Secretary-General’s remarks at the Forum on the Future of Democracy at Vilnius, Lithuania

Opening Remarks
Forum on the Future of Democracy
Vilnius, Lithuania
November 7, 2024
 

Good morning Honourable Ministers, Ambassadors, distinguished participants, colleagues, and friends. I am honoured to be with you for this Forum on the Future of Democracy, and grateful to the Government of Lithuania for hosting another iteration of this important global gathering of democratic actors.  

In the last few years, this Forum has become a key fixture on the global democracy calendar. That status is a tribute to Lithuania’s committed leadership and to this region’s status as a frontline for democracy.  

The discussion on the future of democracy is more timely than ever. The world’s attention is squarely focused on democracy in the wake of Tuesday’s election in the United States, which came amid this year’s unprecedented series of elections globally, including very significant votes in Eastern Europe. Those elections have rendered obvious the challenges facing democracy, both external and internal. Democracy has become more relevant even as it has become more at risk. 

I view the present situation from International IDEA’s global perspective. For any who may not be familiar with our Institute, we are an intergovernmental organization with 35 Member States from all over the world, and we have a sole mandate to advance and protect democracy worldwide. Our Headquarters are in Stockholm, Sweden, but we have 20 offices globally, and we work in various ways in some 60 countries.  

International IDEA is known for combining comparative knowledge production with technical assistance on the ground. We also play a key role as a convenor of political dialogues on democratic issues at country, regional, and global level. And in recent years, we have built up a strong line of work assessing the quality and performance of democracy at country level.  

If I can summarize the findings of this last body of work, I would simply say that we are living in trying times for democracy. According to our measurements, over the past five years, the proportion of countries experiencing deterioration in at least one key aspect of democracy—be it credible elections, press freedom, civic space or others that we assess—far exceeds those witnessing improvements. We see these challenges in all parts of the world and at every level of democratic performance. Many countries that had it bad already are getting worse, while some of the world’s most robust democracies face mounting threats. 

Our methodology assesses four big attributes of democracy: Representation, Rights, Rule of Law, and Participation. In our latest report on the Global State of Democracy, released a few weeks ago and available on our website, one of the most striking results is in Participation: a dramatic 10-point fall in global average electoral turnout over the past 15 years.  

The report also shows that rates of election-related contestation are very high and rising, as are cases where losing candidates or parties refuse to accept electoral outcomes. Some of these complaints are grounded in legitimate grievances, but in many cases what we are seeing is simply the spread of unfounded election denialism. Just as fewer people are voting, more people are refusing to accept the results.  

The success of democracy depends on many things. Yet, democracy becomes utterly impossible if elections fail. At the same time, if elections are part of the problem facing democracy globally, they are unquestionably also part of the solution. This super-cycle year has reinforced that, despite everything, elections remain the single best opportunity to turn the tide in democracy’s favour. As shown recently in places from Zambia to Guatemala and from Brazil to Poland and India, elections retain a remarkable ability to reassert and strengthen democracy even in places where it has experienced serious setbacks.  

After this week’s election in the United States, I know that many of you are worried about the future of democracy in that country and around the world. I share this concern. Despite what we have seen in the past few hours, which partially restores the faith in the credibility of elections in the United States and their ability to enable a peaceful transfer of power, the truth is that what this election has revealed about the state of U.S. democracy is not good. I am not talking about the result. I am talking about the runaway polarization, the debasing of public discussions, the outsized role of money in the political process, the threat of political violence, the politicization of justice to avoid accountability, and the continuous deployment not of garden-variety political lies but of a mendacity so insidious and bold-faced as to turn democratic debates into a farce.  

The thing is that what happens in America does not stay there. As the world’s most influential democracy, the United States has a profound impact on the global democratic landscape. The plague of election denialism was incubated and accelerated in the United States before it was replicated in places like Brazil, Peru, Israel, even Myanmar. The undermining of democracy and the rule of law inspires opponents of democracy in countries like Moldova and Georgia. When democracy is at risk in the United States, it is at risk globally. 

Why democracy is at risk is a hugely complicated question and I don’t have time to address it here. It is clear that democracy today is under very real attack from external enemies. This phenomenon is well-known to this region, and it is only appropriate that we devote here abundant attention to it. 

But I also think it is important to remind ourselves that most places are not like Lithuania or Eastern Europe. In many places, foreign interference is a footnote to the problems of democracy. I, for one, come from a region, Latin America, where I can confidently say that malign foreign interference in politics and elections today has a rather marginal impact on political outcomes. 

Let me suggest, respectfully, that perhaps we should pay more attention to internal decay as a much greater threat to democracies, and as the factor that ultimately creates the conditions for malign foreign interference to thrive. It seems to me that the real danger to democracy lies in the centrifugal forces that are pulling societies apart, above all inequality; it lies in corruption and the impunity for it; it lies in the suspicion that democratic actors are self-serving and uninterested in solving real problems to real people.

Let me zero in on this last point. When we say that democracies are not delivering for citizens, full stop, we’re stating a half truth. I have the nagging impression that what is really hurting democracies everywhere is the perception that they are not delivering fairness. 

This perception is not unwarranted. For 40 years we have chosen to believe that it is possible to build robust, healthy, stable democracies amidst ever increasing inequality levels. Well, at some point the bill comes in – and it has come in, in the shape of authoritarian populism. 

I want to elaborate on this. Some of the things that I saw over the past few weeks in the United States I found deeply disturbing. I’m thinking here of the picture of Mr Musk handing out, like a game show host, $1 million checks to registered voters, something that I haven’t seen anywhere. But also, to be fair, I’m thinking of the $50 million contribution of Mr Gates to the Harris campaign, a mere rounding error in his fortune. These are stark reminders of the dangers that the extreme concentration of wealth poses for democracy. Such extreme concentration leads to the capture of politics and policies and destroys any perception of fairness.

We live in a world where 81 people own as much wealth as 50% of humanity combined. We live in a world where, last year, 35 multinational corporations compensated their executives with more money than they paid to the U.S. federal government in taxes, despite generating billions of dollars in profits. That’s the image of a rigged system, in which extreme inequality leads to the capture of politics, which in turn leads to the legal consecration of inequality, which facilitates further the capture of the political process, and on and on it goes. According to Latinobarometro, a regional survey, nearly three quarters of the population in Latin America believes that their political system protects the interests of the powerful few, rather than those of society as a whole. No wonder so many people are angry and willing to throw their lot with the first demagogue that comes along. 

What I’m trying to say is that if don’t confront rampant inequality and the sense of unfairness that comes with it head on, democracy will live dangerously, prone to the setbacks that foreign interference can accelerate but not create.

And let me say something else. The result of the U.S. election, but also Mexico’s and others around the world, suggest that the language of “defending democracy,” which we use so often, does very little to actually defend democracy. Admonishing people about their duty to protect democracy and the rule of law in the face of authoritarian populism means next to nothing to many people when they are faced with more primary, immediate, and concrete concerns in their daily lives. These concerns may be rampant crime in El Salvador or not being able to make ends meet in Michigan. 

I increasingly have the feeling that our messaging –and a lot of our work, too—tries to scratch the crisis of democracy –and scratch it thoroughly—but is scratching where it doesn’t itch. If we truly care about defending democracy, we urgently need to talk about and solve the things that are making people angry about democracy and willing to give up on it. 

It seems clear to me that by now we have all reached a common understanding of the severity of the threat that democracy faces. In my conversations with many partners around the world, I notice a sense of urgency about what’s happening that was not visible, say, five years ago. This event is a testament to that. But I also get the impression that we are yet to find clear and concrete ways to generate a common, action-oriented, global agenda for democracy. We are not there yet, but we need to find a way to get there. 

This is important because, whether we realise it or not, we are now immersed in a twilight struggle to protect the democratic project. It is an uphill struggle that requires correcting very fundamental things that are wrong in the way our societies are working, particularly a widespread and deep sense of unfairness that engenders a lot of citizen anger and, hence, weakens democracies. 

If we want to give democracy a future, for sure we need a lot of international collaboration to confront malign foreign interference and transnational disinformation campaigns. I’m all in favor of that. But just as much, I favor the idea that we collaborate on an action and advocacy agenda that focuses on extreme inequality, one that seeks to close tax havens, that aims to make sure that the ultra-rich and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes, that regulates the flow of money into politics, etc. All of this needs international collaboration too. And all of this is vital for the health of democracy.

We can and we must cooperate to ensure that democracy defeats its external enemies, but also the internal decay that opens the gates to its foes. I celebrate that this event has brought us together to generate the ideas and the actions to prevail in such a vital struggle. Let it be known that International IDEA is proud to be part of this conversation, one that is more urgent than ever, more important than ever, more inspiring than ever. And that like Pablo Neruda, the greatest poet from Latin America, I do hope that we will leave this meeting in Vilnius with the light of dawn sweetly caressing our temples. 

Thank you.