The third Summit of Democracies was held on March 18-20, 2024, in Seoul Korea. President Biden presided as before along with leaders from democratic countries.

Since the first Summit in Washington in December 2021, civil society groups have played a role in part by having parallel meetings. To that end, International IDEA and democracy assistance agencies such as the National Democratic Institute and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy formed a Global Democracy Coalition and sponsored Partnership 4 Democracy Day. The point of the P4D is to display contributions from civil society. Opposition International, a new organization, was selected as one of the contributors.

We held the event, “Opposing and Resisting Democratic Erosion” on the afternoon of 18 March at the fine facilities of Toronto’s remarkable Centre for Social Innovation at 192 Spadina Avenue. Our guest interviewees were Professor Nigel Fletcher of King’s College in the U.K., Joseph Allchin, an award-winning journalist in South and Southeast Asia, Dmytro Ilchuk, a Russia and Ukraine analyst, and Dr. Nazmul Kalimullah, head of Janipop, a election observation NGO in Bangladesh. As a special guest, Ms. Pyrou Chung, an activist for women’s rights, indigenous peoples and data sovereignty from Cambodia, provided a unique perspective on why she and others remain dedicated to the pursuit of democracy. The edited video is now available. There is the link under the video dropdown above and just in case here is the YouTube link.

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/71m3un73-Gc?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Transcript for Opposition International Partner 4 Democracy Virtual Event, 18 March 2024

Introduction:

Narrator: MS Michele George

Good afternoon and greetings from the team at Opposition International. We’re proud to host this virtual event for Prime News for Democracy Day, titled Opposing and Resisting Democratic Erosion. Our heartfelt thanks go to the Global Democracy Coalition, which, in collaboration with International India, has professionally organized these events to coincide with the third summit of the Democracies in Seoul, Korea.

Our broadcast emanates from the Center for Social Innovation here in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. But before we delve into the program, let us begin with a land acknowledgment, a solemn recognition of the profound relationship between the Indigenous First Nations people and the very territories upon which we now stand. We acknowledge this land we are meeting on is the traditional territory of many nations, including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishinaabe, the Chippewa, the How, the Sunday and the Wendat peoples.

It is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit, and Matey communities. We also recognize that Toronto is covered by treaty 13 with the Mississaugas of the Credit. Now let’s explore the rich agenda we’ve prepared for you. We’ll briefly examine the figures on democracy, and erosion, drawing insights from esteemed sources such as Freedom House, The Economist, and the Enlightening Varieties of Democracy project our speakers.

Owen Lippert, director of Opposition International, and Hannah Cho, a Toronto activist, will set the stage by discussing the emerging role of new voices among youth and the diaspora here in Toronto. Following this, we have a series of four interviews, each delving into the challenges faced by the opposition in confronting Democratic erosion. Our first interviewee, Professor Nigel Fletcher, is from King’s College in the UK and promises so provoking insights.

And finally, to conclude our program, we will hear a succinct yet powerful statement from parent Chun Piru, associated with the East-West Management Institute is a tireless researcher and advocate for democracy and Indigenous women in the Mekong Delta region. How did you get to this point where you started Opposition International?

Opening Statement

Owen Lippert

 The reason I started in Opposition International is that I saw that the main institutions that were assisting, democracy were really kind of restrained in the kind of assistance they could provide to opposition political parties because if you are in, another country, I’ll say an employee of, government, you have to be a little careful, as to not to appear partisan and particularly

if that would involve any kind of conflict with the government.

Where I thought that there was scope to help opposition parties if you were careful. And so, we will help all parties and be the green parties being they, faith-based parties, be they environmental parties, or, or some other issues. And so, what we’re trying to do is fill, a gap that we’re going to deal directly with a party.

So, we going to help them with what their real issues are. Everybody’s got long-term plans for social improvement, but what they want is help. Getting elected, and being able to deliver accountability. If they’re in opposition to bringing forward new ideas and to be able to keep the chance alive, that power can shift from one party, one coalition to another coalition.

And the very fact that change is possible is a huge restraint upon authoritarian behaviour.

Let me ask a question of you (Hannah Cho, Co-presenter). And I know this is unfair. No, I know that you were claiming to speak for young people in Toronto. But what do you think young people in Toronto are thinking about democracy right now, and what may be some ways you think they may be more engaged, not just with, opposition international, but with all the agencies and think tanks and, sometimes very courageous individuals, in Toronto.

Hannah Cho, Co-presenter, Toronto youth activist

Yeah. You’re right. Oh, it is hard to stand for young people. Thank you. I’m sorry. I, I go, and thank you. For most young people, well, for, say, focusing on, say, like, my generation’s, we stand for our freedom. talking about democracy. A lot of things that we cannot do. We must talk about freedoms.

rights, human rights, especially human rights, and freedom. That is the main point off. Like how not just young people, I would say, like, everybody, but for, say, like young people is just, people who are more and more, doing things without thinking in a way and will just stand out of a line and without knowing.

But I do have advice for, our generation is to step out and see the whole picture before you have something to say and to do, get to know the whole story, the whole reason why behind everything. And then that will be a better way for how, everyone understands democracy and global problems.

Owen Lippert

So, thank you, Hannah. I think we’ll see you at the conclusion again. Okay. But let’s now go on to the next thing. Thank you. Okay. Will you go?

Interview with Nigel Fletcher

Owen Lippert

And is there anything you would like to say? in, as to democracy and the bigger picture? Yes. I think the thing that I want to emphasize is that it’s very easy for those of us who are privileged enough to live in, in proper democracies with, free political expression.

Nigel Fletcher, Professor, King’s College, London UK

So, take for granted the fact that we have free opposition and that we can choose who governs us. and sometimes to, you know, complain about the quality of, of that opposition and of the government as well. and to forget the fact that there are many countries around the world where that is not the case, and we do have, a problem, with countries around the world where opposition simply isn’t tolerated.

Owen Lippert

But to get past Monday, which is by, which is the presentation, I, I’m, I think we have enough here, that it’ll whet people’s appetite, to come back and we’ll have a fuller version of this interview on the website separately. So, for the conference, we just want to get people’s attention, and then show them something more.

Nigel Fletcher

So, I think that this is not just, an interesting academic exercise. It’s not just something that can, work to try and improve the quality of opposition in current democracies. It is also a reminder, I think, that having an opposition and having the freedom of expression to criticize the government and offer an alternative to voters is a fundamental human right, and one that is important, in making a democracy, a free and fair democratic.

And so, I think in in that sense, opposition has a fundamental importance that is even more important to those countries where, at least on the face of it, they don’t have one. And I think that is something which, if there is a wider, purpose for the work that I do, that you do and that many of those attending the conference do, it is to try and ensure that those basic freedoms of political expression that we take for granted, can be spread and, and can be available universally.

In the UK. You know, we have arrived at this, this constitutional settlement through a mixture of civil wars, revolutions, and very incremental evolution of our constitution. And there’ve been many mistakes and, as I say, bloody battles along the way. So what I’m trying to say to, our colleagues overseas who’ve, you know, sought to have these discussions with us, is that if they can use the UK’s experience, and many of the mistakes that we’ve made over the years and many of the problems that we’ve had, if they can learn from those, to try and shortcut the process a little bit, and try to avoid making those same mistakes, then they can do it perhaps a bit better than we’ve managed over the last sort of 500 years or so

Joseph Allchin, Journalist, Interview

I have here today. Joe Allchin, who is an award-winning journalist, had been, a senior writer for the Dhaka Tribune, had been, a journalistic, star, in several cities throughout Southeast Asia and, I was asking Joe today just, if he would give us an overview of how he saw democracy in Asia, using examples, drawing upon his, experience and, and to offer or let us viewers hear his insights after covering, Asia for, for many years.

Joe, the, floor is yours. that. Thank you.

Joe Allchin

And I just thought of it. Do you have any sense of where that dynamic of the Islamic parties becoming mainstream democratic parties, is headed? That’s a good question. I think it’s right to say that Sheikh Hasina turned on them and, in the instance of Jamaat Islami, the largest Islamist party in Bangladesh and most successful one, it was officially, at least over there, a refusal to accept the Constitution of Bangladesh.

And that, also points us in, an important direction, which is the weakness of institutions that, in somewhere like Bangladesh, not only in the logistical sense of running an election or, counting votes or, you know, or what’s, termed as a caretaker government, too, to oversee that electoral process. But the very idea of the state and what it should be doing and what you know, the very idea of the nation is, not fully formed.

So, in a way, you know, Bangladesh’s trajectory as a democracy has always been weak. I mean, we, you know, we often look set in, you know, look back and say that Sheikh Hasina is, sunk in democracy in Bangladesh and that the day before it was, you know, a sort of functioning democracy. But in many ways, it’s just sort of alternated between two ladies who represent two kinds of families, without really the institutions of state that kind of hold it together. Now, you could say that someone as powerful and forceful as Sheikh Hasina is, would subvert that anyway.

But I, I recall covering the 2014 election in Bangladesh and interviewing, insurrectionist BNP, who were at that point the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, who at that point were threatening to boycott the election and protesting, you know what, right?

Least rightly so, was, the one-sided or unfair process when I asked them what their what you know, what where their manifesto is that they were protesting on behalf of, or they were they wanted to uphold, or they wanted to advance for the Bangladesh people. They didn’t have one. They said only when we have a position, position, or situation in which we could win an election will take power.

Will we have a manifesto? And I think that again hints at, a, a quite structural weakness, which is, which is worth bearing in mind when we look at the fragility of democracies and the vitality of democracies going forward, is the vital importance of institutions that work. Because in Bangladesh, what you have, I know an old briefly also apply this to Myanmar, if I may.

You have you have you have political leaders or dynasties or families, if you notice, throughout, throughout much of much of South and, Southeast Asia, that’s, you know, families and dynasties which are very powerful and, you know, looking at Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, obviously Myanmar, all the legitimate legitimacy is conferred through, inheritance of, dynastic legitimacy.

Yeah, that dynastic mandate, if you will. And, such a in somewhere like Bangladesh, the inability of state institutions to avoid political and fear interference, is you know, is taken for granted. I mean, it’s not even, it’s barely even recognized. And that the two parties who are competing, and exchanging have exchanged power since democracy returned it’s just a given that it’s between two figureheads. and similarly in Myanmar, the, you know, which I’ve, which I’ve covered quite a bit as well. the, the legitimacy conferred on Aung San Suu Kyi is through her father, much like Bangladesh. Her father was the independence hero. and as a result, that formed some sort of unifying facet to, these liberal, political parties, the NLD in Myanmar and the, and Awami League in Bangladesh.

and so, and with Islamist parties in, in, in Bangladesh, they’re in a position, you know, Jamaat Islami or in a position where they won’t recognize the constitution of Bangladesh and, and, and so without that superstructure, to both, you know, do those practical elements like running an election or, or deciding its winners, etc.?

It seems very challenging to move beyond, beyond strong. What you know, strongman politics or dynastic politics where legitimacy is simply conferred by, yeah. But through inheritance.

Owen Lippert

Do you see the opposition parties in Myanmar becoming organized in terms of unity and, saying that we are beyond just bringing back, any dynastic hopes?

Joe Allchin

It is a federal system which is represented now by, by ethnic rebel armies in the hinterlands of the country. and I think that points that are very interesting promote what you’re saying, really, and that, essentially the, you know, the idea of a federal Myanmar will probably be with her to be the strongest unifying factor for a movement forward, democratic movement forward, because that’s essentially the Myanmar military is the only one to have, have that kind of institutional strength to at the, you know, at the point of a gun force, a unification or unity of the country without that, you know, sorry.

Yeah. and whereas obviously, Myanmar is a very diverse, nation or your country. I think that with the the successes on the battlefield of, you know, the various ethnic, armed groups, will help to help promote a, a federal bomber or Myanmar, which and I think is the best hope in the long run.

whether they receive any support or they can not, to escape the clutches of what, Myanmar’s military intelligence has previously managed to do, which is which is to sow division between these different, you know, often very different groups another matter altogether. both with, you know, when you look at that similarly with the problem with the central and central Myanmar opposition parties like the NLD and, and across the board with dynastic politics, it makes choosing successor leaders very, very difficult.

And we see that where successful leaders very rarely have, ideal children to succeed them. so, you know, how the NLD, able to choose a successor, one Suu Kyi, you know, is no longer fit for office will be, you know, is remains to be seen.

We’ve seen that in Bangladesh that, you know, expectations of, have seen as un or indeed colored as is, ability to choose a successor and keep the party together without what I was talking about earlier, about having an, you know, an ideological base or a manifesto is probably quite difficult without the institutions of, being able to choose a leader in those circumstances.

Interview with Dymtro Ilchuk, Analyst for Russia and Ukraine

(Discussion of death of Alexi Navalny)

Dymtro Ilchuk

A new leader is a major, major problem. and all that comes back down to the lack of institutions to state to allow these, opposition parties to exist and select, you know, that path forward or leaders and ideas in a free and fair fashion. Yeah. I couldn’t agree with you more. , one of the things that we scholars and writers look at is how we get beyond the cult of personality or cult of family in these democratic institutions.

Owen Lippert

I’m not sure I of the answer or if anybody has the answer, but what I have observed is that parties, and, most cases of opposition parties, because they don’t have any, charismatic leader from which they probably suffer a bit at the polls, are forced to come up with more, the policy minded solutions, or at least, a, an emphasis on certain, aspects of social welfare.

That is really where I think the with the, the fate of democracy, is, needs, of strengthening. One of the things that I really needed in terms of our presentation is a comment. And, and now this is about the situation in Ukraine and Russia vis-a-vis democracy. But I think also what has come up for both countries is the issue of what does it take for a pluralistic, political scene to exist?

that is multiple parties. and one of the issues is how could that be, financed through the diaspora or because that would be the one source of, funds that,, could possibly keep, an opposition party afloat and either country anyway, pleased, to make pro take the floor from me and, and, and offer, your, your, your own, perspective on these issues.

Dymtro Ilchuk

I would say talking about the Russian opposition in part. We must understand who this organization or people, us right now, most powerful in communities like for, for Iraq, anti-military Committee of Russia. And, the only team, if you know, these people are Gary Kasparov, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Burstable any number of, here who are ill and Martha Gelman and those guys have three streams, about how to rush, how to lead right after war.

And I would say, the problem of or just to see data, the problem of these three different opposition streams, they have different visions, about Ukraine and war with Russia and about future after war time. for example, you know, they are key and hardly Kasparov is one lost. Are they looking for some model of Raqqa, to create some council in parliament and eliminate president’s role?

And it’s going to be like parliament to democracy, like, for example, Canada. Japan. This is a former member of parliament and advisor of Putin. He has a group more focused on how to defeat Russia. And we see many, military groups, and private armies who attack a Russian border province right now. And these guys, I would say more up to control of this group of operational Russia.

They are all in Ukraine. War depends on Ukraine directly because all of them, in exile or in Ukraine. And everything that they can do is dependent on situation after the war is over. That’s why it’s hard to estimate, the Russian opposition’s impact. Yes. They can be voice of free. Voice of Russia. And they are very interested in working alongside with Ukrainian authorities and army to defeat, the Putin regime and get rid of this autocratic.

I know some group of them, like one example in Japan tomorrow, all located in Kyiv, and also Garry Kasparov and, well, they located over Europe or U.S also, we know, some people from Russia in, in US and they’re doing some research and provide some core forum and they also working on, to create like alternative voice of Russian vision and the Russian use for Russian citizens inside Russia because as you know, it’s completely closed and counter society.

People in Russia doesn’t like full, and propaganda and they don’t see I would say they don’t accept any information from Ukrainian news or Western news because we enemy for Russia and these guys in opposition leaders, they can be voice and the Russian side to me be able to hear talking about Ukrainian side. before war in February 2022.

President Zelensky’s team has a lower rate of trust. it’s since he was not elected, and the situation was. And the moment when people started thinking about re-election before the term and all the positions were so strong to start the election campaign invasion happened. Right now, all power is in the president’s hands and he steam and Zelensky has around three-five people in his office who control everything.

It’s more manual and governance. it’s like a model. And he has the majority of power of members of parliament in Ukraine’s parliament, which can do whatever he wants and avoid any legislation that require president’s office. and we have situation right now when President Zelensky’s turn will be over in March. But we don’t have an election in Ukraine as it should be under the Constitution act and Ukraine.

Question. The Constitution said that the president will be acting as a president until next election, as well as a parliament. So technically speaking is going to be the same power and same time regime in Ukraine to, as we know, Russia took selection today and yesterday and is going to be. Putin will have elected us all many times before and then this year will be more and less about defense for Ukraine and for China is going to be.

But in forward and again, Ukraine very depends on financial situation about, army and army supply and any financial to support the government model because all public services depend on donor money or claimed money or grant money, as well as a military assistance, like salaries for soldiers. So like all assistance, etc. main, main, like would say events will be taken place after, after main election in the world like France, European Union, U.S in November and then depend on situation which will be in the battlefield and this moment will be I would say will because the condition that will depend on U.S new president position as well.

You know, because, in drum America’s direction, that’s for sure. Exactly. And you know, right now, the Ukrainian government makes a lot of mistakes because since, Biden was the vice president in Ukraine in 2014 under the Obama, term, right? He was, responsible for Ukraine since Obama all time. It’s five years right now.

He is the president of the U.S. and for this reason, I would say member of Parliament and, President Zelensky and his team more focused on the Democratic side of the U.S. and they had a very big problem with the Republican, connections and Republican side. all right, now, it’s a big, big problem for the Ukraine government to establish good connection with the opposition in US because of two years of war, because the more the Democrat Party in power and Biden, everything was focused on this Senate and this power in us all.

Right. Now, as you know, the financial situation in U.S. and in India and Ukraine, is suffering of supply. Zombie is. But everybody understands who the main candidate for election, Biden and Trump is. And he has more chances to become new president. So many groups, many groups are like I will say, many lobby groups in Ukraine, like in February and March, will be focusing on developing a relationship and like, like kind of relationship with the public.

And that should not hurt. Same relationship between the Democrats and Ukraine become a hostage of U.S local politics. And this tension. What would you say is the awareness of democracy and democracy? If you and the long-term benefits of democracy among the populists, and then civil society in both Russia and Ukraine, is there, an ingrained, understanding and, for, for a more democratic system that, that that’s always been a, an ongoing fact and, that that extends beyond actually whatever the, poll polling, companies ever seem to find out.

This is a good question. You know, the main problem why a Russian population doesn’t recognize Ukrainian people because we have different system. Ukraine is a very unique system with a lot of mistakes of democracy, but still democracy. We have six presidents elected and nobody had dominated power during 30 years of independence versus Russia as the one leader without any, opposition.

you know, recently Mr. Navalny was killed, and, we have a couple of guys who were present at what reaction, for example, who is in prison. Same conditions. We don’t know what happened to them. So, democracy in Russia, technically it doesn’t exist. People who are in exile, opposition leaders, they might be democracy holders or as a creators, but they ability to create democracy.

Seats in Russia depend on, Putin regime for resume is over or you or West and Ukraine will be able to change our dream. I don’t know the how in this case, Russia. My. You might be able to have a chance to have democracy in five, ten years later. Because what? Why it is very doubtful about because, for example, I work in Moscow in, some years ago and many people in Russia, I have been in Russia, I have been in radio and do not, accept even Navalny as a future leader for Russia.

They like to see a leader with strong power, restored military power, who can protect them from fake, enemy promises. And this is questions how to refocus society to democratic values. You know, in because, we can bring democracy in Russia, but everything will depend on local community. If people like it, they will choose this. Leaders. Because if we really eliminate Putin, it doesn’t change the system.

The system was built for 27 years since Putin was elected, even further in Soviet Union. And our action strategy is like it’s like empire or and assessor of civil union and people like it. I spoke with people in Moscow and Peter Brook, and they were very excited and very enjoyable to understand the most. how they think powerful country in the world.

And right now, they are even more enjoyable because they see how Putin can, threat to vex us. This is questions how to do a correctly in Russia in this condition in Ukraine in contrast we have very pro-democracy society since 2014, by the way, we have a bunch of volunteer and group NGOs and non-governmental organizations, local, international and US experience show during 2014 2022 country can exist even without government because people are responsible in local, provincial and federal level and Ukrainian society is able to fulfill organization all framework to solve problem in local level and national level.

Unknown the problem of democratic issues in Ukraine is that before war, you mentioned about financial political party, political system in Ukraine was in traditional and traditional pattern when many oligarchs, people who was not nobody in 19, I would say took factories, serum companies, ex politicians from government union or they parents and they become billionaires and millionaires and they have and they help puppet party and every election they create new party and give young people opportunity to be a member of parliament.

But those people don’t have any freedom and power like your own can on us. So technically speaking, this is this is like, my, oligarchs have specific groups in parliament that solve their problems. They avoid special nation, they protect corporate, interest and civic society. civic society was fighting with them. That’s why we had Maidan revolution in 2014.

Yeah. Right now, I don’t know who exactly. in Georgia where that like. So, it was very interesting. That was I was at this moment in Ukraine, I, I remember everything, I was very interested. But anyway. But the good, the good things about Ukraine, democracy, people, and society are ready. People already people value freedom. expression of speech, expression of religion that people understand.

What does it mean? Freedom. They fight and donate own blood and live, you know, it’s high level of democracy. I would say sacrifice when you must fight.

Interview with Dr. Nazmul Kalimullah, Executive Director, Janipop (Bangladesh)

Owen Lippert

Hello. I’m here with Dr. Nazmul Kalimullah, who is the head of Janipop, which is one of the oldest and, most influential of the election observation organizations in Bangladesh.

His expertise, however, extends well beyond Bangladesh and has served in missions in Nepal, India and South Africa. and I’m sure many other places. anyway, he, has a long-time interest in democracy, and erosion, not just in Bangladesh, but in, in countries throughout, the, the globe. And so, I am asking him here, an open-ended question, given what is happening as reported by various democracy index.

What is the situation now? What might be done? And what would you recommend to the summit of the democracies people, as to things they could be doing to improve the situation? Over to you.

Nazmul Kalimullah

Thank you. well, my long-standing friend and, defender of democracy is the founder of Opposition International.

We had the opportunity to work together in Bangladesh when he was country rep. and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs. I had a long-standing relationship, working relationship with India as well as I write International Republican Institute in Bangladesh and elsewhere. I had the opportunity to observe elections in Mozambique, in Zambia, Nigeria, in Egypt, in the Democratic Republic of Community, in Hong Kong, in Sri Lanka, Nepal, in, United Kingdom, America and other parts of the world.

And with this background, I would like to say that, you know, the voice of dissent and space must be protected within and without. And it is impossible to retain the space and extend it further within a national confined until unless international actors who wants to act as protectors of global space. Intervenes and, this type of, virtue access better.

Its mere issuance of a statement is not good enough. And if the international community wants to. Act as severe protector. And mentor. They must come out of this, cocoon. Must show official instead of statements. Only. It should be meaningful. exercise.

In countries like, Nigeria, we could find a British character such as the chief election commissioner, Professor Jega. He was, an inspirational, I would say role model to promotion commissioner. So as transition in India. So, we look forward to having such a role model. idols all over the world and people like Nelson Mandela or Alexey Navalny.

So, the first which they ignited must be carried forward by people who wants to follow the footsteps in countries like, Egypt. Very difficult in countries like, Democratic Republic tumulus to it is more challenging. So, what am I what does it matter whether you are new to Australia or Africa, or for that matter in Asia? The context conditions a lot of things and challenges. Also, aquatic. So, against such backdrop, we must sort of. Agree upon certain.

Issues and certain premises which must be treated as cardinal faith and. Access must be used to grind, certain. Ideals which cannot be compromised. For example, in, Hong Kong, in the first Legislative Council election, we found that, Communist Party of China, advised its followers in the new position, which was left by the Britishers.

A Hong Kong special group to. Take photograph of the ballot. Using their cell phones and as they have done it. So, it was kind of. A compromise with the spirit of the interest group at all front trenches and secrecy of the ballot. So, such, deviations must not be, kept under the sleeve.

This type of deviation must be put forward. And the front line and must be committed.

You know, complex bureaucracies also create the core. then,

The whole process must be carefully observed, and election assessors and observers must follow steady state support, no matter of principle. So wishy-washy statement of about and, you know, moral and ideological basis matters a lot. Once, when Margaret Thatcher was the leader of the House. in the House of Commons, Neil Kinnock was the opposition leader.

He stated, I quote, right, ‘Honorable Lady, your might is not right. Were and we all know that not you know.,” Neil Kinnock was, Her Majesty’s loyal opposition. so, you know, he didn’t hesitate to state what is right in broad daylight in front of the August House of Commons. So, such examples must be cited and be popularized.

thank you.

Statement by Pyro Chung

I work with the East-West Management Institute as the director of the Open Development Initiative, which is an Asia wide program looking at human rights, environmental justice and, the nexus between digital transformations. So, what are the issues that need political dialog as well as civil society dialog? I mean, fair and equitable societies in any form of democracy without fair and equitable dialogs between citizens, regardless of their position within existing political power structures.

It’s fundamental to every issue that affects our world, not just the politics that govern it. And how does the absence of restrictions on political tourism affect environmental and indigenous advocacy?

Indigenous peoples comprise of almost 400 million just in Asia alone, and that population is based upon census recently conducted. The latest census from all the nations that delineate and allow ethnic communities and Indigenous communities to identify that number is underrepresented in terms of political representation. There is no ability for Indigenous peoples to break through to the barriers that would allow them to engage in civic, political situations, which would offer them rights to be able to assert their self-determination, as well as access to lands and territories of which it is incorporated into that identity.

The absence of them within these dialogues and within political spaces fundamentally reduces our ability as a society to include their knowledge and their ways of knowing and govern our environmental systems into approaches that would address pressing climate issues. I think that Indigenous peoples, especially across the Mekong, where they are, proactively invisible, list through others sustainable development goals and initiatives, they are marginalized to the extent with the development that impacts their lands and resources, continually being excluded.

And this is this has been the case from time immemorial, and it continues to be the case. And with the introduction of digitization of public services and other government offices and other technical facilities that are assisting us to make better decisions, as we have been told, they are, it really does circumvent an inability for emerging evidence that can it widens the gap for indigenous peoples to enter into these spaces because of the fundamental marginalization that they, forced into, and that are existing for them.

So, do you see the political landscape continuing to restrict the airing of environmental and Aboriginal issues, and how might different government opposition relationships improve awareness? There has been increasing shrinking of civic space, which includes fundamental freedoms, rights, and liberties across the region. And since the pandemic and the immediate rush to digitize public services, it has meant the freedoms of expression and not, so much more easily controlled, which has amplified and increased surveillance through digital spaces.

This has compounded and contributed to extreme authoritarianism within the region and the pretext of national security. And so, as this authoritarian control and fear mongering to a certain extent, gets spread across the region in existing, as the expansion of this digitization and the lack of democracy and polarity within existing countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and now militarization in Myanmar, these power dynamics are two outweighed.

They’re too strong. And it’s very, very challenging for the opposition, any type of opposition to be created and challenged. These existing power structures and political institutions are often fiefdoms in themselves. And we need to dismantle them. But it’s necessary to do that in a peaceful way, and that has become more and more challenging. And the narratives that are being expressed, throughout the region and the discrimination, the racial hatred that is being perpetuated is increasing these divides, and it’s making it even more and more challenging to generate alternative ideals of what and how we should govern our societies.

Thank you, section.

Hannah Cho

Thank you all for joining and contributing to today’s events. Thank you. Especially Global Democracy Coalition’s a sign assisted by International Idea based in Stockholm in Sweden. And thanks for the center for Social Innovations in Toronto. For the facility is in the 192 Spadina avenue. And let’s uphold the spirit for democracy dates.

Owen Lippert

Thank you. Hannah. there are people we should also thank, but we only have so much time.

But thank you, thank Shelton, thank to, all the people that idea that have been so helpful, and it’s, well, friends and counterparts, originally set up the idea of having these, events. So, thank you all. please come visit the opposition international website, HTP. Yes. the opposition Dot international, we are also available on Facebook.

But thank you all again and we’ll see you again shortly. We hope. Thank you.

Conclusion:

\Michele George

 Thomas Mann, the renowned novelist, once wrote, in our times, “the destiny of humanity presents its meaning in political terms.” This sentiment of mind resonates deeply, especially when we consider the delicate balance between government and opposition within successful democracies.

Professor Adam Przeworski aptly highlights the specific challenge. Successful democracies are those in which institutions make it difficult to fortify a temporary advantage.

The key, says the professor, lies in mitigating institutional advantages, ensuring that every interest trusts the system enough to accept defeat while maintaining hope for future victories. Opposition international asserts that healthy democracies don’t suppress the conflict between government and opposition. Instead, they seek to resolve disputes fairly. The playing field must remain level accessible to all and recognized as such to foster trust and participation.

Thank you, and may our message resonate with fellow participants as we all seek to stem the erosion of democracy worldwide.