Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Despite its importance for development, long-term finance is particularly scarce in countries with lower income levels. This not only results in unrealised growth and employment creation at the national level and at the level of individual firms, but also undermines a broader shift towards better jobs. After all, many long-term investments comprise investments in labour that have the potential to contribute to improvements in the quality of jobs, through training to boost skill levels, the creation of more stable employment relationships, and the higher wages that result. This paper uses more than 17,000 firm-level observations from 73 mostly low- and middle-income countries between 2002 and 2009 to provide the first empirical evidence of the extent to which long-term finance affects the quality of jobs. Additionally, it looks into effects on investments and the performance of firms. The findings, based on inverse probability weighted regression adjustment, indicate that firms with long-term finance exhibit a share of permanent employees that is 0.9 percentage points higher, and train an additional 2.4 per cent of their production workers. The probability that firms invest in fixed assets or in innovations in their production process both increase by more than 5.5 percentage points, while employment and sales growth rises as well. The fact that the positive effects on job quality mostly disappear when defining long-term finance as loans with a maturity of more than one year instead of more than two years, underlines the importance of longer loan maturities for better jobs. Despite presenting favourable theoretical and descriptive arguments, it cannot be ruled out completely that unobservable variables affect the estimation of effect sizes.

One decade after the Arab uprisings of 2010/11, the present discussion paper revisits processes of political change in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) with a focus on the question of systemic change. Core questions in this context are: How, among all possible varieties of political change, do we know when political change is systemic? When do we speak of “democratisation”, and when of “authoritarian upgrading” or “- re-consolidation”? Can we predict such processes? If not, can we at least tell when systemic transition is more or less likely to occur, and what influences its occurrence? The three parts of this discussion paper build on one another in order to address and answer these puzzles.
The introduction is followed by a conceptual second section (Section 2) that establishes the analytical frame of reference by discussing and defining key concepts needed for understanding and analysing change of and change in political regimes. That way, Part I can then review democratisation theories (Section 3) and distil, from these, variables that aim at explaining why sometimes nondemocratic regimes transform into democracies, whereas in other cases they do not (Section 4). Yet, not all political change is democratising in nature; hence Part II complements the picture by investigating theories of authoritarian resilience (Section 5). From that, it extracts (in Section 6) conditions for authoritarian survival. Based on this analytical groundwork, Part III turns towards the experience of the MENA region and, in a comprehensive section (Section 7), attempts at offering an overview and assessment of political change in that world region by looking at both structural conditions and strategic choices actors have made.
In conclusion (Section 8), the view that Tunisia remains the exceptional case of an at least initially successful transition to democracy is supported.
As democratisation is the outcome most feared by those who hold executive power in most MENA countries, autocrats are – in addition to conducive political and economic factors in the international and regional environments – engaged in constant processes of exchange and “authoritarian learning”. They have devised elaborate strategies to avoid just that: democratisation. Among the most important of such strategies is political reform and liberalisation, which enhance the immediate life expectancy of authoritarian regimes, but at the same time may nurture popular frustration in the long run. However, frustration in large segments of society makes systemic change, if and when it occurs, more likely to be violent and occur through rupture rather than to be peaceful and arise from negotiation. This, in turn, does not bode well for democratisation. Today’s processes of political reform and liberalisation hence tend to effectively prevent systemic change in the short and medium term, and they make violent conflict (including possible state breakdown) a more likely outcome than democratisation in the long run.

One decade after the Arab uprisings of 2010/11, the present discussion paper revisits processes of political change in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) with a focus on the question of systemic change. Core questions in this context are: How, among all possible varieties of political change, do we know when political change is systemic? When do we speak of “democratisation”, and when of “authoritarian upgrading” or “- re-consolidation”? Can we predict such processes? If not, can we at least tell when systemic transition is more or less likely to occur, and what influences its occurrence? The three parts of this discussion paper build on one another in order to address and answer these puzzles.
The introduction is followed by a conceptual second section (Section 2) that establishes the analytical frame of reference by discussing and defining key concepts needed for understanding and analysing change of and change in political regimes. That way, Part I can then review democratisation theories (Section 3) and distil, from these, variables that aim at explaining why sometimes nondemocratic regimes transform into democracies, whereas in other cases they do not (Section 4). Yet, not all political change is democratising in nature; hence Part II complements the picture by investigating theories of authoritarian resilience (Section 5). From that, it extracts (in Section 6) conditions for authoritarian survival. Based on this analytical groundwork, Part III turns towards the experience of the MENA region and, in a comprehensive section (Section 7), attempts at offering an overview and assessment of political change in that world region by looking at both structural conditions and strategic choices actors have made.
In conclusion (Section 8), the view that Tunisia remains the exceptional case of an at least initially successful transition to democracy is supported.
As democratisation is the outcome most feared by those who hold executive power in most MENA countries, autocrats are – in addition to conducive political and economic factors in the international and regional environments – engaged in constant processes of exchange and “authoritarian learning”. They have devised elaborate strategies to avoid just that: democratisation. Among the most important of such strategies is political reform and liberalisation, which enhance the immediate life expectancy of authoritarian regimes, but at the same time may nurture popular frustration in the long run. However, frustration in large segments of society makes systemic change, if and when it occurs, more likely to be violent and occur through rupture rather than to be peaceful and arise from negotiation. This, in turn, does not bode well for democratisation. Today’s processes of political reform and liberalisation hence tend to effectively prevent systemic change in the short and medium term, and they make violent conflict (including possible state breakdown) a more likely outcome than democratisation in the long run.

One decade after the Arab uprisings of 2010/11, the present discussion paper revisits processes of political change in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) with a focus on the question of systemic change. Core questions in this context are: How, among all possible varieties of political change, do we know when political change is systemic? When do we speak of “democratisation”, and when of “authoritarian upgrading” or “- re-consolidation”? Can we predict such processes? If not, can we at least tell when systemic transition is more or less likely to occur, and what influences its occurrence? The three parts of this discussion paper build on one another in order to address and answer these puzzles.
The introduction is followed by a conceptual second section (Section 2) that establishes the analytical frame of reference by discussing and defining key concepts needed for understanding and analysing change of and change in political regimes. That way, Part I can then review democratisation theories (Section 3) and distil, from these, variables that aim at explaining why sometimes nondemocratic regimes transform into democracies, whereas in other cases they do not (Section 4). Yet, not all political change is democratising in nature; hence Part II complements the picture by investigating theories of authoritarian resilience (Section 5). From that, it extracts (in Section 6) conditions for authoritarian survival. Based on this analytical groundwork, Part III turns towards the experience of the MENA region and, in a comprehensive section (Section 7), attempts at offering an overview and assessment of political change in that world region by looking at both structural conditions and strategic choices actors have made.
In conclusion (Section 8), the view that Tunisia remains the exceptional case of an at least initially successful transition to democracy is supported.
As democratisation is the outcome most feared by those who hold executive power in most MENA countries, autocrats are – in addition to conducive political and economic factors in the international and regional environments – engaged in constant processes of exchange and “authoritarian learning”. They have devised elaborate strategies to avoid just that: democratisation. Among the most important of such strategies is political reform and liberalisation, which enhance the immediate life expectancy of authoritarian regimes, but at the same time may nurture popular frustration in the long run. However, frustration in large segments of society makes systemic change, if and when it occurs, more likely to be violent and occur through rupture rather than to be peaceful and arise from negotiation. This, in turn, does not bode well for democratisation. Today’s processes of political reform and liberalisation hence tend to effectively prevent systemic change in the short and medium term, and they make violent conflict (including possible state breakdown) a more likely outcome than democratisation in the long run.

This paper addresses the self-selection of potential migrants. In particular, the study examines whether risk and time preferences explain a significant proportion in the movement heterogeneity of individuals. It is further intended to shed light on the role of social preferences (trust, altruism, reciprocity) as potential migratory determinants. By making use of a unique cross-sectional data set on migration intentions (Gallup World Poll) and experimentally-validated preferences (the Global Preference Survey) covering 70 countries worldwide, a probit model is estimated. The empirical results provide evidence that potential migrants exhibit higher levels of risk-taking and patience than their counterparts who stay at home (the stayers). This holds true across differing countries with various cultural backgrounds and income levels. Trust and negative reciprocity are found to be significantly related to migration aspirations as well. Yet conclusive clarifications still remain necessary, providing impetuses for future research.

This paper addresses the self-selection of potential migrants. In particular, the study examines whether risk and time preferences explain a significant proportion in the movement heterogeneity of individuals. It is further intended to shed light on the role of social preferences (trust, altruism, reciprocity) as potential migratory determinants. By making use of a unique cross-sectional data set on migration intentions (Gallup World Poll) and experimentally-validated preferences (the Global Preference Survey) covering 70 countries worldwide, a probit model is estimated. The empirical results provide evidence that potential migrants exhibit higher levels of risk-taking and patience than their counterparts who stay at home (the stayers). This holds true across differing countries with various cultural backgrounds and income levels. Trust and negative reciprocity are found to be significantly related to migration aspirations as well. Yet conclusive clarifications still remain necessary, providing impetuses for future research.

This paper addresses the self-selection of potential migrants. In particular, the study examines whether risk and time preferences explain a significant proportion in the movement heterogeneity of individuals. It is further intended to shed light on the role of social preferences (trust, altruism, reciprocity) as potential migratory determinants. By making use of a unique cross-sectional data set on migration intentions (Gallup World Poll) and experimentally-validated preferences (the Global Preference Survey) covering 70 countries worldwide, a probit model is estimated. The empirical results provide evidence that potential migrants exhibit higher levels of risk-taking and patience than their counterparts who stay at home (the stayers). This holds true across differing countries with various cultural backgrounds and income levels. Trust and negative reciprocity are found to be significantly related to migration aspirations as well. Yet conclusive clarifications still remain necessary, providing impetuses for future research.

DIW-Präsident Marcel Fratzscher kommentiert die heutige Sitzung des EZB-Rats wie folgt:

Die EZB hält Kurs und signalisiert, dass sie ihre expansive Geldpolitik länger beibehalten könnte, als bisher angedeutet. Mit ihren jüngsten Entscheidungen gibt sie sich mehr Flexibilität, um ihre Anleihenkäufe auf schwächere Länder im Euroraum fokussieren zu können und zeitlich weiter auszudehnen. Sie macht damit deutlich, dass sie versuchen wird, die Anleiherenditen und Risikoaufschläge der wirtschaftlich schwächsten Länder niedrig zu halten.

Die Entscheidung der EZB ist die logische Konsequenz aus dieser anhaltenden zweiten Infektionswelle, die eine wirtschaftliche Erholung weiter in die Zukunft verschiebt. Präsidentin Christine Lagarde unterstreicht, dass die Risiken für eine schwächere wirtschaftliche Entwicklung hoch bleiben. Mit ihrer Entscheidung verschafft sich die EZB zusätzlichen Spielraum und die nötige Glaubwürdigkeit, um entschieden handeln zu können. Die zu schwache Inflation und die niedrigen Inflationserwartungen werden ein baldiges Ende des expansiven Kurses der Geldpolitik ohnehin nicht möglich machen.

Event Video 
Photos

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-juarmm").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-juarmm").fadeIn(1000);});}); Download the Report Download the Report

On January 20th, IPI together with the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs and the Permanent Mission of Finland to the UN, cohosted a virtual panel discussion on “Reflections and Lessons on UN Support to Local Mediation Efforts.”

Track 1 mediation processes involving national political and military leaders have increasingly struggled to deliver comprehensive peace agreements that address today’s fragmented conflicts and include local communities’ needs. As a result, the UN has become more engaged in supporting local mediation actors and efforts, including in contexts with and without UN peace operations.

To reflect on the UN’s experience with such engagement to date, the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs’ (DPPA) Mediation Support Unit (MSU) recently published “UN Support to Local Mediation: Opportunities and Challenges.” This report aims to deepen understanding of the UN’s engagement in mediation at the local level and the strategic and political relevance of this engagement to the UN’s overall peacemaking efforts.

In parallel, IPI released a report titled “Parallel Tracks or Connected Pieces?: UN Peace Operations, Local Mediation, and Peace Processes.” This report considers how local mediation fits into the broader political strategies of UN peace operations, including what capacities the UN would need to increase its engagement in local mediation, what role it can play, and how it could better configure itself and engage in partnerships.

This discussion provided an overview of the DPPA and IPI reports, including perspectives from the field, highlighting lessons, insights, opportunities, and challenges as the UN engages in and with local mediation efforts.

Opening Remarks:
Teemu Turunen, Director, Centre for Mediation, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland

Speakers:
Arthur Boutellis, IPI Non-resident Senior Adviser, and co-author of IPI report “Parallel Tracks or Connected Pieces”
Asif Khan, Chief of Mediation Support and Gender, Peace and Security, UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs
Gabriela Iribarne, Central Regional Office – Kabul, Head of Office and Area Security Coordinator, UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan
Guang Cong, Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General (Political), UN Mission in South Sudan
Marie-Joëlle Zahar, Professor, Université de Montréal, IPI Non-resident Senior Fellow, and contributing author to DPPA’s “UN Support to Local Mediation” report; and co-author of IPI report “Parallel Tracks or Connected Pieces”

Moderator:
Jake Sherman, IPI Senior Director of Programs

.content .main .entry-header.w-thumbnail .cartouche {background: none; bottom: 0px;} h1.entry-title {font-size: 1.8em;}

The Covid-19 pandemic is a global shock that is significantly affecting coastal social-ecological systems (SES) in different parts of the world. Its widespread impacts have unravelled vulnerabilities in many aspects of society, including food systems. Our study investigated the impacts of a lockdown associated with the pandemic in the province of Bulacan, in the region of Central Luzon, Philippines, where aquaculture and capture fisheries are important and interconnected sectors. In particular, we focused

on impacts related to production and market. We considered people’s coping strategies and the factors that enabled such strategies. Our investigation adopted a case study approach and drew on qualitative data analysed through thematic analysis. The findings revealed differentiated mechanisms through which aquaculture and capture fisheries production were impacted. Both were strongly affected by market disruptions but through slightly different ways. In effect, the lockdown provided the impetus for the uptake and spreading of practices that were previously peripheral, particularly in relation to market exchanges. The study also identified a variety of coping strategies, as well as the importance of social support in the form of food aid, financial assistance, and institutional livelihood assistance. Finally, it discusses the importance of diversity in food sources, the role of local food systems, and governance implications for foregrounding social-ecological resilience in short-term response and

long-term recovery.

The Covid-19 pandemic is a global shock that is significantly affecting coastal social-ecological systems (SES) in different parts of the world. Its widespread impacts have unravelled vulnerabilities in many aspects of society, including food systems. Our study investigated the impacts of a lockdown associated with the pandemic in the province of Bulacan, in the region of Central Luzon, Philippines, where aquaculture and capture fisheries are important and interconnected sectors. In particular, we focused

on impacts related to production and market. We considered people’s coping strategies and the factors that enabled such strategies. Our investigation adopted a case study approach and drew on qualitative data analysed through thematic analysis. The findings revealed differentiated mechanisms through which aquaculture and capture fisheries production were impacted. Both were strongly affected by market disruptions but through slightly different ways. In effect, the lockdown provided the impetus for the uptake and spreading of practices that were previously peripheral, particularly in relation to market exchanges. The study also identified a variety of coping strategies, as well as the importance of social support in the form of food aid, financial assistance, and institutional livelihood assistance. Finally, it discusses the importance of diversity in food sources, the role of local food systems, and governance implications for foregrounding social-ecological resilience in short-term response and

long-term recovery.

The Covid-19 pandemic is a global shock that is significantly affecting coastal social-ecological systems (SES) in different parts of the world. Its widespread impacts have unravelled vulnerabilities in many aspects of society, including food systems. Our study investigated the impacts of a lockdown associated with the pandemic in the province of Bulacan, in the region of Central Luzon, Philippines, where aquaculture and capture fisheries are important and interconnected sectors. In particular, we focused

on impacts related to production and market. We considered people’s coping strategies and the factors that enabled such strategies. Our investigation adopted a case study approach and drew on qualitative data analysed through thematic analysis. The findings revealed differentiated mechanisms through which aquaculture and capture fisheries production were impacted. Both were strongly affected by market disruptions but through slightly different ways. In effect, the lockdown provided the impetus for the uptake and spreading of practices that were previously peripheral, particularly in relation to market exchanges. The study also identified a variety of coping strategies, as well as the importance of social support in the form of food aid, financial assistance, and institutional livelihood assistance. Finally, it discusses the importance of diversity in food sources, the role of local food systems, and governance implications for foregrounding social-ecological resilience in short-term response and

long-term recovery.

DIW-Präsident Marcel Fratzscher kommentiert die aktuellen Beschlüsse des Bund-Länder-Treffens zum weiteren Corona-Kurs wie folgt:

Eine Verlängerung des Lockdowns war unausweichlich. Ich befürchte aber, die eingeschlagene Strategie ohne wesentliche Verschärfung der Maßnahmen ist unzureichend, zu zögerlich und zu zaghaft. Die zweite Corona-Welle muss schnellstmöglich gebrochen werden, auch um langfristig enorme wirtschaftliche Schäden abzuwenden. Dies könnte die letzte Chance sein, einen noch tieferen Wirtschaftseinbruch zu vermeiden, denn viele Unternehmen sind in ihrer Existenz bedroht. Ein harter Lockdown ist zwar unmittelbar ein tiefgreifender Einschnitt für Unternehmen und Selbständige. Die Wahrscheinlichkeit ist aber hoch, dass der fehlende Mut der Politik, frühzeitig und entschieden zu handeln, dazu führt, dass ein Rückgang der Zahl der Infizierten und damit eine Lockerung der Restriktionen noch weiter in die Ferne rückt. Zu zögerliche Schritte, die womöglich in eine dritte Infektionswelle münden könnten, würden für noch mehr Verunsicherung bei Unternehmen, Selbstständigen und VerbraucherInnen sorgen. Dies hätte verheerende Folgen für die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung. 

Ein hohes Maß an Akzeptanz für die getroffenen Maßnahmen ist der Schlüssel für eine erfolgreiche Eindämmung der zweiten Infektionswelle. Die ständigen Streitereien und die Kakophonie der Politik, wie sie auch jetzt wieder zwischen den politischen Entscheidungsträgern zu beobachten war, schürt die Verunsicherung und verursacht hohen Schaden. Auch die Androhungen von Schließungen von Unternehmen und einem "Wirtschafts-Lockdown" gehen nicht nur an der Realität vorbei, sondern führen zu einer geringeren Akzeptanz und verringern damit die Chancen einer erfolgreichen Eindämmung.

Experience shows that strong, well-functioning, adaptable and adequately funded social systems are essential to cope with the negative impacts of crises like COVID-19. This case study examines the strengths and weaknesses of social systems in Africa and how these influenced the response of different countries. It notes that few countries have adequate social protection schemes, but some countries have limited the direct effects of the pandemic by relying on health emergency systems honed during the Ebola outbreak. It seems that building stronger social systems builds resilience.

Experience shows that strong, well-functioning, adaptable and adequately funded social systems are essential to cope with the negative impacts of crises like COVID-19. This case study examines the strengths and weaknesses of social systems in Africa and how these influenced the response of different countries. It notes that few countries have adequate social protection schemes, but some countries have limited the direct effects of the pandemic by relying on health emergency systems honed during the Ebola outbreak. It seems that building stronger social systems builds resilience.

Experience shows that strong, well-functioning, adaptable and adequately funded social systems are essential to cope with the negative impacts of crises like COVID-19. This case study examines the strengths and weaknesses of social systems in Africa and how these influenced the response of different countries. It notes that few countries have adequate social protection schemes, but some countries have limited the direct effects of the pandemic by relying on health emergency systems honed during the Ebola outbreak. It seems that building stronger social systems builds resilience.

Angriffe auf die Demokratie sind zur neuen Normalität geworden. Dennoch ist es beispiellos, dass ein US-amerikanischer Präsident Anfang 2021 einen Mob zur Erstürmung des Kapitols aufstachelte. Angesichts des weltweiten Aufschwungs „autokratischer Projekte“ haben führende Politiker*innen erneut die Idee einer globalen Koalition für Demokratie ins Spiel gebracht. So kündigte der designierte US-Präsident Joe Biden an, einen internationalen Demokratie-Gipfel einzuberufen. Boris Johnson schlug vor, die G7, also die Gruppe sieben führender Wirtschaftsmächte, mit Australien, Indien und Südkorea zu einer „D10“ der zehn wichtigsten Demokratien auszubauen. Der deutsche Außenminister Heiko Maas schlug kürzlich einen Marshallplan für Demokratie vor, und Schweden hat einen außenpolitischen Fokus auf demokratische Rechte (Drive for Democracy).

Demokratieschutz ist sowohl eine nationale als auch eine internationale Aufgabe ist. Das übersehen Kritiker*innen der Gipfelidee häufig. Um die Demokratie vor autokratischen Tendenzen zu bewahren, muss sie einerseits im Inland wiederhergestellt und im Ausland geschützt werden. Globale Initiativen für die Demokratie können – und müssen – neue Impulse für zukünftiges Handeln geben. Damit globale Initiativen zum Demokratieschutz erfolgreich sind, ist es wichtig sich dem neuen globalen Kontext zu stellen:

Das Ende des „Westens als Vorbild für Demokratie“

Wer heute für die Demokratie eintreten will, muss sich auch eingestehen, dass „der Westen“ keineswegs die Lösungen parat hält und selbst mit Problemen zu kämpfen hat. Frühere Initiativen wie die Community of Democracies konzentrierten sich ab 2000 allein auf äußere Demokratiebedrohungen. Doch innerstaatliche Feinde der Demokratie sind genauso gefährlich. Die Fratze des Nationalismus, wirtschaftliche Unsicherheit, soziale Polarisierung, Desinformation und Verschwörungstheorien, deuten auf einen möglichen Paradigmenwechsel hin, der Demokratie und Menschenrechte nicht befördert. Wie wir in den 1930er Jahren erleben mussten, ist Angst eine sehr mächtige und gefährliche politische Kraft. Offen anzuerkennen, dass die Demokratie weltweit bedroht ist, hilft auch einen Paradigmenwechsel in der internationalen Demokratieförderung einzuleiten – hin zu einer Allianz mit Ländern aus dem globalen Süden und Norden, die auf gegenseitiges Lernen bei der Lösung von Demokratieproblemen baut.

Ein überzeugendes demokratisches Narrativ entwickeln

Wir wissen, dass es kein „Ende der Geschichte“ gibt. Die Auflösung demokratischer Strukturen war in der Geschichte eher die Norm als die Ausnahme, und die Welt befindet sich jetzt in der dritten Autokratisierungswelle. Es stimmt, dass Länder wie China, Russland, Saudi-Arabien und die Türkei Demokratiedefizite und Ereignisse wie den 6. Januar in den USA zum Anlass nahmen, sich selbst als stabil und sicher darzustellen, während sie weltweit aktiv eine antidemokratische Agenda verfolgen. Externen und internen Bedrohungen der Demokratie muss daher mit einem Narrativ begegnet werden, das die Stärken der Demokratie klar in den Vordergrund stellt. Politik und Wissenschaft müssen dringend viel mehr tun, um die wirtschaftlichen und sozialen Vorteile der Demokratie und des Schutzes von Bürger- und Menschenrechten zu erforschen und zu präsentieren.

Demokratische Werte hochhalten und auf Verbündete bauen

Demokratie verteidigen ohne defensiv zu sein – das ist angesichts wirtschaftlicher Erfolge von Autokratien zentral. Globale Initiativen beruhen auf gemeinsamen Werten wie Gleichheit oder die Achtung der Menschenwürde. Der Philosoph Karl Popper beschreibt im „Paradoxon der Toleranz“, dass eine tolerante, demokratische Gesellschaft nicht das Intolerante tolerieren darf.. Die gegenseitige Toleranz von Pluralismus, des Respekts universeller Menschenrechten und der Gleichwertigkeit der Menschen ist das Wertefundament, das nicht angetastet werden darf. Demokratieschutz erfordert, eine rote Linie zu ziehen, die diese Werte schützt, und mit Eliten, Institutionen und Zivilgesellschaften in Dialog zu treten, wenn diese rote Linie in Gefahr ist oder überschritten wurde. Überparteiliche politische Bildung für verschiedene Gesellschafts- und Altersgruppen ist zentral, um diese Werte zu bilden und gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalt zu stärken. Die Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung könnte dafür international ein gutes Vorbild sein.

Auch wenn die Zahl der Autokratien global steigt, sind Regierungen bei der Verteidigung demokratischer Werte nicht mehr auf sich allein gestellt, so wie im Kalten Krieg. Zivilgesellschaften sind nun mächtige Akteure in der Innen- und in der Weltpolitik. Überall auf der Welt zeigen Umfragen, dass sich an den meisten Orten eine klare Mehrheit der Bürger für die Demokratie ausspricht. Es gibt also keinen Grund, sich in eine Abwehrhaltung zu begeben, – die Welt ist voller demokratisch gesinnter Kräfte.

Demokratieschutz? Keine Wahl

Befürchtungen, dass eine globale Initiative zum Schutz der Demokratie die Spaltungen in der Weltpolitik vertiefen wird, sind bedenkenswert. Doch wir haben keine Wahl. Feinde der Demokratie im In- und Ausland haben für die Entstehung und Verschärfung solcher Spaltungen gesorgt. Deutschland ebenso wie alle anderen Länder in Europa wissen aus historischer Erfahrung, dass es die Propheten der Intoleranz nur ermutigt, wenn sie Nachsicht zeigen und eine gemeinsame Antwort mit ihnen suchen. Die EU muss jetzt für die Demokratie eintreten – zuhause und im Ausland.

Professor Staffan I. Lindberg ist Direktor des V-Dem Instituts der Universität Göteburg, Wallenberg Academy Fellow und Leiter der Forschungsprogramme Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) und Failing And Successful Sequences of Democratization (FASDEM, ERC Consolidator).

Dr. Julia Leininger ist Leiterin des Programms „Transformation politischer (Un-)Ordnung“. Sie arbeitet zu politischer Transformation, Demokratieförderung und sozialer Kohäsion.