Statement on Protecting Human Rights Defenders

                        The international organisations of human rights should do more to reinforce the most basics rights of the world population, since many governments around the world don't concern much about the human rights of their populations, and to make matters worse in many cases they are even taking part in the violations of human rights. We, human rights defenders can't give up of our activism, our daily struggle for justice and for our political rights because of the threats. I know that isn't easy to keep this fight for so long time, but now we have millions sharing this feeling, this calling from our awareness. I think that never in the world history a pre candidate was so bullied, but also never in the world history a pre candidate received so much support. Once more I like to thank all support felt for us here. I can't transmit in words how much I am grateful with all this huge support coming from all parts of the world.    This post is a summary of the joint statement released by the Government of the U.S.A. and the E.U. in December 2022. Published at https://www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-protecting-human-rights-defenders-online/

                     The U.S. - E.U. partnership is a cornerstone of our shared strength, prosperity, and commitment to advancing freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights around the world. In the framework of the U.S. - E.U. Trade and Technology Council, we address the misuse of technology threatening security and human rights and have committed to strengthen our cooperation on protecting human rights defenders online; promoting the open, free, global, secure and reliable internet as stated in the Declaration for the Future of the Internet; combatting online harassment and abuse; eliminating arbitrary and unlawful surveillance; combating government-imposed Internet shutdowns; and countering disinformation and information manipulation and interference. Digital technologies are vital resource for human rights defenders and civic actors, including in the context of documenting human rights violations and abuses. However, these technologies can also be mimused to target human rights defenders and undermine civic space. The U.S. and E.U. are deeply concerned by the rapid growth of online threats against human rights defenders and the ongoing contraction of civic space around the world. Human rights defenders continue to face threats and attacks, including arbitrary or unlawful online surveillance, censorship, harassment, smear campaigns, targeted Internet shutdowns, and doxing. In line with our respective policies, the E.U. Action Plan for Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024 and the E.U. Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders and the Guidelines for U.S. Diplomatic Mission Support to Civil Society and Human Rights Defenders, we reaffirm our joint commitment to protecting human rights defenders from threats and attacks and promoting freedoms of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, both online and offline. The U.S. and E.U. firmly condemn the misuse of technology by both state and non-state actors to target human rights defenders. We reaffirm that all human rights apply both online and offline. We recall, that according to the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by consensus by U.N. member states, states "shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present declaration". States should work to prevent attacks against human rights defenders and bring perpetrators of attacks to justice. We also emphasize the responsibility of the private sector, in particular technology companies to respect human rights in line with the U.N. Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. We urge companies to prevent the misuse of their products and platforms, conduct due diligence, take effective action to address all forms of online violence and unlawful surveillance against human rights defenders, support victims on their search for remedy and accountability for violations and abuses, and provide a safe space for human rights defenders to carry out their work. We also support stronger accountability for technology platforms and recognize the role of government to enhance online safety, security and privacy. The U.S. and E.U. will work to develop effective policies to mitigate threats to democracy and human rights, and to promote appropriate oversight and safeguards for the use of surveillance technologies. We will take a multistakeholder approach, including through worling with partner governments, private sector, academia, civil society including human rights NGOs and human rights defenders, survivors of online harassment and abuse, and international organisations. We commit to promote accountability for companies that are complicit in enabling human rights abuses. We will continue to give human rights defenders a platform to highlight the online threats they face, including through public events, as we did in the framework of the 49th Session of the Human Rights Council. We are committed to working closely to elevate these issues within the U.N. system, including with the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the U.N. Tech Envoy. We call on likeminded countries to join in the effort and to publicly amplify their support for human rights defenders. The E.U. and the United States are committed to ensure access and meaningful participation of civil society in conversations around human rights in the multilateral fora. The U.S. and E.U. will continue to support mechanisms, including the Digital Defenders Partnership, the Lifeline Embattled CSO Assistance Fund, and ProtectDefenders.EU that provide resources for at-risk human rights defenders and CSO, including for preventing digital attacks and for supporting digital security needs. The U.S. and the E.U. are also committed to fostering cooperation through our missions around the globe. U.S. Embassies and E.U. Delegations play an instrumental role in monitoring developments and conducting joint outreach on issues surrounding human rights defenders' protection. The U.S. and the E.U. stand ready to engage with government partners to strengthen their national efforts to prevent and address threats against human rights defenders.

The Negative Impact of Polarization on Democracy

              This post is a summary of the book with the title above published in 2021 at https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/wien/18175.pdf

               An analysis of the last 30 years of democracy research leads to the conclusion that this period was very turbulent. It began with the triumph of liberal democracy as a form of the government and ended with the widespread thesis of a democratic recession, for which there are many indications: from the unprecedented rise of right-wing populism through the declining confidence of citizens in democratic institutions to the restriction of political and civil rights. What, however, makes the aforementioned dynamics troublesome is the fact that it affects both the "new" the "old" democracies. The political development in them have shown that political polarization, which is defined as the ideological distance between opposing political camps, is a crucial part of this disturbing trend. The technological facilitator of this development is the rise of social media. They have significantly facilitated the interaction between like-minded individuals in a bubble. In this context, however, it must be emphasized that not every form of polarization is harmful to democratic processes. A certain degree of polarization is not only normal, but also desirable, because it offers voters clear programmatic alternatives, which increases the interest in politics. A healthy polarization leads to more political debate and promotes political participation. To put it in simple terms, "democracy requires conflict, but not too much". The danger to democracy derives from a political dynamic in which a healthy polarization is transformed into a toxic one. Jennifer McCoy define this kind of polarization as "a process whereby the normal multiplicity of differences in the society increasingly align along a single dimension, differences become reinforcing, and people perceive and describe politics and society in terms of "us" versus "them". This type of polarization weaken respect for democratic norms, corrodes legislative processes, undermines the nonpartisan stature of the judiciary, fuels public disaffection with political parties, exacerbates intolerance and discrimination, diminishes societal trust, and increases violence throughout society. How the growing salience of identity politics in party competition will affect the democratic system depends on the attitudes and discourse of the leading politicians. The existence of identity issues in party competition does not automatically lead to toxic polarization. This depends on whether the politicians see the identity conflict as an opportunity to promote polarization for their own interests, so they can mobilize their own voters more successfully and weaken their opponents by portraying them as a threat. The key politicians represent different narratives that are mutually exclusive and thus non-negotiable. In this case one can not talk about the usual conflict between different policies, but rather between different world views. Political competition that is characterized by such a cleavage is dominated by a series of zero-sum conflicts, which are regarded as existential and have a winner-take-all logic. Once political elites and their followers no longer believe that opponents are legitimate and deserve equal respect, they become less likely to adhere to democratic rules. A brutalization of words leads to a brutalization of deeds. And once such resentments have been mobilized, they are difficult to control. As for the citizens level, Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt have argued in their bestselling book, "How Democracies Die", that since 1970s, democracies have rarely disappeared through armed coups, but have eroded more slowly through the subversion of elected officials. It is therefore of enormous importance that citizens curb the authoritarian ambitions of elected politicians. This precondition for the longevity of democracy does not exist in a political system characterized by toxic polarization. What we can observe is that due to tribalism, one characteristic of toxic polarization, a democracy of citizens has been replaced by a democracy of fans, which knows only loyalty and equates critical thinking with betrayal. Milan Svolik's study in which he reviewed several countries such as Turkey, Venezuela, and the USA, found that in such systems voters are prepared to trade off democratic principles for partisan interests. "When punishing a leader's authoritarian tendencies requires voting for a platform, party, or person that his supporters detest, many will find this too high a price to pay. Polarization thus presents aspiring authoritarians with a structural opportunity". Partisanship beats democratic standards. Many of them are dissatisfied with the way democracy is working. The negative consequences of polarization: institutional inefficiency, instability, political stalemate, paralysis, and reform backlog, have contributed that democracy is not capable of solving society's problems. Toxic polarization thus poses a serious threat to democracy. Some issues are more polarizing than others. Some politicians focus more on the common good while others act as political entrepreneurs and prioritize particular interests. But when the political system has fully embraced friend/enemy distinction, new approaches are needed to facilitate cross-party relations. Society, therefore, need new ways to counteract polarization. One solution, is to strengthen the deliberative component of democracy. In this sense, citizens' assemblies would be one option. These are groups of people, who meet over several weeks or months to discuss a specific topic. This participatory variant is being practiced for a long time limited to local and regional projects. Only recently citizens' assemblies have began to discuss issues of national relevance as well: from citizens assemblies in France and U.K. discussing climate change to the Irish assemblies, which generated two referenda, on same-sex marriage and on abortion that for a long time were regarded as too divisive. The experiences of citizens' assemblies that led to success show that 5 methodological criteria must be met for a citizens' assembly to be successful: 1) the deliberative model has to effectively inject into the political project. 2) to avoid the danger of manipulation, impartial actors (e.g. NGOs) should form the organizing committees. 3) Citizens' assemblies should  not be seen as a substitute for politicians, parties or institutions, but complement it. 4) politicians must take citizens' assemblies seriously. 5) the debate in the context of a citizens' assembly should be accompanied by the media and thus be made accessible to many more people than just the participants.  Many democracies around the world have been plagued by toxic polarization, thus increasing the potential danger to democracy. To ensure its longevity, new approaches must be found to minimize the danger. Citizens' assemblies could be one of them.

10th Anniversary of the Protests of June 2013

                                                 This month of June one of the biggest protests in Brazil history completes ten years. The reason why this protest is so much studied with many publications  and others are not, it was its character totally spontaneous, unexpected, democratic and non-partisan. We all in Brazil watched on TV and internet millions went to the streets to protest against corruption, injustice, violence, bad use of public money, etc. Hundreds of protesters wearing Guy Fawkes mask. Thousands of protesters with posters asking for more investment in education, political participation and inclusion, and governmental transparency and accountability. In my opinion, it was one of the most important and meaningful moments of the Brazilian history and a powerful demonstration of solidarity, empathy, independence, and political commitment of its people. Those protests called by some as "June Revolution," and by others as "June Journeys" must be always remembered. And it is good also to remember what the protesters were asking for and what has changed after so many years. If you want to read more about those protests, access the posts of this blog during the month of June, I have been doing summaries about it since 2017. This post is a summary of the introduction of the book, "Media and the Image of the Nation During Brazil's 2013 Protests." published in 2020 at https://download.e-bookshelf.de/download/0013/4112/35/L-G-0013411235-0043015184.pdf

              Nobody saw them coming. In hindsight, many reasons have been given, including the state of the economy, a pursuit of justice, a representational crisis in the national political system and media, the development of new communication technologies, the birth of a different kind of social movements and even a fascist conspiracy. However, in every conversation I have had ever since, those who witnessed the series of protests that stormed Brazil in June 2013 told me that they were surprised. National and foreign news media reported that Brazilians were protesting against the amount of money spent on sporting mega-events, to the detriment  of health, education and public transportation. Some demonstrators carried banners with slogans in English such as 'We don't need the World Cup' or 'We need money for hospitals and education'.  The June 2013 demonstrations amounted to the one of largest unrest in Brazil. 20 June alone saw more than one million people protesting in 353 cities. Local and international academics, journalists and pundits were puzzled by the sheer magnitude and potential implications of the protests. The violence of the military police against protesters and journalists proved to be a turning point. The general public became more supportive of the demonstrations, with a survey published at the time claiming that 55% of São Paulo inhabitants were in favour of the protests. Furthermore, Brazilians newspapers and TV stations, which had originally condemned the protests, became more sympathetic towards them. Simultaneously, in Brasilia, the non-partisan Popular Committee for the World Cup called for a protest outside the national stadium in Brasilia, to coincide with the inaugural match of the Confederations Cup on 15 June. 500 participants took part in that demonstration, but they put into the spotlight the disenchantment of many Brazilians with the astronomic costs of organising sporting mega-events. When on 17 June the protests returned to São Paulo, they were not only about public transportation fares. Participants' demands grew, including, infrastructure costs for the World Cup and Olympic Games, health and education deficiencies, and corruption among the political class. A whole array of non-partisan organisations took part and many demonstrators emphasised that they did not belong to political parties, to the point of expelling those carrying parties' banners or flags. With the intensification of protests in mid-June, authorities all over Brazil agreed to freeze or reduce public transportation fares. As a consequence, on 21 June the MPL (Movimento Passe Livre) stopped calling for more mobilisations. The demonstrations however continued, with polls estimating that eight out of ten Brazilians were in favour, and became practically a daily event, especially in cities hosting the matches of the Confederations Cup, such as BH, Fortaleza, Brasilia and RJ.  Although protests continued throughout the year, they significantly decreased with the end of the Confederations Cup on 30June 2013. By then, more than thirteen hundred people had been arrested, six had died, and hundreds had been injured. The June Journeys are the standard against which subsequent outbreaks of socialm unrest in Brazil have been measured. They have been celebrated as a positively exceptional moment for democracy. Analyses in their aftermath largely looked at them favourably, stressing that the protests had been the manifestation of a politically engaged people standing up to the abuses of the elites. Governments spent hefty sums of money on extravagant events, such as the World Cup and Olympic Games, hoping these events will paint a favourable picture of the nation. A good image is thus seen as a necessity to successfully entice tourists, attract investment, increase exports and consolidate political aspirations. Activists and sometimes journalists contest in turn these portrayals, seeking to convince domestic and distant audiences that the real nation is different from the one depicted by authorities. One of the main arguments of this book is that the disruption caused by the June Journeys to the authorities efforts to construct a specific image of Brazil sheds light on the tensions over the mediated construction and maintenance of the nation. The June Journeys are thus an example of the rapidly shifting nature of nationhood in a digital, transnational and increasingly hard to control media environment. The relative, albeit never completely settled, monopoly enjoyed by states and the national media on communicating the nation as a homogeneous whole has been disrupted. Multinational corporations, ranking agencies, NGOs, social movements and activists, all located both within and outside national boundaries, seek nowadays to push in and through the media the idea of the nation to advance it. At the same time, nations are increasingly communicated as economic units, and even promoted as brands. 

Inclusive Political Participation and Representation

                         Everybody around the world seem to understand that for a better democracy and a more productive and effecient political system, we need more political inclusion. And to achieve this, we need more political activists becoming candidates. We need more candidates with a real chance to win becoming politicians, candidates with a long history of an online and offline activism for democracy, human rights and justice, candidates with a wide coalition of support. Now, more than ever we need candidates speaking about the benefits of political inclusion. More than ever we need politicians and candidates not afraid of competition. More than ever we need to recognize and to respect movements happenning around the world for political inclusion, justice, democracy and human rights.  This post is a summary of the book with the title above published at https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/inclusive-political-participation-and-representation.pdf

                   Participation and representation are two fundamental elements and principles of democracy. They affirm that a democracy is dependent on its citizens and that this ownership is expressed through meaningful participation by and representation of all citizens in democratic institutions and processes. The goal of any undertaking in this field is clear: to assist political institutions to become more responsive, responsible and representative. Responsiveness means that governments are able to react to the demands and needs of society at large, and that they are ready to openly and transparently interact with a variety of actors, including civil society. Responsibility means that governments can be held accountable by citizens. Representativeness means that governments work on institutionalizing political life and public political participation through legitimate institutions. Support participation and representation today, however, remains a challenge. Some citizens, in all countries irrespective of their stage of democratic development, have come to mistrust their institutions. Inequality of opportunity persists worldwide. Democracy is not only about the right to vote, it is also about the right to be elected. In some cases, access to political institutions is not available or even feasible because the frameworks or modalities for inclusive citizen involvement and engagement are not being implemented or are simply not in place. It is in this context that promoting inclusive political representation remains priorities for international organizations. Key provisions have been made in the relevant charters and declarations of regional organizations to protect and promote diversity in the region. In the Pacific, the Declaration of the Pacific Islands Forum, which outlines the guiding principles of good governance and courses of action, commits its member states to: 'belief in the liberty of individuals under the law, in equal rights for all citizens and to upholding democratic processes and institutions which reflect national and local circumstances, including the peaceful transfer of power'. In the article 2 of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation provides that member states shall: 'ensure that disadvantaged and vulnerable persons or groups are included in social development and promote respect and protection of human rights for all, promote the effective exercise of rights, promote social integration and strengthen civil society. The Organization of American States (OAS) is the principal political regional forum for the Americas for facilitating international cooperation among its member states to promote democracy, human rights, and the advancement of sustainable and inclusive development. The OAS should try to strengthen the collaboration between Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and the member states. Regional organizations should strive for broad and inclusive participation by CSOs in their meetings to ensure both the availability of technical expertise and comprehensive analysis of the topics at hand. With a database of nearly 5,000 CSOs, divided by thematic area in order to deliver better-targeted message to CSO specialists in the subject matter of a given meeting. An effective communications strategy is an essential part of facilitating inclusive political participation in the policy-making process. Such strategy should be proactive in order to deliver relevant, meaningful information in real time to CSOs. There is a high level of interest among non-governmental actors in assuming a greater and more active role in the policy-making process. The dialogue between OAS member states and civil society helps to build alliances and consensus around common action agendas, which is an essential dimension of democratic governance.  Through greater integration of CSOs in thematic networks and expanded outreach efforts, civil society representatives have developed a greater awareness of political process and the opportunities for their participation. Building on the strong foundation that has been established will require a long-term commitment from all parties involved, and the OAS is dedicated to continuing its efforts to ensure growing political participation and representation in the political processes to the benefit of the peoples of the Americas. This combination of expanded mandates and active demands by citizens is the reason why efforts to support more inclusive political representation are increasingly among the objectives and priorities of regional organizations today. Critically, inclusive political participation and representation by citizens ensures the legitimacy and credibility of member states. The best way to ensure implementation of the mandate is through institutionalization of engagement with civil society and stakeholders. Such institutionalization could involve the establishment of regional mechanisms like the Register of Civil Society Organizations in the OAS. Another way is consultation with CSOs in regular meetings between civil society and regional organizations. Initiatives and policies by regional organizations are evolving to promote inclusive political participation and representation. This dynamic is just one reflection of the importance attached to citizen engagement. It also highlights the growing experience of regional organizations in this area. The Inter-Regional Dialogue on Democracy endeavours to capture these experiences, build on the lessons learned and facilitate exchange among regional organizations. In so doing, it can help regional organizations in their democracy-building efforts.