with a remarkable set of speakers, but also a very tight schedule, which is why I would kindly ask all of today's panelists to keep their remarks as succinct as possible, and I will do my best to remind you of this. Before we start, allow me to say only a few words about Almedalen and the symbolic value it carries for democracy, particularly here in Sweden. This is an event which, in many ways, is anchored in foundational principles of democracy, such as participation, representation, and accountability. Almedalen is the name of a place, a meadow, to be precise, in the beautiful medieval city of Visby on the island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. It was there that more than 50 years ago, the late Swedish Prime Minister, Olof Palmyk, started at the political leaders to have a dialogue directly with citizens, exchanging ideas and answering questions. The simple but fundamental idea of bringing democracy closer to the people was the starting point to what has by now become one of the main political events in Sweden with hundreds of seminars, discussions, and political events taking place during one week on a yearly basis in Almedalen. And here I want to emphasize the fact that it's animal because it is not just before elections that politicians, civil society organizations, academia, and the private sector meet in Almedalen to discuss, debate, and discover new ideas, but every year. Every year, everyone who comes to this modern day agorah can meet and talk to political leaders, business executives, civil society representatives, or well-known journalists on an equal footing in the streets, in the cafes, or in one of the menu seminar venues. Of course, the current pandemic has meant that this year the event is held virtually, but even so, if there's anything that I believe democracy needs more of, it's exactly this kind of exchange. An honest attempt to debate the solutions to the problems that we all face, big or small, simple or difficult, acute or longstanding. We need a place, even a virtual one, where citizens can hold their representatives to account, where civil society actors can amplify their voices, where solutions and partnerships are forged, where no one's voice is louder and no one's ideas are silenced. Democracy, as we know, is facing severe headwinds today, with racing, authoritarianism, polarization, inequality, disinformation, and persistent corruption amongst its biggest challenges. All of them made worse by the pandemic.  If democracies are not able to generate solutions in the face of an existential threat for humankind, they don't deserve a place under the sun. It is incumbent upon us to make sure that they deserve such a place. This task is much bigger than any of us. This is why this event matters, because it brings together leading politicians, academics, philanthropists, thought leaders, and youth representatives to discuss the current state and the future of democracy, and how we can revitalize it for the next generation. With this, I have the pleasure of introducing our first eminent speaker of the day, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Ms. Anne Lindey, for her introductory remarks. Minister Lindey, it's a pleasure to see you. You have the floor. Thank you very much, Kevin, and thank you for your, an idea, a relentless work for democracy. Distinguished speakers and participants, I'm delighted to join you here today at Almedal and Democracy Summit. I'm just back, just 20 minutes ago, from the Swedish parliament, where there was a vote for the prime minister. And I'm very happy to see that the election is giving our prime minister the way back. So on Friday, there will be a new government. I will continue as foreign minister. I will no longer be a caretaker minister. And this was really, really the blossom of democracy, a full house in the parliament. Everybody's voting. Everybody is doing their best to argue for their sake. I'm on the side that is happy now, but this is the way democracy goes. Not everybody's happy for all votes. I look forward to listening, especially to Honourable Emanuele Norbreit. And I have to say, I have had the honour to be at the same activity as her on several occasions, and it's always so inspiring, but to listen and to read her books. Actually, in less than an hour, I have to run to the plane to go to Kosovo for a meeting on women, peace and security with the OSCE field mission and a lot of women.  So it's feel like there is a special link today. I'm so happy about that. I would also like to take the organizers for this event and it's at the Almedalen Week that is normally held on the island of Gotland. And now it's virtually, but it's still possible to have these events. All of us here today are, of course, well aware of the current challenges to democracy around the world, ranging from shrinking space for civil society to violation of human rights. And I'm undermining the rule of law. For this reason, the discussion on how to revitalize democracy is fundamentally about discussing why democracy is the most inclusive and sustainable form of government. Democracy means the freedom to think, to speak, to love who you want. Democracy enables you to make your voice heard and gives you the right to influence and demand accountability. Democracy provides hope and the condition to shape a common future in a safe and peaceful way. However, democracy is not something that can be taken for granted. It requires continuous work and it's worth protecting every day. This year, Sweden celebrates 100 years of democracy. In September, 1921, both women and men were allowed to vote in election to the Swedish parliament, the Swedish rickster for the first time. Through our National Democracy Initiative, Drive for Democracy, the Swedish government has wanted to strengthen the conditions for persons to be able to actively participate in democracy and increase the resilience of democracy. It is therefore quite fitting to convene this discussion today on the margins of the Swedish Almedalen Week. The very idea behind the Almedalen Wars to create a democratic meeting place and the place for dialogue and exchange for everyone to discuss political and societal issues. It is a unique space where politicians participate in discussion directly where the constituents openly and transparently discussing policy issues are key aspects to making democracy work. We believe that through an open dialogue, democracy is nurtured and advanced. As part of the Swedish Foreign Policy Initiative, Drive for Democracy, so-called democracy talks have been hosted by our embassies all over the world. These have enabled dialogue and exchange between civil society and grassroots organizations, government representatives, and multilateral organization, creating an inclusive space where democracy is discussed, developed, and improved. I also would like to address an important point when we are talking about revitalizing democracy. Achieving gender equality and ensuring full enjoyment of human rights for all women and girls lie at the heart of a functioning democracy. There is no question that gender equality strengthens democracy. And it's more clear than ever that sustainable peace, security, and development is impossible when half of the world's population is excluded. Turning to the role of information in revitalizing democracy, a just and democratic society requires good conditions for everyone to participate and influence public decisions that have an impact on their lives. Thus, access to information is a key ingredient in a successful democracy. It is with access to information that people can make well-informed choices on issues that will affect their lives and access to trustworthy information serve as a tool for ensuring accountability for democratic institutions in a society. To conclude, we believe that there is a conversation taking place at a forum such as this one about all type of issues, small or large, are all part of a functioning democracy where everyone has the right to raise their voice, their concern, their thoughts and ideas and where we can reach solutions to our common problems together. In a time where democratic principles are being threatened and questioned, I believe that this type of space is exactly what all of us need. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Minister Linde. We truly appreciate Sweden's support and global leadership when it comes to putting democracy and human rights at the forefront of its foreign policy agenda. I wish many other countries follow your example. It is sorely needed. Now, the next speaker doesn't really require any introduction or perhaps it is that any introduction will fail to do justice to her remarkable life and stellar career. She has not only changed the course of world politics but also transformed the lives of many individuals through her tireless dedication to public service, unwavering integrity and devotion to the causes that summon us here. She's a role model for women and men alike, for people my age and my daughter's age. We're truly honored to have with us today the first woman ever to hold the office of Secretary of State in the United States and current chair of the National Democratic Institute, the fatigable Maulana Albright. Madam Secretary, Dr. Albright, a warm welcome. The floor is yours. Well, thank you, Kevin Custis and Laura for that very kind and generous introduction and for your leadership of one of the world's great democracy organizations, international idea. I'm delighted to be able to participate in this special democracy summit and I wanna thank the organizers both for inviting me and for putting together a truly remarkable program. And I'm especially honored to be following Foreign Minister Anlind, a friend who embodies Sweden's value-based approach to foreign policy. And please on your trip to Kosovo, give my best to all our friends. And I'm very glad that you keep working on this and I'm delighted that you're staying in your role as foreign minister. Under your leadership, Sweden has remained one of the great global champions of democracy and women's empowerment. And just last month, I had the opportunity to participate in a National Democratic Institute program supported by the Swedish government, which brings together female political leaders in North Macedonia to exchange best practices, build networks and acquire the skills they need. It was incredible to be able to engage these women in a conversation about their aspirations for the future and to see them flourishing in a country where democracy is still establishing roots. None of this would have been possible without the wise investment Sweden has made in engaging historically marginalized groups. So I welcome this summit's focus on inclusion as one of the key mechanisms for revitalizing democracy. The themes of inclusion and renewal are ones I would like to pick up on today because they capture the spirit that will be essential for our work to advance democracy in 2021 and beyond. And that's because even as the world's leading democracies focus on ending the pandemic and on rebuilding our economies, we also need to be laying the groundwork to emerge from this experience with a new commitment to freedom and justice worldwide. During this most harrowing of years, I have been asked whether I'm an optimist or a pessimist. I reply that I'm an optimist who worries a lot. I worry because of the obvious signs of freedom's decline around the world, including the unwelcome return of hyper nationalism and the aggressive efforts by autocrats, including some that have even been elected through democratic means and they are undermining the rule of law. But as we begin a day of discussions on democracy, I also find plenty of reasons for optimism. And I would begin with the welcome changes that have taken place here in Washington, where now we have a president who understands the importance of defending the rule of law at home and working with our friends and partners to support democracy abroad. Now I've known President Biden for many years and I worked with him closely when I was in the government and he served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And by the way, he really was instrumental in what we were able to do in the Balkans. Since taking office, he has put democratic renewal at the center of his domestic and international agenda. He understands that in this era, the distinction between domestic and foreign policy has blurred and each must reinforce the other. He also believes to quote from his interim national security guidance that, and the quote, democracy holds the key to freedom, prosperity, peace and dignity, unquote. As a series of summits last month in Europe, President Biden made clear that his goal is to prove that democracies can still deliver for their citizens. Together with leaders from across the democratic world, he announced a bold series of initiatives on global health, infrastructure and sustainable development that will help support a strong and inclusive recovery. These initiatives recognize that to endure, the recovery must harness the contributions of many and yield dividends for all. And it must also achieve balance by protecting the benefits of globalization, brings while recognizing the need for countries to protect their health, their security and their values. There remains a danger, of course, that we may fail to achieve that balance. Instead of highlighting the need for global teamwork and every nation for itself approach, could take holds on matters such as trade, migration, climate change, the regulation of technology and more. But as we emerge from the pandemic, my hope is that citizens everywhere recognize that to thrive, people of all nations must combine strengths. For while the perils facing the world are immense, there's hardly any that cannot be eased through joint action by the world's democracies. As one of the architects of the international system and as a country that prioritizes both democracy and diplomacy, Sweden can help foster the kind of cooperation we need. When I was secretary of state, I helped to launch what we call the community of democracies, an organization which was subsequently led for many years by Maria Eissner of Sweden. And we were committed to the idea that democratic governments should assist each other in sharing best practices. The time is right to revive that sense of solidarity. And as President Biden has proposed to do with his summit for democracy. The world's democracies, including the United States and Sweden, must strengthen liberty's cause through the employment of every tool, including bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, the carrots of trade and aid, the sticks of sanctions, and the enforcement of the rule of law and partnerships with advocacy groups and the private sector. We must also apply the lessons we've already learned about the need for steady work, patience, and inclusive approach. And such an approach is essential because there is a demographic transformation taking place across the world as the youth population surges and women fight for greater empowerment. Our support for democracy must include these critical groups, women and youth, in order to harness the opportunities of the future. I was struck recently by an article in the Financial Times which describes the struggle taking place throughout Africa as one of youth against gerryantocracy. It noted that the median age in Africa is 19.7 years compared to 42.5 years in Europe and 48 in Japan. But the average age of Africa's leaders is 62. And this discrepancy has opened an ever-widening gap between governments in countries such as Uganda and restive youth populations that are demanding jobs and insisting on having a voice in their future. In every region of the world, youth are among those most deeply affected by the economic devastation caused by the virus, by the catastrophic consequences of climate change, and by the corrosive effects of corruption. They are also the group that is best poised to actually address these challenges because they are attuned to the potential of new technology and innovative solutions. Organizations in countries that support democracy, including the United States and Sweden, need to focus more on harnessing this opportunity by creating political and civic space for young people. As the National Democratic Institute is seeking to do through what we call Speak Youth to Power program. And I'm very pleased to see that the international youth think tank is cosponsoring today's summit. We need to ensure that democracies are reaching a young audience through the employment of new tools and digital platforms and a focus on issues that matter, such as environmental protection. We need to especially work to reach marginalized groups, including ethnic minorities and LGBTQ communities. We need to find ways to help democracy deliver for youth by encouraging entrepreneurship and fighting the corruption that keeps the old elites in power. Finally, we need to push back on efforts by illiberal forces in countries such as Hungary to indoctrinate their young populations and limit academic freedom. I have observed that there is hardly ever an internet inspirational speech that does not invoke the American poet Robert Frost. Lately, my favorite quote is, the older I get, the younger are my teachers. And I'm constantly impressed by the young people I encounter in my classes at Georgetown University and at democracy conference around the world. We have much to gain by investing in them and nothing to lose. We face a similar imperative when it comes to women who have the most to benefit from democracy's success since they represent more than half the population. The Generation Equality Forum, which met last week in Paris, was a historic opportunity to galvanize the global community around the goal of achieving gender equality by 2030. I was pleased that both the United States and Sweden played a critical role in the success of that conference with more than $40 billion in new resources announced to help advance the cause of women's empowerment. But I think Foreign Minister Linda and others who are devoted to the cause of women would say and have said that we are still far from reaching our goals and that even in places where progress has been made, there are fears that it will be rolled back, which is why your trip to Kosovo is so important. No country, however, at this moment concerns me more in this regard than Afghanistan. Where the past 20 years, women went from being virtually erased to becoming police women and teachers and public officials, mayors and entrepreneurs. As the United States military and its allies exit Afghanistan, many fear that the advance of the Taliban could threaten all this progress. We need to be clear that peace cannot be made on the back of Afghan women. Their protection must be a top priority of the international community. And I will continue to call for that in the weeks and months ahead, together with former and current women leaders from around the world. I had earlier said that I'm an optimist who worries a lot. And one of the reasons I am optimistic is that I do believe in the ability of people to learn from history and to avoid repeating past mistakes. So let me leave you today on a hopeful note. Democracy is fragile, but it is also resilient. And both the United States and Sweden have an abiding interest in seeing democracy renew itself and flourish, not only in our countries, but around the world. So together, let us make the most of the opportunity to strengthen our bonds, and they are by serve justice, defend freedom and support the dignity and rights of every human being. My friends, I thank you again for inviting me to share my thoughts and I wish you all the best in the next month and for many years to come. And I certainly wore the right colors today to give this talk with you, my very good friends. Thank you very, very much. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary, for this truly important and inspiring message and for highlighting the sense of urgency, the spirit of self-reflection and inclusion and the concerted global actions that are needed if we are to defend and revitalize democracy. In many ways, your analysis is very much in line with the trends that we have been observing, including our global analysis of the state of democracy. As you may know, International IDEA has a substantive work stream dedicated to measuring and analyzing how democracy is faring in over 160 countries around the world, based on a vast amount of data and a very robust conceptual framework. And based on this data, we produce policy brief recommendations every two years and a larger report linked to a specific theme. Our next report, which is due to come out in November, will look at the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, but we would like to give you, already now, a glimpse into some of the key findings and trends that we have been observing. To this end, I would now like to give the floor to my dear colleague and friend, Dr. Annika Silva Leander, who has managed the team working on the Global State of Democracy Initiative, and is also the main author of the report. Annika, please go ahead. Welcome. Thank you very much. Let me share my screen with you. There we go. So thank you to all of you for this opportunity to present some of the highlights from the forthcoming Global State of Democracy report that, as our Secretary General said, is coming out in November this year. Our Global State of Democracy report looks at democratic trends, both at global and at regional level across all regions of the world, but it doesn't just diagnose democracy and how it's faring, but it's also trying to provide policy recommendations based on technical assistance and lessons learned from the ground where our idea has a regional presence. Our Global State of Democracy report, our analysis comes out every year since 2017, the first report was produced thanks to the generous support of the government of Sweden, and it's underpinned by three main data sources. The first one is the Global State of Democracy Indices, which is a statistical data set on democratic quality, covering now 165 countries in the world since 1975. It aggregates data and indicators from a number of different data sets. A large part of those come from Wiedem Institute at the University of Gothenburg. The second data source is the COVID-19 Global Monitor on Democracy and Human Rights, which since the beginning of the pandemic is a tracker implemented by idea that tracks and monitors the democracy and human rights impacts of the measures to curb the pandemic throughout the world in 165 countries as well. And the third data source is qualitative country case data analysis carried out by ideas, regional staff, based in our country offices, looking at democratic developments on the ground in different countries of the world. All this analysis is based on ideas, conceptual framework of democracy that our Secretary-General referred to. You see it here in the circle, emanating from the two core principles of democracy, popular control over popular decision-making and political equality in the exercise of that control. We think that healthy democracies should rest on five core pillars. Representative governments as the fundamental pillar of course, elected through free and fair elections, but that's not sufficient for healthy democracies. We also need the respect for fundamental rights, access to justice, respect for civil liberties across social groups and social rights and equality, access to basic welfare, health and education as well as gender equality. We also need institutions to check government power. We need it through independent judiciaries. We need it through effective parliaments and we need it through free media. We also need strong state capacities to underpin democratic health democracies. We need impartial administrations that are absent from corruption and that predictably enforce policies and laws. And then we need citizens, engaged citizens that participate in political processes both formally through elections at national and local level but also civil society. Now, in terms of some of the key preliminary findings and I won't be able to go into everything but I'll just give you some highlights. The first one and the first key finding and I'll start with the challenges because they outnumber the opportunities, unfortunately at this critical moment in time. What we're seeing is not just that the world is turning less democratic, it's also turning more authoritarian. And what you're seeing here on this graph is in the green bars, the number of countries that are moving in a democratic direction since 1975. The red bars are looking at the countries that are moving in an authoritarian direction and the dark red bars shows the years in which the number of countries moving in an authoritarian direction outnumber those moving in a democratic direction. As you can see here on this graph, since 2015, every single year since then, the number of countries moving in an authoritarian direction sub outnumber those moving in a democratic direction. Twice as many have moved authoritarian than democratic, 18 versus six. And as you can see where this historical time span, it's only one other moment in time where we see the same phenomenon. It was after the 2007, 2008 financial crisis. But this crisis that we're seeing now is more severe because it's longer lasting. The pandemic has pushed this trend into the fifth consecutive year. And what is more worrisome is that the pandemic, which already implies restrictions on democratic rights in a number of contexts and using the pandemic as a justification for silence and dissent, is taking place in an already very challenged democratic context. That wasn't the case with the 2007, 2008 financial crisis. The democratic crisis that we saw there emerged as a result of that financial crisis. Now, what are we talking about here? And what countries are we talking about? We're talking before the pandemic of a number of countries that saw a closing democratic space. For example, in Latin America, Honduras, Bolivia, that saw irregularities in their electoral processes. We saw one of the beacons of democracy in Africa, for example, that turned into a hybrid regime because the level playing field for opposition wasn't there anymore. What we've seen during the pandemic is stalling and challenging democratization processes that looked promising prior to the pandemic and that have been severely challenged during the pandemic. In some cases, it's not been because necessarily of the pandemic. It's been sometimes linked to conflict in Ethiopia, for example, we had seen a democratic opening that looked promising prior to the pandemic with democratic elections scheduled for 2020. They had to be postponed because of the pandemic. They were held a couple of weeks ago in less than ideal circumstances with a large part of the population disenfranchised and a level playing field for opposition parties. That's just one of the cases. Armenia, Malaysia, also other countries that had started opening their democratic systems prior to the pandemic have been severely challenged during the pandemic, either because of external conflict in the case of Armenia and Malaysia because of the state of emergency forcing the shutdown of the parliament. Now, we've also seen in Africa an increase in the number of military crews. And we thought that that was an authoritarian tactic from the past and we've seen it reemerging in Africa but also in Asia. We've seen Mali suffering two military crews in the last year, Myanmar early this year and a number of other cases, Niger, Chad, et cetera. Now, the other concerning trend that we are seeing is rising authoritarianism in democracies. And that is a very concerning development. Secretary Madeline Albright referred to that already because it's a new phenomenon. It's a new hybrid breed. Democratically elected governments through high levels of electoral support at least initially that once empowered dismantle the democratic institutions and rule of law that make up for healthy democracies. And they clamp down on civil liberties and shut down civic space. And this is very concerning because we're seeing this affecting older democracies, the US until 2020. We see it also in India, but also third wave democracies that we thought were consolidated. And three of them are in the European Union, Poland, Hungary and most recently Slovenia that has the presidency of the European Union. We've seen it also in Philippines and Brazil. And we've seen countries that have turned so undemocratic and authoritarian that they can no longer be considered democracies. But those breakdown processes happen gradually over time. Venezuela, Nicaragua, Russia, all countries that have gone through similar processes. And we need to be better at detecting those countries before it happens. Two countries that are at risk of backsliding that we can see in our data and through the developments on the ground is Sri Lanka and El Salvador. Now, backsliding also has consequences not just for checks on government, for rule of law and for civil liberties, but also for gender equality. Often backsliding involves backlash against gender equality and attacks on sexual minorities. And that's also very worrisome. And our current system are not designed, neither the European Union nor older democracies to address this phenomenon. The European Union didn't consider the possibility of member states that would break down in their democratic values and institutions. And a lot of older democracies have loopholes in their constitution because they just never consider the possibility that they could be faced with an authoritarian threat. So the backsliding democracies that we're seeing in the world right now, these seven countries that I mentioned, they're large. They're one of the largest economies in the world. So that is worrisome on one hand because they have economic clout. They're also very large in population size. So together they make up 30% of the world's population. And together with non-democratic regimes that are outright non-democratic regimes, they now make up 70% of the world's population. 10 years ago, they didn't even reach 50% of the world's population. So a very concerning development in the last decade. Now authoritarianism, as I said, is taking on new forms. It's both democratic backsliding, the adoption of authoritarian practices and backsliding in democratic regimes. The last tactic that we've seen playing out and this is a very worrisome one because it arose the fundamental pillar on which democracy's rest, which is trust in elections is casting doubt on the legitimacy of elections. We saw it playing out in the US and we've seen a domino effect from that happening after with Myanmar, the coup in Myanmar being justified to correct what was perceived by the military as electoral fraud. In Israel, we've seen the same argument and currently Peru is married in a deep political crisis because the losing opponent presidential candidate is not accepting the electoral results. We're likely to see more countries falling into this tactic the more effective they see that it is in terms of gaining electoral support. We're also seeing increased repression in authoritarian regimes in already non-democratic contexts and this is worrisome because they were already starting from a very low democratic starting point. And this is showing that authoritarian tactics and practices are just becoming more normalized and accepted and their tactics are just getting ever more creative. Rewriting of claims, we've seen it used by Lukashenko in the last couple of months poisoning of regime critics. Internet shutdowns used as a mechanism in several contexts, both democratic and non-democratic around election time. Disinformation campaigns, surveillance technologies now also reinforced during the pandemic because of the proliferation of contact tracing apps, financial lending and vaccine diplomacy. But there are opportunities. They're not that many and unfortunately quantitatively now the negative developments outnumber the positive developments. But the report also provides reasons for hope and it seeks to highlight the good practices that need to be documented and that other countries can learn from. We've seen during the pandemic high levels of social mobilization despite pandemic restrictions. We've seen the birth of pro-democracy movements in Myanmar, in Belarus, most recently in Eswatini, in Africa. Even in the face of violent repression, powerful pro-democracy movements that also network among themselves through digital tactics as well as offline tactics through the military alliance, for example, seen playing out in Asia. And women are playing very prominent roles in some of these pro-democracy movements that also needs to be said, as well as youth, just as Secretary Orbert was emphasizing. So there we see a powerful democratic force in those groups that hopefully can turn the authoritarian tide going forward, even though they have been repressed for the moment. We've also seen a number of democratic innovations that have been forced during the pandemic. Both electoral management body courts and parliaments have been forced to innovate and adapt their practices to allow citizens and democracies to continue exercising their democratic rights. And that bodes well, this adaptive agility bodes well for addressing future crisis, future pandemics or climate challenges going forward. Another very good example of a case where that social implosion happening prior to the outbreak of the pandemic, Chile with massive protests during the pandemic, conducting a referendum on whether the country should replace the authoritarian constitution that was in place, that then elected a constituent assembly that has half women representatives and is now led by an indigenous Mapuche leader for the first time in Chile's history. So there are some reasons for hope. And finally, there is a good case for democracy and there is an increasing body of evidence that democracy tackles crisis and pandemics and promotes inclusive and sustainable better than authoritarian regimes. I'm not gonna go into the details of that but the report contains some examples that are worth highlighting. Hopefully all of these debunks that make that authoritarian regimes are more effective at promoting growth, fighting pandemics and ensuring sustainable development. So some conclusions, the pandemic has put democracy under even more stress. It has accelerated a democratic deterioration that was already taking place and halted democratic openings, but it has provided new opportunities to advance and improve democracy. The real danger lies ahead if we don't take action and act in a complacent way, especially because the economic crisis that is ensuing will push most likely voters to authoritarian options if democracies do not step up their game. And we also risk seeing an increasingly democratically divided world if an equal distribution of vaccine is not pushed forward because the non-vaccinated world will keep restrictions and will justify democratic closures in a way that the vaccinated world cannot justify anymore. So what we're doing in the report is also now won't go into the details but is proposing a three-point agenda. And the report contains much more practical recommendations for how we can address these challenges. It's not just about seeing the challenges and analyzing them but it's also about proposing solutions. Our solutions is on one hand for democracies and non-democratic regimes to deliver, to deliver for their citizens through new social contracts that promote more inclusive, accountable and sustainable development, tackling the challenges of our time, including climate change. Building and rebuilding and updating democratic practices in older and newer democracies, all of those democracies, all the new need to rethink their democratic practices and continue innovating, build on those innovations that were made during the pandemic going forward. Preventing also rising authoritarianism requires long-term work. It requires educating new generations in democratic values and democratic cultures and protecting civil society and free media. Thank you very much. I hope this gives you highlights of some of the findings from the report and in a few months we can read it and hear more. Thank you. Thank you so much, Anika, for this enlightening presentation of the key trends of service or results of the pandemic. The picture, generally speaking, is not pretty and it goes without saying that global concerted actions and perhaps are perhaps more needed than ever. But I was also glad that there were signs and there are signs of hope of democratic renewal and innovation. The next figure in our program, unfortunately, will not be able to join us. Dr. Helmut Anhaya, who was expected to enlighten us on the role of philanthropy for democracy is having technical problems and has asked us to excuse him. We are glad, nonetheless, that Julia Stranquist and Daniel Urquijo, both youth fellows from the international youth think tank are here to share with us today some of the recommendations for how to revitalize democracy to make it fit for purpose in the 21st century and in the face of momentous challenges. Julia Daniel, it's a pleasure to see you. Welcome and the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you so much for having us. I'm Julia Stranquist and I'm here with Daniel from the international youth think tank. The IYTT uses a bottom-up policy advice loop. Starting from the bottom of this graph, the policy advice loop begins with the annual international youth conference, which brings together around 25 youths from all over Europe for a four-day conference, focused on suggesting democracy-promoting proposals. The conference ends with a presentation of the proposals to executives and scholars and with a preliminary conference report. The final report is then presented to an open audience, which this year was at a co-organized seminar with the Brussels-based Center for European Policy Studies. After the final report, an international postdoc researcher is commissioned to conduct a research overview on one of the proposals, which is published as a working paper. Thereafter, we, the youth fellows, begin the process of writing a policy brief informed by the working paper. Throughout the working process, we are also in contact with two panels, the European youth panel and the citizens panels. The youth panel, which consists of 120 youths from 32 countries, respond to questions regarding the policy brief issues, while the citizen panels brings together locally engaged community groups to discuss the policy draft. Lastly, in the policy advice loop, is the presentation of the policy brief, which we will do here today. Daniel will present a proposal on community assemblies, and I will present a proposal on journalistic immunity. Thank you, Julia. Hi, everyone, I'm Daniel. Today, I will be presenting our policy brief on community assemblies. So first of all, what exactly is the problem at hand? Well, consistent with what Annika just said, democratic disenchantment has become an important issue for democracies over the past few years. Recent data shows that while support for democracy is high, people feel like they have little to no influence in politics. This has led to a rise in authoritarianism as an alternative to democracy. So the question is, how can we increase the influence of the average citizen in politics without a complete system overhaul? Well, this is where community assemblies come. We propose community assemblies as a complement to representative democracy. These are citizens' forums working together at a local level to solve local issues that they consider important. Participants are selected by a stratified random sampling to be representative of the community and ensure diversity. Their objective is threefold. First, group thinking with participants of diverse backgrounds will improve the quality of policies, as well as the responsiveness of the policies to the local community. Second, community assemblies open up a new way for citizens to participate in democracy beyond elections. Finally, by focusing on solving issues rather than politics, participants are exposed to democracies in new ways. So, informed like Jonathan Guide's research overview and input from citizens' panels, we have come up with a four-state structure for community assemblies. The first stage is the training of participants on things such as critical thinking or the logistic system. So no good idea goes to waste due to lack of expertise or confidence. In the second stage, the community assembly identifies long local issues and develops proposals to solve them. The key innovation in our community assemblies comes actually lies in the third and fourth stages that we have here. In the third stage, proposals are promoted in the local community to get signatures. Proposals that get at least 3% of support from the community are passed down to the civil service for development. Research shows that engaging with the public is crucial for success. Here, it comes an integral part of the process. In the fourth stage, the community assembly meets again to revise changes made by the civil service before sending the proposals to the local council for deliberation. This final meeting is a nexus for the next round of the assembly. Two participants are voted to take part in the next assembly as moderators, ensuring that experiences are carried over to future cohorts. Finally, we propose an optional online forum during the first deliberation. This is open to all residents in the local community and serves as an input to support the community assembly. Overall, our proposed community assembly can be a useful tool against democratic disenchantment as it tackles its root issues, lack of political influence and distant democratic institutions, by including citizens in the democratic process. Thank you very much. Julia, the floor is yours. Thank you so much, Daniel. Journalists represent the frontline in defending our democratic society. Even so, journalist integrity is constantly threatened. On May 23rd, the Belarusian government hijacked a plane to Lithuania to arrest a dissident journalist Roman Protosevich. Today, he's still in captivity in Belarus. Countries' governments all over the world are becoming increasingly violent against democratic activists and journalists, and they represent the greatest threats for journalists all over the globe.  The increasing threats to journalists demonstrate the need for stronger mechanisms to protect them globally. Therefore, we call for the implementation of journalistic immunity, which can be achieved in three different steps. First, the establishment of a global agency within the UN. As the UN already works actively to address global challenges, we believe it's time for the UN to extend its workings to include the inspection of freedom of speech and journalistic immunity. Journalistic immunity should be guaranteed by a global agency instituted within the UN and made up of different professional profiles. This global agency would have the professional legitimacy to review the application of journalists from all over the world and provide selected candidates with immunity status. Today, the UN works with peacekeeping to help fragile states navigate from conflict to peace. Now it's time to task the UN with concrete truthkeeping efforts to ensure democracy and protect informed societies through the establishment of an agency to monitor journalistic integrity and certify journalistic immunity status. Second, we also urge the UN to implement immunity status for journalists. The establishment of a global agency would review and distribute journalistic immunity to journalists, which would provide them with protection similar to the protection of diplomats. Immunity status would not give journalists complete immunity against serious crime. However, it would provide them with a first level of protection to ensure that dissident journalists are not illegally or wrongfully prosecuted by the government through fabricated allegations. To specify the immunity status further, we propose that it has two levels. First, every journalist with recognized experience or affiliation with any media company can get the level one certificate, which provides the status of a journalist but not real protection. Level two can be granted temporary to journalists in particular or acute danger, which would protect them against any prosecution. By providing to level two immunity only to journalists in proven danger, this privilege will not be abused or misused. Third, automatic and mandatory sanctions. We want to make sure that when a country's government attacks a journalist granted immunity status, economic sanction by all the other signatory countries will be automatic and mandatory. Establishing automatic and mandatory sanctions against countries breaching the immunity status would allow for the journalistic immunity to be truly binding, dissuading countries from suppressing the freedom of the press. We urge the UN to implement these three recommendations towards journalistic immunity. And we hope that the UN, alongside activists and democracy advocates from all over the world, will join our call to fight for journalistic integrity and a more informed and democratic society. Thank you. Once more, thank you all for listening. Policy briefs, working papers and conference reports can be found at iythinktag.com. We would also like to let you know that the call for our third youth conference is open until August 16th. All 18 to 24-year-olds living in Europe are welcome to apply. Help us by sharing the course. Thank you so very much, Julia and Daniel. That was really, really stunning and fills you with hope. Thank you very much for the excellent observations and very concrete solutions offered. And please stay with us as we would like to hear from you later on in the program as well. Now, however, it's time for me to pass over the baton to Liz Alderman, the Chief European Business Correspondent for the New York Times, who will be moderating the upcoming panel discussion on how to revitalize democracy. Liz, over to you. Well, Kevin, thank you so much. First of all, I greatly appreciate the invitation and I'm honored to be with you all today to discuss what is arguably the biggest challenge facing the world right now, particularly at a time when the coronavirus epidemic, as we heard earlier, has deepened the challenges that we've heard about here today. I wanna welcome our panelists who are going to basically answer this question that you just posed. How can we revitalize democracy? Very pleased to have with us today Ivan Krastev, the Chairman for the Center of Liberal Strategies, joining us, I believe, from Brussels. Heather Grabe, the Director of the Open Society for the European Policy Institute, as well as Alberto Almano, who is the Jean Monet Professor of European Law at HEC in Paris. And to all of you, we heard Madeline Albright at the beginning of this conference, of this forum, express hope for democracies, despite rising threats in authoritarianism in various countries. And we also heard her highlight in particular the challenge for youth and getting youth around the world engaged in democracy. But we also heard a startling presentation by several of our other panelists suggesting that more global consultation is needed to renew democracy in the face of evidence that the world is turning more authoritarian and less democratic. So let me start by just asking all of you, the general question, what in your view, based on what we've heard, are the biggest challenges to democracy and what is needed to revitalize it? Ivan, perhaps you could take that ball and run with it. Ivan, you're muted. Ivan, you're muted. Thank you. So I said that I'm going to start by disappointing you saying that I'm not speaking from Brussels, but from the Bulgarian countryside. Probably I hope this is not going to affect the quality of my ideas. And I just tried to make three very simple points on this. There is a crisis of democracy, but this is not the same crisis everywhere. And the first one is try to distinguish by a different crisis that we are seeing. In certain societies, you see a very high level of polarization in which while nobody is contesting democracy as a type of a preferred regime, basically many are going to believe that the biggest threat of democracy is simply the other party to win the elections. And of course, this is changing very much, particularly how the rule of law is functioning. There are other countries in which basically the problem is not polarization, but too much consensus.  This is not the same type of crisis. And certainly basically when we talk about the crisis, this is the question, who's crisis it is? Different, who are the social groups that basically believes the day in crisis? Because one of the biggest problem that we have, and this was very clear with this talk of backsliding, I should confess that I don't like the term, which comes from the religious period where backsliding was used for basically converted Jews that went back to their old back practices. I believe that there is something much more important. You have a democratic, majoritarian regimes where not simply you have authoritarian trends, but you have a popular support for these trends. So you have a clash between the normative idea of liberal democracy and the idea of the democratic majorities and the leaders that they electing. So from this point of view, my first point is, it's quite important when we're exchanging ideas and when we're trying to exchange experiences is to be sure about what kind of a crisis in different places we're talking about. And just to give an example, and very much referring closer to what Madeline O'Brien said, the biggest problem in country and place like Africa is that most of the people are born while basically before, when their leaders basically have been in power before the majority of the population have been born. At the same time, the biggest problem, for example, in some of the democracies in Central and Eastern Europe is that you have a very small cohort of young people. So they have the feeling that their vote does not matter. So basically living your country, changing the country than changing the government is a much better kind of a strategy for change. So I very much agree that, and this is in my view the most attractive in all the idea is that we should really exchange experiments. We are going to exchange different type of an insights. But this is very important that these should be a different experiments. And we cannot simply take something coming from one country and being implemented to other because the problems are different. So I'm going to stop here. Well, thank you for that. And maybe if I could move over to Heather, I mean, democracy is not necessarily one size fits all. How do we fix these challenges that Ivan and the others on our panel earlier today have raised in your view? Well, Ivan is of course right that, no, all unhappy democracies have their own reason for being unhappy. And it's very important to look at the, in detail at the problems as international idea has been doing in order to think about the solutions. And I just wanted to raise really two particular challenges which arise in two different contexts. So one challenge is essentially the digital life, our lifestyles today where we're used to an online experience that gives us instant gratification. We can have an interactive discourse with people all over the world and where we can actually have a personal voice. And democracy, the institutions of democracy, the sort of technology of democracy that we have in most parts of the world is still that of the 19th century. It's still going once every four or five years to put your cross in a box. If you're lucky, you might have a voting machine to use but in many places it's still done with paper and pencil. And that's a completely different experience from what you have as a consumer in the digital age. And so it's inevitably frustrating because it's very hard to see the connection between your vote and the change. So in addition to the big problems of there is no alternative that Ivan was pointing out that you vote for a change of government but you get no change in policy but it's also very hard often to link your individual vote to actual change. Whereas as a consumer and as an online activist you might have the impression that you're expressing your views to the world, that you're getting answers and discourse with hundreds of people and that you also can get a very fast reaction. I mean, it's still possible to buy a plane on eBay in the amount of time it takes to download a party manifesto in many countries. So there's a problem of agency here particularly in advanced democracies. And then the other problem, the big challenge that representative electoral democracy faces is of course climate change because this is a complex multi-year, multi-government challenge which requires policies and investments and really big decisions which withstand changes of government. So here we actually need the problem that Ivan was describing that where people get frustrated because it's a change of government but no change of policy but on climate you need no change of policy. If you're going to reduce carbon emissions and restore biodiversity and tackle resource use and all these other problems that we face to avoid extinction, you actually need concerted efforts over a couple of decades without very much change between governments and that limits electoral choices. So how do you deal with that with democracies that were designed to have accountability points where you can have a complete change of government or complete change of policy every four or five years? And so here, and I would just mention one way of revitalizing democracy that I think is especially important for the challenges of decarbonization and climate change and that's to start asking people at a very local level and really to get involved in what the youth fellows were talking about in the first presentation of having climate assemblies and other forms of deliberative democracy because by in bringing people directly into policymaking about such a major change in people's daily lives as well as in societies and economies, there needs to be bringing in the perceptions and the perspectives of different population groups. So it's not enough just to have catch all parties but also it's really important that people can actually support high quality decisions that are developed with them because this is really helpful in addressing thorny complex or deadlocked issues. And so far the climate assemblies that have taken place in Europe have shown a very high degree of sense of responsibility among participants and many really good and interesting new ideas that have broken deadlocked between parties and problems that if you think about Ireland, for example, on the issue of, you don't say logging or mining but peak cutting. But similarly, there are interesting examples in Poland to break through the perception that coal is still a really major industry in Poland where actually it's not a very big part of the economy. You need deliberative mechanisms to change the polarization about that kind of issue. So this is a really interesting new way of increasing the quality of democracy in a complementary way to representative electoral democracy which can very much improve the quality of climate action and final point, very, very important to show that as evidence actually does show that authoritarianism is not the answer to get long-term action on climate. You don't need to have an authoritarian government with a five or a 10 or a 15-year plan. If it's done well, meaningful citizen participation can actually bring new elements to democracy. And in fact, the evidence is that in fact, the quality of democracy directly influences the quality of climate action. Thanks. Well, thank you for that, Heather. And certainly, I mean, climate change is a huge issue that is affecting democracies and democratic votes at this point in time. We see a huge division on that issue across a number of societies. But Alberto, if I could move to you, I mean, one of the themes that we've heard mentioned quite a lot today is, first of all, the idea of that democratic disenchantment is taking place in a number of countries, partially because people don't necessarily feel like the votes that they have cast count. Well, you've seen that in Paris and in France where we're based with the Yellow Vest movement in the recent years. Tell us from your perspective what you think are the biggest challenges to democracy based on what we've heard here and what are you seeing as solutions? Thank you, thank you. The message I could detect from the previous presentation is that today there's an increasing, I would say awareness of the limits of democracy and that regardless of the democratic crisis you're facing in your own situation, in your own context. I think there's a major, I would say, intelligibility deficit in the way in which our democracy work is extremely demanding for the average ordinary citizen to actually follow the democratic dynamic beyond the electoral moments. So at the end of the day, democracy exhaust itself into that electoral moment. At the same time, we are becoming more and more aware that we need more than elections to actually have this kind of buy-in of the citizens and also the democratic legitimacy that we support, even those governments who have very high electoral support. So this kind of permanent search for alternative or complementary sources of legitimacy is somehow characterizing what is happening across a variety of countries today. And the idea of somehow investing more into our democracy I think is emerging from a variety of angles. The fact that we have been under investing into democracy is clearly demonstrating his own limit in the coming days and in the coming in the past months and years. And therefore there seems to be even a political will to experiment more than ever. So if you think about what happened in France since you have mentioned it as a result of the yellow vest movement, the pretty unexpected social mobilization with very specific characteristic is something that you would have not expected to happen in France. The major embrace of deliberative democracy as possible fix for all solution and a sort of institutionalization of citizens assemblies not only in the grand debate but also as a possible solution to address the climate conversation is something again that was unexpected and it happened in a very short period of time. This again shows the desire even by a government with a very wide parliamentary majority of the need to find these alternative sources of democratic legitimacy. And this is expanding to the European Union which is undergoing a pretty unprecedented although it remained pretty much neglected by public attention in the media so far which is the conference in the future of Europe which is basically mainstreaming at the transnational level this idea of creating an extra level of let's say citizen input beyond the elections through a variety of assemblies that will be advising and potentially contributing to agenda setting to the next policy cycle not only in France but also at the European level. Many of us would have not expected this to happen in such a short period of time but it's happening now and there will be a legacy of these experimentation. There will be more and more countries jurisdictions across Europe and the world looking at this idea of the liberty of democracy that in a way weaken the overall idea of representation because they showed that representatives alone they are no longer able to address all these problems and to move forward and to be brave enough to actually come up with different solutions across different political parties. So I expect something to happen from this experimentation perhaps there will be unintended consequences possibly many of them that we could already emerging in other words the big question today is how we can handle the interface between the participatory input what citizens want for instance in those assemblies or different forms of petition and the representatives how the political party culture will be open to embrace those ideas popping up from those assemblies and citizens input if you look at the French examples you see some difficulties I would say cultural political difficulties of traditional and even less traditional party as Macron's party to actually be open to integrate some of these proposals some of which were pretty radical which were pretty let's say beyond what the electoral program was foreseeing originally and integrating them in a way which was comprehensible and which was accountable to borrow Edder's point about accountability in this particular process and moving this forward. So there is optimism in experimentation and we will see how this will unfold in the coming months across European countries and also how different jurisdiction different governments will position themselves in relation to the idea of embracing these democratic innovations including what we've heard also from the presentation started wrong. Ivan do you think there is reason to be optimistic based on what Alberto just said or about what Alberto just said? Well, guys, we're not famous for this but listen, for me there is one thing about all the deliberative process which is very useful for any type of a reasonable policy making that we're neglecting and this is that there is one thing that elections do not represent and this is the intensity of the belief of people of certain issues. Listen, when we go to vote you who are very much interested and I who don't care much both of them has one vote and as a result of it basically the representation of the intensity is becoming critically important you can see it through the social media you can see it through the protest politics and time to believe this type of a different representation which is not just numerical representation of a majority but the power of a certain groups to try to shape the agenda is going to be critically important. Then about your optimism pessimism story listen, of course they're going to be a mixed picture it always have been a mixed picture. The discourse of crisis was always the crisis of democracy but I really believe that he had asked a very important question and this is how crisis like pandemic or climate change issues are shaping our idea of how democracies work. There was a big study that you've been done all over Europe by the Oxford St. Anthony's University that shows that people younger than 30 believe that authoritarian regimes are better positioned to deal with the climate change than democratic regimes. And in my view it's very important in our idea the difference between democratic regimes and authoritarian regime is very clear. The problem is for many people the biggest problem is not the rise of authoritarianism but the border between democracy and authoritarianism. And from this point of view it is quite important to try to understand that people can go in different directions in a certain way. People can see the strong personal power as the way basically to bridge this kind of a short sightness of certain democratic regimes and others and we should be very much open to hear what is going on and basically what to be supported and not supported. From this point of view there is always type of an optimism because if people are doing something I agree very much also is Alberto unintended consequences could be even better than what we had planned. Well speaking of unintended consequences though let me jump on a point that you and Heather did raise which is about the pandemic and concerns that the pandemic has provided some governments with an opportunity because of confinement and social distancing measures to actually sort of clamp down on avenues for free speech or for democracy. I mean how serious of a problem is that really is that a fake news problem or is that something that is here to stay and that could cause bigger problems going down the road. Listen this was a very different reaction and from this point of view it's very different even in Europe from country to country. It's not easy to generalize I was seeing some data and here's the interesting story we have been asking people in 12 of the EU member states how you see this type of restrictions do you believe that the government is doing this because it was needed do you believe that they have a kind of intention to get much more power or do you believe that they are faking capacity? And strangely enough the people who basically believed that governments wants to get more power were not more than others who believed that simply not that governments wants to become much more authoritarian but they pretend that they're doing something nevertheless that they basically don't have the understanding and capacity to deal with the crisis. And to mind you what has changed and this is interesting some of the populist parties reposition themselves. Normally we try to basically associate populism with a push for a strong authoritarian hand. As a result of the pandemic and you can see this very much in Germany with alternative for Germany and others. Many of the populist parties now are positioning themselves as the defenders of democracies against the authoritarianism coming from the center be it the progressive authoritarianism of the green politics being the authoritarianism of the restrictions and so on. And this is going to be an interesting new type of a political dynamic. So from this point of view it's not simply how was the general effect how was the fact on a different players in my view is quite interesting. Also the generational divide is quite important because in the beginning of the pandemic we rightly focus on the older people because they have been the most vulnerable to the disease but in a long run this is the younger generation whose way of life was most changed and this type of a generational differences in my view is going to have a political representation to it. Let me give both Heather and Alberto each of you one quick minute to respond to that before I then turn it over turn it back over to our youth leaders for a comment. Yeah, I think that's a really key thing that Ivan pointed his finger on which is populists are incredibly sensitive and adept to shift to changing political winds. And so they have moved into a new space and the mainstream parties are very slow to catch up and they're basically framing their cause as being about freedoms.  And that's a very appealing agenda especially to younger people who have come of age in the era of the pandemic and who are seriously worried about climate but who also feel that they're you know, they're being hard done by. So again, this is where direct engagement is really vital and catch all large parties that fail to engage with large parts of the electorate and just only really speak to their base are really going to do democracy itself a lot of damage. Not only are they losing votes but they're also not presenting the real choices and the real trade-offs to voters. And I'm really concerned that the debate about climate in particular is more or less getting is being allied with this freedoms issue also by the mainstream parties. And there needs to be some serious it's not speaking so much speaking truth to power it's been speaking truth to the powerless of government saying, look we've got a really hard road ahead we're going to have to make really major changes and things are already moving but that's why the here is why we have to do what needs to be done and here is how we will make sure that your livelihood and your family will be protected there needs to be a new kind of social contract presented by political parties very few mainstream parties are have the courage to go there yet. And I think that could be very damaging for democracy because if nobody tells the truth to the public then all of the choices and options look fake. Alberto, how likely is that to actually happen? Well, unfortunately, what both Ivan and Heather have been describing is currently happening if you think about the initial response so the initial impact of COVID on hopeless parties across the world and in particular in Europe was pretty difficult they didn't have much to offer they are not very much into policy reform they are not very much into solution so they were a bit caught by surprise but then they were quick enough to actually mobilize their communities with an answer which was extremely agile if you think about Marine Le Pen Manifesto that was published only a few days ago gathering already more than a dozen parties from all across Europe with the exceptional IFD is really showing their ability to bounce back and to even share a new vision of Europe which is alternative to the conventional one which seems basically status quo which is represented or somehow embodied by the conference on the future of Europe as we previously mentioned it. So there's a comparative advantage these parties do have vis-a-vis their constituencies and they have certainly a broader appeal now than they used to have at the beginning of the pandemic. Will this let's say rhetorical appeal translate into the electoral support? Well, the story back in 2019 when you look at the European parliamentary election doesn't necessarily support this this translation won't necessarily be immediate also because they disagree on many other things but when it comes to the overall narrative of these associational states working together in full respect of their serenity and against this idea of primacy of the European Union, European legal order or the national legal order is extremely timely it really fits with these eye guys is what basically these people think about in a way what they're arguing is that is no longer an advantage to be part of the European Union because these forms of transnational cooperation are a bit are no longer a mod they are basically a handicap and that's the rhetoric that also had been skinfully built around this low fragmented scattered response by the European Union also due to multi-governance also due to a variety of factors but this is certainly a moment they really mobilized in order to carry and craft this message basically saying we don't need to go as far in our integration we can actually step back and to renationalize many of the things our governments are doing at the moment. Well, those are all huge challenges and Albert I wanna thank you, Heather and Ivan for joining us today to summarize and put into even shine even a brighter light on what the major challenges we are facing for democracy and before I hand it back over to Kevin I'd like to turn it quickly over to our two youth leaders just for 30 second Twitter headline summary from the both of you of what our panelists just were talking about. Thank you, I'll go first. Thank you so much for this interesting panel discussion and to all the previous speaker. I think it's really hopeful to hear all the speakers address how to involve youth and enhance citizen participation. I'm also worried about fake news and conspiracy theories spreading. So I think it's really important to increase the trust in journalists and the information that is available online. I just want to emphasize that journalist community which we advocate for is the first step that needs to be done. Journalists face a lot of issues and threats today such as online harassment threats and attacks from individual groups which we could see in the Netherlands only yesterday. And I think this is also something that really needs to be addressed now. Well, thank you. Thank you, Julia, Daniel, your final words. Yeah, so actually most of the discussion has been very related to the policy brief on community assemblies. And I would like to highlight the importance of online and the internet and new technologies and how disruptive this has been to our entire lives and how much of a change the last 20 years have been on human lives. So as such, we should start experimenting with democracy. We should start doing new things and not repeat the same, same, same procedures that we've had for so many decades because change has happened already and we need new measures, new things, new procedures to go on. Thank you so much. Change is definitely happening. With that, Kevin, let me hand it back over to you to wrap up and thank you once again for having me and all of our panelists. Thank you very much, Liz, and thank you to the panelists, Dr. Krastev, Director Grabb and Professor Alemano for this very enlightening discussion and also to Julia and Daniel. I wish we could continue this discussion for longer but unfortunately we have come to the end of this event. Before closing, let me just share with you a few personal thoughts and takeaways. You know, upon listening to today's discussion, it strikes me that there is no doubt that liberal democracy is facing a truly existential crucible with multiple causes and multiple manifestations as Ivan was mentioning. Democracies are under pressure from populism, disinformation, inequality, corruption, and voter frustration. And they are also afflicted, it seems to me, by a kind of crisis of self-confidence. Fairly or not, the current pandemic has helped cement a narrative portraying liberal democracies as lumbering as two divided to cope with big challenges while extolling the presumed ability of authoritarian systems to act decisively. Well, we must prove this narrative wrong, and we can. So yes, democracy faces a global long-term struggle against powerful competitors, some of them hostile, but more fundamentally it faces a struggle against itself. It needs to be redesigned for our time, and so most of all, we need to shore up democracy's immune system and its ability to solve real problems for real people. So now more than ever, we need to leverage democracy's capacity for self-correction and for experimentation. So fundamentally, communism did not collapse because of external competition, but because it rotted from within. And that's what we need to prevent from happening to democracy. And in my view, this is not fundamentally a geopolitical struggle as some like to portray it. It is largely an internal struggle. Our collective task is simply to make democracy live up to its promise. And the punchline of all this is the need to put democratic governance issues at the heart of our public debates, at the heart in particular of foreign and development policies. The struggle to save democracy globally will not be won by generals or spies, it will be won by lowly political scientists, public administrators, sociologists, economists. And this may sound less glamorous than a titanic geopolitical fight, but it's every bit as complex and demanding. So this is it. Let me finish by once again, thanking all our speakers and guests, and in particular, Secretary Malden Albright for joining us today. And by expressing my gratitude to our partners, the Athens Democracy Forum, the International Youth Think Tank, and the Stockholm Philanthropy Sympotion. And of course, to my colleagues, an idea for organizing this event. It has been a pleasure to have you with us today. Please stay safe, and I hope to see you the next time. Thank you.


Hello? It's me. I wanted to ask you, what do you have in store for me? You could win a year's worth of free chicken dinners, plus new players get up to $1,000 back.


Before and after satellite images revealed the aftermath of an attack on a Russian Rapucheklass landing ship at the eastern Crimean port of Fyadosha on December 26.The first image, released by Maxar Technologies, from December 5 shows the ship moored in the port. The second image from December 26 shows smoke billowing and serious damage to the ship, which appears to have drifted away from the dockside. Ukraine struck the vessel with cruise missiles in an attack in the early hours of Tuesday. That killed at least one person, the Russian Defense Ministry, cited by the Interfax News Agency, said Ukraine had used air-launched missiles to attack the port of Fyadosha and that the Novichirkosk large landing ship had been damaged, Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014 in a move Kiev and the West condemned as an illegal seizure.


Hegaru a nice win. The black pieces went according to plan. What happened? It was a pyrrhic modern that turned kind of into King's Indian. So yeah, I mean I kind of got what I wanted. I was surprised when when my opponent did not take Ampazhan on e6 after I played e5 but I thought the way he played was quite principled and then he kind of he just used too much time and lost his nerve because like this whole idea was c6 I think was completely fine but he kind of had to then play f3 f4 and some knight c4 b5 a4 a5 and play for b6 but he got afraid of the whole king side attack so kind of I mean he got caught in between used too much time and then he just I mean blundered with this knight f3 move although it still was complicated though he he only had like a minute left so it's gonna be too hard for him but still it's it's good certainly to start off with a win so I'm pretty pretty happy. When you went c4 c5 it looked like it was going well for white. Where exactly did he go wrong? I mean it was basically at the end when he played bishop c4 and knight f3. He should have played f3 f4 and then like some some combination of b5 knights 4a4 a5 b6. Again it's not really clear who's quicker because I'm gonna go like g5 g4 g3 maybe or gf3 depending so it's not a hundred percent clear but I think kind of once once he went for this and he didn't play d takes e6 on Poisson I mean kind of was forced to go for this so he really just needed to keep his nerve and play his continuation and when he didn't I mean I just it went wrong immediately. He was really short on time and when you played knight d5 there was this really pretty geometry with attack on f2 and the rook on a1 do you suppose he missed that? I mean I think already after knight f7 he's in trouble. If he played bishop b2 followed by knight d7 it still was I think a game wasn't completely clear what's going on. I should be a little bit better but it wasn't wasn't winning whereas in the game yeah I mean it's just just winning after knight d5 although I mean I think even queen e7 takes a knight g4 is also winning as well and that's probably prettier so I you know but it's basically had a choice of wins and it's the simplest one so it's it's always nice to spot a tactical knight d5. Right now we often see you put this pressure on your opponent when it comes to time especially there's this big gap between their clock and what's going on in yours. Is that is that part of your strategy to kind of try to play fast and for you the time is as important as the position on the board? Yeah I think when you're playing weaker player significantly weaker I should say time comes in to play much more because like especially if you're black you're it's not easy to get an advantage I mean it's like you look at what I did or what Levan's doing it's kind of you try to just play something random get a position make them use their time or blunder or any way you can so certainly it plays a big role when you're playing someone who's like three four hundred points lower and I mean you should you should try and press on the clock it's one of the advantages advantages that stronger players have they're they're quicker they think think quicker and it's more intuitive so I mean obviously it's always there if I need it.  It looked like he was in some trouble to me but again he's doing what I did it's kind of he's black against a much weaker player he's trying to just create something messy and trick her in the complications I mean I assume he'll find a way to win but again if she plays correctly and doesn't make any mistakes he's not gonna win but that's always that's always how it's gonna be when you're playing with black against a much weaker player. Alright thank you very much we'll see you soon here. Sure. Thanks a go.