TDB Vol. 3 No. 6: Defending Democracy Through Media Literacy

TDB Vol. 3 No. 6: Defending Democracy Through Media Literacy

Taiwan is at the forefront of the authoritarians’ war on information. Through multilateral symposia and an engaged civil society, it is developing new strategies to meet this direct challenge to democracy. Alison Hsiao and Nathan Liu show us what’s being done.

 

Held in September, the 2019 Global Cooperation and Training Framework (GCTF) on “Defending Democracy Through Media Literacy II” International Workshop was a follow-up to the successful cooperation between Taiwan and international partners last year. The co-hosts of this year’s event expanded to include not only the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) and the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), but also the National Democratic Institute (NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association, and the Swedish Trade and Investment Council in Taipei.

The return of the workshop shows that it was well received and its achievements were recognized, TFD Chairman Jia-chyuan Su said in his opening remarks, adding that it also attests to the fact that “the problem of disinformation has continued to be a challenge to democratic countries around the globe.”

Information battlefield

Chairman Su said that in recent years, people in democracies worldwide have begun to become aware that the amount of resources that certain authoritarian regimes have poured into foreign propaganda and social media platforms is beyond our imagination.

“In the case of Hong Kong’s recent protests, we’ve witnessed that the Chinese government has used state powers to manipulate certain media outlets in order to obfuscate what really happened in the city. We’ve also seen that many groups, fan pages, and accounts on the major social media platforms have been spreading disinformation intentionally, aiming to influence how internet users perceive the protests in Hong Kong and sway the international public opinion,” he said.

The disinformation surrounding Hong Kong’s protests is only the tip of the iceberg, Su said, adding that Taiwan is the main battlefield where foreign forces engage in influence operations through disinformation to harm democratic values. According to the latest report released by V-Dem, a research institute based at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, Taiwan is the most targeted among the 179 countries investigated for the spread of false information by foreign governments.

Also addressing the opening ceremony, Foreign Minister Joseph Wu said the spread of disinformation poses a serious threat to Taiwan’s democracy, especially as the presidential elections held early next year approach.

Japan’s Deputy Representative to Taiwan Nishiumi Shigehiro called for a balanced approach to tackle issues surrounding disinformation, adding that while democracy allows voters to choose their leaders based on correct information, we also have to be careful not to respond to disinformation at the expense of freedom of expression — also the very foundation of democracy.

Swedish Representative to Taiwan Håkan Jevrell cautioned that while information can be used rather harmlessly to influence our behavior, such as tempting a targeted population to buy certain consumer goods, authoritarian states are also using those tools to undermine our democracy.

NDI Vice President Shari Bryan likewise raised alarm over the challenges brought by technological advances that have fundamentally changed how we access and share information and exposed us to possible internal and external manipulations. “The threats and challenges are complex and evolving everyday and there is no one-size-fits-all solution,” she said. “We have to work together to equip our leaders in each community and country with the knowledge and the tools they need to assess their information environment … to counter the efforts of anti-democratic actors.”

American Institute in Taiwan Director William Brent Christensen said the U.S. National Security Strategy states that a geopolitical competition is currently being waged between free and repressive regimes and governments, adding that “nowhere is this truer than in the information battlefield.” The U.S., he said, is grappling with the spread of disinformation as foreign actors seek to use social media to influence elections, divide the American public, and undermine confidence in democratic institutions. “Taiwan is also on the frontline of this battle and faces the same challenges,” he said, adding that “responding to the challenge of disinformation is something no one society or government can do alone.”

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Scott Busby said there are few better places than Taiwan to have discussions on defending democracy through media literacy, both because of the success Taiwan has had in building the right to respect democracy as well as the threat posed by outside forces.

“Taiwan’s 2020 elections are just a few short months away, and China once again seeks to use disinformation to undermine the vote, divide the people, and sow seed of doubt in democratic system,” he said. “China has invested heavily to develop more sophisticated ways to anonymously disseminate disinformation through a number of channels, including social media. As their malign methods evolved, the motivation remains the same: to weaken democracy and the freedom that citizens of Taiwan have come to enjoy after so many hard years of struggle.”

Strategies to counter hostile disinformation

In his keynote address, Jakub Kalensky, a senior fellow at the Eurasian Center at the Atlantic Council who focuses on disinformation campaigns initiated by Russia, said that while the penetration of Russia’s operations in Europe often uses online platforms, journalists have also been complicit in this campaign. “Fear” toward differences is what the operations are after, which agents of disinformation manipulate to stir public emotions.

To counter the threat of disinformation, Kalensky proposed four strategic measures: (1) effectively documenting the threats; (2)  raising the public awareness; (3) repairing the weaknesses exploited by agents of disinformation; and (4) systematically punishing information aggressors to dissuade any further incidence, which is “not done often but has to be done otherwise we’ll never stop information aggression.”

Documenting threats is a daunting task and is “best done by governments since they have much bigger resources and since it is closely connected to security,” he said.

However, while already conducted by many organizations and government agencies, the task of monitoring has still not been performed sufficiently, he said. “We still don’t know how many channels the disinformers control, how many messages per day they spread, how many people they target, and because of that, we cannot even properly say whether there is an increase or decrease of a disinformation campaign in a particular country. We have impressions, but we lack solid data. We see fragments of the disinformation ecosystem, but we do not see the whole picture.”

On raising awareness, Kalensky called for “activity from every part of society — governments, journalists, NGOs, media, and private business,” each of which has different target audiences.

There are “systemic weaknesses” in our societies that need to be repaired, he said. Media literacy education “of the whole population will probably be more a role for the government, but also media can try and adhere to the highest possible journalistic standards,” Kalensky said. He also called on big tech companies to “stop promoting the disinformation-oriented outlets, de-rank them from search results, and label the content as toxic” in the social media environment.

But as we will always have some weaknesses, which “means the information aggressors will always have some weaknesses to exploit … it is necessary to start systematically punishing the disinformers,” he said, adding that this is not an appeal to create new rules or new laws, since in many cases there are already existing ones to be used.

“Individuals who are helping spread disinformation should be named and shamed by the media, by politicians, by NGOs, and by academics. The most aggressive and the most visible propagandists should be sanctioned,” he said. “Punishing the most visible propagandists and … individuals participating in spreading disinformation would send a clear signal that we do not tolerate the spreading of lies and hatred.”

Kalensky demanded equally strong measures from democratic countries and politicians when it comes to disinformation-oriented outlets, adding that access to them should be limited or cut off, providing them “with no accreditation, no access to press conferences, no statements for them, and no answers to their questions.” “These restrictions would make it clear that they are not media, as they themselves admit, but weapons in an information war,” he said.

Taiwan’s efforts

Taiwan’s civil society has been proactively involved in efforts to combat disinformation, including some creative initiatives launched by young people who are deeply anxious about “filter bubbles” and their impact on elderly users. Those initiatives seek to both combat Chinese interference in the short term and to strengthen Taiwan’s information landscape for the future.

With the January elections approaching, more attention has been paid to disinformation. In previous TDB articles, Alison Hsiao introduced China’s disinformation campaign and efforts to combat it through its partnership with the U.S. International media such as Foreign Policy, the Financial Times and Reuters have also highlighted the problem with in-depth investigations.

One Chinese tactic is to influence Taiwanese media companies.

Anger over Chinese influence in the media led to a protest in June calling for the government to discipline “red media,” meaning outlets that are used by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to spread information. According to the organizers, more than 100,000 people attended the protest, held on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. Protesters called for legislation requiring greater transparency in media funding and foreign connections. Those in attendance were especially concerned with disproportionate coverage of ostensibly pro-China politicians by certain media outlets. For example, the National Communications Commission (NCC) found that CTiTV dedicated 70% of its airtime during May on Kuomintang (KMT) mayor and presidential candidate Han Kuo-yu.

This spring, Taiwanese students began collaborating on projects to tackle this challenge. The Youth Combatting Fake News Front (青年抵制假新聞陣線) is a coalition of over 100 student organizations which agreed to oppose unchecked facts, biased media, and Chinese dis/misinformation. The movement started with a campaign to “take back the TV remote,” in which students refused to watch news that disproportionately covered pro-China stories. Since its creation, the Front has petitioned media companies and legislators to commit to reforms.

In an interview, founder I-jou Wu (吳奕柔), a 21-year-old student at National Taiwan University (NTU), said the Front is best positioned to engage with other young people and the public. For example, the Front engages with students through workshops, forums, and high school visits. Wu added that the goal is not only to better inform her peers about China’s information warfare but to equip them to discuss the issue with older relatives. She explained that young people are usually sensitive to the importance of freedom and civil liberties. In contrast, parents and grandparents that grew up before democratization may not naturally understand the severity of China’s actions. For Wu, the current conflict in Hong Kong epitomizes the potentially existential threat that China poses to democracy.

Check your facts

While the Front and the anti-red-media protests focus on China and its influence on traditional media, others have taken a broader perspective. Many organizations feel a responsibility to fight all dis/misinformation, not just that which originates in China.

Fact-checking organizations are among the most prominent combatants. The Taiwan FactCheck Center (TFC), for example, is collaborating with Facebook, LINE, Google, the National Education Radio Station, and the Chinese Television System (CTS). The Internet platforms are sources where news can be verified, and all the partners are avenues for distributing the fact-checked reports. The TFC also hosts workshops such as “Let’s Talk,” a dialogue series with young people.

Cofacts (真的假的) is a fact-checking platform developed in response to fake news shared in the closed messaging app LINE (a popular platform among Taiwanese). LINE users send suspicious links to the Cofacts account, and a bot will automatically reply if the article is already checked and in the Cofacts database. If not, a Cofacts volunteer will write a response. In the past year, Cofacts has received approximately 209,000 forwarded messages.

The results have been impressive. Nick Monaco, of the Institute for the Future and Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Project, told reporters that “I’m not just being flattering in talking about Cofacts being a really innovative bot and solution for disinformation.”

One insight from Cofacts is that dangerous fake news may not necessarily be political. Some websites can be generated by content farms seeking profit. False advertisement, celebrity gossip, and medical information may lack the malicious intent of political propaganda but can still be harmful to society. For example, Cofacts has encountered websites that are encouraging cancer patients to reject modern medicine. Other lessons about fake news have been discovered by researchers such as Austin Wang and Puma Shen, who are busy examining Cofacts’ open data.

Cofacts founder Johnson Liang emphasizes that people who spread fake news are often “digital immigrants,” meaning that they are new to the Internet, such as the elderly. Research by the National Development Council has revealed that older people tend to be the most susceptible to fake news. Disputing an elder’s post can be regarded as rude or awkward, especially because sharing articles may be a gesture of affection, a way to say “I’m thinking of you.” Many fact-checkers have tried to address this problem. Cofacts has designed its messages to be gentle and friendly. A different chatbot, Aunt Meiyu (美玉姨), uses the Cofacts database but can be added to a group chat and will automatically check for fake news; therefore, only the automated responses are rude, not real family members or friends. Trend Micro’s Dr. Message has collected its own database to combine the two approaches (of Cofacts and Meiyu). Rumor&Truth and MyGoPen are fact-checking websites targeted towards elders that have features to ease navigation.

The Fake News Cleaner (假新聞清潔劑) initiative uses another tactic to reach older neighbors. This group of volunteers hopes to cultivate media literacy through face-to-face interactions. After the 2018 referendums revealed divisions within Taiwanese society, the group recognized the need to break through echo chambers and bridge generational gaps. Fake News Cleaners go to public areas to engage strangers, especially the elderly, in conversations about fake news. They employ tactics to be approachable, including discussing health news rather than politics, designing messages that appeal to elders, and use games. For example, volunteers might ask passersby to identify problems in an article, with a useful prize as a reward. Their goal is to spread awareness with compassion, not condescension. Some organizations such as community associations, colleges, and senior centers have invited the Fake News Cleaners to present seminars about fake news. The organization says these seminars have been successful because they are in-person opportunities to use empathetic communication.

Combatting disinformation and fake news is a daunting task, one which Taiwanese civil society is committed to meeting head-on.

 

Feature photo: The 2019 Global Cooperation and Training Framework (GCTF) on “Defending Democracy Through Media Literacy II” International Workshop opened on Sept. 10, 2019.

TDB Vol. 1 No. 6: Democracy Challenged

TDB Vol. 1 No. 6: Democracy Challenged

From democratic recession to the rise of ‘fake news,’ authoritarian influence to accusations of Occidental imperialism, freedom around the world is under assault. Global experts and NGO luminaries met at TFD in Taipei last week to brainstorm and find ways to fight back. Alison Hsiao gives us the highlights.

 

Challenges confronting democracies, running the gamut from fake news to repression of civil society, are real, grave and on the rise, experts from around the globe warned during the fourth annual East Asia Democracy Forum held in Taipei last week. The experts called on democracies and civil societies to join efforts to safeguard freedoms against authoritarianism and to reinvent and strengthen democratic institutions in the face of repressive regimes’ negative propaganda.

“Democratization and democratic consolidation around the world not only have stalled. According to scholars who study democracy, the world is now experiencing a democratic recession,” Taiwan Foundation for Democracy President Hsu Szu-chien (徐斯儉) said in the opening remarks.

“When dictators are perfecting their rule by learning from each other, we must not only keep a watchful eye on our democracies. We must also improve and strengthen our democratic systems and defend democratic values, so authoritarian regimes cannot take advantage of the weaknesses of democratic procedures and use them against us,” he added.

Taiwan Foundation for Democracy president Hsu Szu-chien, right, makes remarks during the East Asia Democracy Forum in Taipei.

Hsu’s points were resoundingly echoed by the speakers at the forum. Louisa Greve, Vice President for Asia, Middle East and North Africa and Global Programs at the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy, also raised concerns over a democratic retreat, with democratic norms assaulted, civil society repressed, information space polluted and kleptocracy rife.

Russia and China are two non-democratic regimes whose presence and practices loomed large in some of the mentioned malaise. Greve pointed out that both countries in recent years have passed laws restricting the activities of civic groups and posed a threat to both online information and the halls of power.

China’s new non-governmental organization management law that came into force earlier this year, for example, targets both Chinese human rights lawyers and activists and foreign NGO workers and scholars, as manifest in the detention of Swedish citizen Peter Dahlin and Sydney academic Feng Chongyi (馮崇義).

Louisa Greve, Vice President for Asia, Middle East and North Africa and Global Programs at the U.S.-based National Endowment for Democracy, speaks at the East Asia Democracy Forum.

Taiwanese activist Lee Ming-che (李明哲), who since mid-March been detained incommunicado by Chinese authorities for “jeopardizing national security,” is another example. The cases demonstrate that “from a free country or not, you can be easily affected by other countries’ human rights [deteriorated] conditions,” said Chiu Eeling (邱伊翎), secretary-general of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.

Democratic institutions could also be seriously compromised and corrupted when authoritarians are allowed, with the use of corrupt money, “to project their influence across borders in order to finance their campaigns to make the globe safe for authoritarianism,” Greve said.

“Awareness and recognition” is where we could begin to respond to the challenge of kleptocracy, which is “transnational, new and require[s] us to adjust our thinking,” she stressed, offering by way of example how residents of London could take action by creating a “kleptocracy tour” to see which neighborhoods have Russian oligarchs buying luxurious real estates.

Chiu Eeling, secretary-general of the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.

Equally disquieting for democratic communities, said Scott Hubli, director of governance programs at the National Democratic Institute (NDI), are fake news, digital disinformation, and the slow adaptation by democratic institutions to new technological changes.

A global cyber security firm went through all the social media posts “supposedly from protesters in a series of riots about the death of an African American man in Baltimore who died in police custody because of alleged mistreatment,” and found that a vast majority of them actually originated from Russia, China, India and the Middle East, Hubli said.

“Well over 100 pro-Trump websites are registered in Veles, Macedonia, a 55,000-person town,” he said. “During the [U.S. presidential election] campaign, a young group of entrepreneurs were earning tens of thousands of U.S. dollars on fake news, pro-Trump websites and stories they just invented out of thin air.”

Scott Hubli, director of governance programs at the National Democratic Institute.

Fake stories sometimes can just be funny, but when they are completely preposterous, they can still be believable for those who frequently visit highly politicized websites even if they look ludicrous to mainstream politicians or traditional media, Hubli warned.

And retraction of fake news “rarely works,” for when — and if — those are noticed the damage has usually already been done, he added. “You can’t combat the fire hose of falsehood with a squirt gun of truth.”

How, then, do we save democracy in a digital age? Hubli said we should try to better understand our own disinformation vulnerabilities, integrate the discussion over these issues into the international infrastructure for election monitoring, disrupt the economy of fake news by advocating to tech companies who can reduce the financial incentives for disinformation, and “pre-bunk” disinformation by strengthening public media literacy and sensitivity.

What’s more fundamentally at stake, Hubli added, is the reinvention of democratic institutions. “A lot of disinformation narrative is showing how ineffective democratic models are or that they are equally corrupt and bad [as the authoritarian models].”

Creating a more informed public and actively engaging them with democratic systems that have been long criticized as insufficiently representative, is precisely what Josh Wang (王希), one of the initiators of Watchout and Congress Investigation Corps – two Taiwanese platforms aiming to lower the threshold for familiarizing the general public with substantive political discussion – have been advocating.

Josh Wang, one of the initiators of Watchout and Congress Investigation Corps.

His teams have set up websites where Legislative Yuan documents are visualized with graphs and videos of Taiwanese lawmakers’ remarks (the absurd and the insightful), during question-and-answer sessions are edited for public reference.

“Making politics fun” and the nation’s congress more open and transparent is what has inspired the teams. Political parties, incumbent lawmakers and challengers had their voting records and expressed stances listed and visualized during the most recent 2016 legislative election, for example. The teams also continued to function as a watchdog after the new legislature took office, arranging for lawmakers to meet face-to-face with young electorates and to be bombarded, as government officials are by them during the legislative sessions, with questions.

 

Gender Injustice

The threshold to politics, however, proves to be of different heights for different groups.

Violence against women in politics (VAWP) is a serious hurdle for women around the world. “Violence targeting politically active women makes it more difficult to build sustainable and resilient democracy,” said Crystal Rosario, a gender specialist at the NDI.

“Too many women are told that when they experience this violence that it’s just the price of doing politics, but violence should never be the cost of politics,” she said.

In 2016 the NDI launched the international “Not The Cost” campaign to bring awareness and encourage action to end it. “While violence against women is often associated with domestic violence and trafficking, VAWP has been defined as a range of gender-based harms that seek to force women into a subordinate position with men,” said Rosario, adding that while the extreme form may be assassination, more often, this violence “takes the form of persistent harassment and psychological, physical and sexual abuse.”

In Mongolia, women in politics, as in many other Asian countries, face systematic discrimination such as traditional and social norms preferring “strong men” in the political arena, said Erdenechimeg Badrakh, Executive Director of Mongolian Women’s Fund. Issues about women’s rights are also more than often easily brushed aside or stalled in the parliamentary discussion, she added.

For many more people from the south hemisphere, however, gender justice is more than about challenging gender injustice or gender inequality, as what lies at the core of this injustice is economic policies and institutions that deeply entrench the social inequalities, according to Tetet Lauron, co-chair of CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness (CPDE).

Talk about gender justice needs to “go beyond the notion of women’s empowerment that has been promoted by the World Bank and other similar institutions,” she said.

Tetet Lauron, co-chair of CSO Partnership for Development Effectiveness.

Gender justice is not a single, separable issue, Lauron added, but one to be integrated in the macro-problem of the world’s “obscene inequality,” to which women and girls are particularly vulnerable, and to achieve gender justice would mean “deconstructing those institutions and policies that work against not just women but all people claiming their right and striving to have a voice of their own and the power to imagine their own future.”

 

Asia and the Community of Democracies 

The extent to which people have moved closer to creating a more equal and open society varies greatly in different parts of the world. In Asia alone, the answer also varies dramatically across the region.

Asia is a region where countries are unequally developed, with some, like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, having developed relatively stable, democratic and open systems, and others that are governed by semi-democratic or outright authoritarian and closed regimes.

While challenges to democracy were emphasized in the forum, Greve said counterexamples in the region are cause for hope.

It took 50 years after the country’s post-independence military coup in 1962, in 2012 – with democratic movements budded and oppressed during the dark days – that Burma had its first genuine democratic election. “The fruit of the struggle came after a long period of repression, and now Burma has open elections in the context of partial democracy in the constitution,” Greve said.

Sri Lanka suffered decades of forced disappearances and brutal civil war that ended with tens of thousands of civilian casualties, “and yet the voters of Sri Lanka overcame these deficits and had a peaceful election which surprisingly threw out the long-serving family dynasty,” she said.

Despite experiencing Beijing’s increasingly constraining measures and tightening control in the recent years, Hong Kong has seen a rising young generation of democracy fighters, Greve said. Quoted Martin Lee (李柱銘), a Hong Kong political activist who has lived under both British colonial rule and the current Chinese sovereignty. “What gives me hope is to find people who were not born at the time of the handover in 1997 are now leading the struggle for democratic rise in Hong Kong.”

People power recently manifested its force in the ousting of corrupt political leadership in South Korea as well, but Jung-ok Lee, professor of sociology at Catholic University of Daegu in South Korea, still believes there is cause for worry when it comes to South Korean society’s conception of what underlies the country’s democratic institutions.

A “haunted question” that has been repeatedly raised in South Korea, and probably in most East Asian countries, is that whether the idea of democracy and human rights came from the West or dovetails with East Asian traditions, Lee said.

Those doubts, Lee said, originated from the fact that South Korea’s modern nation-building was unlike that of Western countries, which started with “civil society initiatives based on rights, duties and creation of collective will.”

“When asked about democracy, many South Koreans recalled resistance and demonstrations. We have created our democratic identity via resistance, but that is not enough,” she said.

Kaori Shoji, professor of political science at Japan’s Gakushuin University, shared the same concerns for a people lacking commitment to genuine democratic principles.

“Democracy in its form itself is not enough,” she said, citing Japan’s nearly 60-year one-party dominance as a cause of unease. “We have to strive for substantive, pluralistic democracy with [an authentic and workable] multiple-party system.”

From left: Kaori Shoji, professor of political science at Japan’s Gakushuin University, Jung-ok Lee, professor of sociology at Catholic University of Daegu in South Korea, and TFD president Hsu Szu-chien.

For many Japanese, the motivations for supporting a functioning civil society are not for sustaining democratic institutions per se but out of a “pacifist attitude or [other] single issues such as anti-nuclear energy,” especially for members of the old generation who had first-hand experience of the Second World War and are keenly aware of what Japan did in and around Asia, Shoji said.

People do not appreciate democracy, which was “given by the [Allied] Occupation force to Japan after the war,” and human rights are often considered Western in Japan, with conservative politicians attacking the notion, saying it is too individualistic and detrimental to Japanese traditional values, she said.

Enmity to this supposed “non-Asia-ness” has been acutely palpable for Shoji, who doubles as chair of the board of Amnesty International Japan.

NGOs are often considered “Western” in Japan and NGO workers advocating certain issues are regarded as “foreign surrogates,” she said, adding that the situation is exacerbated by the fact that “Asia has a limited voice within the international NGOs.”

Shouji called for more effort and networking to be undertaken to change the status quo.

The Community of Democracies (CoD) is a platform where such networking could occur. The intergovernmental coalition was established in 2000 under the premise that governments around the world “need to come together to help strength democracy in countries that have already made democratic commitment,” said Robert Herman, Vice President for International Programs at the U.S.-based Freedom House.

A critical premise, agreed to by the group, is that there is “no such thing as a perfect democracy, as all democracies are in some evolutionary process,” learning from each other, he stressed.

It is also agreed that civil societies have an important role to play in consolidating democracies, Herman said.

The Civil Society Pillar – one of the affiliated bodies at the CoD and of which the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy is currently a board member of its standing International Steering Committee (ISC) – is where the organization “aims to facilitate close dialogue with civil society around the world, even in places where it faces challenges and restrictions.”

But the operations of the CoD are not without difficulties or critics.

Douglas Rutzen, president of the International Center for Not-for-Profit Law, a Co-chair of the ISC, hinted at one of the problems by openly calling, two days before the deadline, for applicants to the position of secretary-general of the CoD, which is expected to be vacant with the incumbent’s two-year term soon to end, and pointing out that there was no one lining up to succeed the U.S. to be the next presidency.

The U.S., which current holds the presidency, was described by Herman as one of the countries that are on the CoD Governing Council but at the same time witnessing “democratic backsliding,” which constitutes a further challenge to the world’s community of democracies in the present era, where “new authoritarianisms and global assault on liberal democratic institutions and values” have already put democracies on the defensive.

How is Asia faring with CoD networking? Gus Miclat, executive director of the Initiatives for International Dialogue from the Philippines, questioned what India, South Korea and Japan, the three Asian CoD Governing Council member states, have been doing across borders with each other and with other democracies in the region.

Anselmo Lee, executive director of the Korea Human Rights Foundation and secretary-general of Asia Democracy Network, echoed those views and asked why no statement was issued by Asian countries, unlike the U.S. and Europe, when incidents such as the military coup in Thailand occurred.

“Like-minded countries in Asia” should be brought together and put the mission of CoD into practice in the region, especially during a time when everybody is talking about democratic regression, he said.

“In order for CoD to be relevant to us and to the lives of people of the community of democracies, you have to have impact. Now it’s low-key if there at all, but politically [the impact] is a bit wanting,” Miclat said after pointing out that the organization lacks public recognition.

The highlight of the CoD may be the invitation process every two years. where it is decided which democracies are to be invited as participating members based on their democratic performance against the CoD guidelines, Miclat said.

“But no one knows the implications [of the invitation process]” if it is not publicized, Miclat said, adding tha publicity and analysis of the invitation process is what is needed for the CoD to have more impact.

There is also “a glaring contradiction [in how CoD works] in the region,” he continued. “There is a vibrant democratic government that is not a member of CoD” due to the “strong lobby of a country that is not even democratic and not a member of CoD.”

Miclat was referring to Taiwan and China. “This is a contradiction we need to address head on.”

 

From left: NDI’s Crystal Rosario, Scott Hubli, Louisa Greve, TFD’s Michael Kau, and TFD’s Hsu Szu-chien.

 

All photos by Huang Hsiengo/TFD

No More Articles