We're ready to go live. Hello everyone for joining us today on the presentation of International Ideas Global State of Democracy 2021. This is done under the umbrella of the Global Democracy Coalition Forum held for 24 hours today ahead of the Summit for Democracy on the 9th and 10th of December later this week. I am Annika Silvaliander, Head of Idea for North America, and I will moderate today's session. Before we start, let me just please ask everyone to mute their mics so that we don't hear echo. And let me briefly tell you in which context this presentation is done before we go ahead with the presentation. The Global Democracy Coalition Forum of which this webinar is part is an initiative convened by International Idea together with more than 40 democracy organizations and 200 activists, experts and leaders from around the world to broaden and enrich the discussions of the Summit for Democracy. I recommend that you check out the webpage of the coalition at www.globaldemocracycoalition.org to see the breadth of the 40 webinars that will be held throughout the day today to discuss how to renew and protect democracy in the of increasing challenges. In this webinar, we will present the key findings from International Idea's Global State of Democracy report, which analyzes global and regional democratic trends during the two past years of the pandemic 2020 and 2020. And we hope that the analysis and data in this report will help inform the summit discussions and everyone who is working on democratic programming, strengthening and protection around the world. To devise the right solutions, the diagnostic is key and this is what we intend to provide through this report, a health check of democracy and how it has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We will hear from one of the lead writers of the report, what the key findings are and what recommendations we bring forward to address the challenges, but also to build on the opportunities that we see. We also have a fantastic panel lined up to discuss implications of the report for their work. We have Johnny Walsh, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance at USAID. We have Thomas Carothers, Senior Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And we have Chunlei Ye, Democracy Activist from Myanmar. And we will close with some remarks from distinguished Damon Wilson, President and CEO of the National Endowment for Democracy. But let us now start with introductory remarks from International Ideas Secretary General Kevin Casa-Samora, who will welcome us all to this discussion. Over to you, Kevin. Thank you, Annika, and good morning and welcome also from my side to the launch of International Ideas Global State of Democracy Report 2021. Let me start by saying how proud I am to be here with you and to return even virtually to the U.S. and D.C.-based community to support democracy, which I was a part of for many years and where I have so many dear and admired friends. I would like to thank President Joe Biden and the U.S. government for taking the initiative to convene this Summit for Democracy, which provides the background to this discussion. The Summit couldn't come at a more critical time. Democracy is in dire need of collective global action if it is to prevail against the dark forces it is faced. This global democracy coalition forum that today's discussion is a part of is one of our contributions, together with those from many other democracy organizations, to make possible this sorely needed global conversation, which hopefully will lead to resolute action. I would also like to thank USAID for their support and Johnny Walsh for being here with us today, alongside our other great speakers, Tonker authors from Carnegie, Damon Wilson from the National Endowment for Democracy, and Thinsar Sun Leyi, a democracy activist from Myanmar. Last but not least, a big thank you to the State Department and on their Secretary Sehe for their support for this forum, as well as our member states, Canada and Sweden that contributed to this event. Since I'm not sure how familiar you are with international idea in our work, please allow me to give you a very, very brief introduction to who we are and what we do. International idea is an intergovernmental organization with 34 member states, extraordinarily diverse coalition, which includes large democracies such as India or Indonesia or Brazil and small democracies like my own country, Costa Rica. We have an exclusive mandate to advance democracy worldwide and we normally describe ourselves as a think and do tech, where the think refers to our ability to develop policy-oriented comparative knowledge products on issues related to political, electoral or constitutional reform processes. On these themes, we have a long-standing track record of producing cutting-edge reports, databases, policy briefs and monitoring tools which are available online on our site. That's the think tank part of the Institute, but then again we also have a do tank part where we take the knowledge and expertise gathered and apply it on the ground in various technical assistance programs in over 60 countries around the world. We also have a separate work stream dedicated to assessing the performance of democracies around the world as you're going to find out very soon. The analysis is based on a very robust methodology and a comprehensive set of data covering 170 countries across 116 democracy indicators all the way back to 1975 all the way to today. This data is the basis for a flagship report, the Global State of Democracy report, whose latest iteration entirely dedicated to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on democracy, we're proud to present to you today as one of the 40 webinars in this great global democracy coalition forum. Almost exactly two years ago when we launched our last report, we had no idea how much the world and democracy would change only a few months later. Two years ago our analysis was already pointing out that while the number of democracies was increasing, the quality of democracy was decreasing. The message nonetheless still had a hint of optimism. The number of countries holding credible and competitive elections had continued to grow and previously on democratic regimes like Myanmar, Ethiopia and Sudan, to name a few cases, were undergoing inspiring democratization processes. Then the COVID-19 pandemic broke up, threatening lives, livelihoods, but also democracies. And as with humans, the virus hit those with pre-existing conditions the hardest. The pandemic accelerated and amplified ongoing political trends while adding a new plethora of unprecedented challenges to democratic institutions and processes. Virtually overnight, all democratic systems found themselves dealing with enormous obstacles, from holding safe and credible elections in the midst of a pandemic to ensuring the functioning of legislative and judicial institutions during lockdowns and limiting circumstances. At the same time, governments all over the world felt compelled and also tempted to deploy wide-ranging emergency powers to confront the calamity that had befallen the world. As I'm sure you've guessed by now, the diagnosis is pretty dire. The two years since our last report have not been good for democracy. The monumental human victory achieved when democracy became the predominant form of governance now hangs in the balance like never before. It is not simply that the number of democracies has decreased, but that some of the worst reversals have happened precisely in places like Myanmar, a country that two years ago was still being hailed in our report for its democratic progress. More worryingly still is that the quality of democracy continues to decline across the board, including in established large democracies where this would have been unthinkable only a few years ago. What we conventionally call, not without controversy, democratic backsliding, namely the sustained and deliberate process of subversion of basic democratic tenets by political actors and governments is threatening to become a different kind of pandemic, one for which we do not have a vaccine. Democratic backsliding now afflicts very large and influential democracies that together account for a quarter of the world's population, almost 2 billion people. In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, many democratic governments have adopted questionable restrictions upon the mental freedoms that in many cases mimic the practices of authoritarian regimes. And all this is happening while authoritarian regimes in turn intensify their repressive practices and engage in ever more brazen attempts to silence their critics and distort the workings of democracies. Just think about how Belarus rerouted a plane full of passengers so that it could arrest a democracy activist. We have never seen that before. It is clear that the effects of this global crisis will take many years, if not decades, to become clear. Yet, over the past two years, we have researched and gathered enough data to evaluate some of the initial consequences. But also to identify many of the dangers and opportunities for democracy that comes with that. This is the research that we are presenting here today. A health check of democracy in the age of COVID-19, an examination that aspires to be comprehensive, rigorous, nuanced and constructive. Our comprehensive conceptual framework on facts and dissects the many facets of the democratic construct, including the workings of representative institutions, the protection of fundamental rights, the robustness of checks and balances and the vibrancy of popular participation. We have also tried very consciously to be nuanced in our analysis and go beyond the incessant negativity of the most recent headlines about democracy. Always predicting a better market for democracy is easy. It is also inaccurate and unhelpful. We want to give visibility to the positive developments and the resilience we have witnessed in the past two years. Because there are promising trends that also need to be displayed to keep hope alive. And we want to be constructive because democracy needs help. It needs proposals and solutions. That's why our report makes a point of putting forward policy recommendations to not only guide, but hopefully inspire those workings on the trenches of democracy. With this report, we hope to convey a sense of urgency about the global plight of democracy, but also of opportunity. We want to press upon our audience as the message that this is the best time for democratic actors to be bought. This is the time to revitalize the democratic project in order to prepare for the even sterter challenges that lie ahead, including those posed by the climate crisis. This calls for a global endeavor. That's why efforts such as the Summit for Democracy the EU Democracy Action Plan and our own member states longstanding efforts to support democratic institutions, rights and actors matter more than ever. We need to let democratic defenders and reformers know that they are not alone. They should know that they have reliable allies who will stand by their side now and in the future because democracy takes time, endurance and dedication. Democracy is not for the fickle or for the faint hearted and we all need to be in it for the long term. In the process of building and supporting democracies, we should never forget why this work matters. This is about more than safeguarding abstract principles or winning geopolitical battles. It is about protecting the dignity of real human beings which democracy does better than any other political arrangement. Every democratic reversal is not a geopolitical battle lost. It is a constellation of lives that goes dark. As we are witnessing in Afghanistan today, it is a group of human beings that lose their opportunity to fulfill their potential and dreams and that is also our loss. This report is a small contribution to this global struggle. It is very small compared to the deeds that are performed on a daily basis by the brave young pro-democracy activists in Myanmar, by the grandmothers and their grandchildren that walk together the streets of Belarus with red and white flags in their hands, by the women who refuse to be calmed by fanatics in Afghanistan, by the citizens that have not been thrown their umbrellas in Hong Kong, by the jail of position leaders in Nicaragua, by the dissidents that are daring to say out loud what the rest of society whispers in Cuba that no amount of repression can hide that their absolute rulers are naked and lost. Each of these acts of defiance is a triumph of the human spirit that deserves that we pay homage and recommit ourselves to the democratic project. In this report is our small tribute and our sincere pledge that we will use the knowledge we gather and the experience we accrue to help reformers improve democracy where it exists, to support those who fight for democracy where it doesn't exist and to inspire the million others that need to join this cause where democracy is to endure and prevail. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kevin, for your wise and powerful words, for describing in such a compelling way the challenges that we are faced with but also for pointing the way forward and for reminding us all that democracy takes time, endurance and dedication, as you say, your words that democracy is not for the fickle or for the faint hearted and that we all need to be in it for the long run is very... And that those on the front lines of the Battle for Democracy at this moment in time need our full support. Now let me turn to Sima Shah, International Ideas Head of Democracy Assessment and one of the lead authors of the report. She will walk us through some of the key global findings of the report and hopefully it will entice you to read the full report at www.idea.int.gsod where the full range of the series is available, including also four regional reports and three thematic reports that look at the lessons learned from the pandemic in many elections, implementing states of emergencies and a comparative assessment of how democracies versus non-democracies have managed the pandemic. Over to you, Sima. Anika, can you see the slides? Yes. Yes, okay. Good morning, everyone. Thank you so much for the chance to share the most recent findings from International Ideas Global State of Democracy Report, which presents trends in democratization for 165 countries around the world, beginning in 1975 and going through today. It's more specifically going through the end of 2020. As Anika said, the findings that I'm about to present to you today focus on global trends and patterns, but we encourage you to read our regional reports and thematic papers for more in-depth coverage. At International Idea, we understand democracy as a broad concept and one that can have very many different manifestations depending on a particular society's history, culture, and set of priorities. Although there are core tenets of democracy, the way these are operationalized can vary widely. At International Idea, we believe there is no such thing as a perfect democracy. Overall, we measure the extent to which a country has realized various aspects of its democratic ideals along five attributes, which we consider integral to democratic growth. These include representative government, fundamental rights, checks on government, impartial administration, and participatory engagement. As you can see, each of these attributes has corresponding sub-attributes and then corresponding individual indicators, belonging to each sub-attribute. And now to the findings. First, the world is becoming increasingly authoritarian. We see this in a few different ways. First, the number of democracies has been declining as you can see on this graph. During the pandemic, the world has lost at least four more democracies through either flawed elections or military coups. These include Mali, Serbia, Cote d'Ivoire, and Myanmar in 2021. It is worth noting that right now as we present these findings, we are talking about a decline in the number of democracies. But just two years ago when we presented the last iteration of this report, we were reflecting on the number of democracies actually increasing over the previous two years. So it has been a marked change. Second, for the fifth consecutive year, the number of countries moving in an authoritarian direction exceeds the number of countries moving toward democracy. This graph shows the number of countries moving toward democracy in green and towards authoritarianism in red, starting in 1975 through today. Outside of 2020, as you can see, the other notable peak in the move toward authoritarianism occurred in 2009, in the wake of the global financial crisis. Since 2016, the number of countries moving in the direction of authoritarianism is three times the number moving toward democracy. Third, authoritarian regimes are acting in ever more brazen ways. The pandemic has provided additional tools and justification for repressive tactics and silencing of dissent in a diverse array of countries. These regimes are buoyed by a lack of sufficient geopolitical pressure and support from other like-minded regimes. Some of them are thriving on the narrative that authoritarian governments is more effective for economic prosperity and for pandemic management. As Kevin pointed out, in 2021, the president of Belarus ordered the rerouting of an international flight so that he could arrest an opposition journalist. We have also seen authoritarian regimes expand their toolbox with the increasing use of things like transnational disinformation campaigns. Overall, then, most of the world is struggling. This graph shows you the trends in regime types over the years. We are currently in a situation where hybrid regimes shown here in blue and authoritarian regimes shown here in orange outnumber high-performing democracies in green. Only 9% of the world today lives in a high-performing democracy. Perhaps more worrying than the numbers, however, is the decline in the quality of governance in existing democracies. More democracies than ever are suffering from democratic erosion, which refers to a loss in the quality of democracy as observed through a decline on at least one of our indicators. As this graph shows, in 2020, 43% of democracies had suffered declines in the previous five years. Some democracies have declined slightly in one area in particular, while others have declined deeply and across many areas. In Brazil, for example, we have seen significant declines across eight sub-attributes. This graph shows you the democracies that have declined the most in the past decade. All countries on this list started out as democracies, those that are green at the arrowhead side on the left of your screen remain democracies today, while those that are in blue are now hybrid regimes and those that are in orange are now authoritarian regimes. Turkey, Serbia, and Benin went from being democracies to hybrids, and Nicaragua moved from democratic to authoritarian in this period. One of the most serious forms of decline is what is called backsliding. Backsliding refers to the gradual dismantling of the democratic building blocks from within the democratic system. The striped countries on this map are backsliding. As you can see, since many current backsliders are large countries, we are in a situation now where more than two thirds of the world lives in a country that is either backsliding or authoritarian. Research has shown that the most important indicators of democratic backsliding are executive actions against checks on government and civil liberties. We therefore identify a backsliding episode when declines in the average of these measures cross a certain threshold over a five-year period. The number of democratically backsliding countries has never been as high as in the last decade. Our latest round of data shows seven backsliding countries, the United States, Brazil, Hungary, Poland, India, the Philippines, and Slovenia. Three of these, as you can see, are in the EU. The pandemic has deepened the trend of democratic deterioration, putting a halt to democratization processes that had seemed promising and adding a new layer of challenges for existing democracies. The democracies that have experienced the most concerning developments are those that were already ailing before the pandemic. As Kevin also noted, what we have seen is that just as with individuals, COVID-19 hit the hardest, those countries that already were experiencing pre-existing conditions. Examples of fragile new democracies with worrying reversals include Mali, which held challenge elections in 2020 and which experienced two coups in the aftermath. Myanmar, Tunisia, and Sudan, where an evolving situation on the ground leads that process at risk. But the pandemic has also impacted the strongest democracies. In fact, all countries in the world imposed some kind of restriction on basic freedoms and rights during the pandemic. Worryingly, it was in less than half of those countries where these restrictions were temporary and imposed in a constitutionally defined state of emergency. And according to our global monitor of the impact of COVID-19 on democracy and human rights, as of the end of October, 45% of democracies had experienced at least one concerning development, which we describe as something that violates human rights or democratic benchmarks because it is considered disproportionate, illegal, unnecessary, or indefinite. Still, there is reason to be hopeful. Many democracies have proved resilient to the pandemic, introducing or expanding democratic innovations and adapting their practices in record time. Countries around the world learned to hold elections in exceedingly difficult conditions and rapidly activated special voting arrangements to allow citizens to continue exercising their rights. What you see here is a pretty remarkable story of learning. As time went on, you can see that the number of postponed elections shown here in blue decreased quite dramatically as authorities learned how to hold credible elections in challenging circumstances. An example to point out here is that of South Korea where the 2020 legislative election stood out as a milestone. There, authorities used early voting and extended home voting provisions to COVID-19 patients in hospitals and in self-isolation and instituted safety and hygiene measures in polling stations. Worth highlighting is the candidates and parties' use of augmented reality technology or the enhancement of real-world objects through electronic devices for virtual campaigning. Candidates ran eye-catching campaigns with 3D leaflets, all occurring in virtual spaces. These measures guaranteed the safety of voters and candidates and resulted in an overall turnout of 66%, the highest in that country since 1992. One thing to think about and take forward now is how to build on the sometimes very significant successes of these special voting arrangements which helped electoral management bodies reach parts of the population that had long been marginalized. Protest and civic action is also alive and well. Pro-democracy movements have braved repression in places as diverse as Belarus, Myanmar, Eswatini and Cuba, just to name a few. And global social movements for tackling climate change and fighting racial inequality have emerged around the world. More than three quarters of all countries experienced protests during the pandemic despite government restrictions. And we know that protests matter, especially in the long run because they cast doubt on the legitimacy of a regime. They direct attention toward an injustice, force a conversation about injustice and have the potential to turn activists into life, to turn participants into lifelong activists. It is clear to us that we need a new plan, one that builds on and responds to the public energy we have witnessed spilling out all over the world. We therefore propose a three point agenda for democratic renewal. The first point is deliver. Governments must deliver a new social contract that closes the gap between what people want and what governments currently deliver by designing responsive, inclusive, accountable institutions that focus on achieving sustainable development for everyone. These contracts must make commitments to constituents with regard to inequality in all forms, corruption and environmental sustainability. In some, they must demonstrate that democracy can deliver the things that people need to live their lives with dignity and to pursue the opportunities important to them. One compelling example of how this can be done can be found in Chile where the people and the government are currently renegotiating the social contract in an institutional way. After decades of growing public anger, Chile was rocked by mass protests in 2019. The constituent assembly, which is now the body responsible for drafting a new constitution, is showing us what the process of coming up with a new social contract can look like. The assembly is mandated to contain equal numbers of men and women and to reserve seats for indigenous groups. The vote for members of this body resulted in a major victory for non-mainstream blocks, including the hard left and leftist independence, and the president is an indigenous woman. While it remains to be seen what this new constitution will look like, this is a very good example of how these processes can be done. The second point is rebuild. Bring existing institutions into the 21st century by updating practices in established democracies, building capacity in new democracies and protecting electoral integrity, fundamental rights and the checks and balances essential to thriving democratic systems. Political institutions, elections, respect for rights, checks on power and the pathways to participation must be redesigned or amended so that they are citizen and people-centered rather than elite-centered. This is the time to be bold and to disrupt the status quo and those who have vested interest in maintaining it so that more people and more kinds of people have access to the levers of power. In recent years, we have seen a striking rise in the use of citizen's assemblies. Evidence suggests that this kind of deliberative democracy works really well. The balanced and structured process tends to result in more informed preferences. The deliberative context has been successful at breaking deadlock and the public seems to have confidence in the judgments of these groups. Examples include Ireland, France, Germany and the UK where these bodies have decided on things like the constitutional status of abortion, gender equality and climate change. And finally, prevent. Prevent rising authoritarianism and democratic backsliding by investing in education at all levels of schooling by supporting independent civil society and media and by addressing the behaviors that contribute to the spread of disinformation. This has to be done by an increased focus on accountability. And one example of this that we have seen is the economic community of West African states or ECOWAS, which in May of 2021 suspended Mali from the block after the country's second coup in nine months. After a military coup in Guinea, ECOWAS also suspended that country demanding an immediate return to the constitutional order and sending a delegation to the capital. While the ECOWAS actions have actually been criticized by those inside the country for not doing enough, we believe that this is a wonderful example of a first step. Overall, we must work together to make democratic values into cultural values adapted to all the different contexts in which they exist around the world. Thank you very much. Thank you so much Seema for this excellent presentation that gives us a very clear glimpse of some of the main findings of the reports backed with rigorous data and great visuals. And thank you also for not just covering the negative trends that we see which are very concerning and merit all our attention but also for giving us a few glimmers of hope, telling us about the resilience for example of many of the electoral processes that have continued to happen despite the pandemic and challenging circumstances and the amazing bravery of those that are at the front lines of pro-democracy movements in places such as Myanmar and Belarus. So thank you Seema. And now we will turn to our distinguished panel to hear their views on the report, what the findings of this report means to their work and how its findings can contribute to the Summit for Democracy. In our panel today, we have Johnny Walsh, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance at USAID. Johnny Walsh oversees the Center for Democracy, Human Rights Governance at USAID with which International IDEA collaborates closely. Your insights on what the analysis of the report means for USAID and also for the Summit for Democracy will be very interesting to hear. We also have Thomas Carothers, Senior Vice President for Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a close friend of IDEA for many years. Thomas or Tom, as he's known by many, has followed the DSOD, the Global State of Democracy since it was an IDEA in our heads to the first publication back in 2017 and now in its third iteration in 2021. Tom is the leading voice on democracy, on international support for democracy, human rights, governance, the rule of law and civil society and we are honored to have him with us today to share his insights on the analysis and what it means for the broader democracy community. Finally, we have Tinsar Shunlei Yi who is an award-winning democracy activist from Myanmar. She works with the Grassroots Political Coalition in Myanmar called ACDD that comprises 12 grassroots civil society organizations across the country. She has advocated publicly against the military Yunta since the coup in February this year which has resulted in, as you know, many, many civilian casualties and barbaric repression of the civilian population and protestors. And Shunlei is currently running a global campaign called Sisters to Sisters for Promoting Solidarity for Myanmar Women in the Revolution and leading a public advocacy platform for defection together with people soldiers which is an organization formed with military soldiers that have defected from the military during this year. Shunlei Yi, your bravery is really an inspiration for all of us and so thank you for joining us today and telling your story and that of the people of Myanmar. These stories need to be told and deserve to be listened to and we hope that today's webinar will provide a platform so that we can all better support the struggle of the people of Myanmar. I will ask the panel a few questions for to generate an interesting discussion and then we will also open up afterwards for the floor for questions with the public that is listening in. We had 180 participants registering for this. So we have a lot of people that are interested in this discussion. I encourage all of you listening in to pose your questions in the Q&A so that we can turn to them after. And in the Q&A with the public, we also hope that Kevin and Seema can join in to help answer questions. So let me start now with the first question that I would like to ask to all the panelists and I would like to pose it to Joni Walsh to start with and this focuses on the findings of the report. So Joni, how do the findings of the report echo with USAID's own assessment of challenges and opportunities to democracy worldwide? Very changing global democracy landscape. Do you think that there are any issues that are left out of the report or any that deserve more attention? Over to you Joni. Well, thank you so much for having me. Thank you to Secretary General Casas-Somora. Thank you to you yourself, Annika. It's such an honor to be here, especially alongside this panel who are real heroes in the world of democracy, protection, advancement, I feel really humbled. I also think that your report is fantastic. It resembles a lot of our own conclusions about what's going on with democracy in the world. It's not to say you're an independent voice, not to say we come down in the same place on every single question, but the first diagnosis that you lay out in the report of this really deeply troubling global phenomenon that we see in every corner of the world of backsliding, some identify it having been visible for 15 years, you're most specifically measuring how gravely things have deteriorated in some ways over the last two years. And that's completely true. And I think we too see a very recurring problem where generically speaking, a growing chorus of authoritarians are they go after activists, they go after independent media, they go after the courts, they weaponize corruption, they use technology as a tool of oppression to sort of turbocharge all of those other efforts. And then over time, they start undermining the credibility of elections and then undermining the elections themselves. And this cocktail plays out a little bit differently in every context. But I think there's a lot of learning going on among authoritarian actors in different places and it's collectively making the problem worse. So that's very dire, but I guess to the part of your question about things one could draw out even more in the report, we look very closely about the especially outsized effects that most of the phenomena I just listed have had on women, on youth, on other frequently marginalized groups, which you certainly do acknowledge in the report as well. But seemingly every problem in the world falls disproportionately on the least advantaged among us. And that's absolutely true of Democratic backsliding. It's also true of the pandemic, which has made every part of Democratic backsliding worse as you point out. And yet, and yet, I think your report is really helpful in focusing on what is the good news part of this story as well. And I don't zero in on that to paint a naively like optimistic picture just for its own sake. It's because the thing, those are the kernels of opportunity that we need to be looking closely at and trying to try to draw out. And if you're a practitioner, it's not out of the optimism of it, it's out of looking for what are existing trends that could get better. You note that there are pro-democracy protests going on everywhere. I mean, you say eight and 10 countries have had protests of one kind or another over the lifespan of the pandemic. I think by some measures, especially in the year before the pandemic, like maybe best snapshot of normality that we might well return to, there were more pro-democracy, pro-rights, anti-corruption protests going on around the world than there had been at any point in modern recorded history, including end of the Cold War, height of the Arab Spring. And that applies to many of the most difficult environments to protest in, the most closed environments in the world.  It's staggering what they do. But that is the story of Belarus, of Cuba, of Hong Kong in its own way. And this is a global phenomenon. So that's number one. Number two, I would really draw out the democratic breakthroughs in countries that we've seen. So we hear a lot about the four coups that happened in Sudan, Myanmar, cited Mali as well, whatever we call the thing that's happening in Tunisia. But for all of those cases, there are also these amazing breakthroughs were often against stacked elections and other unlikely odds in Zambia. We had this amazing democratic flowering over the course of the year in Moldova. We have this huge eruption of pro-democracy, anti-corruption sentiment that swept a new government to power. The Dominican Republic is a version of that story. And there are many others. So that's the second thing I'd say. And then third, just looking at even the various established democracies, I think they place a new sense of urgency on protecting democracy around the world. And there's a quote I wrote down from the report for myself if you'll indulge me. It's that some countries, for example, Sweden and recently the USA are making democracy a foreign policy priority. Many democracies that were seduced into years of complacency during stable times have managed to reform themselves during this crisis. And this resilience and revitalizing zeal are more important than ever. So people can agree or disagree with that assessment of our own performance as a US government with a foreign policy. But it is definitely true that we have a president now who every time he opens his mouth about foreign policy, democracy is in the first sentence that comes out. I worked for USA. So our administrator, Samantha Power has spent a career advocating for democracy and human rights. And I think that just creates this huge moment of opportunity where the very crisis that we see around the world that affects us at home, all of us at home in one measure or another. And we absolutely have seen versions of the authoritarian trend across the West, really. It's an example of a crisis being an opportunity. And so we're here gathered for the summit for democracy. That is the manifestation of the sense of urgency we see in confronting this problem. And it has risen to the absolute top of our foreign policy priority list in a way that maybe we had the luxury of subverting it beneath other geopolitical concerns in the past. So anyway, I'm really grateful for the report. I think it's really spot on. And I was going to, the other quote I'd written to myself, I won't read again because Kevin did, but about every democratic reversal not being a geopolitical battle, but it's a loss of opportunity for human beings to fulfill their potential, their dreams. I think that's beautifully written. Attica, your list is the lead writer, perhaps that's your work. But it exactly captures, I think, the enormous stakes of this moment. And I just hope we seize the opportunity to its full potential. Great, thank you so much for your inspiring words. Also for reminding us of the importance of remembering the impact of the pandemic and on these democratic regressions on marginalized groups all over the world. Also for reminding us of some of the positive developments in countries such as Zambia, Moldova, Dominican Republic, among others. And pointing out and reminding us all of this importance of making the foreign policy priority going forward. I would like to turn to Tom Carothers now to hear your views on the findings of the report. How do they echo with your own assessment of how democracy is faring? And I would also like to ask you similarly, do you think that there are any issues that we have left out or any that would deserve more attention? Over to you, Tom. Thanks very much, Annika. It's wonderful to be with you and I'm always happy to take part in events related to international idea which is such a valuable organization, especially under the leadership of Kevin. I like the report. You know, over the years, international idea took an approach to assessing democracy that in my view for many years was a bit too soft. There was a bit of colloidness. Maybe that's the tradition in the Nordic countries filtering into the thinking. There was a bit of hesitation to name names. There was a bit of hesitation to call for action. All of that is gone now. This report is realistic. This report tells it like it is. I don't think anybody could question whether this report is an accurate snapshot of the state of bubble democracy. It is. Whereas I think even just a few years ago, I felt that idea was still on the edge of realism and just didn't wanna give up a basic kind of tendency not to want to be too tough. So I'm glad international idea is there. But I think it's emblematic of a much bigger evolution in a consensus on democracies around the world that this really is a moment to put aside colloidness, to put aside inhibitions about naming names and to look hard for action because we've been missing that in the international community for some years now. I like the way the report nicely balances the domestic and international factors, which has been a struggle, I would say, as people try to come to terms with democratic recession. There's a little bit of a tendency in some places, sometimes in Washington, I think to overemphasize the role of authoritarian powers, China and Russia and others, they're very important, their role, often very disturbing and noxious, but they're not the reason why democracy is struggling in India, in Brazil, in Turkey, Indonesia, the Philippines, Ethiopia and elsewhere. Sometimes they're a facilitating power, but they're not the drivers of the change. An international idea puts a strong emphasis on governance, failings, inability to deliver, the inability to reform institutions, and that's where we really need to have our first look. At the same time, it acknowledges that transnational factors, like coming from authoritarian powers, are part of the mix as well. So I think it gets the balance right. A little bit of optimism, which of course isn't the best thing, but a little bit of a rosy tint comes in in a couple of places in the report. One of them was in the reference to the private sector, where it mentions that some private sector entities have called out the Chinese government for the horrendous treatment of the Uyghurs. That's true, but that does not, as the report suggests, indicate that the private sector, generally internationally, is moving to a greater engagement on democracy and rights issues. Find a photo online, if you will, of the international business community crowding hotels and Riyadh to meet with the Saudi government. Assign new deals with them, if you want to see from the international business community in operation in different ways. So unfortunately, I think this is an area where we often need to get further attention to see what is the role of international business. I'd also another minor quibble, although it's a big issue that needs to be discussed more of the report, comes down fairly hard on the idea of a global alliance. I'm a little uncomfortable with that term. I know the Biden administration thought a lot over the last year about how much to characterize the summit for democracy as an effort to construct a global alliance. And I think a decision was made not to cast the summit in those terms. Maybe it's just Washington, but the word alliance is a pretty strong word. And I think it's gonna be difficult for governments like India or Brazil or Indonesia or others to feel that they're in an alliance with the United States and Europe in the term in which alliance might be understood somewhat geostrategically or even really a very strong concert. We certainly need greater joint action on the part of democracy to combat democratic backsliding other forms of democratic troubles. But I think we should be careful about calling for a global alliance. But maybe we can talk more about that certainly a concept we're putting out there but it has some hesitation. Just to finish up, certainly nothing's really missing from the report, it's very comprehensive. Some people would say that climate change is coming big in terms of its effect on democracy and we're only starting to get our minds around what those effects will be on democracy. So probably a subject that needs more attention. Technology is present in your report as an issue but there are times where I'm in meetings talking about technology and politics and I begin to think it's the driver of everything. I see it in so many different places. So maybe a slightly greater emphasis on some of the elements of technology not just digital or authoritarianism but ways in which technology can be democracy affirming as well but those are just quibbles. As I said, this is a great report. The big step for international idea reflects an important evolution in the international community. It tells us where we are now and largely gets the overall picture right. Thank you so much Tom for your words. Also for pointing out the learning process that we've gone through at IDS since the first report, you're right. We were much more cautious in the first report. We were definitely much more optimistic but that's also because trends were not as concerning as they are now. And we've learned to be more straightforward, more bold in our analysis and that is also very much thanks to the encouragement of our Secretary General who came out two years ago who really emphasized the importance of being clear with our findings and pointing out where the concerns are in a very explicit way. Thank you also for reminding us and pointing out some of the issues that we could dig deeper into. Both the role of technology, climate change, we were not able to cover those issues in depth in the report as we were trying to keep it short but definitely they deserve more analysis. Also your caution on maybe our optimism, over-optimism on the private sector taking on democracy and human rights. So we'll definitely take that into account and also your caution on this global alliance that we're calling for. I think we can discuss that further in the discussion later on today. Now let's turn to Shunlei Yi. Welcome to this panel. Thank you for being here with us for giving us the voice of someone who's been on the front lines of democracy in Myanmar. We would like to hear from you how the findings of the report echoed with the situation in Myanmar and how do you think that these global trends that we have described in the report have impacted on the situation in your country and how are they reflected in context of Myanmar? Thank you very much. So having me here is a pleasure, also an honor to be sharing the panel with all of you. So today also I want to, before I speak, I want to give, I want to share my tributes to the fallen heroes in Myanmar during the revolution, this mandate, the military killed four young peaceful protesters. The military ran over a crowd and they just showed up and several got into it. So this is happening almost every day in Myanmar, in bright daylight, on the streets of big city like Yango, so on. So I really enjoy reading the report of the international idea, basically because whatever any single line I read, I could reflect what has happened in Myanmar in the past 10 years and during this year, especially right now, in the coup attempt in Myanmar. So just, you just name it, the rise of fascism or the illiberal populace government in the past or economic crisis during the pandemic situation or the challenges after the COVID pandemic or the political polarization group, just name it, everything is big. So Myanmar has one package of all the challenges that every other countries are facing right now in the world. Just one point on the situation in Myanmar, I want to make clear that the situation in Myanmar was happening, was not a dispute over the election result between two politicians or two political parties, just a clear power attempt to grab the power from the ruling party. And we just name it as a coup attempt because a coup plan, the stage of coup is being over 10 minutes now, the stage of coup, but it's still an attempt as we see because of the strong resistance inside the country, there are always protests almost every day and there is a strong solidarity from people like you from different organizations around the world in solidarity with the peoples of Myanmar. So that's how the military cannot successfully coup the whole country. There are a lot of other different liberated areas who are not under control of the military or the government in the past seven decades. So that's how we see what is happening in Myanmar. When we say despite the slight back of the democracy or the bad things, the bad headlines about the situation in Myanmar, I wonder, I want to change the narrative and that's how many young people are given up their life, given everything they have on the street because they want to change the narrative. And we are the hope, you can be hopeful with the young people and the movement in Myanmar. And that's how I think we can be hopeful with the democracy in Myanmar. This is a good news. At the same time, of course, the military is killing, arresting them. There is a decline of democracy. But I think the democracy and the good news, the optimist things can only appear out of the revolution, not from any government, but by the peoples of Myanmar. So as long as we have revolution, we have good news. And that's how we are advancing our own democracy, our own civil state. So that's how I think we want to change the narrative that Myanmar is now being hopeful with the democratic values and human rights principle compared to the last 10 years under the military-directed constitution. As myself, as the advocacy coordinator as a grassroots civil society organization, I've been advocating for the general election, local election and all sorts of things but I've never been hopeful like this in the past 10 years because now we have a clear strategy and clear way forward for democracy we're not being delusion and just like in the past 10 years and the 2008 constitution, now we're gonna have our own constitution, our own roadmaps without the military quarter or any participation. So that's one point. And another one is I want all the international organization working on democracy to be more focused on the inability of the international system and the United Nations system to address justice and accountability because what is happening in Myanmar, a clear example of the impunity that the military has long enjoyed after they have committed genocide, now they stage a coup and they try to stage a coup and they've been killing people. That's clear a result of the clear complete impunity that they have enjoyed long ago. So the accountability and justice system should be a foundation before we name a country fragile or small or slow or whatever you name it but we need to make sure if a country and their institution have that clear foundation about just accountability and also a foundation for freedom of expression, a foundation for democracy, human rights, basic foundation, then we can name these countries as such or not we will be trapped into another saga of violence and saga of impunity. And that's how we are, that's what we are learning from Myanmar right now. So what's happening in Myanmar is not like a protest against the coup or the military institution but it's all now turning into a revolution against the fascist idea, fascist sense, idea and violence as well as the terrorism that rising out from the military institution. So that's what's happening in Myanmar is all a threat to humanity. It's not just a threat to democracy but humanity. And that's how I think everyone must pay attention on the foundation for just accountability. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chun-Li, for these words, for pointing out the inability of the international system to call out what's happening in Myanmar and for the impunity that is continuing to happen. The need to think through our international systems to better address cases such as those in Myanmar. And also for clarifying why you had written in your little description why you call this a coup attempt because I thought it was actually a spelling mistake but it's very interesting to hear that, no, this was very conscious of you to call it a coup attempt because you're saying that it's not been successful given the strength of the pro-democracy movement and I think that's very important to hear. And then finally, thank you so much for being positive in the midst of the difficulties that your country is experiencing, the brutal repression that many of your friends and colleagues are experiencing. If you are able to be hopeful and positive and you're saying not just that you're hopeful, you've never been more hopeful for democracy in Myanmar, then we owe it to you and the people that fight with you or that struggle with you for democracy to support you and to be as hopeful as you are. I will, now we had several questions that we wanted to touch in the panel, I will collapse them into one so that we can also take some questions from the public. The questions that we had were on one hand, how do, for example, USAID adapt its programming or how has it adapted its programming to the new types of challenges that we're seeing in the global democracy landscape and also a question on what the expectations are of the summit for democracy. So I'll start with Joni, if you wanna choose one of those two questions, I think we would very much like to hear from you, USAID's expectations from the summit and any announcements that you would like to make. Over to you, Joni. First of all, I'm just overwhelmed by what Ms. Tinsar said a minute ago. I mean, those four activists who put their bodies right in harm's way, the latest four to have their lives taken by this, it's just that level of bravery that a struggle like this brings out is just way beyond our ability to add or subtract. But like she says, that story is not over even with such a repressive regime that has currently grabbed charge, like there will be more turns of the wheel and I think that's the thought behind the phrase co-attempt. Anyway, to your actual question. So first, what would we like to get out of this summit? First, I certainly hope that the summit itself is a galvanizing moment for people who believe in democracy and basic rights and human decency around the world. I hope that it does help rally us, tongues right, not as an alliance, but as a group of like-minded believers in some basic principles to realize how important and how under threat this is. Maybe that works, maybe it doesn't. I think though that every summit, what's important is not the event itself. What's important is what can you use this summit to get done before and after it? And so for USAID's part to your question, yes, absolutely, we have taken a really fresh look at pretty much all elements of our democracy support with a particular eye to the fact that this summit has been out there and is the biggest opportunity to try ambitious or different things and to update our support to democracy around the world for the 21st century and the threats that we have to combat the opportunities that now exist. So out of respect to Damon and the rest of your panel, I won't belabor every single thing that we've spent the year working on though I'd really like to because I'm really excited about it, but you'll hear a lot about what programs we're rolling out. I won't get 100% ahead of my president who will make some, I think really important announcements on Thursday, but they'll fall in five categories. Very briefly, those are supporting media, anti-corruption, supporting democratic reformers with different stripes, tech and democracy and election integrity. Those are not the only pillars that are important in democracy, there are many others. They are areas where we thought we could significantly update how we do business, try to put more resources behind it, not something that's always within our control and meet the moment in a different and bigger way than we have before. So if you'll indulge me really quickly, try to do it really quickly on media, it is both we are trying to create a fund that brings more donors out of the woodwork to increase the overall amount of resource available to support independent media in all kinds of different places in the world where they face sort of an extinction level event for different reasons. And we as USAID are going to wheel out a new program to help media outlets that serve the public interest increase their business viability so that they're not dependent on grants until the end of time or they're less dependent and they can overcome some of the huge challenges of digitization, of COVID, all the changes in the economy that have made media a tough business to be in. On corruption, anti-corruption, you'll just see us radically increase the amount of focus as an administration that we put on this issue. That means working with governments where we perceive goodwill to clean up corruption in their own countries since working with the private sector to do likewise, like we have to try and clean up corruption across all sectors, means working with activists and investigative journalists who so often are the ones that smoke out corruption that create the opportunity to clean something up. Third category on reformers, this means a lot of different things. In addition to, we've always supported civil society in a lot of different ways. We will certainly continue to do that. We placed a particular premium on we'll announce a new program to increase women and girls access to political power and hopefully create this pipeline of talented women and girls who are ready to assume leadership as they rise through the ranks, do our lip-hits, not for us to decide who rise through the ranks, but hopefully do our part to give them tools that are useful. I think that we haven't done enough over the years to support large mass movements. I mean, the one in the environment is a potential example though. I don't presuppose where exactly we'll put resources, but it's not exactly that they need a huge US stamp on the support that they get, but I think there is a lot that we can do to help connect large peaceful pro-democracy movements with each other and help them learn lessons from each other. And we've heard the need, the desire for that from many of the groups that we work with. And I'd say also to connect them with outside expertise, like people who have studied what succeeds and fails in these movements very closely. I think there's a lot of like mutual learning that we could do. Tech and democracy, you'll hear many different things, but to me there are many three alarm fires in the market in the authoritarian encroachment of the world. The abuse of technology to repress people is the five alarm fire, if I had to pick one. So we will do quite a lot to try and establish some new, some basic new norms and standards that govern how we use and procure technology, help get rights respecting technology out into the world, help work with governments to create laws, regulations in their own countries to respect human rights and democratic principles and their use of technology. And then finally on election integrity. I think we're very interested in creating a sort of community of practice of the deep experts in election integrity around the world who can get together and maybe more formally lay out some standards of what a free and fair election should consist of, especially with an eye to the new challenges that maybe we weren't all that focused on five or 10 years ago, like cybersecurity of the election, the mass use of disinformation, things like that. And then we'd like to put a lot of money into a new fund to help countries that are sincere and interested like ensure their elections meet those standards. So there's a lot more that I could talk about but we really are trying to seize this moment. There's 110 other countries coming with commitments that resemble some of those things that I've just laid out, we'll see what those are but we intend to spend the year before the second summit doing everything we can to work with those countries to get the absolute most mileage out of each other's commitments and do this in kind of a mutual process. And I hope that in a year-ish when we come back for the second summit we'll all have a good story to tell as a result. Thank you so much, Johnny, for sharing these important new initiatives that USAID will be launching. It's very interesting to hear also the holistic focus of many of these initiatives focusing both on investigative journalism, on civil society advocacy, but also on government reform. And the idea to support pro-democracy movements through mutual learning, that's also something that sounds very interesting and that echoes with what we're thinking as well in idea. We have 15 minutes left of our session so I won't be able to go into all the questions, but Tom, just maybe your quick views on what your main expectations from the Summit for Democracy are and any recommendations that you would make. Thank you, Annika. I would just comment on what Johnny said. What Johnny's describing at USAID is the result, I think, of an important evolution occurring in thinking about democracy as a movement away from 20 plus years of a kind of template approach to supporting democracy, an institutional framework that we think needs to be in place to focusing on what I would call pressure points and key processes. It's a problem-oriented approach, electoral integrity, independent media, anti-corruption. It's really getting at the pressure points and the key processes. What's crucial is for all of the democracy to make this evolution together, put away the old ideas that are rather static and kind of out of date and move to a more action-oriented agenda. That leads to what I think the Summit can accomplish, hopefully, as Johnny says, ideally it's a galvanizing moment, but ideally it's a galvanizing moment, not just for the United States, which it has been, and an action-porsing event for the US bureaucracy to think hard about how it's engaging on democracy, but really for other countries as well, both those who are on the side of kind of supporting democracy actively, as well as those that are really in a troubled state. And so the real key is whether the Summit can broaden from the energy the US has put into it and become a somewhat broader galvanizing moment where we see real commitments that are made, both for stepping up international support for democracy and for stepping up reform processes, real commitments that are made from participating governments, and then some tangible structures and processes for monitoring and following up on those commitments. So for me, the key success of the Summit would be broadening out from the energy the US has put into it, the key to really galvanize the broader energy that would be manifested in both commitments and processes for following up on commitments. Thank you. Thank you so much, Tom, for these wise words. And over to you, Shunlei, what would be your main expectations of the Summit for Democracy, for the Myanmar context? Thank you. I seriously think that democracy around the world are now shrinking or backsliding, mainly because there were no guarantee in the international level that anyone who distract the democratic crisis through destroying democratic foundation will be punished because of the clear impunity or the military or in the case of Myanmar is the military, but in other different, maybe dictator or authoritarian regimes, there were no accountability mechanisms to hold these perpetrators accountable of the actions destroying the democratic foundation. So I really think US or any other different country attending that Summit for Democracy should really seriously think about how to hold these perpetrators accountable collectively. In the case of Myanmar, US has taken a really serious action, but they can't add a no because what about China, what about other different India, neighboring country, they're not really talking about democracy in Myanmar, something like this. So I think they need collective, liberated actions to be able to see the future, to be able to see the future, to be able to see the future, to be able to see the future, to be able to see the future, to be able to see the future, and it's the need, just the need and also it's the justice system, it's being a really slow. So, even for the genocide patient, the legal crisis in the past four years, none of the perpetrators fail accountable. Now, they are allowed to commit more crimes in Myanmar. And this is inspiring all the two beat to beat us around the world. We have a statement of the Yen generation. If they commit one crime, they can just get away with it. Nobody can pull these supplementary accounts and that thing we can do. There is no domestic justice in a country like Myanmar. So we really count on the international justice system and US or any other more countries to be lean on this. In other words, we need to have more assertive responses to collaborate the actions on how to support a country like Myanmar. Because if we want to not have democracy or stellar democracy, we should be more focused on the conflict with the revolution. The more protests a country has, the more hope we can be hopeful with these countries. Because we measure democracy by the numbers of protests, not by the sounds, military is killing people, but from the ways these people are, how they are still committed to democracy or democratic values. So that's how all big country champion, democratic, and they also focus on a country such as Myanmar with brave people, with that resilience and the commitment because this is a very big country that pertains in the democratic country as the revolution is over.  So we need you to take action right away to make sure this is a complete failure or what's happening under the revolution's pre-day. Thank you. Thank you so much to all the panelists for the very, very interesting insights. It feels like there's a lot more to discuss and one and a half hour doesn't do justice to all the issues that we've just started to raise here. But we're moving towards the end of our session. And to wrap up this webinar, we now turn to Damon Wilson, President and CEO of the National Endowment for Democracy since just a few months back. What are your reactions, Damon, to what has been discussed today and what key messages would you like to pass on for the panelists and the presenters for those and for those listening to us right now? Over to you, Damon. Thank you so much, Annika. It is a real honor to be with all of you. Let me just start off by saying how much the endowment values our partnership with International Idea. Kudos to Secretary General Kevin Casas-Limora and Annika for this report in this event, well-timed. I'm really delighted to be part of this group, particularly hearing Johnny Walsh's preview of the summit has been talking and working on this summit for a long time. But just a real shout out for the administration for not only helping to focus and galvanize the conversation around democracy, but as you just heard Johnny preview, putting meat on the bones of what this means in these five key areas, this is really how to set the model for democracies coming together to put a plan of action in place. And to be here with Tom Carruthers, the intellectual titan that has helped shape this field and Tenzar represents the work of everybody that we support on the ground, it's a real honor. This is a terrific report. This third iteration of the global state of democracy report, it really captures analytically where we are without pulling punches, as Tom said. It's useful on how we hold democracies to account, how we fix ourselves, repair ourselves, because after all that's the premise of our model that's self-correcting, and also importantly lays out what we do, and I welcome this framework of delivering, rebuilding and preventing. I think it's helpful. I think that's where we might be a little bit more forward-leaning, because I think we do need to be on offense as we adapt to the challenges right now. You've laid out the serious challenge. You pointed out the power of resilience that we can build on, but this is where I think we can be bolder. Now is not the time for caution or purely defense. We do need to forge a global coalition for democracy, and that's why the summit this week is really the precursor for that. It's so critical. There's no better week to talk about the challenges and the way forward that you lay out, because I think the answer does mean that we have to think intentionally about how we are working and common cause, and that's something that I'm bringing into the endowment, Z-FOS, where we have a long tradition of a grant-making institution focused on supporting the frontline fighters around the world, which will absolutely continue. But understanding that we are working together in common cause and that we have to learn and join together if we're going to be effective, I think it's a premise to getting this right. I do want to anchor this with where Kevin did. I love the data and the analysis which we need to learn from. It has to, we've got to base our approach on that, but this is about real people. It's about things that should not be, as you said, and I'm just gonna read it one more time. That quote in your report that in the process, we should never forget why this work matters. It's more about safeguarding abstract principles or winning geopolitical battles. It's about protecting the dignity of real human beings, which democracy does better than any other political arrangement. Every democratic reversal is down to geopolitical battle loss. It's a constellation of lies that goes dark. This is powerful because this is our source of strength and you talk to individuals, you talk to the activists on the ground, you talk to a mother who's concerned about her child and they understand that ultimately a more democratic society is the best way to provide a sense of security, dignity, prosperity, a pathway for their family. This is our strength that we have to tap its strength in the yearning, universal yearning of people. And that is what gets me optimism. But I do accept that we need analysis and data as a baseline. It has to underpin our strategies and our programs to support and defend democracy around the world. And I also really applaud what I'm really trying to bring into the endowment of learning culture. That we've got to have lessons for how we reshaped democracy assistance. Tom alluded to this, that we've got to adapt as we address new forms of threats to democracy, more transnational of how we're working in increasingly complex contexts, especially with those in exile from Afghanistan to Burma, Nicaragua, Russia, Hong Kong. This is just a much larger part of our work and how they can be effective in exile. And also the takeaway of common costs. You point out, we see how the autocrats learn from each other. And this report underscores the importance of networks, partnerships, collaboration among democracies and among activists and democracy organizations so that we are working more effectively to address the threats. It's a common cause. We're stronger together here. And so the nature of the challenge to democracy and freedom, it does make this the defining challenge of our time. This isn't just another iteration of this report. We're managing populism at home, autocracy on offense, questions about democracy as effectiveness. It's not only the 15th year of a democratic recession, it's this authoritarian resurgence, the sharp power we see, the learning curve among autocrats. And so our answer has to be part of what comes out of the summit, a global coalition for democracy, if not the formality of an alliance. Premised on democratic resilience and innovation. But I think for the governments also, premised on democracy as strategy. You refer to this in your report. Democracy is a foreign policy. But democracy is the most effective national security for democratic countries. And so we need to have it as a strategy. The policies that flow from that the democratic unity is a slogan, but it means that we respond to defend each other when under duress, whether intimidation and Lithuanian Australia, we act. We work together to forge common strategies as democratic actors. And we stand particularly in solidarity so I'm with those on the front lines of despite the epicenter of freedom today, Iwan and Ukraine, but also understanding that that fight, that real frontline, it is civil society around the world that will hold folks through account and will help reverse this trend. So I think we've got an imperative as we come into the summit, as we digest your report, think about how we raise our game in support of those. And then we have an intentional offense in favor of freedom, that just shows democracy can deliver, stands by those in the fight and stands up to those who challenge them. We don't just prevent what they're doing, we counter. And this requires common cause. So it is a new moment. We've been in a protracted period of this global democratic crisis. We see a weakening of institutions, the erosion of the power of democratic institutions from populace, erosion of checks. And in the meanwhile, we see authoritarian regimes everywhere intensifying and modernizing their repression using technology to bring repression to scale. So this profoundly changed landscape has to recognize that authoritarians are now, they're gained strength on a global level where they're actually trying to change the norms and re-forge the international norms that have stigmatized governance before. So we have to tap our strength. That is the people, that's the demand for democracy. And it's a recognition that in some respects we've won the existential argument as you see Russia and Nicaragua to go to great lengths to have sham elections. There is a sense that legitimacy resides in people. And so despite these challenges, we've got to tap the energy that we see from the people of Sudan and Burma and Armenia. They're in a demanding mood. Technology can enable them and empower us. And we can leverage an international democratic architecture and a focused common cause. And this new situation is different because of a lot of the transnational approaches from corruption, disruption, technology related. It really demands that we work together. So I think we come into the summit together as a community with a sense of solidarity based responses among white minded partners where their role for government, their role for democracy, supportive organizations, civil society, independent media in common cause where we have confidence in our values. We've got to get a little bit of our momentum back even as we maintain humility in our approach that we have to collectively work to provide a North Star to underscore the self-correcting power of democracy, its ability to deliver. There's no better way than to expand democratic action on things like vaccine diplomacy, geo-economics and response, Belt and Road. Democracy is strategy as we talked about where we set out a goal to strengthen and modernize a global infrastructure for democracy to reverse this democratic procession and support a new democratic wave. And so that's, I think, the campaign mentality that I hope comes out of the summit with a year of action, a drum beat around democratic unity, support for democratic transitions, defending democratic values, countering the line, influence, competing in the arenas of tech and supporting civil society that ultimately it is their agency. It's the agency of the people that is going to lead, I think, this reversal. And so with that, I just want to thank Kevin Onica. I want to thank International Idea for coming front and center with an analytically rich, data-rich report that both underscores the nature of the evolved challenge we're facing, the urgency of the task at hand, but begins to really help point us forward on a common path of how we can act and how we can act on the framework you lay out to deliver, to rebuild, to prevent. And I'm really looking forward to the next couple of days as we see, as Johnny previewed, President Biden lay out some bold new initiatives in Dallas, self-bringing our own sense of a campaign to this in the coming year, in so many countries, so many other institutions stepping up at a time where collectively we can go on offense to help address the situation. So thank you, thank you for your leadership on this and real honor to be with you today. Thank you so much, Damon, for your words, for joining us today. We know you have a very busy schedule, so we're very honored to have you close this session. Thanks to all the fantastic panelists, Johnny, Tom, Chun-Li, thanks to our presenters, Sima, thanks to our Secretary General for being part of this discussion that has just started. We have heard so many important things today. What I'm taking away from your last words, Damon, it's democracy is not just about data, it's fundamentally about people. What I'm also hearing from many of you is the importance of setting aside our differences and coming together for a common cause, whether we call that an alliance or maybe a coalition better represents how different organizations from different sectors having different interests come together around a common cause to learn from each other, to not just prevent backsliding, but also to counter rising authoritarianism, to hold perpetrators of human rights abuses effectively to account and to effectively support those that want to advance democracy and the cause of democracy and to fight also transnational repression in all its new forms. So thank you for all these insights for joining us today. And for all of you who've made questions in the chat that we haven't been able to take up, please send us an email after the session is over, we'll be happy to continue the conversation offline after this is over. Thank you to everyone and see you soon, bye. See you.


Choufoot Kale is an astonishing ancient city, argued by mainstream historians as dating back only to medieval times. However, this we suspect is possibly due to it being documented during this time as having served as a fortress within the Crimean Mountains. A national monument of Crimean Caratus culture, although argued to be fairly recent archaeology, we believe, however, that upon closer inspection, a far more intriguing, far older story for its origins begins to appear. Identifiable advanced features so often discussed here on our channel, found throughout the ancient world, remnants indicative of a far older, far greater technologically advanced group having once been responsible. A group who had access to knowledge and stone cutting technology that has not only left the same signature scars all over the planet and investigative undertaking we have previously explored regarding similarities and differentiations to identify signature methods, an ongoing investigation in an attempt to identify separate lost, highly advanced civilizations, and most importantly how many there were. The site was clearly built by a group who were also capable of quarrying and placing enormous stones, sometimes over 1,000 tons in weight, atop one another. Many people are aware of the remarkable underground city known as Derincuyu, a settlement we have covered in the past. A gigantic ruin carved straight down 80 meters into the bedrock, rumored to have been lit using a pipe system which teased natural gases out of the strata, lighting a candle-sized flame at regular intervals throughout its entire structure. We know of this amazing ruin due to its incredible rediscovery. When a local purchased a property in the area, he set about doing some renovations. However, upon knocking down a wall in the house, he was confronted with the entrance to an amazing site. This in turn attracted the media, thus Derincuyu's public popularity, regardless of its controversial nature, was cast in stone, with rather difficult to explain origins. However, Chufut Kale, although itself a partially underground, partially above ground, yet no less incredible ancient city, also carved with incredible precision from the bedrock of Earth. The site was discovered and studied in depth initially by mainstream funded individuals. As such, predictably, it has subsequently been little shared publicly. This regardless of its incredible nature, its prehistoric appearance, and the fact that it even appears to be older than its more famous counterpart, Derincuyu. The site is largely ignored, and this is undoubtedly due to the institutionalized powers that be, who constantly monitor and thus control the financial incentives. Anyone requesting exploratory funding, whether within such fields as education, archaeology, or history, will simply be refused any application for a funded expedition. This reluctance to approve any in-depth public exploration of the site has long kept the lid on these ruins, and we feel for good reason. For although Chufut Kale was once masterfully carved from solid stone, created to house many hundreds of families and individuals, the erosion present on the site is also staggering. Many of the once refined chambers are slowly losing their form and returning to nature, with some caverns seemingly identical in appearance to many sites academia would simply dismiss as natural formations. Yet regardless of this dismissal and the deliberate overlooking of its grandeur by certain fields of study, we find Chufut Kale highly compelling.