Democracy and Human Rights: A Pathway to Peace and Development

                                 This post is a summary of the book with the title above published at https://um.fi/documents/35732/48132/democracy_and_human_rights_a_pathway_to_peace_and_development.pdf/0b5b0d3a-a251-92a7-8113-14ca88603d01?t=1560450252015. And an article published at  https://www.weduglobal.org/wcontent/uploads/2016/02/SUU_KYI_CULTURE_OF_PEACE_AS08.pdf

                       The most important and best known document which concerns human rights is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948. The declaration has led to the conclusion of a host of international human rights agreements. Its core message is that human rights are inherent to all people and neither the state nor any other can take them away from an individual. The UDHR covers the principal human rights: the civil and political rights and so-called economic, cultural and social rights. Civil rights safeguard all persons their personal sphere of freedom, in which the public authorities may not interfere. Political rights ensure individuals the right of participation in voluntary political and social activities. The principle of the universality and integral nature of human rights was confirmed in the Human Rights World Conference in Vienna in 1993. A number of countries treat their citizens unequally. Freedom of speech, for example, may be restricted or some are prevented from participating in elections. It is typical of undemocratic systems to suppress the activities of NGOs, to restrict the freedom of the press and to conduct unfair elections. It may thus be very hard to exercise one's power of influence in society. Democracy lays a foundation for social stability and equilibrium. Stable and peaceful conditions, for their part, consitute a prerequisite for economic growth and development. Free elections and other democratic ways of action do not, however, as such, guarantee an improving economy. For the developing countries to manage to break out of the poverty trap, more equitable world trade and support from rich nations are required. Elections represent a vital part of the democratisation process of a country. Fair and genuinely elections give citizens the chance to influence the future of their country and area of residence. In the developing countries. outside elections observers are often used to ensure fair elections. The U.N. and its special development agencies represent a significant channel of development cooperation assistance. The promotion of human rights and democracy plays a major role in the operation of the U.N. system. According to the U.N. Development Programme, U.N.D.P., respect for human rights and promotion of good governance are essentially instrumental to development. Respect for individuals' human rights is traditional practice of the E.U., and democracy is an integral part of their decision-making procedures. All framework agreements related to development cooperation made by the E.U. include a statement which requires compliance with the principles of democracy, human rights and good governance. Cooperation can be suspended in case of a grave infringiment of the principles of the statement. The E.U. can also influence the developing countries' human rights policies through trade policy measures, since it is possible to take human rights issues into account when customs relief is granted to the developing countries by the E.U. Such benefits can be cancelled on account of continuing and flagrant human rights violations.                                                                                                                               The question of empowerment is central to both culture and development. It decides who has the means of imposing on a nation or society their view of what constitutes culture and development and who determines what practical measures can be taken. The more totalitarian a system the more power will be concentrated in the hands of the ruling elite and the more culture and development will be used to serve narrow interests. Culture thus is dynamic and broad. But when it is bent to serve narrow interests it become static and its exclusive aspects come to the fore and it assumes coercive overtones. The "national culture" can become a bizarre graft of selected historical incidents and distorted values intended to justify the actions of those in power. Many authoritarian governments wish to appear in the forefront of modern progress but are reluctant to institute genuine change. It is precisely because of the cultural diversity of the world that it is necessary for different nations and peoples to agree on those basic human values which will act as a unifying factor. In fact the values that democracy and human rights seek to promote can be found in many cultures. Human  beings the world over need freedom and security that they may be able to realize their full potential. Support for the desirability of strong government and dictatorship can also be found in all cultures. The desire to dominate and the tendency to adulate the powerful are also common human traits arising out of a desire for security. A nation may choose a system that leaves the protection of the freedom and security of the many dependent on the inclinations of the empowered few; or it may choose institutions and practices that will suffucuently empower individuals and organizations to protect their own freedom and security. The choice will decide how far a nation will progress along the road to human development. Governments must find news ways of enabling their people to participate more in government and allow them much greater influence on the decisions that affect their lives. Unless this is done, the tide of people rising aspirations will inevitably clash with inflexible systems, leading to anarchy. A rapid democratic transition and a strengthening of the institutions of civil society are the only appropriate responses. The basic requirement of a genuine democracy is that the people should be empowered to be able to participate in the governance of their country. Without this democratic institutions will be but empty shells incapable of reflecting the aspirations of the people and unable to withstand the encroachment of authoritarianism.

Day of Fighting Injustice - 2021

                Two months ago, precisely on 23rd of August was celebrated in Brazil, the day of fighting injustice. We all must defend justice, because when there is some injustice happening for so long, a dangerous precedent can happen, destroying democracy, undermining rule of law and fundamental human rights. So, the public trust in our institutions is severely harmed. Besides, when there is not justice, the abuses tend to grow and spreading and affecting many more people. So if you have witnessed any violation of human rights, record it and help fight injustice. You should help to do justice, because if not you can be the next victim.  I have been fighting for justice, democracy and human rights for so many years and intend keep this work for more years ahead. I'll never give up to make Brazil a better country, more democratic, fairer, and where human rights are truly respected. The systematic violations, the impunity, the daily bullying in the mainstream media, the threats online and offline exist to do the victims give up to fight for their rights and reparations. Besides the violations, the systematic abuses, the daily humiliation and the impunity can have a dehumanizing effect in the population, trying us accept what can not be accepted, do not let this happen to you, the solidarity and the emphaty are the essence of the human beings. We all should recognize who have courage to defend our human rights including our political rights. Because always there are costs to do this, so help who is losing to defend your right.  This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published at https://www.hrc.org/news/we-are-stronger-together-fighting-injustice-takes-a-united-front. The second was published at https://www.scmp.com/yp/discover/your-voice/opinion/article/3059862/dont-underestimate-or-dismiss-power-social-media. The third was published at   https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2019/09/human-rights-in-age-of-social-media-big-data-and-ai

                Six inspiring Americans, each with their own unique story and reason to speak out, have combined their voices to create a united video message of hope. Gold Star father Khizr Khan, transgender Sarah McBride, dreamer Astrid Silva, "Mother of the Movement" Lucia McBath, disability rights activist Anastasia Somoza, and Karla Ortiz, the 12-year-old of undocumented parents who shared her fears of her family's separation and deportation. Their messages of courage and compassion in the face of adversity stood out. There is a need to remember their voices of resilience, and find strength in their calls for solidarity. "We are seeing difficult times that many of us never expected", said Silva. Nevertheless, Silva's desire to defend immigrant rights and join others fighting for equality eclipses her fears and desire to give up. Never be disheartened because the majority of Americans stand with us. The goodness and decency of America is many fold greater than hate and prejudice displayed by a few." said Khan. McBath echoes Khan's optimism despite the state of uncertainty faced by many groups fighting for their rights. As an anti-gun violence advocate and mother of Jordan Davis, the 17-year-old boy fatally shot simply for playing loud music, McBath gains strength through other gun violence survivors and thousands of fellow activists fighting against injustice. "I believe in the power of people to stand up for their freedoms, for justice and equal opportunities. Never forget how valuable you are in your own struggle." said McBath. McBath, like the other six other activists featured in the video, believes that no matter the cause, it is important for all those advocating for justice to unite and come together as one. "The fight for justice for all only happens when our sleeves are rolled up and hands extended to others that are needed to fortify the movement. We are stronger together." said McBath.                                                                                                                    Many people are critical of social media, but they should acknowledge the benefit it has brought to society. Social media can reach a large audience in a short period of time, for instance. Because of this, much unjust suffering around the world have been brought to light. In October 2017, reality star Kim Kardashian retweeted a post that detailed the story of Alice Marie Johnson, a woman sentenced to life in prison after she was convicted of drug trafficking. (many felt the sentence was far too harsh for the crime, considering she wasn't the leader of the operation, and it was her first offence.) She had spent more than 20 years behind bars by the time Kardashian had retweeted the post. In May 2018, Kardashian approached U.S. President Donald Trump to ask him to grant Alice clemency. This was granted in June 2018, and she was finally released. This case is indicative of the power of social media. Sceptics ought to have faith in our generation's ability to judge the information that is presented to them. Don't assume everything you read is real, and look for reputable sources before share a story. Others might argue that we should not try to interfere with the judicial system. The case of Alice Johnson became known because the justice system failed her. Professional advice was sought before Kardashian met Trump regarding Alice Johnson, whose case was reviewed thoroughly before clemency was granted. Social media is important in helping to uncover injustice. There are, however, many cases that have not had the attention they deserve. What, or who, determines which case gets brought to light? Buzzfeed News said that the British Home Office, which is responsible for immigration, security, law and order, often only fast track cases that attract negative publicity to authorities. How is that fair to people in similar situations who don't get any attention? Until the proper solution happens, we will have to rely on social media to fight, one case at a time. It might seem like a small step but it can bring giant changes to someone's life.                                                                                                                                                  In just a few years, digital tech have allowed faster mobilization in response to humanitarian crises, better documentation of crimes, and more accessible platforms for organizing peaceful demonstrations around the world. However, while social media and big data can be powerful tools for anticipating, analyzing, and responding to human rights concerns, these tech also pose unprecedented challenges. Social media has been weaponized to spread disinformation and promote and incite violence. And websites and apps are continuously collecting data on their users. Often without them being aware of it, or of how and where their personal information is being used or stored. "Human rights provides a basis for restraining the worst intrusions and violations of the digital world, and promoting its best," said U.N. Special Rapporteur on the protection of the right to freedom of expression and professor of law at the University of California in Irvine, David Kaye. He adds, "not in some kind of vague... sense of what human rights might be, but in the specifics of human rights law. Although Americans tend to think of rights as guaranteed by the constitution, international treaties bind countries around the world to uphold rights such as privacy, freedom of expression, and nondiscrimination. How do we get from holding states accountable to holding digital companies accountable? There is a huge space to work in this foundation of human rights thinking to make it relevant to the companies, to make it relevant to governments, who regulate companies." The proliferation of cell phones around the world has also empowered civil rights advocates to record and report instances of abuses and advocate for change. Despite the good that digital tech can bring to human rights work, they can interfere with this work as well. Governments and private surveillance comapnies hired by adversaries are employing digital tools and data collection to thwart human rights activists. We have a lot of hard work ahead to articulate in a compelling way how digital governance applies with respect to freedom of expression and right to privacy. It's going to be a cross-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder process.

Understand Corruption and How to Curb It

               This post is a summary of the book with the title above published in 2021 at   https://www.u4.no/publications/understanding-corruption-and-how-to-curb-it.pdf

               The cost of corruption greatly exceeds the sum of bribes paid, funds misappropriated, and taxes avoided. Corruption hampers development. It increases inequality, impedes growth, undermines the legitimacy of governments, and weakens the public's trust in democracy. It impacts everything from learning outcomes in schools to climate change. Yet billions of people live in highly corrupt societies, with more than two-thirds of countries scoring below 50 points on Transparency International's 2020 Corruption Index. Over the past decades, the focus on corruption has steadily increased. Academic research on corruption has taken off as development actors have made tackling corruption an explicit policy objective. Protests and polls show that corruption is also a major concern for citizens. Yet significantly and sustainably reducing corruption has proved difficult. According to collective action theory, when corruption is widespread and accepted, the practice will persist due to lack of trust, misperceptions, and free riding. Individuals will continue to participate in corruption if they expect that others will do so as well. Collective action problems can also stop people from demanding change or holding powerful figures to account for acts of corruption. Unless individuals can trust that enough people will take a stand together and that genuine change is possible, they are unlikely to act. When a collective action problem is present, technical anti-corruption solutions will not be enough. People's expectations and levels of trust need to be altered. Coordination and cooperation will also be key. In some cases, corruption is not only widespread, but systemic. Systemic corruption is generally characterised by three dimensions: 1) Multi-actor organisation - Systems require coordination among multiple actors. In the case of corrupt systems, each corrupt act is perpetuated not only by two individuals but by a set of actors often connected in a network. The level of organisation can be loose or tight, and the scale of coordination will also vary. 2) Partial institutionalisation - The functioning of a system is not reinvented for each action but is underpinned by rules that can be explicit or implicit. Systemic corruption means that each act reflects informal rules that define how corrupt actors interact. 3) A broader rationale - A key quality of systems is that they tend to have some internal reinforcement mechanism that sustains them, or at least prevents quick disintegration. In corrupt systems the purpose of corruption may be, in part, to serve political functions rather than only private gains. Corruption becomes deeply rooted and self-reinforcing. In contexts of systemic corruption, all drivers of corruption will, to varying degrees, likely be present. Curbing corruption is immensely difficult. It also takes time. The instiutions, laws, practices, and norms of the world's least corrupt countries evolved over decades. An assessment of impact also needs to consider the context in which anti-corruption efforts are being implemented. It is far more difficult to reduce corruption in fragile states and in countries where corruption is not only high but systemic. Those who benefit from corruption have an incentive to both enhance their gains and undermine anti-corruption efforts. Quantitative and qualitative studies of countries, cities, ministries, and sectors that have achieved significant reductions in corruption have identified some potential pathways to success. The feasibility of reform is determined in part by whether there is an enabling environment. In many cases, the focus need to be on laying the groundwork for future anti-corruption efforts. In regimes where leaders are unwilling to address corruption, interventions that build demand for good governance, empower citizens, strengthen civil society and the private sector are potential entry points. When corruption is deeply entrenched or systemic, it has to be recognised and dealt with as such. Treating corruption as if it were individual bad acts will not work. The system underpinning corruption needs to be understood and either altered, co-opted, or countered. Changing from a high- to a low-corruption society takes time. The process is never complete. There is always a potential for backsliding and backlash. Maintaining the momentum is crucial. Momentum is essential for both simple and complex changes. The passage of a freedom of information law, for example, may lead to an increase in transparency. But over time there is a risk that bucreaucrats find ways to block unwanted inquiries. Citizen demand for good governance and a well-functioning judiciary are a necessary complement. Human agency and political will are essential factors for reform. Many of the contemporary anti-corruption success cases were spearheaded by top politicians, among others, the current president of Rwanda, Paul Kagane, the former prime minister of Estonia, Mart Laar, and the former mayor of La Paz, Ronald MacLean Abaroa. Committed groups inside and outside the government have an important role in pressing for change. They may pay a high price for their commitment, however. Reformists can be fired, transferred, arrested, threatened, and even in extreme cases, killed. A combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches to anti-corruption may be the most sustainable path to reform. Grassroots and civil society were behind the right to information legislation in India and the 'clean record' bill in Brazil. Quantitative studies indicate that anti-corruption tools such as party finance legislation, autonomous anti-corruption agencies, whistle-blower protection, supreme audit institutions, and laws criminalising corruption as a special offence have, on their own, little impact. Adequate law is the starting point, not the end. Top- down approaches are more likely to be effective when there is a commitment from those in power to address corruption. To tackle corruption, we need to understand it. The identification needs to be broad and deep, as well as context-specific and feasibility-sensitive. Such an inquiry involves exploring collective determinants of corrupt behaviour, the legal and institutional frameworks and practices. The identification should also identify possible entry points and map which stakeholders are for or against reform, why they hold those positions. An understanding of political will and power dynamics is also essential. Encouragingly, there is a trend towards more robust analysis of corruption. Political analyses may identify a lack of political will without digging more deeply into the many layers of incentives, rules and constraints that characterise the host country's institutional make-up. An anti-corruption intervention should: 1) be sufficient anchored and led by local stakeholders, including powerful individuals where possible. 2) Be based on a strong theory of change, including an understanding of the complexity of corruption and anti-corruption. 3) Be based on a deep, context-specific understanding of the drivers and enablers of corruption, as well as the wider political economy. 4) Draw on local knowledge, including marginalised voices. 5) Make use of the anti-corruption literature. 6) Employ a tailored, multi-faceted, multi-stakeholder approach. 6) Complement ongoing efforts and strategies. 7) Foster collaboration and coordination. 9) Contribute to addressing the underlying causes of corruption. 10) Employ a realistic time horizon and reslistic goal. 11) Anticipate unintended consequences and backlashes. 12) Allow for continuous adjustment while the intervention is underway. 13) Be implemented and funded by stakeholders genuinely committed to reform.

50 Ways to Take Action

                 This post is a summary of an article published in 2020 at https://www.amnestyusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/50-Ways-to-Take-Action.pdf

                Art and movements have supported each other for as long as human beings have suffered through and fought against oppression. From struggles of indigenous uprising and the civil rights movement to current struggles against human rights abuses, people have used creativity to subvert censorship and the limitations placed upon them. Creative actions help us tell a story, raise awareness about a issue, and inspire others to join us. Use this guide to inspire you.   1) BANNER HANG - Hang a large banner in a prominent area of your city to disrupt the visual landscape.    2) CREATIVE BANNER DISPLAY - Utilize visuals that catch the eye and leave the passerby thinking about the message behind the visual.   3) VIDEO/IMAGE PROJECTION - You can turn the side of a building into a huge advertisement for your cause.    4) OCCUPY SPACE - Sit-in occupy a prominent area to push a target to act on the issue at hand. This also attract attention to the issues that you want to bring to light.    5) CREATIVE DISRUPTION - Disrupt spaces with large numbers of people wearing the same colored clothing.    6) THE POWER OF SYMBOLISM - Take one item and place many of the same in a public area.    7) PORTABLE MURALS - Create a mural on a makeshift wall made from cloth and a wooden frame. Place the mural in a prominent area and distribute leaflets while engaging in conversation.    8) FLASH MOB - Organizing mass action on short notice.    9) POLITICAL THEATRE - Stage an enactment of injustice in a prominent area in your area.    10) CREATIVE VIGIL - Bring people together in interactive actions.    11) CREATIVE PETITION DELIVERY - Give an abstract issue a physical and visual presence.    12) CHALKING - Get creative with messaging and bold, insightful visuals.    13) PREFIGURATIVE IMAGINATION - Collectively imagine/plan how it would be to live in a world you want to live in.    14) WALKING TOUR - Plan a walking tour around key sites.    15) COSTUMED LEAF-LETTING - Dress in symbolic wear and utilize short powerful messaging.    16) CAMPAIGN FOR A CITY/STATE RESOLUTION.    17) WORK WITH REPORTERS TO WRITE A HUMAN RIGHTS STORY.    18) ORGANIZE A PANEL DISCUSSION. 19) PUBLIC SPEECH ON A SQUARE.    20) FILM SCREENING.    21) HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERT.     22) ORGANIZE OR ATTEND A DEMONSTRATION     23) CALL OR SEND EMAILS TO ELECTED OFFICIALS.    24) VISIT YOUR LEGISLATORS.    25) PRESSURE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE POSITIONS.     26) HOST A WRITE-A-THON.     27) WRITING COMPETITION WITH LOCAL SCHOOLS.     28) WRITE SOLIDARITY AND SUPPORT LETTERS.     29) CANVASS FOR SIGNATURE IN A PUBLIC PLACE.    30) CO-SPONSOR EVENTS WITH PARTNERS AND BUILD RELATIONSHIPS WITH LIKE-MINDED GROUPS.    31) HOST A COMMUNITY DISCUSSION AND INVITE ELECTED OFFICIALS.     32) HOST A TECH-IN TO PROVIDE EDUCATION ON THE ISSUE.     33) PARTICIPATE IN OR ORGANIZE A TWEET-IN.     34) CREATE A DIGITAL HUMAN RIGHTS SERIES SPECIFIC TO YOUR ISSUE. 35) CREATE A PODCAST OR FILMED NEWS FEATURE.

Protecting Survivors and Witnesses

               This post is a summary of the article published in 2016 with the title above at   https://www.newtactics.org/conversation/protecting-survivors-and-witnesses

               Protecting survivors and witnesses of human rights violations is crucial to effective human rights work. Protection is important because when victims and witnesses fear further persecution, they are unlikely to report their experiences, making redress and accountability much more difficult. The state is formally responsible for providing protection, but it is the state that is often the greatest source of perceived risk amongst witnesses and survivors. Under Article 13 of the U.N.Convention Against Torture (UNCAT), the State have an obligation to ensure that victims and witnesses are protected against "all ill treatment and intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given." On Article 14 of UNCAT states that the States have the obligation to ensure victims obtain rehabilitation through a State-run facility. Civil society has an important role to play in ensuring protection of survivors and victims through civil society groups. As victims are inclined to approach NGOs for protection, NGOs ought to be equipped with good protection practice. At times, NGOs who work directly with the victims of human rights violations become themselves witnesses and victims and need protection. One way of protecting witnesses and victims is by recognizing the suffering of these victims and educating civil society to understand the value of these efforts on society. The media plays a significant role in this. The international community can play a vital role in applying pressure on governments to provide adequate protection. Broader alliances need to be built between different sectors of civil society.  Sometimes networks are crucial in terms of providing victims a safe house or to flee to another location within the country or to another country. Communication between human rights defenders and victims is equally important to give an assurance of protection. The importance of documentation of human rights abuses is essential. Documentation would assist in analyzing the 'trend of cases' to prepare wider 'advocacy strategy' to deal with the security concerns of victims and witnesses. The importance of support from international NGOs to human rights defenders, victims and witnesses is also essential. The types of risk can be categorized broadly into three types of risk, physical, phychological and digital. Economic risk could also be added. It is important to ensure that victims and witnesses have as much information as possible so that they are in the best position to assess their own risk. Hope, honor and dignity must put forward as a way to manage risk and to empower victims. The risk of vicarious trauma and the importance of self care must also be discussed. The role of international organizations such as U.N. and the E.U. in protecting victims were raised. But the State has the ultimate responsibility in providing protection but often it is the primary source of threat. This is where the role of civil society organizations play an important bridging role between the State and the victims by advocacy when States fail to meet their obligations. Recommendations that the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights provide to their Human Rights Office (HROs) when they travel to different countries to investigate violations provide useful suggestions. Protective measures by HROs can include: 1) Strengthening the cooperation person's capacity for self-protection; 2) Supporting or establishing community-level protection networks; 3) Using visibility strategies with a deterrent effect; 4) Seeking the support of international mechanisms, such as NGOs, diplomatic missions, U.N. agencies; 5) Mobilizing efforts to directly or indirectly provide physical protection to the person at risk, including through relocation; 6) Limiting the capacity of the source of the threat to carry out an attack by reducing the vulnerability factors of the person at risk; 7) Intervening to influence or requesting an influential person to intervene with the source of the threat; 8) Increasing the political and social costs to the source carrying out the threat through, for instance, public advocacy in partnership with national and international networks. The costs of carrying out the threat should outweigh the benefits; 9) Advocacy and engagement with national authorities, stressing their human rights obligations, including their duty to protect those at risk and to prosecute offenders; 10) Capacity-building and technical cooperation directed at developing or improving national witness protection capacities, as well as accountability mechanisms.       When weighing the pros and cons of the different protective measures, HROs should consider the following: 1) the effectiveness of such measures in guaranteeing protection; 2) Their promptness in responding to the security needs of the person at risk, including emergencies; 3) Their sustainability, particularly for protective measures that envisage long-term changes; 4) Their adaptability to new circumstances, such as deteriorating security conditions; 5) Their reversibility when the risk disappears (for example, in case of relocation, the person being able to return home).

International Day of Democracy - 2021

             Last Wednesday, 15th September, all over the world was celebrated the democracy. Democracy and human rights are closed related. This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published at https://nationaltoday.com/international-day-of-democracy/. The second was published at https://www.un.org/en/observances/democracy-day. The third was published at https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/international-day-of-democracy-2021-why-is-it-observed-2540655

                    International Day of Democracy allows the opportunity to celebrate and appreciate our democratic society. It is very easy for people who live in a free society to take their freedom for granted. Yet, when freedom is absent, life includes unimaginable challenges that are often incomprehensible. Today, let's reflect on the history of democracy around the world, thank those who influenced the development, and look for opportunities to promote and protect our own nation's democracy. From democracy's birth in ancient Greece to today, the foundation of a democratic society is the ability of its people to participate in the decision-making process of their nation. Democratic activities include: 1) Get involved in politics.  2) Learn about political candidates.  3) Exercise your rights, thanks to digital advancements, it's now easier than ever to advocate for causes and make a difference. Why we love democracy: 1) It gives power to the people, leading to a world of innovation and improvement.  2) It's based on change. A cornerstone of democratic societies is that they have the power to make change when necessary.  3) It's based on equality, equal rights under the law are central to democratic governments.                                                                                                                                                                                    The theme this year, "Strengthening Democratic resilience in the Face of Future Crises." The unprecedented COVID-19 crisis has resulted in major social, political and legal challenges globally. As states around the world adopt emergency measures to address the crisis, it is critical that they continue to uphold the rule of law, protect and respect international standands and basic principles of legality, and the right to access justice, remedies and due process. The crisis raises the question how best to counter harmful speech while protecting freedom of expression. Sweeping efforts to el iminate misinformation or disinformation can result in purposeful or unintentional censorship, which undermines trust. The most effective response is accurate, clear and evidence-based information from sources people trust. Around the world civil society organizations have answered the U.N.'s call to action to address and counteract the wide range of ways the COVID-19 crisis may impair democracy and increase authoritarianism, by: 1) developing media literacy and digital safety, more critical than ever as activism is forced online, so as to address the risk of suppression, interference and closing of civic space.  2) fighting misinformation and hate speech, which have mushroomed in the crisis.  3) training journalists remotely to report on the impact of the pandemic with in-depth, fact-checked coverage.  4) empowering women against gender-based violence, which has surged amid lockdowns, quarantines, and economic pressures.  5) helping to highlight the challenges of inequality and weak service delivery made worse by the crisis, with specific focus on the needs and rights of the population, so as to help hold governments to account.  The values of freedom, respect for human rights and the principle of holding period and genuine elections by universal suffrage are essential elements of democracy. In turn, democracy provides the natural environment for the protection and effective realization of human rights. These values are embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which enshrines a host of political rights and civil liberties underpinning meaningful democracies.                                                        The U.N. General Assembly celebrates the Day of Democracy on September 15 to encourage governments around the world to strengthen and consolidate democracy. This day marks an opportunity to review the state of democracy around the world. It is also an opportunity to raise awareness and educate the public about their democratic rights, to highlight the important role of parliaments, their capacity and mandate to deliver justice, peace, development, and human rights. Many organisations hold debates and conferences and launch public campaigns to mobilise political will and public support for reinforcing democratic values. The Inter-Parliamentary Union ((IPU), the global organisation of national parliaments, says its support for this day stems from the core belief that democracy requires the participation of all citizens.

Paths to Inclusive Political Institutions

                       This post is a summary of the essay with the title above published in 2016 at   https://economics.mit.edu/files/19640

              In this paper we present a thinking about the circumstances under which inclusive political institutions, consisting of a state with a capacity and a broad distribution of political power, emerge. What makes a society economically successful? Most social scientists would argue that the critical factor are the economic institutions, the rules that create patterns of incentives and opportunities in the economic sphere and which shape saving, investment and innovation. We argued that economic institutions have to be thought of as an outcome of political choices which are shaped by political institutions which influences are aggregated by those who exercise power. In this case, lying behind economic institutions are political institutions. Two very successful historical instances of inclusive institution building, Classical Athens, and Early Modern England. In both cases, the historical evidence suggests that popular pressure and involvement was absolutely critical in the emergence of inclusive political institutions. Elite interests were at play too, but they had to find an equilibrium with those of society. In terms of democratization there is currently a great deal of consensus that democratization comes as a result of pressure from below rather than something that is willingly created by elites. Other arguments in the literature suggest that democracy emerges when elites give away power either because autocratic elites split, or because democracy can be a way of resolving conflicts between differents factions of elites, or because democracy solves a commitment problem that elites can not otherwise solve. These arguments may certainly apply in some cases. For example, many Latin America countries adopted democratic political institutions and held elections in the 19th century. Yet these were typically riven with fraud and malpractices and far from representing the broad distribution of power. Modern democracy emerged only in the 20th century and typically in the context of mass mobilization and demands for the excluded for political rights. The issue of where political pluralism comes from has been much less studied. Putnam (1993) is perhaps the most important empirical study of pluralism which is closely connected to his characterization of Northern Italian society having high levels of social capital or a very dense 'associational life'. Putnam traces the roots of this to the medieval organization of Northern Italy with its free communes, city states and mercantile political dominance. We argued that pluralism emerges from contestation with civil society playing an active role in demanding political change but only in the context where a 'broad coalition' makes these demands. In this essay we have advanced the hypothesis that the broad coalition is itself part of a co-evolution of state and society. In this essay we have argued that under some circumstances there is a basin of attraction where the two dimensions of inclusive political institutions are highly complementary. Indeed, they feed on each other to create a particular dynamic which leads to inclusive political institutions with a pattern of mutually reinforcing feedback. We argue that understanding this basin of attraction is a key to understanding the emergence of inclusive political institutions. Though in general the parameter space is multi-dimensional in this essay we have focused on one type of distinction which we believe is critical for determining the potential of different societies to move inside the basin of attraction: the strength and nature of social norms and informal institutions. The sequencing view we critique is similar to the one argued against by Tocqueville in "The Old Regime and the French Revolution", when he claimed that the French reformers of the 18th century, such as the Physiocrats, were mistaken when they sought reforms before political liberties. Rather political liberties are a critical complement to reforms and building the state, and one can not rely on automatic processes such as modernization to subsequently bring liberty. The Physiocrats, like many modern scholars, proposed that one should rely on education to make sure that state promoted social interests. The ideas proposed in this paper help to clarify just where the broad coalition comes from. In the classical Athenian and Early Modern English case, the answer presented here is that it came from social norms and informal institutions which facilitated not just the formation of the state, but also led to a distinct strengthening of civil society. Such argument may be though unsatisfying in the sense that it pushes the explanation for differences in political and economic development paths further back in time. Nevertheless, as we argued, divergent development historically is the result of institutional differences which start out small but acumulate over time. England did not experience the industrial revolution because of some huge shock to the society in the 18th century. It did so because of a long process of institutional change in which both the state and the society coevolved and entered into a virtuous circle ultimately leading to the broad coalition. England did not get onto this path because it was a radically different society from other Western European societies, but small differences mattered and it was inside a basin of attraction which turned out to have profound consequences.