Diplomat with the NYT / World Review 2021 by Observer Media Group

August 2021

The New Abnormal: Reimagining Democracy

Contents 4

A Farewell to Norms

“Our Democracies Need to Change”` As global crises shake nations to the core, attendees at last year’s retooled Athens Democracy Forum pointed to the need for governments to be more responsive to their citizens.

4 11

“The Big Battle Is Between Us and Our Own Inner Demons”

Corporations Must Do Their Part to Preserve Democracy

Brian Stauffer for The New York Times

China does whatever it can to thrive economically, putting freedom and prosperity at risk for the rest of the world

Studio Panoulis

21 21 24

Protest Movements Without a Public Face Do 21st-century social struggles need traditional leaders, or are they better off without them? `

Ben Stansall/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

Dolores Huerta: “We Have to Keep on Marching”

Fifty years after a historic victory for farm workers in california, the civil rights icon feels optimistic about the new generation of activists.

“We’ve Put People at Odds. People Can Live Together.” Victor J. Blue/The New York Times

Editor's Note: Articles in this magazine from The New York Times were originally published in October 2020. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and should in no way be taken to represent those of the Europe Foundation or its donors.

This publication is made possible by the generous support of the Europe Foundation and its donors.

35 38 40

Finite Water

Park for Everyone`

Just Attending Or Participating? Problems Faced When a Person With a Disability Attends a Conference

Interview with Ketevan Vashakidze, President of Europe Foundation Fiscal Transparency of Georgia - does the budget meet the real needs of citizens? Challenges Facing Investigative Journalism in Georgia

Introducing the Practice of Personal Assistance in Georgia

Volunteering Amid the Pandemic

Greenhouse in the schoolyard 15 Shio Mghvimeli Str. Tbilisi 0179, Georgia

Managing Director Nino Sharashidze printed in ltd forma www.forma.ge

info@observer.com.ge TEL: +995 558 519 519

Subscription & Advertising

sales@observer.com.ge

`Editorial Commitette

editor@observer.com.ge nino.sharashidze@observer.com.ge

A Farewell to Norms

“These are the times that try men’s souls,” wrote Thomas Paine in the heat of the American Revolution, and the temptation today might be to respond with a weary: “Tell me about it.” Despots flourish; dissidents are dismembered or poisoned; the president of the world’s premier democracy is immune to shame or truth; infernos set off by a changing climate lay waste to the American West Coast; Hong Kong’s freedoms are curtailed; and a lowly, spiked virus suddenly erupts onto the world, sowing death and economic destruction and radically altering the most fundamental aspects of human behavior. And yet, as Paine and many others who have commented

SERGE SCHMEMANN A member of The New York Times editorial board and program director of the Athens Democracy Forum

(Credit: Stacy Langavia)

on periods of hardship and suffering have argued, it is trying times like these that most clearly identify the wrongs in how the world is run and separate the best from the worst in our midst. The response to the Covid-19 pandemic has clearly shown the difference between good leadership and lowly opportunism; good science and quackery. The response to the death of George Floyd, a Black man, beneath the knee of a white

Credit: Brian Stauffer for The New York Times

“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered,” Paine continued; “yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” It is a comforting thought, but not fully convincing when humankind is so radically divided on most any issue; when even something as elemental as wearing a mask during a pandemic might provoke a violent confrontation; when authoritarian leaders openly champion “illiberal democracy”; when President Trump routinely challenges science and treats a free press as the enemy. There is no certainty of triumph on any of these fronts. Each is a battle that requires engagement, sacrifice and a willingness to change. Heraclitus, the ancient Greek philosopher, is believed to have declared: “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” This continual change, he argued, was the natural way of the world. What is unnatural is to resist change, to cling to the illusion that there is some safe, unchanging world that we must forever defend. That was the thinking behind the theme of this

year’s Athens Democracy Forum, “The New Abnormal: Reimagining Democracy,” and behind the articles on these pages. Whether it’s Farida Nabourema writing about resistance to the dictatorship in Togo, or Patrisse Cullors on the broad ramifications of the Black Lives Matter movement, or Nathan Law writing about the struggle in Hong Kong, these are testaments to the determination and creativity of people prepared to challenge forces that appear indomitable and unyielding. Democracy is not a static concept but an everchanging, ever-evolving way of life that requires far more effort and courage than the casting of an occasional ballot or indulgence in the odd rant about feckless politicians. These have been the watchwords of the annual Athens Democracy Forum since its inception, and it defined the agenda of this year’s largely virtual eighth forum, which was held Sept. 30 to Oct. 2 and whose highlights can be seen at athensdemocracyforum.com. The troubled waters we are passing through may be far different from Paine’s, and the people stepping in them have already come a long way, but the choice is unchanged. “By perseverance and fortitude we have the prospect of a glorious issue,” Paine concluded; “by cowardice and submission, the sad choice of a variety of evils.”

police officer has galvanized a tide of anguished outrage. Marchers in Belarus have demonstrated, once again, that there always comes a time when people can take no more dictatorship.

hile a pandemic altered the fundamentals of human interaction, millions of activists took to the streets to protect democratic institutions and defend human rights.

Nathan Gardels, the moderator of the panel titled Democracy in a Time of Crisis, with Hind Ziane, the founder and chief executive of Génération Politique. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

“Our Democracies Need to Change” As global crises shake nations to the core, attendees at last year’s retooled Athens Democracy Forum pointed to the need for governments to be more responsive to their citizens.

ollowing are excerpts from a selection of panel discussions at the

annual Athens Democracy

year. The panel descriptions

Forum on global policy, held

are from the forum’s

in association with The New

program. All the material has

York Times in October last

been edited and condensed.

DEMOCRACY IN A TIME OF CRISIS

The coronavirus pandemic and protests against racial

Brad Smith, the president of Microsoft, at the Athens Democracy Forum. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

PANELISTS: Dubravka Suica, vice president, European Commission, Democracy and Demography; Kevin Casas-Zamora, secretary general of International IDEA (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance); Hind Ziane, founder and chief executive, Génération Politique,

a political strategy and

rule of law. … It is true that

time, is that our democracies

public relations agency;

democracy’s having a hard

need to change. They are

and Kishore Mahbubani,

time these days. People

not able to operate normally

distinguished fellow, Asia

feel left behind. And what

anymore. … This is a great

Research Institute, National

do they blame? They start

opportunity for us as a

University of Singapore.

blaming democracy itself. But

system — as a political

DUBRAVKA SUICA: At the

democracy is still the best

system — to move forward

invention; there is nothing

and to change. So I do see it

better. Still, we need to

as a golden opportunity.

improve the ways to respond

KEVIN CASAS-

beginning of the year, none of us could have imagined the multiple effects of Covid-19. So this crisis has

to citizens’ needs.

shown us what we should

HIND ZIANE: The very

the survival of democracy

value most in our union,

first point that I would like

are much better when [it

namely, the need for unity

to make is that we are in

proves] able to lower social

and solidarity in difficult

a time of crisis. And I think

uncertainty to manageable

times. Also, we will make

this crisis that’s been going

levels. And that’s why robust

every effort not to raise this

on for months all over the

welfare states, solid rule

crisis but rather to learn

world has been telling us

of law and sustained fiscal

lessons. You know that the

two things. The first thing is

prudence are so critical,

European Union blazes a

that our democracies are not

because they reduce

trail when it comes to the

equipped to face that kind of

uncertainty.

protection and deepening

huge, cataclysmic event. The

of democratic values, and

second lesson that we’ve

KISHORE

this goes hand in- hand

learned, and that we actually

with human rights and the

have been knowing for some

ZAMORA: The odds for

MAHBUBANI: The reason democracy came to East Asia is because of the

inequality have tested leadership models around the world, and have brought unexpected changes. But it is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that democracy has collided with a crisis. This discussion examined historical precedents as well as how various political models have gained or lost legitimacy in the face of cataclysmic challenges.

to be sure in not only being

about. And speaking from

together, but being there to

[Athens] in a democratic

remarkable transformation,

walls built on nationalism, intolerance and fear. What is the antidote?

help the weakest people.

forum, it’s sometimes

Taiwan went through this

PANELISTS: Andreas

ANDREAS BUMMEL:

important to go back to

Bummel, executive

I believe there is a growing

director, Democracy

recognition of the fact that

Without Borders;Elhadj As

global collaboration is

Sy, chair of the Kofi Annan

necessary. And not even only

Foundation and former

necessary, but actually not

secretary general of the

enough — that next steps

International Federation

are necessary for democratic

of Red Cross and Red

institutions to actually be able

Crescent Societies; Alison

to deliver. Because I guess

Smale, journalist and

that’s at the key here. People

former United Nations

are not dissatisfied with

under secretary general for

democracy as a principle

global communications,

of government. What they

and former executive

are dissatisfied with is

editor of The International

the performance of actual

Herald Tribune.

democratic governments.

ALISON SMALE: On that

That’s the point. And so

American model. South Korea went through this

remarkable transformation, Indonesia went through a remarkable transformation. But they were guided by the gold standard of democracy, which is the United States of America. And the reason I highlight this is that in East Asia, what I see as the biggest threat to democracy in East Asia, is how the gold standard of democracy has now become really corroded very badly. The United States, which used to be a sort of a very high-functioning state — sending a man to the moon, massive middle class — suddenly, they’ve got all the attributes of a failed state in some ways, with reduced life expectancy, high infant mortality. I point out all these things to make the point that something fundamentally is going wrong here. And what I want to emphasize is that the United States has gone from being a democracy to what’s becoming a plutocracy, where the amount of money you have determines the outcomes that you get in the society. And that’s why not it’s no longer a government of the people, by the people, for the people — it’s a government of the 1 percent, by the 1 percent, for the 1 percent.

joyous night in 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, I was there and came through Checkpoint Charlie with the first East Germans to cross. I will never view the joy of that evening as a mistake, but it definitely serves as a reminder that we all must always work hard if we want to produce good results. And there’s a great deal of talk about togetherness now, a great deal of talk about the need to work to preserve democracy. And it sounds slightly sort of schoolmarmish to do this, but it definitely is something that takes a lot of work. And we can only really work against those who say they are strong but are, in fact,

THE STRONG AND THE WEAK

Thirty years after the Berlin Wall fell, a new breed of strongmen has put up new

we need to ask ourselves, why are they not able to deliver the outcomes that I expected? And I think that has a lot to do with globalizing forces — you know, influences from the global scale, deregulated markets and such — that

the rules, which is about people. Democracy is not only about the system, it is not only about an ideology, it’s not about, you know, the West or East or the North and South; it’s about people. It’s about people’s lives, it’s about people’s well-being, it’s about people’s aspirations. And you can see throughout the globe, regardless of which states of economic development people are [at], they all aspire for something that all human beings have in common, which is the human dignity. So if democracy can develop on human dignity, if democracy can be the safe space where people’s voices count, and people themselves also count, it is a universal ideal to which I would say that everybody, you know, will be aspiring to.

actually undermine the ability of established democratic institutions to deliver and to actually be relevant. So that’s why what is needed is more participation and better representation at the global scale. If we look at how the international system is run, you would have to acknowledge it’s completely undemocratic if it comes to the representation and participation of the citizens

perhaps weak. And we can

on the ground.

reinforce those who appear

ELHADJ AS SY: I think

weak so that they stay

that democracy and the

strong. … If there is a strong,

situations that we experience

dare I say moral, belief in

in different parts of the world

togetherness, then we have

remind us of what really it is

CLIMATE CHANGE, COVID-19 AND HUMAN RIGHTS

When the world came grinding to a halt this year, climate change and its causes were brought into stark relief. The panel discussed the importance of climate change as a global event with a global impact. What lessons has the pandemic taught us about what progress might be possible? And what are the implications for human rights? PANELISTS: Aron Cramer,

president and chief

globalized lives to think

ARON CRAMER: One of

executive, BSR (Business

about the future that we

the reasons that some oil

chief executive, CitizenLab,

for Social Responsibility);

want to create, and to think

and gas companies have

a citizen-engagement

Paul Polman, co-founder

about how each and every

begun to move on climate

platform; and Orit Farkash-

and chairman, Imagine, a

one of us — politicians,

change more decisively is

Hacohen, Israeli minister

consulting firm focused

business leaders, concerned

because they recognize that

for strategic affairs.

on environmental

moms and dads, students

they can no longer attract

responsibility; and Clover

— can step up to become

ORIT FARKASH-

the best and the brightest.

Hogan, founder and

custodians, to rethink so

HACOHEN: Today there is

executive director of Force

much of how we live, breathe

They simply won’t have an

no doubt that social media

of Nature, which enlists

and exist in the 21st century.

employee base if they don’t

has become a haven for

young people to take

And I believe that one of

contribute what’s needed

fake news, for incitement, for

action on climate change.

the most underutilized, and

in a very profound way on

hate speech. What happens

climate. It’s very unlikely

in my view is that in the

CLOVER HOGAN: The

one of the most powerful,

that Amazon would have

name of, or on behalf of,

moved on climate without a

freedom of speech, some

very public display from its

groups spread fake news

climate crisis is the symptom

Ransbeeck, co-founder and

tools that we have is that of

of broken systems, from the

mind-set.

clothes I’m wearing to the

PAUL POLMAN: What we’ve

food in my fridge or how I

seen in the Covid crisis

got here from London. The

once more is the difficulty

bedrock of these broken

of global governance.

systems is a system of

Increasingly, the issues that

capitalism based on limitless

we face — like the issues

growth, with finite resources,

of the interdependence

entrenched in a centuries-

of the financial markets,

long history of the oppression

cybersecurity, climate change

of marginalized communities,

and now also pandemics

of communities of color,

— require, without any

of women, of Indigenous

doubt, a global response.

people, the custodians of our

These issues know no

land. And it’s also based on

borders. And yet we’ve got

a millenniums-long history

about 86 countries putting

of the commodification of

export restrictions in place

nature, valuing the tree not

around [personal protective

for its ecosystem services

equipment] materials. We’ve

and the oxygen that enables

seen a lack of cooperation

us to breathe, but for the

between governments in

table it provides, or the

terms of solidarity. The

palm oil going into one of

developing markets have

our chocolate bars. Now,

gotten virtually zero support

ecological crises, of which

from the developed markets.

the pandemic is one — the

So global governance is,

pandemic was caused by

without any doubt, at a low.

this exploitation of nature —

And the reason it is at a low

show us not just how broken

is that most institutions were

these very systems are, but

created 70 years ago. And,

how fragile and how ripe

frankly, unlike businesses

for disruption. We have an

that might have adjusted

opportunity before us, as

their strategies 10, 15, 20

we’re forced to press “pause”

times, global governance has

on our hyperconsumptive,

not evolved.

employees — and, mostly, it’s younger employees — to demand quite publicly that the company adopt an approach that is compatible with what we need to do on climate. Businesses have to understand that 21st-century talent expects that we can take on these big social issues, not least climate change, and without that, the pool of talent will not be available, and no company would possibly survive or thrive.

and violence around social media networks. And that is something that a state, every state, cannot overlook. As a minister, I started a process of engagement with the social media networks in Israel. We are conducting a round table with social media because I think that we can’t do it alone. Only enforcement and regulation will not do the trick. Social media networks must understand that they have power, and with power comes responsibility and accountability. And the fact is that, at the end of the

INFORMATION WARS

In recent months, the multifront battle between social media platforms, their users and the authorities who would regulate them has accelerated even further. What role does, or should, government play in keeping platforms honest and their users safe? And what tools can help citizens be more engaged? PANELISTS: Dan Shefet, lawyer, Paris Court of Appeal; Wietse Van

day, they have the power to control the minds and to corrupt minds. This cannot be overlooked. So we’re implementing a program of four steps with the social media giants. We want them to create relevant and clear policies. They should enforce their policies without double standards. They should be transparent about the facts. And, lastly, [they should] remove problematic content. WIETSE VAN RANSBEECK: So we [at

Clover Hogan, founder and executive director of Force of Nature, at the forum. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

CitizenLab] provide a digital

that digital democracy.

most important aspect is

decide whether something

democracy platform. There

And such [government-

that those platforms can

are of course many other

is illicit speech or not. There

administered] platforms

constitute a space where you

tools, or other platforms

can be interesting because

are many, many cases from

have citizens from different

available. But what we do

those platforms are owned

these high-level courts,

backgrounds deliberate

is we help citizens have a

by the government; they are

where somebody is either

say in local policymaking

and have conversations

the data owners. So when it

acquitted or convicted at the

within government projects,

comes to manipulation, the

with each other. And that is

first level, and that decision

but also more from the

government is in control.

essential for democracy in

is overturned on appeal. In

bottom up, where citizens

They can also, when they

the digital age, that we’re

other words, it’s extremely

can bring up their proposals.

procure those platforms,

not only talking to people

difficult. And I don’t see

What’s different, compared

design the platforms in a

like us, but that we can have

how we can oblige social

to social media, is that

way that some democratic

conversations with people

media to be more clever

it actually starts from a

values are safeguarded,

who have different opinions.

than professional judges in

broader question: How are

in the sense that when we

DAN SHEFET: I’ve had

terms of defining whether

we going to constitute the

talk about transparency

the opportunity of following

something is illicit speech

public sphere in the digital

and openness, they can

almost all the cases before

or not, given, of course,

era? And social media are

procure open-source

the International Criminal

that once we do that, we

not a means to have a

platforms and make sure

Court, the special tribunal

mathematically restrict not

constructive debate. We all

that the algorithms are open

on [Rwanda], the special

only free speech, but we

know about filter bubbles on

and transparent, but at the

tribunal on Yugoslavia and

also impose upon these

social media networks, the

same time, when artificial

even the Nuremberg trials,

organizations accountability

echo chambers. So I think

intelligence is used, that it’s

dealing with incitement,

sanctions, which are not

it’s also the responsibility of

explained to the citizens

and I can tell you that it is

related to knowledge. And

the government to rethink

in what way it is used. So

extremely difficult, even for

that, to me, is not possible

how we are going to create

I believe that probably the

the most trained judges, to

from a legal point of view.

Liz Alderman, left, moderated a session at the Athens Democracy Forum with the Israeli historian and author Yuval Noah Harari, center, and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece, right. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

he Athens Democracy Forum on global policy, held in association with The New York Times last year, brought together leaders and thinkers from the private, public and nonprofit sectors to discuss the

future of democracy in a time of extreme crisis. The forum’s keynote panel, titled “Politics, Power and the Pandemic,” featured a wide-ranging discussion between Israeli author Yuval Noah Harari and Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece on the power and danger of technology, preparing for the post-Covid economy and the resilience (and fragility) of democratic systems amid threats both viral and authoritarian. The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.

PANELISTS: Yuval Noah Harari, historian and bestselling author Kyriakos Mitsotakis, prime minister of Greece Moderator: Liz Alderman, chief European business correspondent, The New York Times MS. ALDERMAN: We’re really pleased to welcome

the both of you here today. I suppose it is appropriate to call this sort of, you know, a dialogue between Hercules and Socrates. We do have brains and intellectual brawn here, that’s for sure. Let me dive straight in. I do want this to be a conversation that is an unplugged conversation between the two of you, Socrates-style. So I’m going to sort of sit in the background a little bit as the chorus and jump in from time

“The Big Battle Is Between Us and Our Own Inner Demons”

to time to referee and maybe throw you all a few questions to steer the conversation in different directions. Yuval, obviously you have been thinking a great deal about how the world will be different once we’re through this pandemic. And Mr. Prime Minister, you have been very busy trying to, you know, manage an entire country, steer a country through the pandemic, very successfully, making Greece in many ways a kind of a model for the world. And that has obviously involved striking a delicate balance in governance. Let me kick off your conversation, if I may, with something that Yuval recently put out there. You wrote recently that, “In times of crisis we face two choices — citizen empowerment and totalitarian surveillance, and nationalist isolation or global solidarity.” For the both of you, where is the world coming down on that divide right now? Yuval, do you want to take that? MR. HARARI: Well, I think it’s a bit too early to say. I mean, we are still in the midst of the crisis and we probably haven’t seen the worst, not in terms of the pandemic itself, and certainly not in terms of the economic and political fallout. The big battle is not between humanity and the virus; the big battle is between us and our own inner demons. As you said, we are facing a choice. We can react to the crisis by going the way of authoritarianism and totalitarianism, trying to fight the pandemic by imposing a totalitarian regime from above, or by empowering the citizens. And similarly, we can react to the crisis by generating hatred and competition between

countries, blaming the crisis on foreigners and minorities, or we can try to cooperate. I know for me it’s obvious what is the right thing to do. But I know that we should never underestimate human stupidity. It’s one of the most powerful forces in history: In many cases, you know, the choice should be obvious, but people still do the other thing. My greatest fear is that when people look back in 40 years, 50 years, at the Covid crisis, they will not remember the masks; they will not remember the virus; they will remember this was the time when surveillance really took over. This was the time when democracy failed and authoritarian regimes took over. It’s not inevitable. It’s still in our power to prevent this from happening. But that’s the main fear. We are here looking at the birthplace of democracy in Athens and the Acropolis. Democracy is very, very fragile. It’s like a delicate flower that needs unique conditions to survive, whereas dictatorships are like weeds — they can grow almost everywhere. Here the democratic experiment that began 2,500 years ago, it lasted only 200 years and then collapsed. For more than 2,000 years this place was ruled by foreign empires and dictatorships. It took a very difficult road to rebuild democracy. And I hope that we are not losing it again. MS. ALDERMAN: Is that a legitimate concern, in your view? MR. MITSOTAKIS: No, I think it is a legitimate concern, although I would argue that we have enough evidence that in terms of the two dilemmas to which you highlighted, at least the Western world can come down on the side of citizens.

Why do I say that? As far as the Greek, quote, unquote, “experiment” is concerned, we wouldn’t have been successful in fighting the first wave of the pandemic had we not been able to engage citizens proactively and build a relationship of trust between government — and by “government” I mean the state, not necessarily the elected government — and citizens. It was not easy because we came out of 10 years of crisis, when all our institutions were challenged. But we did manage to create a sense of collective destiny, which however also assumed changes in individual behavior, which is always, as you know, quite tricky to deliver. And it can never be totally imposed. We did use technology, but I think we did it in a creative way. Because when we asked citizens, for example, to send out an SMS as to whether they actually planned to leave their house, you can argue that this was the imposition of a sort of surveillance state, but we deleted all the data. And we made it very clear that it was a mechanism of collective empowerment, rather than us having access to citizen data and monitoring them wherever they are. We know that when it comes to behavior you can’t have a policeman next to everyone checking whether they wear or whether they don’t wear a mask. So changes in individual behavior are critical. But in order for us to achievement them, first of all the choices cannot be political. So wearing a mask is not a political statement; it’s an act of self-defense, but also an act of solidarity because you protect other people, especially your family, because we know

that most of the transmission is taking place within the household. So it’s an act to protect those who you love the most. I’m a big believer that you can actually use data in a public, in an open way, to help us drive educated decision-making. Now, as far as the second point — hatred versus global cooperation — I would argue that in spite of, you know, all the noise and everything that has happened, the fact that we’re able to develop a vaccine in months, or even let’s say 18 months rather than 10 years is an unprecedented success of global cooperation. The European Union as a collective entity that rises above the level of the nation-state has been able to cooperate when it comes to vaccines. So there’s no doubt how the vaccines will be distributed. It’s going to be per capita. The European Union is purchasing vaccines and then distributing them to rich nations, poor nations, regardless — using the same basic algorithm depending on the population. And then it’s also putting out general guidelines as to how people will be vaccinated. So I’d say that this is a positive example of global cooperation, but of course we need more. We had a very interesting discussion yesterday at the Council, how we can facilitate travel, how we can have unified rules, how we can make sure we have the same guidelines or same yardsticks. So as far as the West is concerned — because the East, that’s a different question — as far as the West and democracy is concerned, I think we can draw some positive conclusions as to how some

countries at least have managed this. MR. HARARI: Well, I think you’re leaving out maybe the most important part of the West, which is the United States. The E.U. has indeed been reacting, at least in recent months, in a much more cooperative way. But the United States, which was traditionally for decades the leader of the free world, and the leader of the West, is no longer leading anybody, hardly leading even itself. Whereas in previous crises the U.S. was at the front — whether it’s the 2008 financial crisis or the Ebola epidemic — now it’s nowhere to be seen in terms of global cooperation. Actually the U.S. administration has even abandoned the U.S. itself, basically the central government is telling states and mayors and municipalities, “You deal with it yourself.” And what is the future that you see for the Western world in this crisis and in future worst crises to come — global warming, the rise of A.I. — if the United States is really abdicating its job as leader? MR. MITSOTAKIS: I think you raise a fair point, although I don’t think that in the medium or in the long term this is going to happen, because I simply believe that what we call — what we used to call for 70 years the “trans-Atlantic alliance” is simply too strong to be destroyed as far as its foundation is concerned. And when it comes to this level of leadership, I think that it also places a burden on us Europeans to make sure that we get our act together and that we do take decisions at the European level, which will exercise our collective power. We are probably the

largest economic collective, we’re the largest economic power in the world. As far as data protection is concerned, we are at the forefront of establishing what I think is an appropriate balance between making sure that we don’t put a — you know, a block or a constraint on technological progress, while at the same time protecting data privacy. And, of course, this is constantly going to evolve because we’re just scratching the surface of the challenges that we will face. When it was necessary two months ago we delivered a big package of economic support to member states, which was way beyond what many people expected the European Union could do. But I do think that there’s going to be a new chapter as far as our relationship with the U.S. is concerned, which is not solely related to the outcome of the election. And let me wish President Trump and his wife all the best in fighting this virus. If there’s one point which I would take out of this, you know, sad story, is that in that sense the virus is very democratic — it doesn’t make any exceptions. It can affect all of us, from the most powerful person in the world to people who would consider themselves underprivileged. So let’s see how this thing is going to play out. But I wouldn’t write off, you know, 70 years of institution-building completely because the U.S. over the past years has followed a slightly different approach. MS. ALDERMAN: Let me steer you both, if I can, to a point that the both of you just brought up in that conversation — the economy and the impact of the pandemic. I mean,

this is obviously a huge sort of turning point in human history in many ways. You mentioned, prime minister, obviously the social and economic support that European countries, and indeed other countries around the world, are bringing to their economies, to their citizens. But at the same time, what would you say is the lesson that we have learned so far about the trade-off between trying to keep economies open — because the more they’re closed the more they are devastated and jobs lost — and the trade-off between trying to maintain public health. We’re looking at possibly a huge wave of mass unemployment that could be with us for a long time. How are we going to manage this challenge? MR. MITSOTAKIS: Well, when the first wave hit, when we didn’t know much about the virus, but the choice was very clear: We had to lock down. And we took the decision very, very early. And it was clearly the right decision because we managed to crush the virus during its first wave. But we knew that we had to take that decision at that time because we needed time to learn more about the virus and also strengthen our health care system. But we also knew that this would have a devastating economic impact. Although I must say, that in a globalized world even countries that didn’t do a full lockdown, such as Sweden, ended up paying the economic price. I think there’s a general agreement amongst at least European countries that it is very difficult, almost inconceivable, to go to a second full lockdown. We’re

much smarter now, so we can do localized lockdowns. We use contact tracing in a much smarter way. We do much more testing. We can be much more effective in contact tracing. But there’s still a big question mark, and the question mark is can we manage to live with a virus while maintaining economic normality without a full lockdown, and without putting, you know, too much strain on our health care system? I think no one has the answer yet, because we still have three or four very difficult months. So we hope, and we’re very optimistic that we won’t need to take drastic measures along the lines of what we did. But can anyone tell you with certainty? The answer is clearly no. And as far as economic support is concerned, I think that even we in Greece supported the income of practically everyone, including the private sector. This is essentially the welfare state on steroids, what we did. We actually made it very clear that we need to spend money to support the weaker members, those who will be hit the hardest — low-paying jobs, jobs in the hospital sector, which was hit very hard during the summer because of tourists. And we can afford to do it. We were able to do it for some time. But obviously we cannot do it forever. So we are very concerned with, and we watch very carefully the numbers as we enter into the fall and the winter. We’re lucky in Greece — we can still be outdoors for quite some time. But then you look at countries such as Israel, for example, that did extremely well during the first wave, and

are facing a big crisis now. And you understand how unpredictable these things are. There is an element of randomness, as you will recognize, in some of these events. You can have two or three super-spreader events and they can make all the difference. MR. HARARI: I think that the two main points about the economic crisis, and especially also unemployment, is the issue of automation and the issue of the global perspective or the global safety net. First of all, we are seeing an enormous rise in unemployment because of the pandemic. And at the same time — I mean, you could’ve expected, OK, there’ll be a period of large unemployment. Gradually within a few years things will return to normal and people will have jobs again. But this time it’s different. Because at the same moment you also have a dramatic historical shift in the economy, which is digitalization and automation. So entire industries are being digitalized and automated, something that experts thought would take 10, 20 years, and we’ll have it probably in 2040, it’s now accelerating. You know, in my own university we talked about moving online, digitalizing the university, for years, and have done nothing. When Covid struck we did it in two weeks, just shifted the whole university online. Now, automation means that a lot of the people who lose their jobs will not have any job to return to because the industry has changed or moved. And then the big question is retraining. There will be new jobs; the big problem is how to retrain

people that before the crisis had one kind of job — a taxi driver or a truck driver — to do something completely different. Now, rich countries — whether Germany, or Japan, or the U.S. — they have the resources to actually massively retrain the work force. But what would poorer countries do? If they can’t retrain their work force they are facing not just unemployment like we knew in the past — they’re facing the emergence of a useless class, a class of people who — it’s not that they don’t have jobs; they don’t have skills that are needed by the economy. The other related problem is the global dimension. Again, conceivably you can imagine that let’s say the E.U. would come to help its weakest members and have an E.U. program to retrain the work force even in the poorer members. But then what happens in the Middle East? What happens in Africa? What happens in South America? Entire countries might collapse, and the resulting chaos and violence and waves of immigration will destabilize the entire world. Now, Greece, which is on the front line of the immigration crisis in the Mediterranean, obviously needs to think not about only what happens to Greece, and to Italy, and to Spain, but also what happens to Egypt, what happens to Turkey, what happens to African countries. And economically my biggest concern is that so far there is absolutely no economic plan for the world. And we are facing a global crisis, but we have only national or regional plans. We should’ve had a global economic plan months ago, but there is nothing of the sort. The feeling is that

on the global level there are just no adults in the room. Everybody’s taking care of themselves, and the weakest members of humanity, which are really billions of people, are being left behind. MS. ALDERMAN: Is this Covid crisis accelerating a return to the nation-state? MR. MITSOTAKIS: Well, certainly Covid is a digital accelerator. We delivered digital services in weeks. We hadn’t been able to do it for decades. And obviously we had put our work in transforming the states. I see the digital revolution as the only way to break through, you know, traditional bureaucratic silos. And we’ve been able to start initiating this sort of state re-engineering process by using digital tools. And it is very much appreciated by citizens. Again, a very nonideological approach, really appealing to the young fighting a bureaucracy that has held Greece back for ages. This I would argue is almost an opportunity for us to leapfrog other countries, because we’re doing it in such a dramatic fashion. And the impact can be so significant. So suddenly the crisis is an accelerator. Is it a return to the nation-state? Yes — yes and no. There were also periods during the pandemic where every state was clearly out there on its own. I remember very well the first phase of the pandemic where we were all scrambling to find protective gear. There was no European solidarity at the time; it did take us some time to get to that point. But I would certainly agree with you that if we want a global plan we need the U.S. engaged. And we probably also need China

engaged at some point. It can’t just happen without the two largest economies engaged. The same is also true for climate change, which is probably the biggest existential challenge we are facing. On your comments regarding jobs, which I think are absolutely spot on, the biggest challenge that we face as policymakers is how do you put in place proper, you know, skills-based retraining programs that are actually appealing, and how do you explain to people where the jobs will be not in the distant future, but in the near future? And how do we also explain to people that, you know, a traditional university degree from a Greek public university may not necessarily be the way to earn a good living? We’re currently tabling a piece of legislation where we are completely rethinking our technical education. You know, maybe plumbers or electricians may not be outsourced to robots before other jobs are. And we face in Greece a big shortage of technically skilled people. Sometimes we’re also talking about jobs which may come from the past; traditional craftsmanship is making a resurgence because there’s more demand for it. Yet I don’t see much interest in many areas in Greece for these types of jobs, which actually could be very goodpaying jobs and also help regional development. So thinking, you know, five, 10, 15 years ahead and making sure you make the changes now in your educational system, is a challenge. I constantly use the example that a kid that starts elementary school today will graduate from high school

MS. ALDERMAN: Is that a pitch to come to Greece? MR. MITSOTAKIS: It’s not a pitch to come to Greece; it’s a pitch for why Greece has a significant comparative advantage. Because in this new and changing world, aspects such as, you know, quality of life become that much more important. There will be winners and losers. There won’t just be losers as a result of the Covid disruption. And my job is to make sure that, you know, we’re a mediumsized country — of course we want to contribute to the global dialogue. But my responsibility as the prime minister of Greece is to make sure that we’re on the side of those who come out stronger after Covid.

Israeli author Yuval Noah Harari at the 2020 Athens Democracy Forum. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

in 2032, and from university — if we still have four-year university curricula — in 2036. But what sorts of skills are we giving our younger kids today to prepare for that world? This is a difficult question. What is certain is that the E.U. has a lot of funding available for these types of programs. But then we also need to convince people that it’s in their interest to get this type of training. It’s not just us offering, let’s say, an economic incentive for people to retrain. That may not be enough on its own if people don’t understand that the concept of getting an

education, getting a job and getting a pension is probably already obsolete. So we’ll learn all the time, we’ll change jobs probably more frequently. We’ve raised our retirement age. One good thing with a crisis in Greece is that we have already made difficult reforms that other European countries haven’t even contemplated yet. And, of course, one last point regarding what we learned from Covid. If you cannot just live, but work from anywhere, wouldn’t you prefer to work from here — from Greece, from a Greek island — if you have connectivity, safety, good ...

MR. HARARI: One follow-up question. I mean, just about this point of saying, I don’t know, accountants from Sweden coming to work from Mykonos or Crete because the infrastructure is here. And even in university, I mean, if you teach on Zoom, if you teach online, you can teach at Harvard, but instead of being in Boston during the winter you can be in Greece. Why not? But then this raises the question of the digital infrastructure — who owns it? I mean, as more and more of the economy in our social and private life shifts to the digital infrastructure, then isn’t it time to make it a public good? What kind of world is it when our entire lives are being conducted on platforms owned by private businesses and individuals maybe on the other side of the world, that they have their finger on the switch that controls our entire life? They also have access to all the data. Now, you mentioned the efforts of the E.U. to regulate data privacy,

but the issue is that Europe doesn’t have any horse in the race. None of the big tech companies are European. So that’s a huge, huge problem for Europe if it wants to really influence what’s going on. To, again, give the worstcase scenario: Greece has in its history had to deal with a lot of empires and foreign conquests. Now there is a new form of imperialism, a kind of digital imperialism. To dominate a country today you don’t need to send in the tanks; you just need to take out the data. If you imagine, say, Greek politics in 20 years, when the entire personal records of every politician, every mayor, every journalist, is held by somebody in Beijing or San Francisco or Moscow. When you’re a kid you don’t have a Facebook account. But think about a politician in 20 years running for office, and somebody has the entire record of what they did in college. The reputation of no politician can survive such a thing, if they know everything they’ve done in high school, in college, is in the hands of somebody [else]. MR. MITSOTAKIS: Well, I would argue, first of all, just to start from your last point, that there’s a thin line between transparency, which we all aspire to, and breach of privacy. And for us politicians it’s very, very difficult to draw that line. We assume that we live in a glass house and that everything we do is completely public. And frankly one of the reasons why many capable people don’t want to get involved in politics is exactly because they don’t want to go through this. I know exactly from experience how painful it can be for myself or my

family to have to go through that exposure. That is a big challenge that we face. It’s a global challenge in terms of attracting talented people to the cause of public service. Now, in terms of who owns the data and who owns the digital infrastructure, look, Europe has taken important steps in terms of defining, you know, critical digital infrastructure that it would like, and I think rightly so, to have within European ownership. But we need to be honest. If that means that maybe some of the services will have to be more expensive, that’s a trade-off we’ll probably need to explain and be willing to accept. When you look at new technologies, we’ll be one of the first countries to auction off our 5G spectrum. We’ve taken a chunk of the proceeds, and rather than putting them in the budget we’ve created a new fund that will support a 5G ecosystem in Greece. So we’re trying — you know, within, again, the capacity of a medium-sized European country — to play our own role in terms of developing technology. But you’re right to point out that we need more European champions in this game. MS. ALDERMAN: Well, if I may jump in here — because the issue that both of you are raising is one that actually has come up a lot during this conference: the concern about digital democracy and also digital dictatorship, the dangers of digital dictatorship. You, prime minister, talked about how, for example, this country deleted data on the tracing app. There’s a much bigger concern that we’re getting in comments even right now from viewers as you both

speak about, you know, how do we deal with the dark side of technology, what we’ve been seeing on social media, the use of social media as platforms for digital manipulation, for political manipulation? You know, is this going to get worse before it gets better? How are we going to regulate that, especially at a time when, as Yuval, you’ve pointed out, everybody is willingly giving themselves over to a type of monitoring in the name of health, in the name of the greater good. What’s to prevent that from actually being turned against people in some ways by their own leaders? MR. MITSOTAKIS: First of all, the tech companies themselves have work to do, it’s very, very clear. And the boundaries are not always very clear. If, for example, Facebook has a policy of taking down pages that spread hatred or systematic misinformation, they are the aggregator at the end of the day. And if they don’t do it somebody else is going to do it for them. There’s no doubt about that. Now, democracy is adjusting, and again, new media offer an opportunity for politicians to I’d say disseminate their message. And there is also an interesting element in that you no longer need — which is not good for your job — but you no longer need an integrator, or an aggregator, or an editor. It may be problematic because all the news that’s fit to print — which is what the New York Times’s model is — means that there is someone who places a framework and is editing it. On the other hand, it also gives the opportunity for someone to communicate directly — and if you say

something interesting people will listen to you. Or if you say something inflammatory people will listen to you. So we have to recognize that human nature has two aspects. There’s always a dark side to it. And social media can be a force for good, or it can be a force for bad. I don’t have an obvious answer on how you regulate it, short of imposing total control — which is not obviously what I advocate — which is what some countries do, having full state control over what happens, when it happens and what people listen to. That is not an option for Western democracies. But it is very clear that at some point you need a filter, and it’s either going to be at the level of the big tech companies, or it’s going to be probably at a higher level. Maybe both would have to take place at the same time. MR. HARARI: I think the key issue is the emerging ability to hack human beings, which was never the case before in history. There is a lot of talk about hacking computers, and smartphones and bank accounts. But the really big revolution we are living through is the emerging ability to hack people. If you have enough data on a person, and you have enough computing power, you can hack that person, you can understand them better than they understand themselves, you can know their political views, their sexual preferences, their personality, even better than they. And then you can completely manipulate them. And this is something that democracy or frankly any other human society never had to deal with before; it was impossible throughout history. And this really

undermines our traditional ideas about democracy and open society. Because democracy assumes free will from individuals — that nobody can manipulate us beyond a certain point. And it’s the same with the free economy, that, you know, the customer is always right. In the end corporations say customers have free will. But once corporations and governments have the ability to hack humans, then there is no longer free will — they know how to manipulate me. We’re seeing it happening now on a small scale, but increasingly on a big scale. You have the smartest people in the world coming out of Harvard, and M.I.T., and Stanford, over the last 10 years, working on the problem of how to make you click on ads. And they succeeded because they hacked our brains. They discovered that the easiest way to grab your attention is to press the hate button, the fear button, the anger button in your brain. And they discover what you already fear, or what you already hate, and they show you maybe a fake news story about that, and you have an irresistible urge to click on it. What did he say this time? What did he do this time? It’s really more powerful than you are. This is a game changer. We are still working with the ideological and philosophical ideas of Plato and Aristotle and Kant, and the Enlightenment thinkers, but they did not have to deal with machine-learning systems that can hack human beings. I have a deep faith in the ability of democracy to reinvent itself. The advantage of democracy over dictatorships and all other

systems is that democratic governments are more willing to acknowledge their own shortcomings and mistakes. Or if nothing helps, then they can just be replaced by another government. So democracies are more adaptable, but we have to be very clear about the nature of the threat we are facing. And really I think we need to, first of all, acknowledge the weakness of human beings. The easiest people to manipulate are those who believe in complete free will, that anything I choose is my own — I do it for my own freedom. Realizing that, no, you now live in a world where there are outside systems that can hack you is the first step towards building a more resilient democratic system. MR. MITSOTAKIS: Two points. First of all, on the value of classical philosophy, I would argue that the thinkers of the past were very good at, first of all, trying to interpret a world they could not understand. That’s what made them extremely powerful. And it’s sort of the same thought process that we need to go through now. We ask questions which we don’t know the answer to. But we’re forced to come up with some answer because these are extremely relevant questions. To the issue of data manipulation, it is already happening: All the big tech companies are making a lot of money by using data which we consciously, or maybe unconsciously, provide them with, and making sure they offer us what they think is of interest to us. I don’t remember who the CEO was, but it was a CEO of a big consumer goods company who said that, “I know that 50 percent

of my advertisement is money well spent; I just don’t know what 50 percent.” Well, now we know. That data can be used by private companies, but it can also be used by the state. The state, first of all, has the obligation to make data available publicly. I’m a big believer in open data to the extent that is nonpersonalized — because that data can be a force for good because there’s lots of technologies that are also being developed. We talk about A.I. and let’s say — and you’ve written on this — autonomous driving. And, yes, it may destroy jobs; but it will also save [lives]. You know, more than a million people die every year. We talk about how Covid is an opportunity to talk about the value of human life above all. Well, let’s think also about that angle [when it comes to data]. Last point you raised about democracy — I think democracy can self-correct. We saw it in Greece after 10 years of populism. We have a government now that is, I would term, a liberal, moderate, reform-oriented government that wants to make big changes, and that enjoys a great degree of public support. Would that have been possible five years ago? I don’t know. Honestly, I don’t know. But after 10 years of crisis and experimenting with populists, in our case on the left, Greek society was ready, and through an open democratic process chose to place their faith in us. And in three years we will again go to the polls and, you know, if they like us, they will probably vote for us again. If not, they will choose something else. And that is the beauty of democracy

and its ability to self-correct. Look at the history of other crises; look at the ’30s in the U.S. and how leaders came up with extremely bold responses. These were democratic responses. But they also had a significant level of public support. Because at the end of the day no democracy, no matter how strong it is, can impose big changes by simply referring to an electoral mandate. Because at some point they need to implement policies, and when they implement policies, they need to have enough people on board to at least give them the benefit of the doubt that the policies will move in the right direction. MS. ALDERMAN: It sounds like the both of you do have faith that democracy and democratic systems will overcome these challenges. At the same time, for example, I’m getting a lot of questions from our viewers on, once again, this issue of the rise of autocratic regimes around the world, and again, the role that technology is playing in sort of telegraphing that message in an exponential way. People are interested in knowing is the world going to basically turn more autocratic in the coming years, perhaps partly because of the major opening that the coronavirus is providing? Are we going to see a kind of clash of civilizations emerging? MR. HARARI: I don’t know. It depends on the decisions that people around the world take in the coming months and years. History is not deterministic. We still have agency. We still have the power to decide such things. The danger is that once you go autocratic there is no way back. I mean, again, the big

advantage of democracy is democracies sometimes are more slow, because it’s not about convincing one person; you need compromise, you need to convince a lot of people. But if they make a mistake it’s much more easy to acknowledge it and try something else. With an autocratic regime whenever they make a mistake they just can blame others, demand even more power for themselves. And once the authoritarian regime is in power, under modern conditions it’s extremely difficult to shake it off from within. If you look at truly totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union, no matter how bad they were, it was impossible to overthrow them from within. They could be overthrown only from above, like in the Soviet Union, when the leadership itself decided that it was time to try something else, or from outside, like in the case of Nazi Germany — but not from within. Once people make the choice, “Oh, let’s try an authoritarian regime,” it’s not “let’s try”; it’s for life, in many cases. So it’s an extremely dangerous path to go [down], and unfortunately there are many countries now on the verge of making this dangerous choice. MR. MITSOTAKIS: I think the big challenge will be reinventing the state within the democratic context. Because the pandemic has proven that the state is important, and especially in times of crisis has a big role to play, and it cannot be replaced either by, you know, individual free will or by the markets. That I think was a very clear lesson of the pandemic. And I think that there are clearly competing

Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis of Greece at the 2020 Athens Democracy Forum. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

visions of how to organize societies. Speaking from the perspective of a democratic leader, we have an obligation to at least look at what’s happening in the East. First of all, I think Eastern societies — and I’m talking about democratic societies in the East — have been much better at imposing what we call “social discipline.” And there’s a question to be asked: Why is this happening? What is their set of priorities? What is their set of values? Why do they value maybe human life, and what you call “free will” discipline — I’ve tried to be very careful in my terminology — over the right to party, for example? And they’ve been more successful. We should be very honest with that. There are also aspects of good governance that are interesting. This is going to be provocative; this is a question I’m raising, but it’s

provocative — if Singapore pays its civil servants and also its ministers very, very high salaries that are competitive with the private sector, could this ever happen in the West? If it doesn’t happen — and I’m not sure it will happen — then you need a different calling for public service. As it has happened in the past: People entered public service not because they were well paid, but because there was a sense of greater good that was being served. But if there’s one thing which is a given, it’s that as a state we have to be competitive vis-à-vis the private sector in terms of how we use technology. We cannot outsource technological progress to the private sector. But this will happen if all the smart people end up working for Silicon Valley rather than working for the government.

MS. ALDERMAN: We’re just about to run out of time here. Let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, do you have a question for Yuval? MR. MITSOTAKIS: Ah, yes. Well, I actually asked him what is his next book. And how do you communicate very complex ideas in a simple way, which I think he’s very good at. And he told me that he was writing a ... MR. HARARI: Yeah, we are now just about to publish a graphic novel, a comic book for adults, which tells the history of the world in a very different way. It was fun to write it. I mean, it’s the most fun thing I’ve ever done. I didn’t draw, myself; I draw like a 5-year-old kid. I teamed up with experts, with artists in Belgium and France, and it’s just coming out. And the idea is, you know, to bridge the gap between the scientific

community and the general public, to provide people with the latest findings of science but in a fun, engaging way with comics, with fictional characters. I hope it’s good. MR. MITSOTAKIS: Well, I’m a big believer in the value of history. And if you want to read one text which is relevant given the context, revisit Pericles’ Funeral Oration, which was written at a time when democratic Athens was struck by a plague. It’s a magnificent eulogy to the power of democracy in a time of crisis. MS. ALDERMAN: Well, that is excellent advice and the perfect note for us to wrap up on. Thank you both very much for being here, for sharing your views. Some desperation and a lot of worry has been coming up during this extraordinary period. But the both of you have also given us a lot of hope and hopefully a way forward. `

President Trump and President Xi Jinping of China about to shake hands after delivering joint statements at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing in 2017. (Credit: Damir Sagolj/Reuters)

Corporations Must Do Their Part to Preserve Democracy

orporate social responsibility must protect democracy and favor open and just societies at home and abroad. As the Scottish Enlightenment thinker and economist Adam Smith wrote more than 250 years ago, “a lack of beneficence will make a society uncomfortable, but the prevalence of injustice will utterly destroy it.” Corporations whose prosperity depends on liberal democratic institutions should reassess their strategic decisions to determine if they are, in any way, undermining

DAVID J. TEECE Professor of global business at the University of California, Berkeley, the director of the Haas School’s Tusher Initiative for the Management of Intellectual Capital and a co-founder of the Berkeley Research Group

those institutions. This isn’t just about regulatory compliance — such as adhering to sanctions or money-laundering laws — it’s about thinking ahead with a stewardship perspective and a deep care for democracy, open societies, justice and the rule of law. Other issues, except possibly those related to the environment, pale in significance. In the post-World War II era, the flourishing of international business led to considerable prosperity, particularly as American and European multinational corporations

helped diffuse technology and best practices worldwide, especially to the newly industrializing countries of Asia. The creation or restoration of democratic systems in Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea and Taiwan, coupled with the willingness of these nations to participate in a global system of reasonably free trade and intellectual property protection, led to prosperity from which shareholders and other stakeholders benefited. The success of

China does whatever it can to thrive economically, putting freedom and prosperity at risk for the rest of the world

multinationals, particularly those operating in the tech sector, stemmed in large measure from liberal democratic practices in their home countries, including public research funding, engagement with institutions of higher learning and adherence to the rule of law. An article from the National Science Foundation notes, for instance, that in 1998 Google’s founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, “obtained funding that allowed them to move their growing hardware facility from the Stanford University campus into a friend’s garage and to incorporate Google Inc.” Small dollars, maybe, but that was likely quite important at the time. However, as George Shultz, the former United States secretary of state, noted at Stanford last year, “we created a secure, global economic commons, which is now coming apart.” Doing business abroad is difficult if the relevant regulatory structures don’t treat domestic and foreign firms similarly, and if the letter and spirit of trade agreements are violated. Recent developments in China are particularly disturbing. Since President Xi Jinping took control in 2012, the Chinese Communist Party has pursued policies and actions that undermine many foreign firms in socalled “strategic” industries. One example: After DuPont abandoned its joint venture with Zhangjiagang Glory Chemical Industry Company in 2013 because executives suspected that their former Chinese partner might be

stealing DuPont’s intellectual property, the company became subject to antitrust action for its unwillingness to license its technology to a local firm. The Chinese Communist Party has the ability to build the technological prowess to coerce and conquer competitors, and it does whatever necessary to win commercially, including undermining democracy when it stands in the way. This is true as it relates to the industries of the future — 5G, artificial intelligence, biotech — and to those of the present, including semiconductors and photovoltaic cells. The issues at hand involve what economists call “externalities,” which range from pollution to the sale and theft of intellectual property. Positive and negative spillovers from commercial activities are not fully priced in the market. The willingness of one firm to sell or transfer technology will be amplified when it believes that if it doesn’t, its competitors will. To avoid being penalized further, foreign firms expanding in China tend not to speak out about the unfair regulatory treatment they face. This works to China’s benefit, as it is difficult for corporations to prevent their technology and trade secrets from being misappropriated or extracted through soft coercion if they do not discuss the regulatory challenges they face publicly. Short-term profits are the bribe China pays to convince foreign firms to transfer their

technologies and capabilities. But it isn’t just the Chinese Communist Party that is at fault. Chief executives and board members of some American, British and European companies take the short-term view and allow for the transfer (by grant, sale or theft) of technology. Corporate leaders also cut research and development funding when shareholder activists show up at their doors. These companies might also spend so much on hefty stock buybacks that they struggle to invest for the future. Such financial decisions impair leadership and stewardship, as well as diminish social and political responsibility. This behavior needs to be addressed by corporate management, not just by governments. Corporate boards and executive leaders need to speak out and act with a higher purpose, even if short-term costs and implicit penalties are levied by Chinese authorities. Many issues are existential, as they impact not just international business, but democracy itself. Weak economies and job losses flowing from the forfeiture of technological leadership have serious political and social implications. The decreased economic prowess of corporations within liberal democracies has ramifications that extend to national and international security, all the way to the survival of the global economic commons itself. But it is important to note that

the Chinese people are not the enemy. It is the Chinese Communist Party that has become the enemy of democracy by aggressively positioning China as a strategic rival of the United States, Europe and Japan. Still, multinational corporations cannot, and should not, decouple from China completely; there is simply too much to gain, for both parties. Multinationals should continue to trade with China in many categories, including some high-tech products, but they must engage with their eyes wide open. Unilateral efforts to deny China access to leading-edge products will rarely work in the longer term, hence the need for international collaboration in research and technology development. Only if Europe, the United States and the IndoPacific region act as one will democracy survive. In addition, government involvement may be necessary to avoid having domestic antitrust laws stand in the way of enterprise-level cooperative embargoes. Continued commercial engagement will be mutually beneficial, at least as interim arrangements, until broader strategic issues can be assessed. Liberal democracies must also double down on their commitment to provide sufficient financial and human resources to science, technology and innovation if they want to maintain their edge with respect to technological leadership — a critical enabler of democracy

and freedom. When investing in new technology, they must pay as much attention to capturing value as to creating value for their stakeholders. Adam Smith, the original champion of an open global nonmercantilist system, believed that individuals and businesses must have a clear moral compass, and they must act as if there was an “impartial spectator” looking over their shoulders. A good proxy for Smith’s independent spectator is a well-informed, next-generation citizenry knowing that its freedom and prosperity are at risk. Many corporate codes of conduct already acknowledge the need for a moral compass. For instance, Google’s founders in a 2004 letter filed with their initial public offering prospectus advocated “don’t be evil” as the firm’s guiding principle. This morphed in 2015 into “do the right thing” as the corporate motto of Google and its new parent company, Alphabet. Peter Thiel, the cofounder of PayPal, recently critiqued what he says he believes is Google’s naïveté as it conducts A.I. research with China while simultaneously refusing to do business with the U.S. Department of Defense. Chief executives and boards that take corporate social responsibility seriously must recognize their duty to protect and enhance the health of the open societies in which they flourish and the democratic processes and the rule of law on which they depend.

A demonstrator in London holds a placard outside of Google’s offices in January 2019. A global coalition of 60 human rights and media groups signed an open letter the previous month urging Sundar Pichai, the company’s chief executive, to scrap the Dragonfly project, a censored search engine intended for China. Months later, the company confirmed that the project had been stopped. (Credit: Ben Stansall/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)

Protest Movements Without a Public Face Do 21st-century social struggles need traditional leaders, or are they better off without them?

or a movement without publicly identifiable leaders or clearly articulated goals, France’s “Yellow Vests” have proved remarkably durable. Since late 2018, their protests have surged periodically through the streets of Paris and other French cities, representing a grab bag of character types and social categories, a shifting list of demands and tactics that have ranged from peaceable marches to arson and vandalism. The Yellow Vests were back on Sept. 12, with a modest demonstration that gathered 8,500 protesters across the nation, including 2,500 in Paris, according to official figures. There were the usual mixed messages, mostly reflecting fear of economic insecurity, and mix of participants, including about 50 discothèque owners and independent chauffeurs seeking to draw attention to their particular struggles during the coronavirus pandemic. The amorphous Yellow Vest movement fits a pattern seen

around the world in recent years — from the antigovernment demonstrations during the Arab Spring of 2011 to those now recurring in the Belarusian capital, Minsk, and the Russian city of Khabarovsk; from the continuing Black Lives Matter movement in the United States to the Londonbased Extinction Rebellion, with its do-it-yourself campaign against climate change. There is something very 21st century about “leaderless” movements, all of them propelled and amplified by the formidable power of social media, which can with a click of a button summon protesters to a given place at a given time, armed with a set of slogans. Some messaging apps have added a new, more democratic dimension, with polling features that allow group members to vote on where to go, and what to do. These campaigns — some, like the #MeToo movement, today exist almost entirely online — still require coordination, decision-

making and communication skills in the traditional sense, but nothing like the laborious organizing, sustained personal presence and charismatic individual leadership that galvanized the American civil rights movement in the 1950s and ’60s. Leaderless protests are not new. What matters is the way they evolve. Few remember who led the Paris mob that stormed the Bastille on July 14, 1789; Robespierre, Danton and others were to appear later in the French Revolution. Almost two centuries later, violent street protests in Paris and across France in May 1968 did not lead to immediate political reforms, but they did usher in enduring social and cultural changes.

CELESTINE BOHLEN Former foreign correspondent for The New York Times, serving in Budapest, Rome and twice in Moscow.

Nor are history’s accolades always fair: Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. get the credit for leading their movements, but there were many others, mostly forgotten, who shared their struggles and triumphs. “I think that, to be very honest, the movement made

Demonstrators demanding the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak charged their phones as the 2011 protests in Cairo’s Tahrir Square entered their third week. (Credit: Suhaib Salem/Reuters)

Individuals who come to embody their crusades also make easy targets for governments, which can try to undermine or cripple a movement by arresting or discrediting its most prominent public representatives.

The question for today’s leaderless movements is whether they can maintain their focus and effectiveness in the absence of a public face. Without a Gandhi or a King, without action plans, without internal discipline, can popular outrage — typically the source of these disparate crusades — be translated into an agenda for change? Much depends on why these

movements erupt in the first place. The demonstrators who poured into Tahrir Square in Cairo in 2011, or the streets of Algeria in 2019, went there to oppose existing governments. And in many cases, such mass mobilizations work, at least in the short run: Both President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria were forced out of office.

On the sixth day of protests over the French government's plans to overhaul the pension system in 2019, yellow-vested demonstrators gathered at the Lion de Belfort in the Montparnasse district of Paris. (Credit: Christophe Archambault/ Agence FrancePresse — Getty Images)

“If you want to express the fears and hopes of a community — like in Tahrir — you don’t need a boss, you don’t need a face,” said Vincent Martigny, a professor of political science at the University of Nice and the École Polytechnique. “When the goals are negative, protest movements can be effective,” said Yascha Mounk, a political scientist and an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “All you want is to get the leader out.” It is still too early to talk about the success of these continuing “horizontal” movements, where the choice to remain leaderless is a deliberate challenge to “vertical” — that is, traditional and hierarchical — power structures. “These new movements do not need an intellectual vanguard to provide them with an ideology because they already have one: the rejection of intellectual vanguards and embrace of multiplicity and horizontal democracy itself,” wrote David Graeber, a leading

Martin rather than Martin making the movement,” said Ella Baker, a veteran civil rights activist, in 1968. “That is not a discredit to him.”

figure in the Occupy Wall Street movement and a professor at the London School of Economics, in a December 2018 article. (Mr. Graeber died in September.) For a year, the Hong Kong protesters deliberately avoided structured leadership, borrowing their rallying cry from a famous Bruce Lee quote: “Be formless, shapeless, like water.” This approach allowed them to be mobile, adaptable and to some extent anonymous, dodging arrests with rapid messages transmitted over countless encrypted Telegram channels. But even this strategy was not enough to protect them from the Chinese government’s draconian crackdown over the summer, which resulted in a wave of arrests. Some activists were even caught at sea trying to flee to Taiwan.

Other protest movements have local and national organizers, but they remain mostly on the sidelines, in the shadows or even out of the country, as in the case of Stepan Svetlov, a 22-yearold Belarusian blogger now living in Poland who has helped mobilize the Minsk demonstrations. “It’s the people who are initiating this whole process against Lukashenko and the regime,” Mr. Svetlov told The New York Times, referring to the Belarusian president, Aleksandr G. Lukashenko. “We are just helping them to achieve this.” The recent arrests and forced exile of locally based opposition figures have so far not stopped the weekly protests. Lyubov Sobol, a top ally of the recently poisoned and hospitalized Russian opposition leader Aleksei Navalny, also discounted the role of public leaders in the frequent protests in the city

of Khabarovsk in Russia’s Far East. “The people are coming out for themselves, not because a leader told them to,” she told The Moscow Times.

resentment against an elite perceived as distant and arrogant, as well as anxiety about an economy that has left many behind and struggling.

Activists in the Black Lives Matter movement cite the example of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee from the civil rights era, which was led by community-based organizers. “Strong people don’t need strong leaders,” was the famous saying of Ms. Baker, who was one of the committee’s founders.

The gasoline tax was suspended, but the main achievement of the Yellow Vests was making their voices heard.

This fluid democratic approach is also characteristic of the Yellow Vests, who take their name from the high-visibility vests French drivers are required to keep on hand for emergencies. The Yellow Vests came into the streets in late 2018 to protest an increase in a gasoline tax. But their protests quickly widened, and they came to represent popular

“They are a democratic warning, a wake-up call, which is a positive thing,” Mr. Martigny said. “They reminded the government that the search for equality is essential for French society.” There are definite drawbacks to these horizontal movements. A lack of control — not only over a movement’s followers but also its message — can lead to the kind of lawlessness and violence that have erupted at the edges of demonstrations led by Black Lives Matter, the Hong Kong protests and the Yellow Vest protests. “A lack of organization means that they can’t say ‘This is not us,’” Mr. Mounk said. “The same is true of issues.” To contain this lawlessness, movements require traditional leaders. The problem, Mr. Martigny said, is that choosing them necessarily requires compromise, something that today’s protest movements tend to resist.

3.BORDEAUX, FRANCE — Demonstrators marked the first anniversary of the Yellow Vest movement in Bordeaux, France, in 2019. A year earlier, at the height of the movement, a mass protest in Paris drew almost 300,000 people. (Credit: Mehdi Fedouach/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)

“If you want to propose something new, the world is made in such a way that you need faces,” Mr. Martigny said. “If you have no one to propose, that makes it difficult.”

Dolores Huerta: “We Have to Keep on Marching” Fifty years after a historic victory for farm workers in california, the civil rights icon feels optimistic about the new generation of activists. Dolores Huerta (Juana Chávez)

hen she was in her 20s, Dolores Huerta witnessed the aftermath of the “Bloody Christmas” attacks in Los Angeles in 1951, in which more than four dozen police officers beat seven young men in their custody, five of whom were MexicanAmerican. This and other instances of police brutality against people of color — she was herself assaulted by police in 1988 at a protest in San Francisco — propelled Ms. Huerta into a life of activism. The images of Black men and women beaten or killed at the hands of police today, like the images of the Los Angeles episode so many decades ago, are reminders of a seemingly intractable problem in America. “I think the whole policing problem needs to be solved

because the police have been militarized,” Ms. Huerta said in a recent interview. “They are being trained like soldiers, trained to kill, and that’s what they’re doing. That’s crazy.” As the United States finds itself again gripped in racerelated turmoil, Ms. Huerta is nevertheless optimistic that recent demonstrations and grass-roots efforts will lead to change. She has seen it happen before: It has been 50 years since the California grape strike resulted in a resounding victory for farm workers’ rights and became a flash point for racial and economic justice in the nation. Ms. Huerta, along with the labor activist César Chávez, was at the center of that campaign, organizing a yearslong boycott of California table grapes and wine that eventually drew support from millions of people in the United States and other countries. Much like today’s activists on the streets demanding racial

and social justice, Ms. Huerta faced fierce opposition, political hostility and constant threats, but she never wavered. Her words, “Sí, se puede” (“Yes, we can”) became a slogan for a movement that ultimately shielded farm workers from exploitative labor practices and won them fairer wages as well as collective bargaining rights. Born in New Mexico and raised in California, Ms. Huerta ascended to the forefront of the American labor movement in the 1960s alongside Mr. Chávez. In 1962, they formed the National Farm Workers Association — today known as the United Farm Workers — to advance the economic welfare of farm laborers. As the U.F.W. made strides through boycotts, strikes and marches, Ms. Huerta became one of the most vocal leaders of what she described as a cultural revolution for farm workers. She stood out as the only

woman leading a movement dominated by men. President Obama awarded Ms. Huerta the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2012, the nation’s highest honor for civilians, drawing laughter when he quipped that he had “stolen” her slogan. “Knowing her,” Mr. Obama said at the time, “I’m pleased that she let me off easy — because Dolores does not play.” Today, Ms. Huerta, 90, continues to advocate on behalf of Latino and farmworking communities as the president of the Dolores Huerta Foundation, which she founded in 2002, two years after her departure from the U.F.W. We spoke to Ms. Huerta about today’s social movements, gender equality and her views on the state of American democracy. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity. How do you feel about the state of the country right now?

CARLOS ANDRES LOPEZ

The pandemic has hit us very, very hard. At the same time, it has highlighted so many of the issues that we have had with us for so many decades: racism, income inequality, the way women are treated, our educational system — which we know is lacking — our judicial system, our criminal justice system. It’s really spotlighted a lot of the deficits that we have in our society and the things that need to be addressed. But young people are the ones out there pushing the envelope right now with the Black Lives Matter marches. And it’s not just Black and brown people. I think that’s really, really promising for the country. Throughout your life, in addition to your work with the labor movement, you’ve advocated to increase the number of women in positions of power. What are your thoughts on the progress that America has made with regard to gender equality? I would say that women, like the Black Lives Matter movement, have been pushing the envelope with the #MeToo movement — and we see progress. Some 25 percent of the U.S. Congress is now women. In some states like Nevada, women are a majority in the state legislature. In California, I think we have like 38 women. So we do see that there’s a lot of progress. But considering that we’re commemorating 100 years of women’s right to vote this year and we’re still not at parity, we have to keep pushing until we get to 50 percent. There are some places like Iceland that have mandated that a certain

percentage of legislators be women; we in the United States are still behind in terms of getting women in political leadership. And look at the corporate world — it’s abysmal. We need to have equal numbers of women, not only in government offices, but in public agencies and, of course, in the corporate and commercial world. And I like to say this: If you do not have equal numbers of women on a board when decisions are being made, it’s going to make the wrong decisions. You once said that, “the history of the world has always been made by mass movements of the people.” That, of course, resonates today with the Black Lives Matter movement, because demonstrations against police brutality have taken place not only here in the United States, but all over the world. And that made me think of the grape boycott in California, during which millions of people from the United States and other countries demanded workplace protections for farm workers. What is it about movements like these that make them transcend

borders? I think it’s because of the people who are involved. And this is the reason I, at the age of 90, continue to work. When people come together and take collective action, whether it’s in a march, whether it’s in a union election or, most important, come together to vote, this is how we make change. In the women’s suffrage movement, they marched and marched. Marching and protesting are important. But I like to say to people who are protesting and marching that until you put something into a law that can be implemented, that can be enforced and where people can be held accountable, we have to keep on marching right to the ballot box. We have to elect progressive people to our different public offices. Whether it’s the Congress, the presidency, our state legislature, our city council, or our local school boards. In your work in civil rights, you organized ordinary people and overcame monumental odds. What sort of advice would you give to young activists who are fighting for justice in the United States, or for

democracy and human rights in places like Belarus or Hong Kong? Well, you said it. You said the word democracy — this is it. A democracy is an active sport. If the football players don’t show up for the game, you don’t have a football game. Democracy is the same thing, if you don’t show up in terms of voting. And we have to go further than that because we know that a lot of people are not engaged. We have to say to all the young people out there: You’ve got to get engaged, you’ve got to organize. The way that you’ve organized for these marches, organize for voting. When people are organized, they can get information. They can act collectively. People are so much better informed when they belong to an organization. And that’s why unions are a critical part of the foundation of our democracy. You have often called for comprehensive immigration reform in the United States. What does an ideal immigration system look like? We have passed legalization programs about every 20

Dolores Huerta with educators and religious leaders in Tornillo, Texas, in 2018 protesting the Trump administration’s separation of undocumented families and the detention of children in the city. (Credit: Victor J. Blue/ The New York Times)

WASHINGTON, DC — President Obama presents Dolores Huerta with the Presidential Medal of Freedom at the White House in 2012. “Without any negotiating experience,” Mr. Obama said during the presentation, “Dolores helped lead a worldwide grape boycott that forced growers to agree to some of the country’s first farm worker contracts.” (Credit: Luke Sharrett/The New York Times) years. Now we’re behind — the last immigration reform bill we had was in 1986. And it’s time we just had another legalization program, basically, and to stop deporting people. Here in the Central Valley of California, the Trump administration has deported so many farm workers, yet they want to bring in farm workers under another umbrella program called the H2-A program. So, of course, if they come under the H2-A program, they don’t have any rights. They can’t organize into a union. They can’t vote. And the way that some of these H2-A workers are housed and treated, they don’t even know that we have labor laws in the state of California. It’s a hypocrisy because while they’re doing this, the administration is deporting the undocumented people that have been here, many of them for 20, 30 years. They have families here, they have children here. How do we combat anti-

immigrant views in this country? I think, again, with knowledge and information. Undocumented immigrants contribute billions of dollars to our Social Security system that they themselves will never be able to collect. They contribute with their spending, and they contribute with the sweat of their labor. They contribute the food that we get on our tables every day. So many

undocumented immigrants are working in construction, and in the service industry, in the health care industry, in the child care industry — so many of these people are undocumented. So they’re already here. Why don’t we just legalize them? And just stop spending all this government money on deportations and incarcerations.

and help. Why would people want to leave their homes to come to the United States unless they were desperate and hungry and had to come here? We need to do more in terms of our foreign relations to see how we can help countries develop their resources and not think that the resources of these countries really belong to the United States.

When I give lectures on this issue, I like to just point to one word: bananas. How many bananas do we eat every day in the United States? I just had one when my cereal this morning. How many bananas? Does the money that we spend on bananas go to Guatemala or El Salvador or Honduras, from where these immigrants are coming for asylum? No. The money that we spend on bananas goes to Chiquita or Dole — to corporations. The money never gets to the people on whose land the bananas are produced, or to the workers who do the work to bring us the bananas. This is another area where the United States of America does have to take responsibility.

You celebrated your 90th birthday in April. What would you like to see accomplished in this new decade?

We shouldn’t see our southern neighbors as people we can exploit, but as people we should support

I think that young people are the ones who are going to drag us into the 21st century and to get rid of fossil fuels, create green energy jobs and to develop an economy that will help everyone — not just a few. And I can’t say exactly how we’re going to do that, but I think that we are smart enough. We’ve got to figure out a way to do away with this brutal capitalism that we have in the United States, where you have 10 percent of the wealthy owning 90 percent of the wealth. That is wrong. We have to stop the massive incarceration of people, put more money into our educational systems and develop universal child care, universal health care. I think we can start there. `

LOS ANGELES, CA — A mural in the Paul Schrade Library at the Robert F. Kennedy Community Schools in Los Angeles featuring Senator Robert F. Kennedy, César Chávez, Dolores Huerta and Martin Luther King Jr. (Credit: Rozette Rago/The New York Times)

1. Participants at “The Power of Belief,” a panel discussion at the Athens Democracy Forum, from left to right: the moderator, Farah Nayeri, a culture writer for The New York Times, Margaritis Schinas, vice president of the European Commission, Nikitas Lulias, Greek Orthodox archbishop of Britain, and Fatima Zaman, advocate for the Kofi Annan Foundation. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

“We’ve Put People at Odds. People Can Live Together.”

he Athens Democracy Forum on global policy, held in association with The New York Times last year, brought together leaders and thinkers from the private, public and nonprofit sectors to discuss the future of democracy in a time of extreme crisis.

The panel titled “The Power of Belief” featured a thoughtful and wide-ranging discussion between Greek Orthodox Archbishop Nikitas Lulias of Britain, Fatima Zaman, advocate for the Kofi Annan Foundation, and Margaritis Schinas, vice president of the European Commission, on the roles of religion and ideology in the promotion of civil society. Are shared beliefs obstacles or guiding lights in a democracy? Religion and, more recently, identity politics can also be forces for coercion, abuse of the weak, terror, intolerance and war. Where is the balance in the modern world? The following conversation has been lightly edited for clarity. The panel description is from the forum’s program.

PANELISTS: Margaritis Schinas, vice president, European Commission Nikitas Lulias, Greek Orthodox archbishop, Britain Fatima Zaman, advocate, Kofi Annan Foundation Moderator: Farah Nayeri, culture writer, The New York Times

MS. NAYERI: Welcome back to the Athens Democracy Forum. My first question will be to Archbishop Nikitas. I heard a story before actually meeting the Archbishop, and I thought I’d first factcheck it and verify it with him, because I want to make sure I got it right. And so the story goes that the Archbishop had an invitation to speak to the One Young World group of young people in London. It was a very, very large gathering, and he was there to talk about religion, and faith, and truth, and good and evil. And as he was launching into his introduction his cellphone rang. The Archbishop picked up the phone and it was God. And the Archbishop said, “This is really not a good time,” you know, “I’m in the middle of something. Can you please get to the point?” And then there was a very brief exchange and the Archbishop hung up. And so my question to you, Archbishop, because I wasn’t there, is, you know, what was God’s message, and did he leave a voice mail or … ?

ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: Well, God did not leave a voice mail, but before I get to that let me say thank you to you, Farah, and to the Democracy Forum for not only inviting me to come to Athens — and I’m especially honored as a Greek citizen — but also to have the opportunity to be part of a panel and to share some ideas. To be brief, because we have limited time, is that we have to listen carefully to what God says. Too often I think we, even as religious leaders, listen to ourselves. We don’t hear the clear message of God. And the message of God is quite easy. It’s summed up in love, peace, goodness, harmony, tranquillity, other positive aspects of life, no matter which faith tradition you examine. Of course I look at things as a Christian. But we also have to understand that there are people who hear their own voices. You know, we hear in the Hebrew scriptures in the book of Judges that God raised up the judges to save the people from those who would

plunder them. Now, God may raise up judges these days to lead and guide the people, but I think many individuals raise themselves up and they plunder the people. MS. NAYERI: I see. ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: They lead them in the wrong direction, because the truth of God, which also comes through democracy, and hearing the voices of people, and sharing and understanding allow these things for us. But I’ll stop there so that the other panelists will have opportunities, then we’ll go into a dialogue. MS. NAYERI: Well, I’ll just ask you a follow-up. You know, there are some people who say they don’t believe in God. What would you say to them? ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: If you believe in God or not I think you still espouse and accept the same virtuous qualities in life. An atheist does not want to believe in war, or murder, or all sorts of other things. Any person with reason, and reason as a

MS. NAYERI: We had a few email exchanges, I have to say, and in one of them you said, “I am a bit radical for an orthodox clergyman. You need to get out of the past.” And I think that you really do, when one meets you in person, you’re very accessible. You’re truly very comfortable and relaxed. Do you think it’s important for men and women in your position, religious leaders, to speak to the young and to have a kind of young presence, as you do? Is that part of being more modern in religion or … ? ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: Well, I don’t know if it’s being more modern, but I think for myself and my own tradition I have to ask myself two questions. If Jesus were in my position how would he act? What would he say? What would he do? And the second question is, if the other person is Jesus, how would I treat that person? He went to the leper, to the prostitute, to the poor, to the indigent, to those suffering. And I think that is the core value system that we all have to embrace, and we

Fatima Zaman, advocate for the Kofi Annan Foundation, at the panel discussion titled “The Power of Belief” at the Athens Democracy Forum. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

human being with logic, with tradition, with understanding, with values, even if they’re cultural values, will say that we have to work for good. And our responsibility, whether we’re atheists, we’re Muslim, or Christians, or Hindus, is also to make the world a better place than we found it, so the next generation might see something more positive, but also have examples, that there are people who labored for good, for goodness and truth.

feel that especially through the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to be the most open, the most prepared for dialogue, for cooperation, not only with the Orthodox, but with other religious systems and traditions. MS. NAYERI: Let’s move on to Fatima. Fatima Zaman, as I have said, you’re an advocate for the Kofi Annan Foundation, and you define yourself as a modern Muslim. MS. ZAMAN: Yes, I do. MS. NAYERI: And you say that you remain convinced that religion or faith is a force for good, but that you recognize that it can be used as a weapon for destructive actions. MS. ZAMAN: Absolutely. MS. NAYERI: So can you develop that idea a little bit more? I mean, unfortunately we are seeing this in the world today, in almost all religions, but also in Islam, ways in which Islam has been used to justify violence. And so how do you reconcile your faith with this kind of complicated reality? MS. ZAMAN: So, Farah, I like to call myself a bit of a hybrid. I’m British, I’m Muslim and I’m South Asian, and those three identities born into me have been at odds with one another for a long time. And so as you come into your formative years you have to, as any young person, figure out, who do I want to be? I call myself a “modern” Muslim because I truly believe and I remain hopeful that faith is an integral part of modern society, it’s an integral part of democratic societies. And that is because — you

know, we are in Athens, the mecca of democracy — to bring people together of different cultures and values is something that the ancient Greeks practiced for so long. So I truly believe that religion has a place in modern-day society. However, being a Muslim, and working in countering violent extremism, being exposed myself to people who have become radicalized and chosen very violent religious ideologies as a result of certain grievances, I’ve seen both the light that religion offers and also the dark side. You know, working in countering violent extremism you see people who politicize religion, who peddle it to achieve very violent ends. And equally you see those in power who run nations also use religion as a way to enforce violence upon people. So there’s this — how can I put it? — there is this constant struggle where faith or religion is pulled by forces of good and forces of evil. And as a young, you know, modern Muslim woman, do I believe that young people need to engage with faith? Absolutely. Do I think you and I should be having these conversations as interfaith dialogues? Absolutely, because that’s when you can push out, and drown out, those evil and dark voices. MS. NAYERI: I’d like to turn to Brussels, where Mr. Schinas, vice president of the European Commission, is joining us. Mr. Schinas, you’re working very much on the issue of the European Union’s relationships with religious institutions. And I believe that there’s an

Article, Article 17, in which basically the Union pledges to respect and not prejudice the status under national law, of churches and religions, and to maintain open, transparent, and regular dialogue with churches and organizations. Of course as we know Europe has had this very, very long battle with church versus state. You know, it took many years. You know, it was only about a century ago that church and state were separated in many of these countries. And so how does a secular institution like the European Union engage in dialogue with religious institutions? MR. SCHINAS: First of all let me tell you how happy I am to join you, and a particular good morning to His Eminence Archbishop Nikitas, whom I met twenty years ago in Hong Kong, and it’s a pleasure to see him after so many years. In Europe, as you know, everybody fought everybody else forever, and basically over everything. There were so many disputes. And the religious cleavage obviously was a central part of this conflict. But since European integration kicked off almost 70 years ago there has not been a single shot fired in what is now the European Union, which clearly shows that the European Union is the world’s epicenter of peace and peaceful coexistence. One of the things that we manage to do well is to blend our identities, our values, our diversity, into a single project of communality. And of course it’s inherent in European Union politics; identity politics

is very much what Europe is about. But looking back our main tragedies, our biggest tragedies, were precisely because of identity politics leading to exclusion. There was always this careful dilemma of openness, which may lead to delusion, or closure, that will certainly lead to exclusion. So over the years the European Union, through what we now call the Charter of Fundamental Rights, found a way to reflect all this in a way that constitutes a corpus of values that we can all share in, where we do not view our journey together as “us” versus “them.” I said last year to the European Parliament, when I was invested as a commission vice president, that for me Europe is not a bulldozer that would impose on everybody else our own values and beliefs. It’s rather a mirror that reflects the diversity of our religions, of our ways of life, of our arts, culture, language, history. And this is what makes us unique in a world that it’s becoming darker and darker. MS. NAYERI: Yes, but the ... MR. SCHINAS: And the final point on Article 17. You rightly point out that Article 17 of the treaty introduces a regular dialogue with the churches and religions of communities of belief. But this is not a dialogue between the different religions and churches; it’s a dialogue between all the churches and the European institutions on the issues of the day, like migration, the economy, cohesion in society, Europe

and the world. And this gives us strength because it reinforces this sense of communality coming from different contributions. MS. NAYERI: You say that the European Union is, you know, a kind of mirror reflecting the realities of the continent of Europe. That mirror also has some sort of dark spots at the moment. You referred to some of the tragedies of the past having to do with identity politics, the Holocaust being the most important one, at least in recent times. You also, Mr. Schinas, are in charge of looking at issues of anti-Semitism, and that’s of course a reflection of how religion or how religious difference can breed true difficulties. What is the European Union doing about anti-Semitism, and combating it concretely? MR. SCHINAS: Yes, you’re absolutely right. The European Union is facing this, especially after the 10 years of the economic crisis that exacerbated lots of social inequalities, and friction, and alienated many people from politics. We do face the rising phenomena of racism, xenophobia, intolerance, hate speech, anti-Semitism, but also Islamophobia. This is again something that we are determined to fight against. We will not tolerate these voices that want basically to undo the success of 70 years of integration. We are very encouraged by the fact that as the economy in Europe improves, and as we manage to find collective ways of responding to major crises like migration, like the

pandemic, these voices will be, are, being weakened. Because the best antidote to these policies, to these phenomena, is good policies. If the European Union is perceived as an entity that can protect or empower Europeans, the voices of hatred, of extremists, of xenophobia, intolerance, anti-Semitism, will subside. So we are working very actively on this. We are also in terms of anti-Semitism trying to address major issues that have to do with the security of our Jewish communities in Europe. We are also fighting fake news, disinformation, and we are forming a very close working relationship with the platforms to make them see that they also have an interest in giving us a hand in all that. But this is of course a process; it’s not something that will happen from one day to another. MS. NAYERI: All right. Archbishop, I was going to bounce off what we just heard from Mr. Schinas in Brussels. Clearly there are religious communities in Europe today that are persecuted, that face persecution, face intolerance, face vandalism, face violence toward their places of worship. I imagine that the Greek Orthodox community in Great Britain is not one of those communities, that you’re not — that you’re very well accepted and integrated. But have you encountered this sort of identity politics and us-versus-them thinking in Britain in other ways? ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: Well, I’ve only been there about a year. But I think

people in Britain, because it’s a very mixed society, are used to working and dealing and understanding one another. But I don’t think that that is a universal truth throughout the world. We always fear — and the minister used the word, of course — the “other.” We fear the other, not only if we fear the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Roma community. So things are not only by religion. And that’s because we’ve built walls of separation and don’t sit to share in dialogue and in a meal. May I share a very brief story, and I’ll make it brief? MS. NAYERI: OK. ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: There were two monks, and they lived together for many years in peace and tolerance. And one of them went to the city, and he saw an argument on the way. And he was amazed and asked what was happening. He says to himself, “It’s an argument taking place. I’ll share it with my brother monk when I return.” He returned to the monastery. He said, “Brother, I saw the most amazing thing. I saw an argument.” The second monk said, “What’s an argument?” and he began to explain. He says, “I have an idea. I’ll take this brick and I’ll put it between us, and I’ll say it’s my brick. And you will say it’s your brick. And we will argue whose brick it is.” So the first monk took the brick and in an adamant way forced it down, and said, “Brother, this is my brick.” And the second monk says, “If you say so, it is.” Now, we can take bricks and make them ours and build

walls. Or we can take bricks and build bridges. And the time has come for religious leaders who are supposed to guide the people to build bridges. And if religious leaders can come into dialogue and take away that expression of “the other,” the “xenos,” and the word for fear, “phobia,” and put them to the side, then the followers should be real followers and follow the true religious leaders and build bridges of understanding, cooperation, and partnership. MS. NAYERI: Thank you, Archbishop. Fatima, we have a question coming in from one of our listeners or viewers today. Do you think that the religiosity of political leaders has an effect on the practice of democracy? In other words, if our political leaders are religious, as well as being political, does that actually spoil or in some way harm democracy? MS. ZAMAN: I think, Farah, that’s a great question. Before I answer it I do want to respectfully disagree with my European fellow panelist for a second here. I fundamentally disagree with the statement that Europe is a home where different religions are currently coexisting peacefully, and the account our E.U. Commission colleague gave is not the lived reality that I face in parts of Europe when I travel. I still feel unsafe, and can’t walk in parts of Eastern Europe without getting dirty looks, hearing very racially abusive remarks and being threatened with violence. So I invite him to walk the streets of Europe far more often than perhaps he may recently

have done, and leave the comfort of Brussels, where everyone is in a diplomatic community and feels very safe, and to try and answer that question more truthfully. Because I do fundamentally disagree with the notion that Europe is currently a place where I don’t experience Islamophobia, you know, almost every day. MS. NAYERI: I think it would be fair to go back to Mr. Schinas, because you’re saying to Mr. Schinas that he doesn’t have a real experience of life, which I’m sure he does. People in Brussels are also human beings I think. MS. ZAMAN: No, I didn’t say they’re not human beings. MS. NAYERI: Well, no, but I don’t think he’s in an ivory tower. So I think we need to ... MR. SCHINAS: Thank you. MS. NAYERI: So I’d like to bounce back to you, Mr. Schinas, and ask you this very real and true question, because this is a reality for many people in the European Union. I’m from Iran myself; Fatima is just describing her experiences. It is not easy for, well, people from different communities. We’ve discussed anti-Semitism. There’s also the problem of Islamophobia. And so that’s something that I guess Fatima is referring to. So what is the E.U. doing about that? MR. SCHINAS: I must say that I have heard worse things during the Brexit referendum on Europe and Brussels, so I’m sort of immunized to this sort of argument. Although the

Nikitas Lulias, Greek Orthodox archbishop of Britain, at the panel discussion titled “The Power of Belief” at the Athens Democracy Forum. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

people who were using these arguments in Britain, now they have to find a way to explain the mess they created to their compatriots. But that’s another ... MS. NAYERI: OK, yeah, that’s another issue. MR. SCHINAS: So. The European Union is a union of democracies, where the rights of minorities are protected under constitutional arrangements and community law, where we have universal systems for health and education covering everybody, where the role of women is safeguarded in family, in society and in the workplace. Europe is the world champion of human rights, of data protection, of privacy laws. We take care of our citizens and we do not have the death penalty. MS. NAYERI: What about xenophobia? MR. SCHINAS: We do not have the death penalty. If your interlocutor feels unsafe in the European Union, I would invite her to

tell us in which other block of the world she feels more protected. I do not like to engage in this sort of usagainst-them. We’re working on a project of peace and peaceful coexistence. We will not allow the forces of evil that tarnished our history and stained Europe twice in the past century to win again. MS. NAYERI: The Archbishop ... MR. SCHINAS: But frankly to be accused of being intolerant in Europe is mindblowing. MS. ZAMAN: But you cannot deny that intolerance exists in Europe. You must acknowledge that intolerance exists in Europe. You can quote constitutional arrangements but they don’t necessarily apply to the lived experiences of people of color, people of faith and minority groups. You haven’t answered my question. MS. NAYERI: Yeah, OK. Let’s go to the Archbishop, who might be able to arbitrate in this discussion. ARCHBISHOP LULIAS:

We’re pushing a religious issue of tolerance, understanding, acceptance and humanity to politicians. And politicians cannot force communities to implement law. They do their best to try to provide truth, understanding — and there is intolerance everywhere. I was born in the United States; we have lots of intolerance there, as you know. I lived in Southeast Asia; there’s intolerance there. And it’s not only Muslim, Christian; we know the Buddhists, the Hindus, the problems in Thailand, India, and all sorts of places. But religious leaders are the ones who have to guide the community and say, “Put down your swords and your weapons,” and, as scripture says, build them and make them into plowshares. MS. NAYERI: The issue that is faced by most Western democracies nowadays is the fact that organized religion is not as strong as it used to be, and it has much less impact on the people. You yourself lent

Nikitas Lulias, Greek Orthodox archbishop of Britain, and Fatima Zaman, advocate for the Kofi Annan Foundation, at the Athens Democracy Forum. (Credit: Studio Panoulis)

me a very good book called “Bad Religion,” by Ross Douthat, of The New York Times, actually. And in it he talks about how Christianity is basically kind of falling by the wayside, or receding, even though there’s so much faith in America; America is still the most religious of the great Western democracies. Official religion is receding, and you get people like Oprah Winfrey and Elizabeth Gilbert and Eckhart Tolle, who are kind of occupying the ground that religion, official religion, used to occupy. I wondered whether you agreed with that and whether you have experienced it, which is to say your authority receding and people, you know, sort of starting talk shows and TV shows, and taking your place.

the most comprehensive guarantees for peaceful coexistence, values, and fighting hate, and promoting understanding. Europe is the epicenter of all this. Now, there is, I concede, an issue of implementation on the ground. There are issues where local and sometimes regional, national governments, would have to assume the cost of enforcing these principles and values on the ground. This is not something that can be done from Brussels. But at the same time, what we should continue to strive for is an understanding of each other.

young people. So a couple

are the common values

MS. NAYERI: Right, OK.

MS. NAYERI: Mr. Schinas, do you agree with that description of Europe as a place where, you know, kids from different religions wouldn’t be able to play together in the same street?

MS. NAYERI: I have to interrupt you there because we’ve only got one minute left, and I wanted to go back to Fatima for this final minute. Fatima, you are saying that there is this xenophobia that is, according to you, rampant in Europe. What is your — in 30 seconds — what is your prescription? What do you recommend for us to get rid of or minimize this problem?

ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: And “I want spirituality in my own way, my own understanding, and what suits me, and makes me feel good.” It’s not

MR. SCHINAS: Look, I think one has to distinguish between the fact that in Europe — both Europe and the nations in Europe — offer

MS. ZAMAN: So again, I stand by the challenge that I’ve put to this panel, in that I do believe it is the lived experience of many

ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: I’ll make it very fast and simple. It’s in that phrase that everyone uses: “Oh, I’m spiritual; I’m not religious.”

that way. MS. NAYERI: So what way is it? ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: Well, first of all it depends on the faith tradition. But it all comes down to truth, values, acceptance, love. You know, I use the example — in the United States, on one street, one person can be Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Atheist, and all the children play together. You take those same families, put them in the old world, and they want to shoot each other. MS. NAYERI: The old world? What is the old world? ARCHBISHOP LULIAS: Well, Europe in many ways. Southeast Asia in other ways. We’ve put people at odds. People can live together.

of things. Depoliticization. At the moment I think religion is hyper-politicized, not just in Europe, but, as the bishop said, in other parts of the world. Depoliticizing religion — for me, personally, is bringing it back to the element of faith centered around common values, common ideals and common leadership. So it’s not whether you’re a red faith, or a blue faith, or a green faith, to pick colors; it’s about whether you stand for peace, equality, justice and fraternity, and all these things. These that I would prescribe to depoliticize faith and to depoliticize religion, but also to bring different groups of people together and build harmony, as you said before. MS. NAYERI: I think that’s a really good note to end on. As expected, our panel on religion got a little bit, you know, controversial. But I suppose that is to be expected. We were very, very happy to be here with you this morning. Thank you so much.

Interview with Ketevan Vashakidze, President of Europe Foundation

ou represent

instilling distrust towards

authoritarian, many are

a foundation

them. Increasingly common

extremely poor, vulnerable

that has been

became attacks on human

and marginalized, and

working for

rights defenders and CSO

access to quality education,

decades to strengthen

representatives. All of these

health care, jobs and

Georgia’s civil society.

limits space for civil society,

decent living conditions

What are the challenges

further diminishing the CSO’s

is inadequate, the civil

confronting civil societies

access to media, policy-

sector has more difficulties

globally, and are these

formation process, and public

in mobilizing citizens to

challenges different in

space to protest injustice

positively influence the

Georgia?

and human rights violations.

state and society to build

The civil sector shares many

During the pandemic, these

inclusive, democratic state.

challenges have become

Consequently, CSOs need

particularly dire, fueling

much more support and

countries where democratic

further crises.

resources to bring about

institutions are weak, poverty

Today, liberal democracy

positive changes.

rates are high, and citizens

faces multiple challenges.

What do you think is

are unable to play an active

Several Eastern European

the solution in such

part in the country’s political,

countries, which until recently

challenging situations,

economic, and social life, the

have been the role-models

and what should the civil

challenges are more acute.

of democratization, have

sector do to address these

These challenges include

introduced regulations

challenges?

restrictive legislations or

that limit opportunities for

inadequate implementation

CSOs. However, despite

Europe Foundation is an

of laws that enable the work

the fact that the anti-liberal

civil society organizations

sentiments and movements

(CSOs); various barriers to

are emerging around the

accessing and sustaining

world, in the countries where

financial resources for

democratic institutions are

CSOs; environment that

strong, the civil society sector

hinders citizens’ access to

is effective in maintaining

decision-making. Recently,

its space and fulfilling its

we have also observed

mission. Whereas, in

government-backed negative

countries like Georgia,

discourse towards CSOs,

where institutions are weak,

aimed at stigmatizing or

the government is more

similar challenges in different regions of the world but in

infrastructural organization that supports strengthening of CSOs in Georgia. The mission of Europe Foundation is to empower people to effect change for social justice and economic prosperity through hands-on programs, helping them to improve their communities and their own lives. The Foundation engages citizens in social, economic, and

political developments, in

people to volunteer, acquire

level of flexibility for our

effort in supporting disabled

order to effect substantive

new skills in leadership and

organizational resilience

persons’ organizations

and sustainable positive

community mobilization, and

which was necessary for

(DPOs). In 2020 Europe

socio-economic change

equips them with resources

reducing the negative effects

Foundation has issued 36

at the local, regional, and

to select, fund, and oversee

of the pandemic on one

grants in total to the CSOs

national level through both

small youth-led initiatives

hand and for succeeding

and young people initiative

operational programs and

that address salient for local

in accomplishing our

supporting projects for

grantmaking. The Europe

communities issues.

long-term objectives on

mobilizing communities to

Foundation’s programs

Has the pandemic changed

the other. Flexible but

protect environment, better

strategic approach allowed

integrating persons with

us to provide much needed

disabilities, allowing them

Foundation?

support to our partner CSOs

to access public services,

Although the pandemic

to address the ongoing and new challenges posed by the pandemic. We could observe that CSOs that are strong institutionally and have close affiliation with the communities they serve have managed to better navigate the volatile environment of the pandemic and have continued to successfully advocate for their rights and interests. As the pandemic affected vulnerable groups the most, to reduce the negative effect of the pandemic on persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, the Foundation has put extra

learn social and emotional

enable various interest groups to voice their opinions and take active role in designing public policies and legislation. The Foundation advocate for and support groups that put on the political agenda the needs and interests of the most vulnerable. We bring evidence to policymaking and mobilize local and international support to advance the idea of inclusive society. We also believe that

the goals, objectives, and approaches of the

is one of the major global crises, which among other challenges, has disrupted the way CSOs operate, it has not changed the focus of our work or the Foundation’s mission. As the pandemic has upended people’s lives and exacerbated challenges faced by local communities in Georgia, we have remained

civic education, especially

focused on our mission to

among youth, is essential

support civil society in its

for strengthening civil

pursuit to provide citizens

society in Georgia. Hence,

with opportunities to engage

the Foundation’s Youth

for the benefit of their

Integration Program provides

communities.

opportunities for young

In 2020, we accepted the

skills, advocate for minority rights, activate engagement mechanisms in public decisions on local level, etc. There were other positive developments in the sector. With the encouragement from Europe Foundation, the Ministry of Finance of Georgia joined Europe Foundation in becoming a steward of the Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT). GIFT membership will facilitate increased CSO participation in fiscal policy making in Georgia. For more accountable and transparent public policy making in Georgia, the Foundation also launched a new initiative, Watchdog

The mission of Europe Foundation is to empower people to effect change for social justice and economic prosperity through handson programs, helping them to improve their communities and their own lives.

Reporting for Change, which aims at empowering journalists, media outlets, and civil society actors to expose instances of poor governance in Georgia through fact-finding, reporting and advocacy. To further advance the participatory policy-making process, Europe Foundation continued to push forward the coordinated work for the gender sensitive 2021-2025 SME Strategy.

Fiscal Transparency of Georgia does the budget meet the real needs of citizens? in order to take into account the needs of the population in the budget, but in reality the state does not do that. On the other hand, there is no relevant experience in the civil sector for them get involved in the budget process in a timely and proactive manner, and for them to participate in budgeting at the planning stage,” Baramia, further stated.

ccording to the Open Budget Survey of International Budget Partnership, Georgia amassed 81 points out of 100 maximum points in the 2019 Open Budget Rankings. This data reflects the Georgian government’s open stance on the availability of budget related information to the public. Upon first glance, one would think that the open budget process in Georgia didn’t have any challenges, but in reality this is not the case.

information is provided to the population in understandable manner is an important question. According to our observations, in most cases the state publishes budget information in such a complex and unprocessed format that it is impossible to actually use these documents. Moreover, neither the media nor the civil society has sufficient competence to process budget reports,” Victor Baramia, Program Manager of Europe Foundation clarified.

“The problem is not the lack of information, but the form of information delivery. How and to what extent the budget

He explained that the problem is even more serious in terms of participatory budgeting.

According to the same Open Budget Rankings, public participation in the budgeting process is rated at 28 points, which means that the public in Georgia is practically not allowed to participate in the budgeting process. “When we say that the involvement of citizens in the budgeting process is low, we do not mean that there are no mechanisms for their involvement in the legislation. The point is that there is a lack of practical application of these mechanisms. For example, both central and municipal governments are obliged to organize meetings with citizens at the budget planning stage

According to him, there are a number of mechanisms for citizen participation in the formal budgeting process. Among them is the general assembly of the community, the petition, the council of civil advisors, the participation in the meetings of the Tbilisi City Council and the Tbilisi City Council commission, the hearing of reports on the work of the Mayor and the members of Tbilisi City Council, etc. “We believe that the real use of these mechanisms will be a precondition for creating a citizen-centered budget, but there is a lot of work to be done before we can get these results,” Baramia also shared some optimistic views. The Foundation has started systematic work on budget transparency and decided to collaborate with an

with the involvement of citizens. Mindia Salukvadze, the founder of the House of Progress, says that expanding the knowledge and capacity building of civil society organizations has also affected the budget process.

international partner on budget transparency last year. Europe Foundation joined Global Initiative for Fiscal Transparency (GIFT), a network that brings together 50 international fiscal institutions, governments, and civil society organizations last year. GIFT facilitates dialogue between parties and finds ways to achieve fiscal transparency and encourage participation in a bid to overcome various challenges. The Foundation, in collaboration with GIFT, has begun to take active steps to ensure real openness of state budget information on the one hand, and to assist the civil society, media and citizens in raising awareness so that they can be more effectively involved in the budgeting process. “We wanted to work with an international player who

works globally and has considerable experience in implementing open budgeting principles,” Victor Baramia shed more light on the cooperation of Europe Foundation with GIFT. Europe Foundation, together with its global partner (GIFT), has launched a number of initiatives and is now implementing them. Grants will be awarded to enhance budget transparency and monitoring to facilitate participatory budgeting. As a result, a series of trainings were conducted for civil society organizations with the participation of GIFT network members so that they can actually acquire the knowledge and skills needed to be involved in the budget cycle. Through the collaboration with GIFT, the Foundation has also been able to translate literature that provides information to the interested public about

the development of fiscal and budgetary policies, as well as opportunities for involvement in this process. “Cooperation with GIFT helps us to share the experience of our international partners with local civil society organizations on how to implement budget openness in times of crisis, as well as how to create budget data in response to a crisis. A series of trainings were conducted for civil society organizations working on the issues of persons with disabilities, on how to assess their needs and determine the costs of receiving tailored social services,” Victor Baramia continued. A good example among the initiatives in terms of participatory budgeting is the case of Ozurgeti, where it became possible to implement important infrastructure and other projects for the municipality

“Last year was an unprecedented year in terms of participatory budgeting in Ozurgeti municipality. 300,000 GEL was allocated from the local budget to finance projects initiated by citizens. A project was implemented, according to which citizens were able to submit important initiatives to the local government and then advocate for the financing of their own projects through civic activism. More than 3,000 people were involved in the voting process for the projects to be implemented in Ozurgeti Municipality, and finally the budget of 300,000 GEL was allocated for the implementation of the projects initiated by the citizens,” Salukvadze recounted some positives. In Ozurgeti, a number of progressive changes have been made through the joint efforts of civil society organizations – the municipality’s website has been redesigned to provide visual budget details to the population. Along with the systematization of information, a deliberative body was established with the City Council, which talked to the public sector about the specific needs of citizens before making a decision. In addition, an online broadcast

of City Council sessions was organized, during which the floor was open for people to ask questions. These initiatives have helped to increase the awareness and interest of the population of Ozurgeti in the budget process. Europe Foundation believes that, despite the positive examples, the introduction of actually effective budgeting practices remains a challenge. The pandemic further highlighted the importance of transparency in the budget process and the involvement of citizens in the process. Lia Tabatadze, who has been working for the rights of children with Down syndrome for years, says that yearly budgets usually

fail to cater for the essential needs of children with Down syndrome, and this became especially evident during the pandemic. “The state budget does not fully meet the needs of the individual. From a personal example, I can say that the budget of the country does not reflect specific needs. For example, children with Down syndrome usually need special medical supervision because the risks of developing various diseases are higher and prevention is essential. Universal health care does not accommodate specific medical needs and the numerous studies that are necessary to prevent diseases remain unfunded and therefore unexplored. All of these ultimately has a negative impact on the health

of people with special needs. Clearly, we theoretically have the right to be involved in the budgeting process to reflect our needs in the budget, but we do not know when and how to participate in this process, accordingly, we cannot influence the budget. The fact is that these services will never exist if they are not reflected in the budget,” Tabatadze explained.

position on the challenges of

“Obviously the pandemic has exacerbated the challenges of budget openness, the crisis has led to a number of changes in central and local budgets, and consequently both civic monitoring and citizen involvement in the budgeting process are becoming even more important,” Europe Foundation shared their

cooperation between the

budget openness. As a result of long advocacy, the Foundation has been able to facilitate the Ministry of Finance of Georgia’s membership of GIFT global network. The Foundation expressed its readiness to actually engage in the working process to ensure better budgeting. “It is necessary to have real public sector and civil society organizations, and to deepen the dialogue between them,” Victor Baramia said even as he hopes that the positive shifts that have taken place so far in some municipalities will be an example for others to actually get involved in the budgeting process.

Challenges Facing Investigative Journalism in Georgia

he media, as a controlling tool, is an indispensable element of democracy. Investigative journalism plays a crucial role in this regard, as it serves to reveal the facts. The existence of investigative journalism is facing many challenges in many new democracies. These challenges include lack of financial resources, lack of qualified staff, and an environment full of contradictions - the lack of relevant laws or their improper enforcement. “Today, the Georgian media environment is extremely polarized and fragile. Due to limited media freedom and often biased editorial policies, we practically do not see examples of investigative journalism in the media space, in addition to the increased risk of misinformation in digital media,” Ketevan Vashakidze, President of the Europe Foundation explained. In order to support investigative journalism focused on change, in 2020 the Europe Foundation launched the initiative “Watchdog Reporting for Change”. As part of the initiative, the Foundation is therefore taking active steps to develop result-oriented investigative journalism

in Georgia. Investigative journalism in Georgia will help to improve the lives of Georgian citizens and establish a fully democratic and fair governance. The Europe Foundation’s support for investigative journalism features several components, including raising the profile of journalists and the media, which has prompted the Foundation to invite international experts and investigative journalists. Under this initiative, journalists have the opportunity to undergo professional training under the tutelage of world leading journalists and professors; journalists can have access to literature, and they can receive professional advice and support from international experts directly during their investigations. In addition to these initiatives highlighted above, the Europe Foundation, under the Journalism Support Initiative, also offers a grant mechanism to media and civil society organizations to allow journalists team up with civil society organizations to advocate for real change based on the facts they disclose. According to the President of the Europe Foundation, Ketevan Vashakidze, the goal of the Foundation is not only to promote the creation

of investigative materials, but also to achieve concrete results based on these investigations. “Obviously, Georgia has some knowledge and experience in investigative journalism, but we rarely see examples of these materials and the work of journalists bringing real change to people, so our goal is to help the media get all the necessary resources and support to make their work effective. And the change the society needs to be achieved. “ With the support of Europe Foundation, three media organizations have been working for almost a year to address a number of systemic problems. Journalists who participated in this investigative process identify the restriction of access to information and pressure on journalists as the main problems. “It is noticeable for everyone that the Georgian media is politicized and polarized. Investigative journalism has less place in the media of political influence… Although access to information has become relatively easier now - there are active databases, registries, declarations, documents, and censors on information,” Nino Zuriashvili, head of Studio Monitor, complained while recalling the government’s unfulfilled promise to pass the Freedom of Information Act. “Without this law, we will have a serious problem, because now we request information only under the General Administrative Code, which does not apply, for example, to state-owned LLCs and IPs. Consequently, requesting information involves the greatest obstacles. Especially in the prosecutor’s office, which in many cases does not even tell you whether there is an

open case or not,” Zuriashvili explained further. Studio Monitor, with the support of the Europe Foundation, launched “Waterlogged Country”, an investigative project which has investigated the reasons for the lack of water in many regions of Georgia. This project revealed a number of systemic problems. Speaking about this investigative story, journalist Tamar Gelashvili says that in the process of working on the investigation there was a consistent attempt to shield information. “Moreover, despite prior agreements and communication with the local self-governments, the interview could not be recorded and when we arrived on the spot, the delegation in Chiatura did not meet us or hide. The fact is, they avoided responsibility. Even with the National Food Agency, which is responsible for water resources, we had to fight hard to get official answers. We did not receive any information from the Ministry of Finance about the fines and penalties imposed on the state due to unfulfilled obligations,” a disappointed Tamar Gelashvili recounted. “We have not received any information from any of the institutions for 10 days now, and some of them have completely ignored our request,” Gvantsa Doluashvili, head of Gori Community Radio “Mosaic” also recalled. “In some cases, we even suspected that the documents we requested simply did not exist in their database and therefore were not sent. For example, we asked to submit the budget plans of the municipal IPs, but they sent us the cost documents and naturally there is a suspicion that the IPs will not submit this document to the City Hall

published to reveal the main trends. Radio Mosaic has already started active work with a civil society partner organization. “We have set up a working group and we plan to finally create the political documents needed to reorganize these IPs. For example, we plan to create a textbook for the next selfgovernment elections so that the topic of IPs becomes healthier and leaves no more questions,” Gvantsa Doluashvili remarked.

and they just ask for funding. After the approval from the City Council, the City Hall transfers this amount. Otherwise, sending the document should not have been a problem.” According to Doluashvili, working on investigative materials is particularly difficult in small towns, because people know each other and they try to solve cases by acquaintance. “From the very beginning, we decided to take full responsibility for these materials and do not point out the authors of the investigative material, so that the journalists would not be in an awkward situation later… From the example as indicated in this practice, it is clear that the freedom of the journalist is being violated and it is very difficult for them to give up any material to the editorial when they have been trying to obtain it for months, but there is simply no other way out.” Journalist Maka Chikhladze confirms that there are frequent cases of

interference and obstruction of journalistic activities in the investigation process, however, when the material is already aired, it does lead to certain results. “For example, we started collecting materials about the participation of MP Koba Kobaladze’s son in a criminal offense. All agencies denied this fact of the crime. Including the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Koba Kobaladze himself insulted the journalists, he was aggressive, but as soon as TV Pirveli aired the promo, Kobaladze himself brought his son to the police.” A similar incident occurred after the launch of the Studio Monitor investigation. “It takes a long time to solve the water supply problem and our investigation was not sufficient to solve it, but after the release of our film, one strange coincidence or reaction was that the then director of water supply resigned and a new one was appointed,” Tamar Gelashvili continued. The Europe Foundation

says that the practice of responding to investigations needs to be put in place, and that this requires the joint work of the civil society and the media. “Our goal is to solve the problem systematically after it is revealed, and this will not happen if the civil sector and the media do not cooperate. That is why we are working in several areas - training and professional development of the media, promoting advocacy for change and researching the media environment in order to actually facilitate the implementation of institutional change,” Ketevan Vashakidze, President of Europe Foundation explained. The Europe Foundation has already started working on research on media freedom and its formal or informal impact. The study covers the long-term monitoring of the media control body - the National Communications Commission, whose role includes monitoring until the full picture of events are

The Europe Foundation program was assisted by Brant Houston and Mark Horvit, American awardwinning investigative journalists and authors of the internationally acclaimed textbook – Investigative Reporter’s Handbook: A Guide to Documents, Databases, and Techniques. Their participation in the project proved pivotal as an important source of knowledge for Georgian journalists. “We are a community radio. We have not worked on the investigation before, as it is quite an expensive pleasure, especially for small media. In addition to financial support, Europe Foundation has raised us professionally. We had the opportunity to meet foreign trainers, which was a good opportunity to generate ideas, learn new techniques and develop realistic action plans…All of these will allow us to continue working in this field,” Gvantsa Doluashvili beamed optimistically. Successful grant recipients will be able to receive additional support from Europe Foundation for their participation in the Global Shining Light Award (see https://gijn.org/awards/), an international competition organized by the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN).

Finite Water

e are accustomed that Georgia is rich in water, though this does not mean that it does not need to be managed. As the temperature rises, this available resource diminishes and its distribution is uneven (75% of water is in Western Georgia). Such a state of affairs makes it clear that the water resources need to be used in a rational and sustainable way while this requires a certain type of strategy,” said Mariam Makarova, head of the water resources department at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture. In addition to irrational use,

the system faces another significant challenge – pollution. For example, at the end of 2016, nitrogen concentration in the Black Sea basin exceeded the permitted norm as much as four times (2016 UNECE report). To improve water quality and distribution, the state committed to fulfiling a number of directives specified in the Association Agreement with the EU and now works on drafting new legislation to replace the Law on Water adopted in the 1990s. “That the EU Association Agreement provides the state with a general guidance in the reform process is one

thing, but that this process is participatory and involves all participants is another thing. The involvement was our goal when we financed an ISET study into economic instruments for water resources management. The objective of the study was to analyze the existing situation and needs and to provide concrete, time-bound recommendations to the government in the process of reformation of the water resources system,” said the President of Europe Foundation, Ketevan Vashakidze. The first step in reforming the water resources management system is the establishment of the principle of basin management. What does a basin

management system imply? A basin management system implies the grouping of water resources of similar natural and ecological origin by basins and the establishment of a common management principle for each basin. The establishment of a basin management principle is necessary for the sustainable and rational use of water resources and the prevention of pollution. “The idea is to consider water resources within the limits of a basin, which is necessary for proper water distribution as well as water quality management. For example, Rioni River begins in Racha, runs through Samtredia, Kutaisi, etc., and flows into the Black Sea. If, for instance, a large volume of

water is used in Ambrolauri, the water will not be sufficient for other regions. The basin management principle will ensure us against such situations. Moreover, it averts conflicts among various industries, for example, between hydropower and irrigation industries. Moreover, the basin management principle considers groundwater in conjunction with surface water because we know that the pollution of groundwater entails the pollution of surface water; thus, the basin management principle is the most effective way for managing water resources,” Makarova said. Before introducing this principle what is the practice of water use in Georgia? The practice of using water resources in Georgia is the following: a user (a commercial entity) may use any volume of surface waters for free and unrestrictedly without any permit or license. It is different with regard to groundwater: use is unrestricted, but a fee is set for a cubic meter of water. “That neither any fee nor limit is imposed on the use of surface water is not a result of a well-thought policy, but rather a consequence of legislative amendments. In particular, a license for the use of surface waters was abolished, which entailed the abolishment of the fee for the water use because the law on fees says that the fee is imposed on only those natural resources which require licensing,” said Levan Pavlenishvili, an ISET researcher who worked on the study into economic

instruments of water resources management within the framework of a Europe Foundation’s grant. Economic instruments of water resources management: The establishment of economic instruments is envisaged in the Association Agreement and is a step that follows the introduction of the basin management principle (water framework article 9). According to the directive, the government of Georgia, on the basis of thorough analysis, shall set prices on the use and pollution of water resources. The study conducted by ISET addresses the issue of establishing such economic instruments. Apart from describing the situation existing in Georgia, the study provides an overview of international practice and those economic instruments that are adequate for Georgia. “We think that the most feasible instrument in Georgia over the next six years is the introduction of water use and pollution fees; however, the size of both

fees must be set on the basis of thorough analysis and monitoring and following the basin management principle,” said Levan Pavlenishvili. Apart from water use and pollution fees, there are other economic instruments, for example, the creation of water markets, that mean the sale of an ownership right on certain water resources. “This implies the creation of an incentive in the form of private ownership to encourage sustainable use of water; however, this is a rather difficult instrument and requires a thorough definition of the ownership right. Therefore, we do not consider the use of this instrument in Georgia appropriate in the short run,” Palavandishvili continued. Water use fee: In general, the water use fee is calculated based on the volume of water. “To determine the price of a cubic meter of water, it is necessary to study the water basin, to conduct its hydrological analysis, to study and analyze water users, demand for water, revenues; only after that

the price of water must be determined,” the ISET study report states. “At present, we do not know a real price of this or that water resource because the state has not conducted a study into its resources. Water is a natural resource that has created a certain market while the state has assumed the responsibility for this market, though actually it does not manage this resource. For example, instead of buying water from GWP, producers of soft drinks prefer to use groundwater as they pay a minimal fee for it; we have doubts that this fee does not reflect a real cost of water. To put this to rights, it is necessary to conduct analysis, study, monitoring, and then set a certain price for the water use,” Pavlenishvili said. Pollution fee The effective legislation provides for penalties for water pollution, which are minimal (starting from GEL 5,000) and compensation for damages that is calculated according to a specific formula and represents such

work on this issue and will probably introduce it in the coming years,” Makarova said. Regarding the largest source of contamination — the problem of urban wastewater — the state will have treatment facility projects in all cities by 2022 and will complete treatment facilities in all cities by 2024, according to Makarova. a complex mechanism that compensation reaches huge amounts that virtually nobody pays. One of the gravest problems of pollution is in Bolnisi district where the heavy metals mining company, RMG (Rich Metals Groups), adversely affects three rivers: Poladauri, Mashavera, and Kazretula. These rivers are used for agricultural purposes, and, consequently, heavy metals that get into these rivers move into the food chain, thereby affecting the entire country of Georgia. A study conducted in 2016 by the Green Policy Platform states that the concentration of cadmium exceeded the permitted norm by 10 times in the river Kazretula, 9 times in Mashavera and 28 times in the lower course of the Poladauri. A representative of RMG Gold, Mikheil Kvaratskhelia, refuses to recognize the legitimacy of this study. He says that, as of today, the waters of Bolnisi municipality no longer represent an acute problem. “During 2018, we implemented a number of measures to prevent pollution. Of four points detected as main sources of polluting, the works on two points have already

been completed. By March 2024, we will have treating facilities, too,” Kvaratskhelia said. According to him, the National Environmental Agency conducts inspections in RMG’s territory twice a week. Moreover, the company monitors water in fifteen locations. However, the monitoring data is not publicly available. Last year, RMG paid only two fines worth GEL 5,000 each and hopes that it will not have to pay any fines next year. “The threat of water pollution no longer exists unless there is some discharge in emergency or extraordinarily heavy rain,” Kvaratskhelia said. It is still unknown whether the company paid more than one million lari for the damage it caused to the environment in 2014 by discharging 500 cubic meters of acidic quarry waters into Kazretula River. Despite journalists’ request for information about this fact, the prosecutor’s office has not yet provided an answer. Kvaratskhelia disaproves introducing a pollution fee as a new mechanism to protect the environment. “There is a principle of penalty, which is absolutely acceptable, and the principle of calculating damages, which merely needs improvement. I do

not think that imposing a fee on contaminants below a permissible level is a correct move because this looks like legitimizing pollution,” he reckoned. However, Levan Pavlenishvili believes that a pollution fee per unit of contaminant is the instrument that will compel businesses to undertake preventive measures to reduce pollution in the long term and, thereby, decrease the fee. In Makarova’s view, this idea is reasonable, but small businesses are not ready for this type of fee. “Imposition of fee on pollutants will be a very heavy burden for small and medium size enterprises and, therefore, the government does not consider the introduction of pollution fee at this stage. As for the fee for water use, we

For water management to be up and running, it is important to monitor water quality and volume throughout Georgia. The ISET study notes that the situation in this regard has been improving since 2012, though a shortage of monitoring remains a serious challenge. According to the ISET study of 300 large rivers across Georgia, only 68 are monitored, while groundwater monitoring is conducted in only 51 locations. “Setting up basin management organizations and equipping the National Environmental Agency to enable it to collect relevant data requires GEL 40 million. If we want this system to operate similarly to that in developed countries, it is necessary to invest in it,” Pavlenishvili concluded.

Park for Everyone N atia Vashalomidze, a resident of Ozurgeti, joined a civic protest after the mayor of her city covered the central area of a park with asphalt. Despite the protests residents voiced against this decision, it was implemented, and now the park has a road running through it. As a result of the intensive activity by Natia and her friends, however, the local government was forced to allocate money for rehabilitating three other parks in the city. Work on one has already begun. Ms. Vashalomidze is a founder of the Civic Center of Guria. She got the idea of establishing such an organization after the park

protest and received financial assistance for its start-up from Europe Foundation. “We decided to set up an organization because we realized that in the form of organization, we would be able to achieve more,” Natia commented.

“Although we were not able to save the park through our protest, what we achieved with our activity is that trees are no longer cut down arbitrarily, and stalls or other structures are no longer installed in parks,” continued Natia, affirming her belief in the good the protest achieved. Guria’s Civic Center began its project, A Park for Everyone, with a study of existing recreational green

spaces in Ozurgeti – forest parks, parks, and squares. The organization inventoried the entire city and collected data that Ozurgeti’s government lacked.

“We provided this data to the City Council. Before that, the local self-government did not have the slightest idea of the situation in regard to parks and squares in the city,” Natia went on. Inventorying forest parks, parks, and squares showed the following: Parks and squares are concentrated only in the central part of Ozurgeti, with no others for the local population to enjoy within a ten-minute walk; Parks and squares in

Ozurgeti do not meet infrastructure requirements that enable gatherings; Park maintenance and rehabilitation costs are not included in the local budget, and, therefore, they are not tended to and are in poor condition; The only forest park in Ozurgeti is in total decline but does not belong to the Ozurgeti municipality. Therefore, the municipality is not responsible for its maintenance and improvement. This forest reserve is on the Ministry of Economy’s balance sheet, with a large section of it managed by the Church because there is a monastery there. A report prepared by the

Civic Center of Guria reads: “Parks/squares and boulevards within the boundaries of the city make up 1,2 square meters per capita. This is lower than a corresponding indicator of other cities (Kutaisi – 8 m2, Batumi – 5-6 m2, Rustavi 5,4 m2), the indicator recommended by the government of Georgia (5,0 – 7,5 m2) and the minimum indicator set by the World Health Organization (9 m2).” Another representative of Civic Center of Guria, Ana Vashalomidze, was involved in the inventorying of parks and squares. She has personally seen long queues for swings and slides in Ozurgeti’s parks, especially in those with a relatively new infrastructure. “Children are standing in queues for swings, let alone that some districts do not have parks and squares at all, and parents have to take their children to other districts to let them have fun,” said Ana. Iza Mgeladze, also a representative of the Civic Center of Guria, says that problems with parks are not limited to a shortage of space alone, stating. “The infrastructure is arranged so unreasonably that it is very inconvenient

for people to get together. For example, there could be a bench in the park but no bin for litter; there could be a swing but impossible to access the park in a wheelchair, let alone that the only swing for disabled children is installed in such a place that it is inaccessible in a wheelchair.” According to Iza, Ekadia Forest Park, one of the most distinguished green spaces in Ozurgeti, had 3000 square meters of its central territory transferred to Patriarachate ownership in 2019. Currently, this territory is not being used for recreational purposes because it does not functionally facilitate get togethers and relaxing activities by the populace. Members of the Civic Center of Guria collected signatures on a petition that requested that the Ozurgeti forest park be transferred to local authorities. Izi Mgeladze, one of these members, described it this way: “I was approaching citizens, explaining to them that if the forest park was transferred onto the balance sheet of the municipality, we would be able to petition the government for financing its improvement and rehabilitation. Unfortunately, a segment of citizens thought it improper to arrange a

recreational space in a space where a church is located. It seems our citizens treat the church with awe, but they realize that the territory needs to be tended and rehabilitated.” Civic Center of Guria collected 400 signatures, and the petition was handed over to the local government for consideration. The city council discussed this issue, and, although its members supported the petition, no progress has been made in this direction yet. “At present, the City Council and the mayor’s office have only one answer, that due to the pandemic, they do not have any clear plans, though this is not the sort of reply to public information they are authorized to provide,” Natia explained. She continued, “Local authority is obligated to involve us in the process of decision making on municipal issues to enable us to conduct civic monitoring in order to ensure that our rights are protected.” Natia concluded that the lack of transparency in information is conducive to this illegal decision making concerning recreational green spaces. From the report by the Civic Center of Guria, the Patriarchate is clearly the only institution that was gifted a territory in Ozurgeti. In 2011, a large chunk of Anaseuli Park was sold to a private individual. Fortunately, it has not been closed to the public and is still available to the local population. However, the report states that whether it stays open is up to the private owner. In 2017, 90,000 square meters of territory that includes a chestnut forest used for recreational purposes by the

population was transferred to “Ozurgeti Garments” for a symbolic price of 1 GEL. Unlike Anaseuli Park, it is no longer available for public use. Information from the Guria Civic Center indicates that in the past few years, because of stepped-up citizen activity, the local government has refrained from making unsupported decisions that limit green spaces and concern the sale of parks. Even more encouraging, the local government has allocated a sum in the budget for rehabilitating three parks and has already begun work on one. The report by the Civic Center of Guria notes that these parks must meet universal criteria, such as accessibility and infrastructure requirements, lighting, garbage bins, benches, and trails. The local government is also aware that Civic Center of Guria is monitoring these works, and the organization hopes that this will ensure that the rehabilitation meets standards. Ten new locations for parks in Ozurgeti were suggested to the local government by the Civic Center of Guria. Recommendations for maintaining and improving recreational green spaces in the city were also provided. They believe that budget allocations for rehabilitation, the development of a master plan, and establishment of an infrastructural standard will improve green spaces in the city. Whether the local government agrees to these recommendations depends, among other things, on effective advocacy from the civil sector and the citizenry in the area.

Just Attending Or Participating? Problems Faced When a Person With a Disability Attends a Conference

sma Gumberidze, a 26-year-old lawyer, frequently attends conferences. She is blind and is, therefore, keenly aware of issues to be addressed before blind and visually impaired people can fully participate in various conferences. She says that while there is an increasing awareness that people with disabilities need to be integrated into society, she often faces barriers preventing her participation in the conference process. “It will be great if conference organizers make an advance enquiry and identify the needs to consider in planning the event. I have no specific participation needs. However, the problem I have faced many times is related to direct involvement. Presenters should focus on how to make their visual presentations more accessible to blind and partially sighted people. For example, we often hear presenters say: ‘you can read it on the screen,’ or ‘as the slide shows’ or “you can see the proportion on the screen’, and so on. I can

hardly understand what I am being told, too. There are cases when we are getting subtitled videos, with no sound. On several occasions, I was unable to take part in online surveys during the conference as such surveys are not adapted to the needs of people with low vision.” According to Esma Gumberidze, problems when attending conferences are coupled with barriers faced in hotel rooms. “While in a hotel room, for example, I have difficulty using various devices, including the TV-remote and heating and air conditioning systems. It is hard to find anyone whom I can ask for help or to get in touch with the administration. During meals, I am assisted by other participants, and I don’t feel very upset. But there were occasions when I was invited to a conference over a few days, and I was not allowed to take my companion there, at my own expense.” Esma believes that when planning a conference, organizers should send questionnaires to participants

in advance. Organizers can thus identify needs that may arise during the conference; they will know whether a sign language specialist or Braille materials will be required or not. The Chairman of the Union of the Deaf of Georgia, Maia Metonidze, notes that bridging communication gaps during conferences for people with hearing loss requires both a sign language interpreter and a facilitator. Currently, facilitation is not provided by the state. Deaf and hearingimpaired people are only offered interpreter services, which, Ms. Metonidze says, is not enough to fully involve them in the conference. “Besides sign language interpreters, facilitators also play an essential part in facilitating deaf people’s sign-language interpretation. The point is that deaf and hearing-impaired people’s vocabulary is limited – a main factor hindering academic language comprehension. A sign-language dictionary also leaves much to be desired as the sign language has had no officially recognized status for years,” continues Metonidze. Noting that granting an official status to sign

language will gradually contribute to deaf education, she adds, “We hope that the status will help us develop sign language dictionaries, on the one hand, and, on the other, focus on the solution of related problems – providing quality sign-language interpretation at meetings, arranging training for more interpreters, guaranteeing high-level interpretation service, and setting up an effective system, in general, suited to the specific needs of the deaf. For example, we know that an interpreter’s role does not include facilitating communication for the deaf and hearingimpaired, but facilitator service is not provided by the state, either. This has an obvious adverse effect on the entire interpretation process,” Ms. Metonidze points out. There are up to 3,700 deaf and hearing-impaired people over the age of eighteen in Georgia, based on the Union of the Deaf’s registration data. The total number of the deaf has not yet been calculated. It is estimated at 1% in Georgia, while the total number of sign language interpreters is 36. Eighteen of these work at the 112 Emergency Service, seven

at the Union of the Deaf, with the remaining eleven in various regions around Georgia. As Ms. Metonidze details, “The demand is not fully met. We are facing a shortage of specialists. Knowing a sign language does not qualify one to practice as an interpreter. The real problem we are confronting is a shortage of sign language interpreters that is preventing us from meeting the demand. Just imagine! A sign language interpreter delivering interpreting services during a court hearing cannot assist anyone else. The number of such interpreters equates to around 1 in 100 – a very low number if we want to integrate all our deaf and hearing-impaired population.” According to Metonidze, along with an official recognition of sign language, work on developing an extended sign-language dictionary is in progress. Institutions are also now required to develop websites with contents adapted for sign language. Work on building professional dictionaries, training signlanguage interpreters, developing deaf people’s writing skills, and so on, will begin soon. “For years, the government has been financially supporting sign language interpreters in the regions, without, however, increasing their number. On several occasions, 112 interpreters were invited to interpret for different events. But such interpreters are specialized in providing the service that is specific to that particular agency. They are not suitable for conference interpreting,” notes Metonidze.

People with other disabilities, such as those requiring wheelchairs, also face challenges when participating in conferences. Tamar Makharashvili, founder of the Accessible Tourism Center, PARSA, says that no comprehensive study has been made on whether the environment (including various hotels/buildings) is accessible to people with disabilities. According to Ms. Makharashvili, the Tbilisi City Council ordered PARSA to carry out accessibility studies on several administrative buildings. The studies are the property of the City Council and may not, therefore, be disclosed. “On the other hand, the reason for the absence of accessibility studies is that so far we have no uniform national standard on the inclusive environment. Our assessments are, to a large extent, based on global standards, which we adapted to suit the local environment and our experience, thus creating a tool to analyze the inclusiveness of individual buildings. We cannot share concrete findings of the studies. We can only disclose that the level of awareness and acceptance is so low – and the attitude so intolerant – that several hotels did not even allow us in to do the research. Attending a conference is also a big challenge for wheelchair users. For example, if a conference is attended by several wheelchair users, they cannot be accommodated in one and the same hotel, as even five-star hotels can only offer one or two disability-friendly rooms catering to the needs of their physically-challenged customers. It is impossible to

achieve inclusive experience in some hotels where wheelchair users can attend conferences but have no access to such facilities as the swimming pool, steam room, massage hall, and so on. My overall impression is that today the needs of people with disabilities are better integrated, as shown, for example, in the recent design of the central street of the city. But it’s hard to say whether this disability-oriented approach is universal or not. Draft law for a uniform national approach is already on the table and due for approval in the autumn, thus ensuring a standard to guide the state, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations.” Europe Foundation is one of the oldest grantmaking and program implementing organizations in the country. It is dedicated to strengthening civil society in Georgia and this includes a commitment to improve PWD inclusion in community life, such as advocating for the adoption and implementation of universal design standards and contributing to improved conference accessibility. “When the needs are many and the resources are scarce, prioritization of these needs becomes extremely important. Therefore, Europe Foundation believes that learning what the most pressing needs are for people with disabilities must be the first step in devising a long-term, holistic approach towards addressing them. While conference accessibility may not be listed by PWDs in Georgia as their most pressing need, the factors that preclude this demographic from fully participating in the country’s social, economic, cultural,

and political life are also the same that create hurdles to conference accessibility. Thus, the efforts funded by Europe Foundation to improve PWD inclusion in community life, such as advocacy for the adoption and implementation of universal design standards, also contribute to improved conference accessibility in a country where even government buildings often lack usable wheelchair ramps and wheelchairaccessible bathrooms,” declared Ketevan Vashakidze, president of Europe Foundation. “While fully following the Zero Project conference accessibility guidelines is virtually impossible in resource-poor geographies, event planners should not be deterred from critically assessing their practices or checklists and identifying concrete steps that can be taken each day to improve access of people with disabilities to the events they organize. At Europe Foundation, we have been engaging our partners and beneficiaries in order to learn more about their experiences when attending various events in Georgia. We have learned a great deal and plan to use this knowledge to improve our own practices, as well as to encourage our partner CSOs to do the same. More importantly, we view the Zero Project guidelines as a blueprint for what a truly accessible conference should look like and plan to devise a long-term approach that will combine monitoring, advocacy, and capacity-building actions for making events more accessible to people with disabilities,” Ketevan Vashakidze affirmed.

Introducing the Practice of Personal Assistance in Georgia

ekla Tatuashvili is seven years old. She studies at #1 Public School of Bolnisi and has had a personal assistant who helps in her learning process for about a month and a half now.

broke, and she again had to live in silence for six months,” Ketevan Magradze, Tekla’s mother, recalled. Tikla still gets tired of the equipment

and sometimes takes it off when the noise becomes unbearable. She still finds it difficult to understand the meaning of words

and to speak. Her hearing impairment also makes it difficult for Tekla to adapt to school. “There were days when she flatly refused

Tekla has a congenital cardiac anomaly. In her infancy, she underwent surgery for the condition. At the age of fifteen months, she was diagnosed with profound deafness. “We waited for a cochlear implant surgery three years. It was already belated. Adaptation to the implant proved difficult for her. Soon after the surgery, the equipment

to go to school,” Ketevan continued. Mariam Kordzaia works with Tekla as a personal assistant. Her task is to assist the child in her learning process. “Initially, I found it a little difficult. I was not sure whether I would be able to carry on the work, but then she started to make progress, little by little. I already see huge results: she can write independently, recognize letters. While earlier she could attend only two lessons, nowadays she stays till the end of classes,” Kordzaia said Mariam got in touch with Tekla through a project of Association Anika. The development of a personal assistant service is a pilot project, and Anika has been working on it since 2016. It is implemented in Bolnisi with the support of Europe Foundation. The project’s goal is to create a personal assistant service in the country, which will ensure the integration of PWDs into society by, for example, enabling them to obtain an education, get employment, or perform any social or civic activity, all of which is part of an integration process. “Personal assistant service has long been practiced abroad. In Georgia, they still find it difficult to distinguish

it from home care service, which is limited to the provision of care alone, whereas a personal assistant helps PWDs integrate into society,” explained Maka Chankvetadze, an Anika employee and manager of the personal assistant project in Bolnisi. In the initial stage of the project, Anika studied experiences of various countries and, based on these, developed a country-specific concept for Georgia. An element of the concept, among others, is that a personal assistant cannot be a parent or family member of a PWD. “The idea of a personal assistant serves the aim of raising the degree of independence of PWDs. In our view, with parents it is impossible to raise the degree of independence,” said Irina Inasaridze, founder of Anika. Before launching a pilot project in Bolnisi, Anika started to introduce the personal assistant service jointly with ABS Georgia. First, they developed a methodology and concept. Then, with funding from the Tbilisi mayor’s office, they began providing the service in Tbilisi. “Municipal social service of Tbilisi is focused on concrete results – the number of people employed in the project and the like.

Unfortunately, adequate attention is not paid to the development of the service,” Chankvetadze said. Indequate delivery of the services necessary for PWDs and the inefficiency of these services is a main concern for Alex Cote, an expert in this area invited to Georgia by Europe Foundation. Last year, he studied Georgia’s budget from the perspective of expenditures for the PWD community. This study showed that the state primarily provides PWDs with cash assistance and spends fewer resources on ensuring a timely delivery of quality services to them. “I think that cash assistance alone cannot ensure a comprehensive integration of PWDs. Since the final goal is to ensure dignified living for PWDs and the exercise of rights by them, we support the establishment of quality and effective services,” Europe Foundation President Ketevan Vashakidze said. Anika’s current goal is to introduce the practice of personal assistance and ensure the engagement of the state. “Our aim is to have the state recognize the importance of this service and earmark a concrete amount for the delivery of this service in program budgets of ministries/ municipalities; however, the road towards this aim is quite difficult,” Chankvetadze said. The project will be implemented in the Bolnisi municipality with assistance from Europe Foundation for one year. At present, eight personal assistants work with eleven beneficiaries within the framework of this project in the Bolnisi municipality. After the completion of the project, the Bolnisi municipality, as a result of

negotiations, will earmark the cost of personal assistant services in its budget. However, there are some problems in this regard. “Bolnisi municipality agrees to allocate an amount for the provision of a personal assistant service, but it will delegate the implementation of the service to its noncommercial legal entity rather than an organization working on PWD issues. This is an incorrect model, at least, because of conflict of interests,” Inasaridze said. In future, the founder of Anika intends to create an association of personal assistants that will be an accredited agency for training and certifying personal assistants. “Competence of a personal assistant is a very important issue. Assistance covers many directions - from limitation specifics to ethical issues, rights, and responsibilities. Therefore, we treat accreditation very seriously and would like to have competent assistants up to a high standard,” Chankvetadze said. Therefore, Anika wants the project to take on an institutional form. Agreements have already been achieved on financing assistance from budgets in four Georgian municipalities, which Anika considers a significant achievement. “Unfortunately, many services nominally exist and no one cares about quality improvement and the development of these services,” Inasaridze said. “We strive to make the service of personal assistant effective and capable for facilitating the process of intergation of PWDs,” Inasaridze concluded.

Volunteering Amid the Pandemic

urope Foundation’s Youth Bank brings together active young people across all regions in Georgia, teaches them volunteering, and provides necessary resources so they can launch and fund positive initiatives in their own communities. Over the years, Europe Foundation has helped hundreds of young people carry out much-needed projects. Two of these are Patima Margoshvili and Muro Ekizashvili, members of Youth Bank 2020.

Patima Margoshvili, 17, Pankisi Patima joined Europe Foundation’s Youth Integration Programme in October 2019. Her project will create a modern library and a literary club in the Pankisi Valley. Even amid the pandemic, this project remains on track, though virtually. “Bringing children together in a single place for literary discussions was one of our project’s key activities. Because of the pandemic, however, we had to shift to virtual working ensuring, at the same time, that the

engagement level does not go down, and the project keeps going,” Patima said. There is no bookstore in Akhmeta Municipality or Pankisi Valley, nor is there a library that offers any modern literature for young people. “Duisi school includes only one reading room, which holds only an old collection of books,” noted Patima. This situation prompted her to start an up-to-date library for young people. The idea for this project was conceived by Patima and her friend, Shotiko, also a member of the Youth Bank committee, during Europe

Book,” where anyone can participate and donate. The National Library also joined the campaign, bringing about 150 books to young people in Pankisi. “Contribute your Book” continues to inspire additions to the shelves of Pankisi Library. Muro Ekizashvili, 17, Bolnisi

Foundation’s intercommunity training. Foundation support included help in buying up to 200 books, finding a relevant space, and arranging literary meetings in the space. “We made a short survey asking children what kind of books they were interested in and bought the books based on their responses,” Patima pointed out. The project’s authors began negotiating with a community-based organization, the Kakheti Regional Development Foundation, for a children’s reading space. Their first inperson meeting has already been held, and they are now transitioning to ongoing discussions. Patima added, “It is the first

time when the responsibility for project implementation rests entirely with me. Informing and mobilizing children, organizing meetings, selecting and inviting guests, moderating discussions, and preparing reports – these are the tasks I am facing, hence my increased responsibility. At school we are not in the habit of managing such tasks independently. Youth Bank helps me a great deal. I’m learning a lot and taking my chance to do good things for the community.” Patima and her friends’ volunteering efforts do not end here. They have now begun a social media campaign, “Contribute your

Muro joined Bolnisi’s Youth Bank three years ago. He says he was always interested in informal education, explaining, “The past three years have been remarkable for me. I’ve learned quite a lot over this period. Just imagine, I have worked on 45 projects – which may not have fundamentally changed our community but have helped us solve many of our problems. We can now take care of our own needs; we got both young people and adults involved in fulfilling an increasing number of initiatives. Each project implemented within Youth Bank is designed to address the real problems plaguing our community. That’s why, before supporting any specific initiative, we try to get a better understanding of the actual problems surrounding us.“ His favourite project, carried out in Bolnisi Municipality over the past year, promoted physics and chemistry, with the goal of sparking young people’s interest in these subjects. Muro recalled his reasoning, “Over the course of five years of learning physics, I conducted only one experiment. In the given situation, naturally, young

people can show no surge of interest in these subjects. The national examination system’s relentless focus on mathematics and humanitarian disciplines over the past few years decided us to start giving classes in practical physics and chemistry. We bought chemical reagents with Europe Foundation’s funds and gave practical classes to our peers at schools.” Muro continued, “I have a feeling that I can get through the problems ahead of me. As a member of the Youth Bank, I became more confident and sure-footed. I can be really persuasive and talk people into cooperation. Every year, I visit about ten schools and hold meetings with schoolmasters. I already have a way with them. They no longer approach us in an unserious way as they see how active we are.” According to Muro, the pandemic does not create a barrier to volunteer work; it can be performed effectively at a distance, as well. “We are now making a short, online survey to identify ongoing problems before we move on to a new grant cycle. There is no stopping you once you start volunteering. Our hands are not tied even amid the pandemic. Personally, I can’t stop. Quite the contrary. The experience I’ve gained in Europe Foundation has opened new vistas for me. I recently joined Red Cross efforts to fight COVID-19 and became one of the volunteers in my municipality. As young people, we can indeed do a great deal.”

Greenhouse in the schoolyard

he Youth Bank has one of the most active committees in the Marneuli district. Along with committee members, the authors of projects, i.e. young persons who turn ideas into projects, are quite active too and in a joint effort with the committee carry out the work for the benefit of their local community.

This process is supported by the Europe Foundation within the framework of its Youth Integration program. This year the youth of Marneuli district set a precedent – they built a greenhouse in the school territory of Maradisi village in the Marneuli district to generate income.

The construction of the greenhouse commenced in September. It was constructed over 100 square meters of land. When built, lettuce was planted which has been successfully sold. The income of up to GEL 200 has been generated so far. Half of the harvest has already been reaped and soon the process will start over again – to buy seeds, grow seedlings from them, then replant seedlings into the soil, water them, tend and grow them and then harvest and deliver to village distributors for realization. This process will continue

throughout the year. “We had some difficulties at the beginning: we roof the construction twice because of the mistake which we made the first time. Nonetheless, we enjoy doing everything because we know that we are doing this for a good cause,” Mariam Paksadze, a Youth Bank member, said. The main idea of this process is to use proceeds for the benefit of the community. With the first income from the greenhouse they intend to turn a building next to the school territory into a public space, to buy books, arrange a meeting place and

names if they engage and assist us with small amounts of money. As a result, we collected GEL 2,500. With this money we planted trees in the school territory and changed our environment,” the Youth Bank member, Meri Bolkvadze, said. “Adults are no longer surprised about our initiatives. Parents, teachers, neighbors have been watching our activity over the years and now they trust us so much that assist us to the maximum extent.”

create an alternative space to conduct extracurricular activities. “This is not our first project. The participation in the Europe Foundation’s program over years gave us an opportunity to implement local projects. Initially, we worked on environmental projects and carried out eco-projects – planted trees in the school territory, tidied up the environment, installed trash bins, made compost to promote modern agricultural technologies; just recently, we constructed the greenhouse and we are happy that we are able to benefit the village.” Mariam said. They plan to expand the greenhouse in the future as, according to them, the school territory allows for that. Apart from lettuce they intend to grow flowers and sell them profitably in the spring. “We constantly try to equip youth with skills and resources necessary for the implementation of projects. We work with them regularly to enable them

to mobilize the community, engage peers in projects, gain support from adults and trigger interest among the local authorities in order to ensure a positive outcome of their projects,” said Nata Petriashvili, the manager of Europe Foundation’s Youth Integration program. According to her, young people have already undertaken a number of trainings, including in community mobilization, environmental protection, social entrepreneurship. All this helps them develop a correct vision how to address local problems, how to solve this or that issue through their activity and gain support from the local community. “We can cite a number of examples how we managed to improve the environment through engaging population. A little while ago we volunteered to collect money: we travelled around villages near the region, explained to population that we wanted to plant trees in the territory of school and promised them to name trees in their

Diplomat with the NYT / World Review 2021

Articles inside

Interview with Ketevan Vashakidze, President of Europe Foundation - Diplomat magazine with the NYT

A Farewell to Norms - Diplomat with the NYT / World Review