States provided and the passing of the Security Council decision to support the Iraq election United States played a big role in that and obviously this is important to continue so these are all really in a way I would say practical steps that the United States could take to help Iraq and its democratic process to prosper all right thank you Alexandra you said something very interesting about how Putin describes your country as not a real country as being divided we know that for seven years there's been a terrible conflict in Donbas and that part of the justification which Russia has given is to say look this is a divided country and the people in Donbas really want to be with us not with Ukraine we'd be very interested in your reflections on the world that that conflict has played in shaping the national identity in Ukraine and shaping democratic processes Alexandra over to you thank you very much I would like to stress your attention that the head of a Russian army Gerasimov told that the new weapon of army is the battle of narratives so symbolical things the battle of different so called truths become even more important than military actions and that's why when we speak about Russian perspective on Ukraine we speak about Russian propaganda they use it very perfectly we will see the sociological pool inside Russia in 2014 94% of Russians supported occupation of Crimea because it was presented like peaceful reunion of peninsula and the Russian television didn't show the peaceful demonstration for Ukrainian sovereignty the Russian television didn't show kidnapping and abduction of Crimean Tatars who tried peacefully resist occupation and other things which is going on on peninsula and which we and my colleagues who have worked as a mobile group on peninsula on the time see on our own eyes also if we look to the impact of Russian propaganda even to Russians itself that year 2014 72% of Russia told that they are able to war for war with Ukraine and this is dramatic number of percentage of neighbor people who are ready to fight with Ukraine the said joke on that moment was that Russia have already invades Ukraine and they are in the war but don't understand it so if Russia can and Kremlin because of liquidation any independent media and channels and instrumentalized Russian history like a weapon can impose a narrative to Russians to do the same on Ukrainian land and not only in Ukraine we see the Russian propaganda in western countries in EU in US and I would like to conclude that I think that it's okay for democracy to have different point of view that it's okay for democracy to have different religions it's okay for democracy to have different ideological concept but it's okay for democracy to have a general frame of peaceful recognition of respect to a different point of view of using the law to resolve different conflict if it's appear and that's why this division is artificially created division when we speak about different language different religion or different ideological concept we speak about democracy itself thank you very well said and it leads us far out if we could come straight back to you because one of the arguments that you made was that politics in Iraq continue to be shaped by sectarianism and by a very clear sense of cultural and identity and purpose and resources that are linked to your religious community can you see a way in Iraq where political movements can be developed out from that away from that towards something that's more universal and cuts across different religious and ethnic communities or over to you thank you I would say in the short term maybe not but in the long term yes there are more and more movements and political parties who are definitely looking into this and trying to do it we have had examples of selection where the Kurdistan Democratic Party had candidates in Anbar province for example they had in Karbala and certainly have winning candidates in Mosul for example where they are the candidates in Arab running on the KDP list the same thing has happened in the past but not a major success the other way where the Anarap Party running Kansas and Kurdistan where it is totally locked for the Kurdish parties maybe on the political party level is not so easy but it may be an easier option would be to have cross sectarian coalition where they run on the same platform but different parties and there was an attempt by the Hikmah leader he tried twice now tried to create a pan-Iraqi coalition but unfortunately it didn't succeed so in many ways I would say Iraqis are more aware of sectarianism being a hindrance being an obstacle in the way of developing the country and sometimes is a big threat and we have seen it in the past we have seen Kurdish Arab in a way Kurdish movements fighting the government and then we have seen the sectarian conflict and killing in the back in 2006 and 7 where it became very strong and now it's a lot less as Iraqis really more and more aware of the threat that sectarianism brings so hopefully in the future we will have it that we will have cross Iraq cross sectarian party of coalition Bara thank you Idiat you raised a very interesting point you said if we're really talking about democracy it's not just about elections and there was a very gentle implication that many other sister democracies in the world are talking about solidarity with other democratic countries that's the primary focus and you made an argument that it's hard to to win allegiance and confidence in democracies if the security forces are predatory and if there aren't services being delivered and if there aren't jobs bearing all of that in mind what would you like to see the US do that doesn't just focus on elections that takes the broader approach to democratic development that you've suggested thank you very much I think what is very important is that election is still the beginning it's just one of those things that is happening now for people to tick the books and claim to be liberal democracy but democracy itself has got its futures and one of the most fundamental is those rights for instance what are we doing to ensure that the rights to life, the rights to food or puts the one for instance that is enshrined in chapter 4 of the Nigerian constitution implemented now when we go away from rights and food or infrastructure which democracy claim that they provide any type or form of government can actually provide infrastructures to the people but rights is something that cannot be taken away that's what really symbolizes democracy to the people that's what guides the demand for democracy and here in Africa there are some things that are very very important a rule of law itself most of our countries are governed as a rule by law system not the rule of law how will Uncle Sam help in terms of guiding towards rule of law because once we have it the laws in book are being implemented then half of these problems would actually be solved because when we look at all what are the why are what are the grievances of the people it's closely related to it and they are in our law books they are provided for in different structures but they are not actually being implemented justice is very important justice delayed is justice denied most of the root causes of conflict that is plaguing the world presently as it got its roots in injustice a lack of justice system that works for the poor justice itself even accountability for all the monies that are actually being stolen so we have to focus on justice and accountability and when we talk about justice and accountability it's not just training judges it's not just providing facilities it's ensuring that the sanctions regime also comes in but sanctions like my colleague earlier spoke about should target directly the people who are benefitting from this disorder not the one that actually affects the citizens itself so how much do we use the magnesium law in the United States to attach to the to all the look of corruption again I've already spoken about the basics which is people to people which is empowerment I think there are some things we cannot forego then when it comes to security sector has got a very good opportunity it's not the focus should be on curriculum development with the training schools where some of these issues and challenges can be rightly invite in there during training it's not about having flint talk or having some of these trainings which will benefit just some few sets of people that is becoming counterproductive and it's also in a country or in a world where this information is the other now all those beneficiaries if you ask me in West Africa what we basically say is that who is the leader the junta leader in Mali the junta leader in Guinea they were all trained by the US and that is gaining ground and currency but if you train all the soldiers you develop or curriculum you collaborate it means that civil military relationship will actually be better it will be factored in and we are changing norms such that collective approach more than focus on individuals in security sector reform yeah thank you and it's important and humbling reminder to the US about the implications of the way in which we train security forces abroad and if we do that badly what the consequences are that leads us to a final set of comments and reflections at the end of our session and we'd like to ask each of our colleagues Glenda will start with you if we may President Biden has said that a commitment to democracy is one of the hallmarks of his foreign policy and his security policy as the president of the United States he is holding the first set of events linked to what will be a year long set of discussions and events focused on promoting democracy everywhere Glenda what is your expectation for this year long process of a summit and what do you most want to see out of it starting with you Glenda my expectation for the summit is our two things first is really the focus on how to clean up the information ecosystem that impacts not just journalists but activists, citizens and all democracy frontliners second is for this kind of summit to be institutionalized in very specific countries that are under siege and for that for those agreements if any to be cascaded down to those countries and be reflected in the way citizens are protected in the way media should be supported especially those under attack Glenda thank you Alexandra your expectations for the summit I want to say that our world are rapidly changing and nobody knows the future but there are a lot of things which is still is stable and have no limitation of national border and I really expect that this summit will remind about such kind of things solidarity, human dignity and freedom very well said Farhad your expectation well I have a hope rather than expectation, hopefully that the conflict and the rhetoric that is used among these leaders to be a lot less and more focus on dialogue and cooperation than anything else because whatever they say and whatever they do reflects directly especially on the third world country, especially in our region in the Middle East and have negative or positive effects so hopefully that they will come out in agreement and in a united wording of whatever or at least they can put their differences on hold for the time being with all the challenges facing the world with the pandemic economic crisis and everything else Farhad, thank you and finally Idia your expectations, what do you hope for? I think I'm quite hopeful of this summit and I think first and foremost it's what is actually putting out to the people that democracy is not even that it actually has got to be nurtured and that at the end of this summit we would have the leaders coming out that yes democracy is actually encountering challenges but this is a new beginning to foster democracy to foster development for the people of the world thank you when the US Institute of Peace decided to hold this side event ahead of the summit for democracy one of the things that we wanted to do was to celebrate the activists and the civil society leaders in democracies across the world who every single day fight for democracy it's a way that we can salute Alexandra in Ukraine Idia in Nigeria Glenda in the Philippines Farhad in Iraq and by saluting you to salute everyone across the world who knows this is the best form of government and who is prepared every day in every way to make it a reality we want to thank all of you for being with us and everyone who has joined us for this discussion thank you thank you thank you for the invite and thanks for hosting us thank you very much to Agnesty