Search

Begin New Search Topic Democracy Political Geography Global Focus

21. Plebiscitarian Origins and Temptations of Liberal Democracy

Author:
Greg Yudin
Publication Date:
11-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, Princeton University
Abstract:
The current crisis of representative democracy has been vigorously addressed within political theory over the last decade. Both liberals and the left generally agree that the growing disengagement and estrangement from politics, low trust in representatives, and the rise of right-wing politicians have something to do with the dysfunction of representative democracy. At this point, it is safe to assert that there is an understanding that representative democracy is ailing –– an idea shared by a much wider audience in the liberal-democratic countries. Calls for either reforming the system or abandoning unrealistic hopes are increasingly pressing. What should replace the broken model? Arguably, the most appealing plea is to substitute representative democracy with “direct democracy,” understood as delegating decisions to the popular vote. If elites are corrupt, let the people rule! How this can be done seems pretty obvious, too: let’s take a vote and learn the will of the people! This concept has recently become an important agenda for political parties and movements worldwide and made them successful. Examples include the Five Star Movement in Italy, Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s campaign in Ukraine, and the Indignados Movement in Spain. In the United States, an initiative to institute national referenda in the Constitution enjoys considerable support: according to the polls (which are themselves a way to gauge swiftly the popular will), it is consistently approved by 2/3 of Americans.
Topic:
Politics, Elections, and Democracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

22. Paths to Democratic Resilience in an Era of Backsliding

Author:
Erica Shein, Cassandra Emmons, Kyle Lemargie, and Fernanda Buril
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
Abstract:
Despite some bright spots, the anti-democratic challenges of the day are not fading fast. Investing in democratic resilience is increasingly essential, as autocrats — who governed 72 percent of the global population at the close of 2022 — go to ever greater lengths to preserve and expand their power. Unlike in eras past, contemporary autocrats seek not to replace democracy with a competing ideology but to manipulate the democratic system to achieve their own ends. This paper lays out a detailed approach to building democratic resilience in countries facing democratic erosion, democratic breakdown, and autocratic deepening. Investments in resilience may take different forms: In some cases, we may be able to help a democracy “bounce back” from episodes of backsliding; at other times, we may need to support democracy to enable it to persist in diminished form, reinforce what remains of the democratic architecture, or simply preserve the normative foundation and public demand for democracy for a future opening. The paper offers a framework for choosing interventions that are most likely to succeed based on the relevant backsliding context. With this framework, we seek to shift the question from whether support is feasible or desirable in a backsliding context to how the international community can best support a democracy that is encountering any form of backsliding.
Topic:
Elections, Democracy, Resilience, and Democratic Backsliding
Political Geography:
Global Focus

23. An Economic Defense of Multiple Antitrust Goals: Reversing Income Inequality and Promoting Political Democracy

Author:
Mark Glick
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET)
Abstract:
Two recent papers by prominent antitrust scholars argue that a revived antitrust movement can help reverse the dramatic rise in economic inequality and the erosion of political democracy in the United States. Both papers rely on the legislative history of the key antitrust statutes to support their case. Not surprisingly, their recommendations have been met with alarm in some quarters and with skepticism in others. Such proposals by antitrust reformers are often contrasted with the Consumer Welfare Standard that pervades antitrust policy today. The Consumer Welfare Standard suffers from several defects: (1) It employs a narrow, unworkable measure of welfare; (2) It excludes important sources of welfare based on the assumption that antitrust seeks only to maximize wealth; (3) It assumes a constant and equal individual marginal utility of money; and (4) It is often combined with extraneous ideological goals. Even with these defects, however, if applied consistent with its theoretical underpinnings, the consideration of the transfer of labor rents resulting from a merger or dominant firm conduct is supported by the Consumer Welfare Standard. Moreover, even when only consumers (and not producers) are deemed relevant, the welfare of labor still should consistently be considered part of consumer welfare. In contrast, fostering political democracy—a prominent traditional antitrust goal that was jettisoned by the Chicago School—falls outside the Consumer Welfare Standard in any of its constructs. To undergird such important broader goals requires that the Consumer Welfare Standard be replaced with the General Welfare Standard. The General Welfare Standard consists of modern welfare economics modified to accommodate objective analyses of human welfare and purged of inconsistencies.
Topic:
Economics, Democracy, Income Inequality, and Antitrust Law
Political Geography:
Global Focus

24. AI Startups and the Fight Against Mis/Disinformation Online: An Update

Author:
Anya Schiffrin, Hiba Beg, Pablo Eyzaguirre, Zachey Kliger, Tianyu Mao, Aditi Rukhaiyar, Kristen Saldarini, and Ojani Walthrust
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
The events following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have shown again the power of online mis/disinformation. As it continues to grow and spread, there are new and continuing attempts to address this problem. These include supply-side and demand-side fixes (including media-literacy programs, fact-checking and, in Europe, new regulations) but few of these have scaled. This paper looks at one kind of supply-side attempt to tackle the prevalence of online mis/disinformation: the market for tech-based solutions that use some form of artificial intelligence (AI) machine/deep learning for content moderation, media integrity, and verification. This paper presents the findings of interviews of 20 niche firms that use AI to identify online mis/disinformation, many of which were previously surveyed for a 2019 paper on the role of AI startups in the fight against disinformation. These companies did not release their revenue figures but it seems that the market for their services is smaller than many entrepreneurs had originally hoped, and that Google and Facebook are not relying on such firms for help in identifying online mis/disinformation. The cost of the services provided by these startups and the desire to keep things in-house and protect their activities from outside scrutiny are part of why the tech giants do not rely on small startups for help with screening online mis/disinformation. This may be why funding for these startups does not seem to have grown significantly and so more than half of them are now focusing on the business-to-business market, selling mis/disinformation mitigation services to, for example, insurance companies, large public entities, and governments, among others. There also appears to be a limited market for business-to-consumer solutions for detecting mis/disinformation. However, continuing advances in AI as well as forthcoming regulation by the European Union and the United Kingdom will continue to spur innovation, which may stimulate demand. University initiatives, academics, journalism organizations, and cybersecurity experts are all also trying to come up with ways to identify and control the spread of mis/disinformation. Ultimately, despite its advances, technology alone will not solve the online mis/disinformation problem. Giant social media platforms have few financial incentives to crack down on this—quite the opposite, in fact. To push social media platforms to act against online mis/disinformation and illegal speech, regulation must deftly address the issue while preserving freedom of expression. There is a further problem in the form of the political polarization that has intensified in the United States and other parts of the world. Fixing this is likely to be well beyond the role of business and technologists.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Artificial Intelligence, Disinformation, Misinformation, and Startup
Political Geography:
Global Focus

25. AI Audit-Washing and Accountability

Author:
Ellen P. Goodman
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
We are still some distance from a worldwide robot takeover, but artificial intelligence (AI)—the training of computer systems with large data sets to make decisions and solve problems—is revolutionizing the way governments and societies function. AI has enormous potential: accelerating innovation, unlocking new value from data, and increasing productivity by freeing us from mundane tasks. AI can draw new inferences from health data to foster breakthroughs in cancer screening or improve climate modeling and early-warning systems for extreme weather or emergency situations. As we seek solutions to today’s vexing problems—climate disruption, social inequality, health crises—AI will be central. Its centrality requires that stakeholders exercise greater governance over AI and hold AI systems accountable for their potential harms, including discriminatory impact, opacity, error, insecurity, privacy violations, and disempowerment. In this context, calls for audits to assess the impact of algorithmic decision-making systems and expose and mitigate related harms are proliferating1 , accompanied by the rise of an algorithmic auditing industry and legal codification. These are welcome developments. Audits can provide a flexible co-regulatory solution, allowing necessary innovation in AI while increasing transparency and accountability. AI is a crucial element of the growing tech competition between authoritarian and democratic states—and ensuring that AI is accountable and trusted is a key part of ensuring democratic advantage. Clear standards for trustworthy AI will help the United States remain a center of innovation and shape technology to democratic values. The “algorithmic audit” nevertheless remains ill-defined and inexact, whether concerning social media platforms or AI systems generally. The risk is significant that inadequate audits will obscure problems with algorithmic systems and create a permission structure around poorly designed or implemented AI. A poorly designed or executed audit is at best meaningless and at worst even excuses harms that the audits claim to mitigate. Inadequate audits or those without clear standards provide false assurance of compliance with norms and laws, “audit-washing” problematic or illegal practices. Like green-washing and ethics-washing before, the audited entity can claim credit without doing the work. To address these risks, this paper identifies the core questions that need answering to make algorithmic audits a reliable AI accountability mechanism. The “who” of audits includes the person or organization conducting the audit, with clearly defined qualifications, conditions for data access, and guardrails for internal audits. The “what” includes the type and scope of audit, including its position within a larger sociotechnical system. The “why” covers audit objectives, whether narrow legal standards or broader ethical goals, essential for audit comparison. Finally, the “how” includes a clear articulation of audit standards, an important baseline for the development of audit certification mechanisms and to guard against audit-washing. Algorithmic audits have the potential to transform the way technology works in the 21st century, much as financial audits transformed the way businesses operated in the 20th century. They will take different forms, either within a sector or across sectors, especially for systems which pose the highest risk. But as algorithmic audits are encoded into law or adopted voluntarily as part of corporate social responsibility, the audit industry must arrive at shared understandings and expectations of audit goals and procedures. This paper provides such an outline so that truly meaningful algorithmic audits can take their deserved place in AI governance frameworks.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, Democracy, Regulation, Accountability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

26. Vote for Free: A Global Guide for Citizen Monitoring of Campaign Finance

Author:
Magnus Ohman
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
Abstract:
he International Foundation for Electoral Systems is proud to publish the definitive guide, Vote for Free: A Global Guide for Citizen Monitoring of Campaign Finance, authored by Dr. Magnus Ohman, IFES’ Senior Political Finance Adviser. The eight-step guide draws on nearly a decade of work and the experiences of people around the world who have monitored how money has been raised and spent in campaigns. Intended for civil society entities, it focuses on approaches to monitoring campaign finance, disseminating findings and data, planning for project management and developing mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and learning. A healthy democracy can only exist with transparency around how money enters and exits the democratic political process. Otherwise, corrupt political players with fat wallets wield power in governance, not the voters. Deterring the corrupting influence of money in the political process requires collaboration and action from lawmakers, political parties, the media and voters but more importantly, it demands the work of civil society.
Topic:
Corruption, Governance, Democracy, and Electoral Systems
Political Geography:
Global Focus

27. Guardrails for Democracy

Author:
Erica Shein and Katherine Ellena
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES)
Abstract:
Democracy thrives on the vibrant exchange of ideas, transparency, and confidence in government institutions. Corruption can have disastrous effects on democracy, from derailing a government’s response to a public emergency to driving distrust in democratic institutions and damaging the credibility of governments, both at home and abroad. Holding governments accountable and limiting opportunities for abuse is instrumental to maintaining public trust and to helping countries weather shocks to democracy. Independent governmental institutions – including Supreme Audit Institutions, National Human Rights Institutions, Anti-Corruption Authorities, Ombuds Institutions, and Election Management Bodies — are an essential part of the democratic fabric. These institutions should serve as guardrails to keep democracy on track, but, absent safeguards, can become ineffective, irrelevant, or even tools for state capture. This Guide draws on IFES’ evidence-based Autonomy and Accountability Framework (AAF) to support an assessment of threats, risks, and weaknesses in the autonomy and accountability of independent institutions at any stage of establishment or development. An institution can use the assessment to help insulate itself from political interference and conflicts of interest, shore up its ability to execute its mandate effectively and efficiently, and build or preserve public trust. The AAF also provides a blueprint for legislatures seeking to enshrine effective protections for new institutions in the law. This Guide can be used by an institution on its own or in collaboration with partners to conduct a thorough, introspective review of its own autonomy and accountability mechanisms, or by a civil society organization seeking to advance the work of a specific institution or inform the design of advocacy campaigns. Constitutional or legal drafting committees might also find this resource useful to identify key elements for reform. The Guide includes a series of question sets to identify and understand strengths and threats to autonomy and accountability, and to assist in identifying the specific considerations that may apply given the institution’s unique mandate, structure, or legal context. The Guide also includes sample strategies to fill the gaps identified in the assessment and build institutional resilience.
Topic:
Civil Society, Democracy, Institutions, and Legal Sector
Political Geography:
Global Focus

28. International Democracy Promotion in Times of Autocratization: From Supporting to Protecting Democracy

Author:
Julia Leininger
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The worldwide wave of autocratization is doing away with many of the democratic achievements made since 1989. Scholarship on international democracy promotion is yet to theorise how democracy can be protected from autocratization. Such a theory must account for different democratic and autocratic trajectories as well as integrate theoretical approaches from international relations and comparative politics in the study of democracy promotion. However, such a combined perspective is still missing. One reason for this is that the field lacks a clear concept of “protection” and does not yet systematically integrate evidence from democratization research. This paper addresses this research gap. It is the first attempt to develop a concept theory of democracy promotion, which includes support and protection of democracy. Coupling this with a depiction of six phases of regime change, this paper makes a second contribution: based on the proposed conceptual and theoretical integration, it generates a series of testable anchor points for further empirical analysis on what strategies are most likely to be effective during the various phases of regime change.
Topic:
International Relations, Democratization, Regime Change, Democracy, and Autocracy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

29. Understanding and Responding to Global Democratic Backsliding

Author:
Thomas Carothers and Benjamin Press
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Over the past two decades, democratic backsliding has become a defining trend in global politics. However, despite the extensive attention paid to the phenomenon, there is surprisingly little consensus about what is driving it. The most common explanations offered by analysts—ranging from the role of Russia and China and disruptive technologies to the rise of populism, the spread of political polarization, and democracies’ failure to deliver—fall short when tested across a wide range of cases. A more persuasive account of backsliding focuses on the central role of leader-driven antidemocratic political projects and the variety of mechanisms and motivations they entail. This paper identifies and analyzes three distinct types of backsliding efforts: grievance-fueled illiberalism, opportunistic authoritarianism, and entrenched-interest revanchism. In cases of grievance-fueled illiberalism, a political figure mobilizes a grievance, claims that the grievance is being perpetuated by the existing political system, and argues that it is necessary to dismantle democratic norms and institutions to redress the underlying wrongs. Opportunistic authoritarians, by contrast, come to power via conventional political appeals but later turn against democracy for the sake of personal political survival. In still other backsliding cases, entrenched interest groups—generally the military—that were displaced by a democratic transition use undemocratic means to reassert their claims to power. Although motivations and methods differ across backsliding efforts, a key commonality among them is their relentless focus on undermining countervailing governmental and nongovernmental institutions that are designed to keep them in check. As international democracy supporters continue to refine their strategies of responding to democratic backsliding, they must better differentiate between facilitating factors and core drivers. Such an approach will point to the need for a stronger focus on the nature of leader-driven antidemocratic projects, identifying ways to create significant disincentives for backsliding leaders, and bolstering crucial countervailing institutions. Moreover, they should deepen their differentiation of strategies to take account of the diverse motivations and methods among the three main patterns of backsliding. Only in this way will they build the needed analytic and practical capacity to meet the formidable challenge that democratic backsliding presents.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Democracy, Populism, and Democratic Backsliding
Political Geography:
Global Focus

30. Government Internet Shutdowns Are Changing. How Should Citizens and Democracies Respond?

Author:
Steven Feldstein
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Abstract:
Governments worldwide continue to deploy internet shutdowns and network disruptions to quell mass protests, forestall election losses, reinforce military coups, or cut off conflict areas from the outside world. Data from the past few years show that incidences of global shutdowns have remained steadily high: 196 documented incidents in 2018, 213 incidents in 2019, and 155 in 2020. The first five months of 2021 recorded fifty shutdown incidents.1 Government-instigated internet shutdowns largely took place in relation to five event types: mass demonstrations, military operations and coups, elections, communal violence and religious holidays, and school exams. As Clément Voule, the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, pointedly observes: “Shutdowns are lasting longer, becoming harder to detect and targeting particular social media and messaging applications and specific localities and communities.”2 Events in Russia have put a finer point on internet shutdown trends. On March 4, 2022, Roskomnadzor, the Russian internet regulator, announced that it would block Facebook and Twitter and would ban new uploads to TikTok.3 On March 14, it added Instagram to the banned list.4 Russian authorities have also restricted access to a slew of news websites, including the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Voice of America. Roskomnadzor claimed these measures were enacted in response to new limits imposed by platforms on Russian propaganda outlets—accusing Facebook of “discrimination.”5 The Kremlin’s crackdown is an ominous signal about where the shutdown struggle is headed in authoritarian countries. Despite these bleak trends, there is a growing international consensus—at least among liberal democracies—that protecting internet access is integrally linked to freedoms of expression and association and forms a crucial part of the global democracy and human rights agenda. This paper picks up on this emerging norm and probes several key questions: What can citizens do to evade authoritarian controls and regain internet access? How can democratic governments support these efforts and push back against governments that shut down and block the internet? The short answer is that there is a multitude of responses available to democracies and civil society organizations to push back against internet blackouts and network disruptions. Democracies can exert meaningful pressure against repressive governments to ease internet blocks, and citizens are able to exercise creative options to circumvent internet controls. The paper walks through different tools available to citizens to evade internet controls. It examines where internet shutdown trends are headed and incentives for particular regimes to adopt new modes of censorship. It then presents a multifaceted strategy for democracies, civil society organizations, and technology developers and companies to counter internet shutdowns.
Topic:
Government, Science and Technology, Democracy, and Internet
Political Geography:
Russia and Global Focus