Number of results to display per page
Search Results
32. Contemporary Challenges to Global Democracy
- Author:
- Erica Frantz
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Brown Journal of World Affairs
- Institution:
- Brown Journal of World Affairs
- Abstract:
- Today’s democracies are under threat. According to the watchdog organiza- tion Freedom House, each year of the past decade has seen a decline in global democracy.1 Importantly, many of these declines have occurred in wealthier and more established democracies, which scholars have typically considered resistant to democratic backsliding. In some instances, these erosions have left democracies weakened, such as in India and the United States; however, in other instances, they have led to complete democratic collapse and the emergence of authoritarianism, such as in Turkey and Serbia.
- Topic:
- Governance, Democracy, Dictatorship, Political Crisis, and Autocracy
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
33. A Civil or Uncivil Civil Society?
- Author:
- Liv Tørres
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Research Paper
- Institution:
- Center on International Cooperation
- Abstract:
- Civil society is part and parcel of the institutional architecture that will be crucial to help us out of our current crisis of staggering inequality, pandemic trauma and required recovery. Yet, civil society is large, complex, fragmented, and polarized. It gained renewed and considerable attention during, and after, the ‘Third Wave’ of democracy in the early 1990s when trade unions, professional organizations, women’s and civic organizations, as well as religious organizations and churches in many countries mobilized for democratic change. This was, of course, not the first nor the last period of civic action and mobilization. Civil society has, however, changed dramatically over the past decades. The number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has grown. Membership in civil society organizations has kept up, but the meaning of membership has most probably changed. Civic space is under considerable pressure, while social movements, activism, and protests have increased. All in all, civil society now represents a wide variety of actors with different governance structures, with/without membership, varying in size and agenda.
- Topic:
- Civil Society, Democracy, NGOs, and Participation
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
34. Turning the Tide on Dirty Money
- Author:
- Trevor Sutton and Ben Judah
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Center for American Progress - CAP
- Abstract:
- To promote domestic resilience and curb the malign influence of authoritarian powers, the United States and its democratic partners need to unite against corruption and kleptocracy.
- Topic:
- Corruption, Democracy, Kleptocracy, and Dark Money
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
35. The Digital Technology Agenda at the Summit for Democracy
- Author:
- Eileen Donahoe
- Publication Date:
- 03-2021
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The Ambassadors Review
- Institution:
- Council of American Ambassadors
- Abstract:
- The United States plans to host a Summit for Democracy to advance President Joseph Biden’s stated priority for national security of revitalizing democracy. Digital technology must be a focal point of the Summit. The future of democracy depends, in large part, on the ability of democracies to confront the digital transformation of society – to address the challenges and to capitalize on its opportunities. Over the past decade, democracies have struggled to meet this test, while authoritarians have used technology to deepen repression and extend global influence. To combat the digital authoritarian threat, democracies must be rallied around a shared values-based vision of digital society and a joint strategic technology agenda. The Summit tech agenda should revolve around five core themes: 1) Democracies must get their own tech policy “houses” in order; 2) To win the normative battle, democracies must compete and win the technology battle; 3) Technological transformation necessitates governance innovation; 4) To win the geopolitical battle for the soul of 21st century digital society, democracies must band together; 5) Technology must be reclaimed for citizens and humanity.
- Topic:
- Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Democracy, and Summit
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
36. What Is So Foreign About Foreign Influence Operations?
- Author:
- Hedvig Ördén and James Pamment
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Influence operations are increasingly seen as a threat to democratic societies because they can corrupt the integrity of political deliberation. As individuals engage in debate on social media, political deliberation becomes vulnerable to potentially destructive forms of interference. Many debates on what to do about influence operations emphasize that these operations constitute what is deemed to be a foreign threat. But does the notion of foreignness, viewed in isolation, constitute a helpful lens for distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate influence operations? Ultimately, the lens of foreignness is only helpful when applied to a narrow set of cases. One sensible way of reviewing when the concept of foreignness can be useful in distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate influence operations is to consider three separate conceptions of how to determine what counts as foreign: foreign states, foreign citizens, and foreign interests. In the first case, influence operations are seen as threatening acts directed at a targeted state by foreign states, using behaviors seen as analogous to acts of war. In the second instance, influence operations are considered threatening acts conducted by foreign citizens that undermine domestic democratic systems in a targeted state. In cases of the third sort, influence operations are viewed as acts aimed at advancing foreign interests through the illegitimate employment of soft power. Given these various models, the notion of foreignness constitutes a useful lens for discussions of influence operations in cases when there is overwhelming evidence of state-based, hybrid, and irregular warfare. An argument can also be made for employing the distinction in relation to the protection of democratic institutions, such as elections. However, when influence operations are regarded as a more generalized threat to political deliberation, foreignness is not a helpful category for determining the legitimacy or illegitimacy of such campaigns. In such cases, rather than focusing on the (domestic or foreign) identity of the malicious actors themselves, it is more fruitful to conceive of illegitimacy in terms of specific manipulative communication techniques. Suitable countermeasures could include, for instance, creating greater transparency surrounding, or even restricting, the use of artificial techniques to inflate the level of perceived engagement a piece of online content generates.
- Topic:
- Democracy, Soft Power, and Foreign Interference
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
37. How Middle-Power Democracies Can Help Renovate Global Democracy Support
- Author:
- Rachel Kleinfeld, Thomas Carothers, Steven Feldstein, and Richard Youngs
- Publication Date:
- 02-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Abstract:
- Middle-power democracies—countries which regardless of their geopolitical weight have made democracy support a sustained component of their foreign policy—will be crucial to reimagining democracy support strategies and policies to better meet the moment. Some of these states have crafted new initiatives and wielded diplomatic tools to deepen their impact in recent years. However, these states have on the whole punched below their collective weight. This paper suggests that middle-power democracies can maximize their impact on global democracy in the following ways: Enhancing solidarity: when a country acts courageously in defense of democracy, it needs to know that others will stand alongside it. Sharpening their focus: middle-power democracies should target policy areas aligned with democratic values on issues both at the top of the geopolitical agenda and at the top-of-mind for citizens around the world—for example, economic recovery, injustice and discrimination, corruption, digital repression, and climate change. Improving diplomatic cooperation: pursuing flexible and focused multilateral partnerships allows for collaboration on key policy interests and amplifies middle-power actions.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Democracy, Solidarity, and COVID-19
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus and United States of America
38. Restoring Trust in the Think Tank Sector
- Author:
- Ben Freeman and Eli Clifton
- Publication Date:
- 05-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
- Abstract:
- Think tanks produce valuable research reports, opinion pieces, and expert commentary on television and radio; their research fellows and associates testify regularly before Congress. But their work can be compromised by their funders, a lack of transparency, and conflicts of interest. Given public distrust of the U.S. policymaking process, think tanks have a valuable opportunity to take tangible and necessary steps to help reinstill public confidence in the government’s ability to address our nation’s economic, health, environmental, and foreign policy challenges. Embracing simple standards of funding transparency, complying with the Foreign Agent Registration Act, FARA, and identifying potential or apparent conflicts of interest are necessary steps for think tanks to bolster the credibility of their work and help restore public confidence in the policymaking process. The specific measures explored in this paper are three: Basic standards of donor disclosure and funding transparency must be more widely embraced. Think tanks should be transparent about their funding to preempt potential criticism of undisclosed conflicts of interest involving funders and research products. The long-term benefits of transparency far outweigh the short-term difficulties and publicity challenges that may result from disclosing sources of funding. Good-faith efforts to disclose activity that may require registration under FARA regulations are essential. This would demonstrate institutional commitments to transparency, avoid any impression of undisclosed conflicts of interest, and serve as endorsements of the Justice Department’s efforts to limit foreign interference in the U.S. political system. Think tanks should proactively identify the appearance of potential conflicts of interest between sources of funding and staff doing work to be offered in the public sphere. Such measures would show that research institutions take seriously the potential for such conflicts and are disclosing when funders — even if funding is not directed to the research product in question — may stand to benefit directly or indirectly from a research product or policy proposal. Taken together, these measures are essential to setting think tanks apart from a political system the public does not trust and sees as captured by special interests and dark money, money from opaque sources intended to influence political and policy outcomes. Rebuilding and maintaining credibility in an era increasingly marked by misinformation and public cynicism requires think tanks to actively address the areas in which they have often fallen short: donor transparency and conflict-of-interest avoidance.
- Topic:
- Democracy, Think Tanks, and Transparency
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
39. Protecting Democracy: The Relevance of International Democracy Promotion for Term Limits
- Author:
- Julia Leininger and Daniel Nowack
- Publication Date:
- 01-2021
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
- Abstract:
- The question of whether and how democracy can be promoted and protected through international support has recently gained relevance. On the one hand, the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan has reignited a public debate on the limits of democracy promotion. On the other hand, the need for international democracy protection is growing due to an increase in autocratisation trends worldwide. DIE research shows that it is possible to effectively support and protect democracy. In this context, both the protection of central democratic institutions, such as term limits for rulers, and the promotion of democratic forces that pro-actively resist attempts at auto¬cratisation are central. Since 2010, autocratisation trends have been characterised by the fact that they often slowly erode achieved democratisation successes and consolidate autocracies. The circumvention and abolition of presidential term limits by incumbent presidents are part of the typical “autocratisation toolbox”. Term extensions limit democratic control and expand presidential powers. Democracy promotion and protection play a relevant role in preserving presidential term limits, and thus in protecting democracy. They contribute towards improving the “duration” and “survival chances” of presidential term limits. The more international democracy promotion is provided, the lower the risk that term limits will be circumvented. For example, a DIE analysis found that a moderately high democracy promotion mean of $2.50 per capita over four years on average halves the risk of presidential term limits being circumvented.
- Topic:
- NATO, Development, Diplomacy, Democracy, and Autocracy
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus
40. Paraguay's Compliance With The Inter-American Human Rights System
- Author:
- Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, Madeline Soiney, and Andrés Hernández
- Publication Date:
- 12-2021
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Kellogg Institute for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Why do new democracies comply with international human rights obligations? We analyze Paraguay’s compliance with all reparation measures requested by the Inter-American Human Rights System over the past two decades. In contrast to most studies, which focus on reparation measures ordered by a single organ in the system, our study covers all orders resulting from friendly settlements, reports published by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and rulings by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. We provide a novel classification of human rights cases, and evaluate three competing explanations for compliance: legal factors, international pressures, and domestic political will. Our analysis of 1,426 reparation-years underscores the importance of changes in political will over time.
- Topic:
- Human Rights, Democracy, Rule of Law, and Institutions
- Political Geography:
- Latin America, Paraguay, and Global Focus