Throughout 2024, billions of citizens across the globe will vote for leaders against the backdrop of social and environmental crises. In this year of elections, change leaders are reimagining civic tools, building movements, and strengthening community resilience to protect democracy today and beyond.
Yet even as it strives to be free and fair, democracy still leaves behind far too many people, according to Felipe Estefan, who fosters civic engagement in Latin America for Luminate. To explore the need for evolution, Estefan led a panel at the 2024 Skoll World Forum with other change leaders working toward more just and inclusive democracies. Panelists emphasized the importance of legal action, collective power, and narrative and cultural interventions to create a more inclusive version of democracy. They also credited social movements and alternative structures of power for fostering positive relationships between citizens and their leaders.
Watch the full session and read the transcript below to learn more from Estefan, who was joined by Ian Bassin, executive director of Protect Democracy; Áurea Carolina Executive, director of NOSSAS; Nicholas Opiyo, executive director of Chapter Four Uganda; and Tessza Udvarhelyi, president of the Board School of Public Life (Közélet Iskolája).
Transcript from “Beyond the Vote: Innovating Our Everyday Democracies,” filmed on April 11, 2024 at the Skoll World Forum:
Felipe Estefan: We’re here to talk about democracy. Good evening, good afternoon, good day to everyone watching on the live stream, as well. My name is Felipe Estefan. I’m delighted to be here. I’m the Vice President of Luminate, a philanthropic organization that works globally to ensure that people, particularly those who have been historically and presently excluded, have the rights, the information, and the power to influence the decisions that shape our futures, and that technology works for rather than against democracy.
And we have a fantastic session today. It’s called “Beyond the Vote: Innovating on Everyday Democracies.” And before I introduce the Panel, I want to talk to you a little bit about why this conversation is so important. As we were hearing just now, we are in the so-called year of elections, a mega year of elections. Citizens in over 60 countries around the world will have the opportunity to cast a vote. And the prevailing narrative about democracy at this moment is that democracy is in crisis. That is, in many ways, very true.
We see the crisis of democracy manifested in many different ways, including from the tech field, disinformation, and hate speech in which big tech platforms and technology companies are benefiting from, and monetizing on attention that leads to polarization, and to disinformation. We see it with authoritarian leaders that are curtailing the rights of many citizens, including women, LGBT plus people, racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and many others. But we also see it in terms of a crisis of representation and a crisis of legitimacy.
And what I mean by that is that, many of us don’t necessarily see ourselves and our interests, and our communities represented by those who lead us, and those who lead us don’t always deliver the results that we expect. And that requires a deep reflection around a hard truth, and it’s that the version of democracy that we have experienced thus far has left far too many behind because it is deeply rooted, and fundamental in systems of exclusion like patriarchy, slavery, and colonialism.
And so, at a moment in which we’re talking about a democratic crisis, it is not enough to simply think about how we defend or quote unquote, restore democracy to some idealized version of its past. That version of its past has not served us well enough. We need to innovate and think about how we reimagine democracy, how we think about legal action, collective power interventions that enable citizens to have agency. How we also think about narrative and cultural interventions that will allow us to really imagine the world that we deserve, the version of democracy that is far more inclusive and rooted in the idea that everyone has values and rights in society.
And so, that’s what we’re going to do in this session. We’re not only going to talk about the bad things. It’s very easy for sessions about democracy to go into a doom spiral, and everyone leaves feeling like the world’s going to be worse and there’s nothing to do about it. That is absolutely not it. There are very many things to do about it. And I think what you’re going to hear on stage is actually the stories of four people around the world who are taking very courageous action, sometimes at very high personal cost, to innovate and reimagine that democracy that we deserve.
And so, how this session’s going to work is, I’m going to introduce the panelists, I’m going to ask them a question about current state and challenges. So, we’re going to do some diagnosis of the problem together. And then we’re going to move fairly quickly into solutions and ideas, and innovations that hopefully can serve as inspiration. After that, we’re going to open it up for Q&A. It’s my first time at Skoll World Forum, but oftentimes, as I was asking people for advice in preparing this session, they said that the Q&A ends up being one of the most interesting parts of the session. I see many of the faces around, many are friends, and many of you are very big experts on democracy, so I actually want to make sure that we have time to hear from you.
I am, though, somewhat ironically for this session, a somewhat authoritarian moderator. So, please make your question a question and get to it so that we can hear from more people. I’ll be a true, kind and dear leader. And then we’ll get to closing, and hopefully this will spark more conversations, you can continue to have across the forum. Does that sound like a good plan? Yeah.
Okay, so I’m going to introduce you to our panelists, then we’re going to jump into the conversation. Right here is Ian Bassin, the Co-Founder and Executive Director of Protect Democracy, also a Skoll awardee. Next to him is Áurea Carolina, my dear friend, who’s the Executive Director of NOSSAS in Brazil, also a Skoll awarded organization.
Next to her is Nicholas Opiyo, the Executive Director of Chapter Four Uganda, a huge inspiration to me and many LGBT people around the world for the work that he’s been doing and that you’ll hear about. And next to him is Tessza Udvarhelyi, and she’s the president of the Board of the School of Public Life in Hungary. Has a fantastic TED Talk that you should also watch coming out of here.
And so, what I’m going to do is, I’m actually going to start with you, Nicholas. Tell us a little bit about, what is one trend in the current state of democracy that you’re seeing? And also, if you could, and if you don’t mind, tell the audience a little bit about your arrest in December.
Nicholas Opiyo: Well, thank you very much. I think that sitting from Uganda, what I see is performative democracy, people pretending to have a democratic dispensation. And if you know about that sort of system, you know that it is worse than a dictatorship. At least dictators, you know what they will do. Pretenders, it’s difficult. The rules keep changing from time to time.
In my country, elections are very tense moments. It’s never a hopeful moment because during elections is when you have a spike in reported cases of human rights violations. And so, I don’t look forward to elections because it’s just a difficult moment in Uganda. And so, I think that there are many countries across the continent that are pretending to have elective politics, democratic dispensation, but the devil is in the detail. When you look deeper and see the practices and what they’re doing, it is far from a democratic system.
In my own case, in the last election, I got arrested and thrown in a maximum-security prison for doing nothing really except documenting extra-judicial killings by the state on the streets of the city following the arrest of Bobi Wine, many of you know him. Museveni’s number one opponent in the last election. And it’s not just me, countless other young people have disappeared without trace. Up until now, we have a case in the high court where we are asking for the state to account for at least 18 people who were picked up by state agencies and never have been seen again. We have many cases of people who have tortured or been maimed. So, elections are really a war in our case. And this is the trend in many, many African countries that elections really are moments of really very difficult, difficult times for people.
The second thing is that, what you’re beginning to see, at least in most parts of Africa, is the rise of the religious state, the overbearing influence of faith groups on governance as a whole. The worst of them being the Pentecostal groups in Uganda, for instance, who are hellbent on influencing every aspect of our lives even though Uganda is supposed to be a secular state. You have their influence on sex education, on the rights of LGBTI persons, on abortions, on so many other things. And what we are seeing is this rise of religious state finds very good bedfellows in autocratic leaders who allow them to use their platforms for nefarious ends.
Felipe Estefan: Thank you, Nicholas, and we’re glad you’re here with us today, and thank you for sharing your story.
Nicholas Opiyo: Well, thank you very much. I also come off literally the background of, in the last two weeks, Uganda, perhaps you know the story, has been dealing with the constitutional court upholding the country’s anti-gay law. The worst of the kind in the world that provides for among others the death penalty. And we went to court to challenge that and the court said it was okay to discriminate against LGBI persons.
And so, on the trip here, and up until last night, till about 2:00 a.m. we were working on an appeal to the Supreme Court. But that case is really a symptom of how the state is using otherwise legitimate legal processes for repressive purposes. And it’s not just the LGBTI community, the LGBTI community have been scapegoated long enough in Uganda, but the same is being done to civil society. The same is being done to political parties where through a legal process in parliament, they pass a law that instead of extending the frontiers of human rights, they’re restricting it.
It’s a regressive legislation that is then used by the state as a justification for their actions to say, this is what the people want. And yet the legal process leading up to that legislation is really one that is for all intent and purposes manipulated, in some cases coerced, in some cases outwardly vote. You give out money to MPs in exchange for a vote for a law. And so, we are seeing also the use of legislation to subvert democratic processes in countries like Uganda.
Felipe Estefan: Yeah, and we’re seeing that co-optation of the institutions that should be serving us to actually restrict our powers and our sense of belonging. And I’m sure we’ll talk a little bit more about strategic litigation and all the different ways in which you respond to the legal mechanisms that are undermining rights. But let me come to you, Tessza.
Lots of people, particularly people in this room, will understand what’s been going on in Hungary. You describe it in your TED Talk as the equivalent of a frog in water for which the temperature is just very gradually rising, every moment, every moment, every moment, almost as if to try to pretend like that was not what was happening. You and your team have also faced significant harassments and threats. Tell us a little bit about what you’re seeing now, what you want people to know beyond the story that they’ve heard on international media about Hungary and some of death threats that you and your team have been facing.
Tessza Udvarhelyi: Yeah, thanks for having me here. Yeah. So, as you know, Hungary is part the European Union, so I should leave because everything should be okay, but it’s not, it’s very much turning into an authoritarian country. There are laws, but there is no rule of law, so it’s this weird kind of hybrid situation of they pass laws every day, but those laws don’t protect us as people, but they are made to, to oppress us more and more every day.
And I think what’s also important in the case of Hungary is that the rule of the government, which I would say it’s a party state, so one party rules, the entire state is basically based on hate. And I think that’s the most dangerous part of it. You know, like laws and legal structures, that’s one thing, but when your whole kind of, when the whole political scene is about hating someone and the way they uphold their power is by always creating enemies and it’s always different groups. Like each year we take turns and we have to hate someone else. It can be foreigners, it can be LGBTQ people, civil society, refugees, migrants, basic poor people, like all of them, all of them have taken turns to be hated by the government. And this hate is very much promoted.
But also, I think what’s important is that the, it’s important to me that the welfare state has also been destroyed in Hungary. So, it’s not only authoritarianism, you know, we could live very well under an authoritarian regime, but actually, the whole social safety net of the country has been destroyed over the years. So, it’s really, really difficult to be a poor low-income person in Hungary. And you are very much oppressed in all senses of the word.
I would say that at the individual level, the biggest issue for Hungarians living in this system is that our everyday is more and more being characterized by fear, by hopelessness, isolation. And a lot of people leave the country, a lot of people who are in the country don’t want to do things because they are either afraid or because they are tired. And it’s this very weird, like as you said, it’s this very weird kind of, it’s not a real dictatorship, so you can’t really touch it, but you can feel that if you say something, if you say the wrong thing, you can be fired.
Like just the other day there was an anti-government protest, and somebody said a very critical thing about the government, and they were fired the next day, and it was very public, so. And it doesn’t happen to everyone, but it can happen to anyone. So, that’s the kind of weird nature of it.
And then I would also say that I think one of the kind of sad things about the situation in Hungary is that the opposition, we have an opposition, you know, there are opposition parties, but they are very tired and very much not representative of the people. Like in most opposition parties, it’s white, middle-aged men who try to fight for justice. And I’m not sure if they understand what justice means for the rest of us.
So, I think there is also not only, you know, it’s not only an authoritarian country, but there is also a crisis of the opposition. And there is, I mentioned to you and you told me that I should talk about it, that there is this counter-selection in the opposition that a lot of people who want to enter into politics are not the people who have high dreams or desires or hopes. But are just there because that’s the only place where they can, you know, be active, but not necessarily representative of all of us.
Felipe Estefan: Yeah. And the reason I thought that the point on counter selection was so interesting and gives me a good way to come to you, Áurea, is because we often talk about wanting to have the leaders that we hope for, that we dream of. In many countries, often citizens talk about having just bad choices, you know, and you hear people saying, “I wish I had a better choice.” And oftentimes the solutions that we discussed to that are about training more people and more candidates to run for office. And that is certainly incredibly important and helpful.
I’m looking at — Mónica Tapia from Mexico is here, who does an incredible job in making sure that more women can run for office in Mexico, but then it’s, ‘What happens when people make it into office?’ And Áurea, you were elected into office in Brazil. You now have left office and I’m curious if you can speak a little bit about your experience exercising power. And Áurea is going to speak in Portuguese, so if anyone needs translation, you’ll be in channel one for English.
Áurea Carolina: Yeah, thank you very much, Felipe. Yeah. I’ll wait. Thank you everybody for using your headphones. Thank you, my colleagues. I’ll speak in Portuguese and thank you, Skoll Forum staff for providing this service of translation.
It’s important that this Forum becomes more inclusive. I know that this is one of the rare occasions when there is a simultaneous translation at Skoll Forum, and I’m glad to see that there is a genuine effort to make Skoll Forum more open, diverse, and inclusive. So thank you very much, Tim, and all the Skoll Foundation team. I’m very honored and thrilled to be around people who are so inspiring.
My career in Institutional Politics was born out of my indignation as a popular activist in my city, Belo Horizonte, in Brazil. I joined a movement of people like me, common people, who wanted to use politics to work on their issues. And, unexpectedly, we were very successful in an election eight years ago, which made history in Brazil, with a collective campaign that later became a reference for democratic innovation, and then, in a collective mandate that experimented with many ways of exploring how to make a legislative process more connected with citizenship and with the agendas of popular struggle of women, Black people, traditional peoples and communities, socio-environmental causes, and others.
And, in fact, it was an experience that changed us as civil society activists, occupying institutional politics, and which had an effect on the political system itself. We even started to discuss how parties should deal with collective candidacies, how institutions can receive collective mandates, which is something new in our reality, or even the possibility of independent candidacies, which is something that doesn’t exist in Brazil yet, as well as other ways of reviewing the institutional system itself.
But my time there was during a period of great turbulence. As you know, in recent years, Brazil has been under an authoritarian government, the government of former president Jair Bolsonaro, an emblematic exponent of the global far right. And I was in the Brazilian Congress exactly during this period, a period of increased political violence and a pandemic… I also became a mother during this period and, for a number of reasons, I realized that, from a personal point of view, it no longer made sense for me to remain in that place. That was costing me my happiness. But I didn’t want to give up on institutional politics; I still believe that it’s a space that needs to be occupied by this enchantment, this indignation, and this will to change things.
So I return to civil society with the same willingness to work, but with an effort to support, in other ways, leaders who are also fighting in autonomous civil society spaces, but who are willing to stand for election and be in the political system. We have activists who are in the political system and who aren’t like traditional politicians. This is a new generation of leaders who have arrived and who need special attention from civil society. They are feminist women, Black people, LGBTQIA+ people, Indigenous people, and popular people who don’t fit in with the traditional class of politicians as we know them.
And these people really can produce important effects on the political system, in terms of agenda development, in terms of experimenting with innovative practices, and also in terms of inspiring other leaders to consider standing for election. I think this results in a very positive, healthy process of bringing citizenship to these instances. I would say that one of the challenges, as in the discussion of affirmative action so that, for example, Black people can access higher education, which is a major debate in Brazil, due to racial inequality. We need to think about affirmative action for parliamentarians who are activists to remain in the political system.
This is something we have started to discuss in Brazil. There are a number of initiatives working with this approach to support, above all, women, and young people to deal with political violence and for them to be successful in their parliamentary work or even in their work in the executive. Luminate has been accompanying us in this work. We have been investigating what the characteristics of these activist mandates are and what their needs are.
In short, I would say that it’s not possible to think of a more democratic democracy if we don’t look at the whole picture. From the most popular origins of grassroots work to the institutions and the formality of the political system, how we can make it increasingly different from that picture in which we don’t feel represented, in which we see a reproduction of everything we didn’t want to see. I really think that things are getting better, after all.
Felipe Estefan: Thank you so much, Áurea. Thank you to Skoll, and Tim, and many others for making translation possible. Translation and language and culture are a key part of feeling belonging and appreciate that we can have this conversation in multiple languages. For me, as a Latin American, I grew up in Colombia, I know firsthand how exclusionary some of the systems of governing have been. And I’m inspired by your concept of a more democratic democracy. And I think as I see kind of giants of representation of Black women in Latin America here and stage with you, in the audience, I see Paola Moreno from Colombia who is an icon really of the representation of Black women in a country that for too long has been too racist, too sexist, and too homophobic.
And I think we are called into understanding how we make it when people, and the sheer act of existence means disruption of a system that has been designed to leave us out, and how we go not just from existence into belonging and into thriving. And that is part of what we’ll, I’m sure discuss a little bit more, but keep us in the last bit of doom spiral, Ian. I promise you a rollercoaster of emotions. I will take you out of here. Stay with me.
Áurea Carolina: I’m sorry.
Felipe Estefan: But Ian, as we close this round with you, you talk about democracy rising and falling in waves, and you refer to this as kind of the third wave of democracy. Tell us a little bit about the diagnosis that you make of the moment that we are in on democratic history.
Ian Bassin: Yeah, so hold on as we go down. But you know, as you listen to the stories of all my incredible panelists here, and Felipe, the point that you’re making about how democracy has never actually been what on paper should be, what we aspire for it to be, it’s that democracy is rare in human history. This shouldn’t be that surprising, right?
If you look back at the course of human history around the world and you add up all the years of human civilization in every area of the globe, the percentage of those where people have been governed by liberal democratic regimes is minuscule, right? It’s not a natural way to do things. We don’t run our companies democratically, we don’t run our families democratically, apparently, we don’t run this panel democratically. And so, it’s only in very few blips in human history that we’ve had something at least aspiring to self-government and self-rule.
And in the last several hundred years in the modern era, we’ve had a couple of moments where democracy has been on the rise. And, you know, the political scientists will look at sort of three waves of it, sort of the early, in 19th century where you start to get these imperfect, modern ideas of representative democracy and then that wave recedes. After World War II, as formerly colonized nations first achieve independence, many initially becoming democratic and then collapsing into forms of, as Nicholas pointed out, sort of performative democracy or Potemkin democracies.
And then the third wave rising in the last quarter of the 20th century, where you see this sort of upward trajectory in the last 25 years of the 20th century where democracy spreads to its furthest reaches yet in human history, improves in quality in the countries that it’s in. And then that wave peaks and crests sometime in the early aughts and goes into reverse. And we’re now living in the recession of that third wave, and what does it look like?
Like a wave, it washes over the world. And you see a playbook that is being deployed as Tessza described in places like Hungary starting to come to places like Brazil, and the United States. And it’s very similar everywhere you see it. And this playbook that these authoritarian leaders and movements deploy includes common tactics, right?
They politicize independent institutions like the civil service, law enforcement, eventually the military. They spread disinformation from the government. They aggrandize power in the hands of the executive and undercuts checks and balances. They quashed dissent, and put wonderful people like Nicholas in maximum security prison. They scapegoat vulnerable, marginalized communities, right? Because if you can pit people against each other on the basis of race or sexual orientation or religion, it’s easier to pick their pockets of money and power. They corrupt elections. We’ve seen that and they incite violence.
And we’ve seen all those seven steps play out in all of the countries of all of us up here on stage. And it’s not that people want this, right? People don’t sit around and be like, “I would like authoritarianism.” There are few who do, but more not majorities, right? But in moments of rapid change and anxiety, when people feel that history is accelerating at a pace that is destabilizing, and people are worried about the future and changes that are happening faster that they can process, it is tempting when someone comes along in that moment and says, “I, alone, can fix it,” right? And that has been a temptation that has tempted humans throughout history, and they voluntarily handed over their power to people who promise that they will protect them from these rapid changes and then, of course, live to regret that.
And so, I think our job now is to remind people that that temptation never turns out well in the long run. And it’s our job to make sure that people realize that in those moments of uncertainty, and change, and anxiety, if we lean into them as moments of opportunity, and beat back the demagoguery and fear that asks us to turn over power to a strong person, we could hopefully avoid that third wave going lower and lead, ideally, into a fourth wave, which I think is what we want to talk about next, which is, how do we get into that fourth wave? Because we can do it, it’s within our power to do it.
Felipe Estefan: And why don’t we stick with you, get us out of here.
Ian Bassin: There, I mean, there are–
Felipe Estefan: Now that you’re criticizing my panel moderation. No, but how do we, because I think there’s many people in the audience who’ve done work and are saying, “But someone out there hear us, populous leaders are bad, authoritarian leaders are bad.” And then we see all sorts of data and surveys that kind of suggest to us that that messaging isn’t always resonating.
We did, for example, at Luminate a survey around attitudes towards democracy in Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, and Mexico. And the results, particularly with youth, were very scary in terms of, how willing are you to give up democracy? And people said, “For safety and economic prosperity, sure, I’ll give up democracy.” And it was particularly strongest in youth 18 to 25. The Financial Times, which is not the paper I most quote, I must admit, recently had a survey that was fascinating on attitudes towards gender equity, and social justice showing a very big gap between young men-
Áurea Carolina: Yeah.
Felipe Estefan: and people who don’t identify as young men, non-binary and young women, completely different young men, far more conservative, leaning into more conservative attitudes, restrictive of rights, willing to give up protections of the minorities, women and non-binary people very much on the more progressive inclusive understanding. So, when we are seeing that kind of data, that kind of appeal, that authoritarian populous leaders that are manipulating information, ecosystems have been so adept at pedaling, what can we do about that, Ian?
Ian Bassin: So, a couple of things because I do think that, ultimately, I’m optimistic and I’m optimistic because if you look back at history, in every moment where there have been major advances to more inclusive forms of government, to greater equality, to greater empowerment, they are always proceeded by crucibles of crisis and conflict, right? It’s through the backside of those crucibles of crisis of conflict that we create new opportunities.
And so, I imagine this moment, I believe this moment will be one like that, that we are on the precipice of finally achieving something that the world has never seen, which is a truly inclusive, multiracial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious democracy in which everyone has a fair and equitable seat at the table. The world has never seen that, right? And so, if we’re going to get there, there are going to be a lot of forces that are going to throw up their last-ditch efforts to stop us to get there. And I think that’s what’s happening right now. It’s because we’re on the precipice of it.
So, one, I’m optimistic that we will get there with the fourth wave. Now, how do we do that? So, first is to, to your point about people not really being into democracy, especially younger people, well, you know what? Despair, fear, negativity, isolation, this is the language of authoritarianism. And so, the more we are speaking in that register, the more we are seeding the playing field to authoritarians. Democracy is the language of agency, and hope, and inspiration and empowerment, and community and coming togetherness. And so, if we want to inspire people to embrace democracy, we have to speak in that register. We have to speak in that language.
The one thing for all of us to remember is, when we’re talking about these subjects, I’m glad we’re doing that here, right? Quickly getting to the positivity, we have to speak from a place of positivity. Because when we’re talking to young people, it can’t be about what we’re trying to avoid. It has to be about what we’re trying to create, which is a place where all people can flourish and thrive together in representative, inclusive, and equitable ways. And if you speak in that register and the possibility of what we can do, all of a sudden, you’re now speaking in the language of democracy. That’s the first one to sort of make sure, that we’re embracing the language.
The second is broad coalitions, right? This is the lesson from Eastern Europe where, you know, Hungary and Poland are interesting comparative studies in that, you know, Poland finally figured out how to get the opposition united against the illiberal movement there in time before it was able to basically end any ability to unseat them. And you know, Tessza can speak more to this, but it took multiple cycles in Hungary before the opposition could finally find a way to try to coalesce and a little bit too late.
And so, the lesson for us, I think, is we have to be willing to build coalitions where we put aside really difficult differences between us, so long as we agree on the baseline of democracy being the form of government, we prefer.
And I like to say to partners within my own organization, and partners that we partner with who disagree with me politically, because I end up more on the left side of the spectrum, our partners end up more on the right side of the spectrum, is I can’t wait for the day when we get to argue again about what the top marginal tax rate should be, and how generous the social safety net should be because we have a peaceful democratic system in which to have those debates. But until we get there, we are united in protecting democracy, that’s the second thing. And that’s hard, that’s hard to do. And we have to model it in our everyday lives in terms of how we broker differences with our neighbors.
Áurea Carolina: Yeah.
Ian Bassin: And the third is that everybody in society has a role to play in protecting democracy. It is not just a sport for democracy activists, right? It doesn’t work if we have a couple people here trying to do that, we will fail, I promise you. And so, everybody needs to ask, what is my role, right? And we were just talking about this before the media’s role, right?
The media has an important role in being unbiased, but not neutral when it comes to democracy. Business has a role to play in making sure that they are protecting an open marketplace of free enterprise and competition in a democratic system. Civil society institutions, religious institutions, entertainers and entertainment have to tell positive stories about democracy. So, if you’re sitting here thinking whatever amazing, inspiring thing you all do, because everyone here does something amazing and inspiring, that is not ostensibly a primarily democracy focused effort, well, what can you do to make it additive to democracy? What can you do in what you’re doing that helps support democracy? Because it will only survive if every one of us figures out our role and does our part.
Felipe Estefan: Thank you, Ian. Tessza, let’s come to you. What are things that we could be doing? You’ve done amazing work, for example, on participatory mechanisms that give more agency to citizens. We both have worked on participatory budgeting, for example. Can you talk a little bit about the kinds of innovations that you are advancing even in an adverse context?
Tessza Udvarhelyi: Ian, I think that’s important that we are doing that in an adverse context, that we are doing it. Yeah, so in my life, I think the two areas that I think need change have come together because I think that what needs to change on the one hand, is how people relate to each other and how they relate to power, and how they relate to their own power. That’s one thing. And then the other thing that needs to change is the people who are in power or who get elected, how they relate to people and to their own power and to themselves. And then if we change these two groups of people, then we can change the relationship between them.
So, I think, the whole point is to change how those in power, and those who they represent work together and relate to each other. And that’s a fundamental thing. Like we can’t go on without changing that. And I think one thing to do is to support social movements, and support activists, and to support people who are doing something. And I think this is really important. In the School of Public Life that I founded in Hungary, for 10 years now, we have been supporting people who are organizing in Hungary.
And I always say that there’s this other Hungary that the world usually doesn’t know about because they don’t report about it, or because it’s not as sexy as talking about Viktor Orbán, but it’s actually there. I have worked with thousands of people who are actually organizing, and I think it’s really important to support them. So that’s one thing.
And the other thing is that, we actually have to build alternative structures of power. So, that’s the other area where I have been working. I have been working in a progressive municipality in Hungary; they exist, many of them. Again, you have never heard about them. We have municipal elections coming up, and probably nobody even notices that they are coming up. But we are building municipalities that have a different way of working with people that are participatory and sustainable. And they do a lot of redistributive policies, you know, for social justice and for policies of recognition, for minorities. So, I think we have to actually do these two things.
And I know it’s difficult that we have to support those who are coming from below, and we actually have to build the powers that will, the power structures that will then replace, for example, in our case our authoritarian government, but in all of the cases. So, I think it’s important that as we are fighting for a regime change in Hungary, because I think now at this point we are fighting for a regime change, we actually have to build the regime, or the structures, or the relationships that will come after. And we can’t wait for this regime change to just happen. And then afterward we will figure out what kind of country we want to live in, but we actually have to build the things that will replace it. So, as we are doing it, we are fighting to actually make it happen.
Felipe Estefan: Yeah, we have to build, and organize, and enable collective action, also transform the experience of citizens. I think we pay so much attention oftentimes at what people think about national leaders, and how much they hold the platforms, and control the information systems in their countries. But really actually most citizens experience, and perceptions of democracy are very local, are about their lives, their everyday lives. Their families feeling safe, feeling like they can access education, feeling like they can have opportunities for economic prosperity.
And we, sometimes, haven’t spent enough time thinking about how we redesign and reimagine citizen experience as it relates to the engagement between citizens, and local leaders in a manner that centers citizens in spaces of democracy that have a better chance of giving them agency. And so, I really appreciate what you’re sharing about how you’re organizing at a local level, even in a context that internationally or nationally may seem not conducive to that. And so, there’s always lights that are shining even within darkness.
Tessza Udvarhelyi: Yeah, and not just small light, it’ll, we will overcome, it will happen. We just have to be patient, and persevere, and actually, build what we believe in and not just say it or just wish it and actually work on it.
Áurea Carolina: That’s it.
Felipe Estefan: Yeah. Nicholas, in Uganda, you’ve been, as you were saying, documenting harms of the police, illegal use of force, attacks against LGBT plus populations, but also responding to those. Tell us a little bit about what you are doing and what you think is possible to do, to respond to those kinds of threats to civic space.
Nicholas Opiyo: Well, the first thing, like Ian said, autocratic regimes have a playbook and they are highly connected to each other. They learn from each other and apply the same method. Pro-democratic forces are not as connected. So, the first thing that I think we have got to emphasize is this concept of connected communities, learning from each other. The successes that you have in Hungary, how can we do that in Uganda? How can we build that local level, you know, mobilizing and organizing? So just the concept of connected communities.
The second thing is that autocratic leaders have a pretense of being democratic. So, what they fear most is being exposed for what they are. What we are doing in Uganda is just accurately documenting these practices. If it’s extrajudicial killings, we have to have an accurate account of history because we know that at some point there will be a moment of reckoning, there will be accountability. And so, they fear being documented, just that phone in their face is a very powerful tool and documenting people’s experiences.
The second reason we document is that we’ve to seek accountabilities in moments where we think there’s a chance. And in Uganda, we are doing a lot of litigation in an imperfect system, but we do litigation first as a tool of advocacy. Sometimes you go to court not to win, even losing is winning. You go to court to document and put on the public record what has been going on. And to give voice to some people.
In Uganda, the LGBTI movement would never have a chance to even organize a meeting like this, but they are allowed to go to court. So, you go to court because it gives you voice, it gives you a platform. And litigating creatively, not in the same way that we litigate commercial cases. You are going to court not to speak to the four walls of the court, but to speak to the whole world. And litigation has been a very effective tool for us in Uganda.
There are difficult moments like the ones we had two weeks ago where the court says discrimination was okay, but those moments are just, you know, a bump on the road. We are going on to the next level. And sometimes there are creative pockets of hope in the justice system that gives you good judgment. So, using litigation as a tool has been a powerful tool for us in Uganda.
And then the last one is beginning to connect these, because people don’t seem to think it is a trend. They think, oh, it’s LBTI people, so we are okay with it, do what they want to do. Oh, it’s NGOs, those NGOs are agents of foreigners. But when you step back and look at it, it’s a connected trend and making that connection and making it apparent to people that they’re coming for you next unless and until you lay down the rules and say no to authoritarianism.
I hear people in other countries say, “We want a strong leader.” They have never lived under an autocratic leader. You don’t want to live in one. And I think that this kind of documented record of practices of 13L leaders help those who think that having a strong leader is a good thing.
Felipe Estefan: Thank you for that. I’m going to come to you, Áurea, to close out this run. After Áurea, we’re going to go to Q&A. So, if you need a translation device, this is a good moment to grab that. If you are thinking of questions, this is a good moment to jot that down. But Áurea, in an environment like Brazil, you are successfully organizing people for collective action-
Áurea Carolina: Yeah.
Felipe Estefan: to expand rights, reimagine democracy, build more inclusive futures. Tell us a little bit about what is possible and what you’re doing.
Áurea Carolina: Yeah.
I’m really happy to hear Tessa say that, more than just wishing and wanting, we need to work. And Nicolas said that losing is also winning. Popular collective action is genuinely this kind of work. And I believe without a doubt that the place has a transformative power because it is in proximity that we build emancipation. And democracy, before anything else – even more than the possibility of a political system or government – is a sincere exercise of seeking emancipation, so that we can be more dignified, generous, and supportive people, not because we are good, but because this educates and changes us to exist on this planet, with those around us, with our families. From a Black feminist perspective, I think it’s indissociable for this to be a commitment to what we’re aiming for on a macro scale. Subjectivity will be with us wherever we are.
So the work we do in NOSSAS, which is the organization I lead, is based on strategic communication and social mobilization, and we do this on different scales. From the micro-local level, in order to pressure authorities and mobilize people for certain causes and specific public policies, to the national level, where we can work together and in collaboration with Brazilian civil society on campaigns, causes, and initiatives intended to pressure for changes in the political system to defend certain important narratives.
But I have one observation, Felipe. In times like these we’re living in now, of extreme crisis, of all this doubt and confusion about communication and the use of artificial intelligence, we can’t delude ourselves about the importance of what is genuinely built with people. Sometimes, in electoral processes, people believe in manipulating narratives, which can work in the sense of marketing, advertising, and how we shape certain behaviors based on these trends, and the effect that platforms and economic power have on communication and on people’s behavior.
But all of this has an artificial and non-permanent nature in what I think is appearing here as a critical point, which is people’s real capacity to have the agency to achieve, to transform, and to think critically. This is no small thing; when it is awakened, it has a power that transcends. Well, I’d say that – without sacrificing anything about what’s going on, and how we can use artificial intelligence, etc – we should take Audre Lorde’s advice, that we shouldn’t use the tools of the oppressor to achieve the transformation we believe in. So, may all these resources and possibilities be, in fact, of service to emancipatory, inclusive and democratic processes that protect life and ecosystems and confront the injustices and climate wars that we have been experiencing.
Felipe Estefan: Okay, we’re going to open it up for questions. Remember what I told you, it’s questions, get to them. And what we’re going to do is do a round, I’m going to take three questions. There’s mics, there’s roving mics. I see a hand over there in the back. Then we’ll come here, then we’ll come up to the front. Just say your name and your question and I’ll make sure to record it. And then we’ll give the panelists a chance to react.
Johanna Mair: Yeah. Well, I start then. My name is Johanna Mair. I’m the academic editor of Stanford Social Innovation Review. I’m with Stanford PACS at the Hertie School and I really appreciate this panel. My work is actually on the emerging field of political innovation as I call it. And I would be interested in your experience and also, in your view on the role of philanthropy and funding in this emerging field of practice. Thank you.
Felipe Estefan: Great, thank you. We have a question right here.
Zukiswa Mqolomba: Good morning, everybody. My name is Zukiswa Mqolomba from South Africa. And I think, I’m just playing devil’s advocate. I am a democrat because I come from a democratic society, South Africa. But the question is really, is democracy the best form of governance that the world system actually enjoys? Bearing in mind that there are other typologies of societies like in the Eastern Asia that have better socioeconomic outcomes than democracies. So why should we protect democracy? And basically, is the crisis that democracy finds itself in, is it not a self-inflicted crisis? Thank you.
Felipe Estefan: And I think we have one last question in this round. I had seen some hands up right here. Yeah, let’s come with you.
Wafa: Hi, can you hear me? Yes. I have a question for Nicholas.
Felipe Estefan: What’s your name? Sorry.
Wafa: Sorry, my name is Wafa. I have a question for Nicholas. I didn’t really understand, what was your last point on doing better with connecting trends? If you can go over that, that would be very nice.
Felipe Estefan: Great. Those are three great questions. Proud of you audience. We got through those quick. Nicholas, let’s start with that clarification question that came to you.
Nicholas Opiyo: Yeah.
Felipe Estefan: Then I’m going to open it up perhaps for the second question, which is a fascinating provocation of like, why do we defend democracy? Tell us, what is the language that we can take to make that case? Happy to then hear any reflections that folks have on the role of philanthropy and political innovation. I’m also the funder sitting in this panel, so I’m happy to take one for the team and talk about the things that philanthropy could do more and better to create the enabling environment for that. But let’s start with the clarification question, Nicholas, then I’ll open it up. We’ll do a round for the other two questions and I can end.
Nicholas Opiyo: I come from a point that people think that an attack on the LGBTI community in Uganda, for example, is justifiable. The vast majority of people in the country think that there’s no place for people with different sexual orientation and gender identity. And the point of connecting trends is to make the point that this is not just about the LGBTI community. You might not like them. They may be a small minority, but this is part of a continuum of repression.
And the scapegoating of this small minority is a micro-ism of a broader democratic decline of repression, of the use of minorities to entrench repressive practices. And pointing out that this is part of a trend, connecting this as part of a trend, perhaps will give people the bigger picture, and inspire them to fight a little bit more about, you know, defending democracies. That is where I come from, you know, in making that point of connecting trends.
And the second point is this, that we’ve had many incidents of violence in our country. The stage, for instance, seven years ago, went to a palace of a king with the Congo of DRC and killed 148 people in two days. The rest of the country didn’t care. Oh, that’s the Bakonzo people in western Uganda, you know, they are a problem.
Áurea Carolina: Yeah.
Nicholas Opiyo: But until that came to the streets of Kampala in the last election where the state had no shame about killing protestors on the streets, and not even denying it, admitting it that our commandos killed them because they were rioting. So, being able to feel empathy for other people, and seeing that as part of a larger trend in the country is the point I was trying to make. I hope it clarifies it.
Wafa: Thank you. Yeah.
Felipe Estefan: And Nicholas while you’re on the mic, any reactions on the question around why democracy?
Nicholas Opiyo: Well, I think it’s a false alternative because even people who live in those societies value freedom. They do value freedom. And the question we should I think be addressing is, how can democracies deliver on the promise that it makes? And how can we make it translate into better outcomes economically, better outcomes socially, more inclusive? That’s the challenge.
I think that the comparison between authoritarianism as an alternative is a dangerous one. And it’s one that I think we shouldn’t even try to make because democracy is imperfect, but it sure can be made more perfect. And I think there are many ways we’ve discussed this here. The point I made earlier is, if you haven’t lived under a dictatorship, then you don’t know just how important the democratic system is.
I come from a country with a checkered history of autocracy. Every change of government since 1962 when the British left our country has been by violence. Military coup, dictatorships are unattractive. You don’t want to experience it. And if you do, you will cherish democracy more than anything else.
Felipe Estefan: Tessza, why democracy?
Tessza Udvarhelyi: Why democracy? For me, democracy is about power and it’s about the distribution of power, the equal distribution of power. And I have worked with many people who have been, whose power was taken away from them. For example, I worked with homeless people, I worked with disabled people, and the, I kind of remember the moments when they realized that they have power. And when we created an environment where people can actually have a say in things that affect them and that they realize that they have control over their environment and their own lives, I think it’s amazing and it’s a moment of liberation.
So, I don’t think democracy is a perfect thing, but I also think democracy is not a thing. It’s always, it’s a mushy process that we always create together. So, we are never there. It’s never like, yes, here we are, and then everybody’s happy. But it actually forces you to always work to together and to always find your power, and to think about other people’s power and to give up some of your power or to take it back. And it’s about struggling and fighting. And I think that’s, I enjoy it. And I also see the people who come out of oppressive situations who then re-experience this, that it actually gives them a sense of freedom.
Felipe Estefan: Ian, why democracy?
Ian Bassin: Well, I love the provocation because I think embedded in it is an invitation to future generations to think, can they improve on it, right? Which I think is great because maybe something will be invented in the future that will be an improvement and I think we should open the door to that.
But when we think about present-day and we compare, even though Nicholas warned us not to do this, and we compare whether we want to live in a democratic society, however, it’s constructed with whatever its flaws are, or a closed authoritarian one, we might offer to somebody, anyone here, which one would you rather live in? That is, we give a choice and I think we would all want that choice, whichever you choose.
And that fundamentally to me is the value that I hope, whatever regime we have today, whatever regime we invent in the future is embedded on is choice. This is the point of people embracing freedom. And if you accept the idea that someone should be able to choose whether they want to actually go live in China or live in a more open and free society, you are admitting that choice is a value. And that fundamentally to me is the difference between democracy and authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is about not having choices and democracy is about having them. And we should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water while we seek to improve it.
Felipe Estefan: Áurea, I’m curious in your reflection, both on the question of why democracy, but also you are a person that has done a lot of political innovation work and has a relationship with philanthropy on political innovation work. Joanna had asked a question about philanthropy and political innovators. Perhaps you could speak to both and then I can complement you.
Áurea Carolina: Yeah, I’ll try it. Yeah.
I agree with my colleagues about democracy and I would say that, because it is an unfinished exercise — its power to transform is so huge and infinite. And I would like to show you an example of activist leaders working in institutional politics, as I have experienced it with activist mandates in Brazil. These are people who have a background in popular movements and who have incredible causes and are very inspiring people, but when they get into institutional politics, they don’t know how to deal with that bureaucratic state of affairs. The political system also doesn’t know how to deal with this other repertoire.
And there is an encounter that can be very transformative and it is necessary to learn from both sides. There is resistance, of course, there is all kinds of oppression, but on the side of the activist leaders, there is a huge space for self-criticism and for formulations to be made effectively. So, in order to produce a political agenda, for example, on how an issue can become public policy, you have to go through a huge process of collective construction to access all these places.
And nobody comes out unscathed; nobody comes out as they were before, after this experience. And I think that’s the big lesson and the power of democracy. That’s why I am an incorrigible democrat. Regarding philanthropy, it’s a whole new world for me, but as I come from activism and institutional politics, I miss a few things in this world.
For example, from institutional politics, I miss a little more transparency and formality about how relationships take place. For me, it’s a bit strange that there’s so much politics involved in access to resources, access to foundations, so that initiatives can actually be funded. There is so much power, colonialism, and racism; there is so much inequality in the way these relationships are established. Maybe there should be more accountability in philanthropy. This is something from the political system that I would like to see in philanthropy, even though it is a private sector, so to speak.
And from civil society, in terms of popular struggles, I would like to see in philanthropy a little more openness and creativity in terms of experimentation, so that we can dare, not just fit certain agendas; there is often a direction of political agendas that doesn’t give much space for this creativity to emerge. Maybe I’d say that this could be useful, but I’m really new to this area, I’m learning how to sail through it now, as executive director, and here is the founder of my organization, Alessandra Orofino, who is a great reference for us and who has also taught me a lot and has opened up ways for us to access this world. It’s a great learning experience for me to be here.
Felipe Estefan: And I can complement on your question, Joanna, about the role of philanthropy and political innovation because I help fund, from my role at Luminate, a network of political innovation actors in Latin America and beyond. And I can tell you right away that I think philanthropy could be bolder, far bolder and more risk-taking. Because the thing about politics is that at its core, politics, it’s about power. And I think philanthropy for too long has shied away from actual power because particularly in the U.S. traditional philanthropies have been told for far too long, mainly by legal departments and this is being recorded on live stream and I hope my legal department still will like me after this, that, you know, we can do electioneering, we can do lobbying. We can really work with people who are in elected politics. And so, it is hard when you’re trying to shift power and you’re trying to, at the same time avoid the spaces and the people at the center of power.
And so, to me, really philanthropy plays the role of making the seemingly impossible seem possible. And in that regard, innovation is a necessity of democracy. Ian is talking about building and improving upon the model of innovation. Tessza is talking about how we’re negotiating constantly what democracy is, so we do have to innovate. But to do that, then philanthropy needs to create the space with risk-taking and bold visions for people to do things that often feel like privileges.
Like imagine, like be creative, like fun films and TV shows that help transform the mental models to which we understand ourselves and society. Like give living stipends to people who run for office and then don’t win and don’t have jobs. That is also political innovation. Like understanding that innovation is not just tech. That innovation, as Áurea was saying, is also grounded in how we organize and build collective action. And so, to me, philanthropy really can do more, should do more, and has to do more. To me, the moment, understanding that politics at the end of the day is about power.
So final thoughts on this rollercoaster of doom and hope, as we leave here and try to meet this moment in history, what would you like to leave the audience with? What is your invitation or your provocation on how we reimagine the future of democracy? Ian, let’s start with you.
Ian Bassin: I mentioned before that all of us, no matter what we do have to be contributing on this topic. Because no matter what we are doing in this room, if we lose our freedom, our democracy in this year, the year of democracy around the world, is when we could lose it, then everything we’re doing is in danger. And so, I go to conferences like you all do, and I sit in panels and have these thoughts of things I want to do. And then a couple days go by, I get on a plane, I go home, and I’m back at my desk, and I’ve forgotten the thing I’m meant to do.
So whatever system you use, if you email yourself, Evernote to do, it now, and make a note that when you’re back at your desk with your office and your team, ask them next week, what is the thing we’re going to do this year in our programs that is going to protect the system of government that allows us to pursue whatever our goal is? Ask your team to brainstorm it next week, come up with one thing, and add it to your priorities for this year. That’s your contribution. That’s my ask.
Felipe Estefan: Áurea, translation device.
Áurea Carolina: Yeah.
There are some people who I know from Brazil and even from other countries here, and I really feel deeply connected to you, all. And it is by joining you that I think it makes sense to trust that more democratic days will come. I heard a quote by Ailton Krenak, who is an important Indigenous leader in Brazil, and who has just taken up a position in the Brazilian Academy of Letters, which is an important institution in terms of cultural recognition, and he said that hope is —
Felipe Estefan: Can the translation hear Áurea?
Áurea Carolina: But he was saying –[foreign language – 01:06:38 – 01:06:39] an Indigenous leader in Brazil, he was saying that hope something to move us for what? And it’s not just, it’s not to save us. Hope will not save us. And this is what I believe.
I believe in this as our substrate, our common ground to continue acting and working, so that’s all I have to say. We must continue to work more and more collaboratively. I believe very much in coalitions and networks, not because it’s fashionable, but because it protects us more, it generates capacity for learning, and for impact. So trust us, and we will keep working.
Felipe Estefan: The work continues. Nicholas, what’s your final thought, your invitation or provocation to the audience?
Nicholas Opiyo: When dictators lash out, it’s not a show of strength. It is in fact an admission of their own weakness, and they’re the tipping point at all times. They can only move to the other side of change if we keep on nibbling at the edges of authoritarianism. It may be small things, but just keep nibbling. I call it the rabbit mentality. You can give a rabbit a huge cabbage, doesn’t care about the cabbage size, it continuously nibbles at the ages. At the end of the day, that cabbage is gone. So, keep on, keep on nibbling. No effort is too small.
Felipe Estefan: Great. I took that down as call out dictators’ weaknesses and insecurities. So, that’s how that’s going down in my list. Tessza, your final-
Tessza Udvarhelyi: Yeah
Felipe Estefan: invitation, provocation.
Tessza Udvarhelyi: Yeah. So, whenever you read about Hungary or hear a piece of news about Hungary or you hear the name of Viktor Orbán, please always remember me that there is the other Hungary. There are always people organizing against any kind of really notorious and bad thing that he’s doing or our government is doing. So, never forget about us, and never allow your journalists to only talk about them, but you know, convince them to also look at us.
So just a few examples. So, when you read some really shitty piece of news about Hungary, think about the LGBTQ people who are marching on the streets, even if they are intimidated and stigmatized. Think about the homeless people who are fighting for housing, even though they are criminalized in our constitution. Think about the teachers and the students who are fighting for better education, even if they are fired after each protest.
And think about the local residents who are trying to fight against poisonous factories, even as their mayor is trying to give them money not to do that. And think about all the municipalities who are supporting refugees, even as our local government is building a fence or starving them on the borders of Hungary. So never, never forget there is another Hungary, and I’m sure there is always another Uganda and another Brazil.
Nicholas Opiyo: Yes, yes.
Tessza Udvarhelyi: So never forget that there are people who are resisting, and organizing, and never believe the kind of mainstream oppressive narratives.
Felipe Estefan: And so, as we close this panel, I hope that this has given you inspiration to meet the moment in which we find ourselves in history. It may be a moment in which it seems like the pervasive narrative is of democratic crisis, but it is not only of democratic crisis, it’s also of democratic innovation and reimagination.
So, as Ian is inviting us to think about the fourth wave of democracy and youth that can reimagine democracy. And as Nicholas is inviting us to do that through connected communities and networks of solidarity that we can bring together. And as Tessza is asking us to tell the stories and focus on the people that are doing the work. And Áurea is inspiring us to mobilize folks, and drive collective action and bring people into office that were in there, but also give them the chance to exercise power effectively and safely.
And as I hope you take from me that not only philanthropy can do more and should do more, but also, that we need to transform the cultural and mental models that help us think about the world that we deserve. I hope you ask yourselves, if not now, then when, and if not us, then who? Thank you to the panelists. Thank you to all of you. Thank you to the Skoll World Forum. Enjoy the forum.
