EU Parliamentary Democracy Forum 2026
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Replay
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
OTHER European Parliament
Katarina Barley
They are threatened by coordinated efforts to undermine confidence in electoral institutions. And perhaps most dangerously of all, by attempts to convince citizens that their vote simply does not change anything. We must therefore think about electoral resilience as a deeply political and civic one. We will explore this together later today, and I'm looking forward to this conversation. The second topic we will tackle is the role of civil society, a subject that is especially close to my heart as Vice President for relations with civil society alongside with relations to national parliaments.
A thriving civil society is vital to the health of our democracies because one of the questions we should continually ask ourselves is: how do we make people feel that democracy belongs to them?
Civil society organizations are our essential partners. They are amplifying citizens' voices, holding power to account, and bridging the gap between institutions and the people they serve. I hope that by the end of the day, we will leave the room with some fresh ideas on how the democratic institutions and civil society can work together more efficiently. The third theme of our forum brings us to parliamentary oversight, the relationship between legislation and implementation. This may seem a very technical subject for a democracy forum, but it goes right to the heart of parliamentary democracy.
Effective parliamentary oversight is about ensuring that power remains accountable. Passing a law is not the end of the democratic process. It is the beginning of a responsibility. As parliamentarians, we must ask ourselves, is this legislation working as intended? Is it being implemented efficiently and fairly?
Are citizens experiencing the results we promised them? And where the answer is no, are we prepared to acknowledge that honestly and change course? This is an area in which cooperation between the European Parliament and national parliaments is particularly valuable. Because the laws we make here in Brussels and Strasbourg are lived by people in cities, towns, and villages across the continent. Closing the gap between decision and experience is one of the great democratic challenges of our time.
We also live in a world in which the boundaries between national, European, and international politics are increasingly difficult to draw. What happens beyond our borders can affect the resilience of our democracies at home. And what happens inside our democracies influences Europe's ability to act abroad. Therefore, parliamentary diplomacy has an increasingly important role to play. This will be the fourth thematic focus of our forum.
Parliamentarians can build relationships that endure beyond changes of government. We speak to counterparts across different political systems. We listen to experiences that governments may not always hear directly. And we can stand in solidarity with those who defend democratic principles in difficult circumstances. One of the great strengths of parliamentary diplomacy is that it is about building relationships between people.
And relationships, as we know, create trust. And trust, ultimately, is what democracy runs on. But let me be candid. I believe we can and must do more. Too often, parliaments act in parallel rather than in concert.
We each engage with the world from our own national or institutional perspective. Sometimes sending different signals, sometimes missing opportunities to amplify one another's efforts. In a world where authoritarian regimes speak with a single voice, democratic actors cannot afford to be fragmented. This is where the Team Europe spirit should inspire us as parliamentarians to embrace a more coordinated approach to parliamentary diplomacy. Our collective weight on the international stage far exceeds the sum of individual parts.
Speaking with one voice does not mean erasing our diversity.
It means identifying the values and principles we hold in common and projecting them together with clarity and conviction. Ladies and gentlemen, let me close with the words of a distinguished scholar whose voice you will have the privilege of hearing tomorrow, Timothy Snyder. Quote, democracy is about the future and as such can only exist when individuals seek to generate futures on the basis of values and with the help of institutions that allow them to do so, end of quote. This is why the enemies of democracy try to draw people's attention away from the future. To convince people that the best days are behind us and that we should remain anchored in a past that was somehow simpler and better, which it never was.
It is a politics of fear and it only leads to resignation. We must refuse it in the interest of all those people in our countries who deserve better. The future is not something that happens to us. It is something we build together. And the future of democracy depends on the choices we make, the alliances we forge and the courage we show in this room and far beyond it.
I wish you all a very productive and inspiring forum and I would like now to invite President Verona Murphy on stage.
Verona Murphy
Good afternoon. Thank you, Vice-President Barley. Honourable Vice-President, President, fellow speakers, deputy speakers, national parliamentarians, distinguished colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. It's a great honour and a genuine pleasure to be here in the European Parliament's hemicycle to speak to such a distinguished group of fellow parliamentarians, academics and NGOs and those who are broadly involved in civil society. As Vice-President Barley has indicated, this is the second EU Parliamentary Democracy Forum hosted by the European Parliament and it builds on the excellent start last year.
I congratulate all involved preparing this great conference. I'm particularly pleased to appear before you today as Ireland continues its current crucial role as President of the Council of the European Union. We anticipate an active and productive six months addressing key challenges facing the European Union. The key themes of the Irish presidency are competitiveness, values and security. The Houses of the Oireachtas, the Irish Parliament that I represent, is hosting a number of inter-parliamentary conferences in Dublin as part of the Irish presidency, including many topics and themes shared with today's Parliamentary Democracy Forum.
These include the crucial issue of our future security and the ever-increasing challenge of disinformation and misinformation to which we and the citizens we proudly represent are subjected to daily from domestic and overseas agents of mistrust who seek to destabilise and threaten the calm, rational, respectful political debate we Europeans have perhaps taken for granted for too long. In July, we hosted the conference of chairs of the European Union committees of the national parliaments of which the EU engaged fruitfully on this issue of democratic resilience.
As I referenced at that conference, the prevalence of social media, a positive force for communication with citizens, can also act as an agent for disinformation and mistrust. This can create immense challenges for parliamentarians. We see this in the impact on election turnout and in fellow politicians walking away from public life at younger and younger ages. In recent elections in Ireland, an unhealthy number of young Irish politicians opted to step away from public life. I am concerned that this will only increase in the future years unless we can offer a political climate which is supportive to young people considering life of public representation and reacting to malign online influences in the domestic political sphere.
And, I might add, equally as politicians, we need an increasing number of skill sets to function effectively and efficiently in our parliamentary responsibilities. States, governments, and parliaments that they do not address the needs, aspirations, and hopes of their people for a better, more stable, and secure life for their families leave themselves open to subtle and not-so-subtle interventions. These needs and hopes of our citizens are increasingly strained at present as people struggle with higher living costs, higher fuel prices, and increased social and political tensions. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine and the ongoing geopolitical flashpoints in the Middle East and elsewhere only serve to show how interdependent we all are now in this global village. We must work together to support citizens in the short and medium term and build competitiveness, strategic autonomy on our continent in terms of energy and critical mineral supply chains.
Such economic resilience is now essential in this globalized and increased unstable world, but that resilience must be based on political and social resilience. All the more reason why we must explore today how political and electoral resilience can be reinforced and strengthened to provide assurance to our citizens in the integrity of our electoral systems. Time and again in recent years, we have seen the need to provide resilience, especially in interference in democratic elections on this continent and further afield. At this time of geopolitical instability and tension, our citizens look to us, their elected representatives, for leadership and clarity. In this uncertainty, we ourselves can often be confused by the steady, often relentless stream of information.
It is increasingly challenging to be a public representative, be it at local, regional, national, or European level. We have more demands than even a mere decade ago, especially in the online sphere.
It is of key importance that the public trust our electoral systems. Protecting the legitimacy of our electrical mandate against malign outside influence is crucial. This forum will allow us to explore how participation of civil society at national and European level will strengthen and safeguard our democratic resilience. And I look forward this afternoon to hearing the experiences and sharing recent research with experts in this field. The motto of the Irish presidency of the Council of the European Union is Ní neart go cur le chéile, a saying which can translate as there is strength in unity.
And this, dear colleagues, is the key. At local, regional, national and European level, we work best when we work together in a spirit of respect, of unity, of common purpose, of service to those who are who have honored us by giving us a democratic mandate to represent them. Meetings such as this Parliamentary Democracy Forum are a welcome opportunity to engage, to explore, and to apply critical thinking, sometimes to challenge and argue, but always with the end point of protecting our shared values and promoting the betterment of those we are honored to serve and represent. In conclusion, I would like to thank President Metsola for the invitation to address you this afternoon. I offer my congratulations to all of those involved in the preparation of this event.
And I look forward very much to engaging with you all, so and so many colleagues and other stakeholders in this fruitful discussion on the key challenges facing Europe. Go raibh míle maith agaibh. Thank you.
Sanna Lepola
Thank you. That was a great start. Those words certainly provide strong foundations for today's discussions. So let's move on with our next to the our next session. We are honored to have with us today Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of the Belarusian democratic opposition and a consistent and vocal advocate for democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Belarus and beyond.
Her efforts to promote democratic change in Belarus have earned her international recognition and several awards, including Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought awarded by the European Parliament in 2020, as well as the Charlemagne Prize in 2022. First we'll hear an introductory speech from Ms. Tsikhanouskaya and that will be followed by a conversation that will be moderated by Esteban González Pons, Vice-President of the European Parliament. Esteban, the floor is yours now.
Esteban González Pons
Thank you, Shana, and congratulations for the organization of all this. Again, thanks, congratulations. Dear Vice-President Barley, my dear friend. Dear Speaker Murphy, my friend as well. It is a great honor to welcome Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.
Oh, she's there. The leader of the democratic forces of Belarus. Dear Sviatlana, welcome back to the European Parliament.
Your own story is remarkable. In 2020, your husband was arrested after trying to stand in the presidential election. You then decided to step in as a presidential candidate. After the election that you won, you were forced to exile. But from abroad, you continued to work for a free and democratic Belarus.
You have come to this house many times. You have spoken to our members and addressed our plenary. You have brought us the voice of Belarusians calling for fundamental freedom and democracy. Your experience shows us something that many have heard before, but it always sounds important. Democracy does not defend itself.
It needs citizens who believe in it and institutions that are early to protect it. This Parliament has stood with the people of Belarus. We have supported the democratic forces and expanded our cooperation with them. And we have continued to call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners. This is also why your presence here is so important.
This is the EU Parliamentary Democracy Forum. We are here to discuss how we can defend democracy and when it comes under pressure. Today, we want to hear about Belarus, but we also want to learn from Belarus. Dear Sviatlana, it's a real pleasure to have you here today. Please join me on stage.
The floor is yours.
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
Dear Vice-Presidents, dear speakers, dear excellencies, dear friends. Exactly six years ago, I entered this building for the first time. And I still remember that feeling. I was really trembling. Back then, I was a political newbie thrown into the deep waters of politics.
I had no political experience. My decision to run against a dictator was spontaneous. Sometimes, life doesn't ask whether you are ready or not. You simply do what you feel is right. We had just won that elections, but as often happens in dictatorships, the dictator refused to step down and unleashed brutal terror in Belarus.
People were beaten, shot, killed, and imprisoned. Hundreds of thousands were protesting peacefully on the streets. But we quickly understood that our forces were not equal. We needed international support. And the very first place I came was the European Parliament, because I knew that here, in the heart of European democracy, I would find allies.
President David Sassoli and then Roberta Metsola visited me in Vilnius, where we just started to form the government in exile. And here, I didn't have to explain why democracy matters or why our fight matters.
Have their own experience of living under dictatorship. The European Parliament immediately supported our democratic movement and formalized relationship with democratic Belarus, not with illegitimate regime. Following the European Parliament's example, national parliaments, German, Italian, Irish, Swedish, French and others supported us as well, making statements, adopting political prisoners and pushing governments to take action by imposing sanctions. 24 parliaments across entire Europe created groups for democratic Belarus. And here I have seen a real power of parliamentary democracy.
And when change comes to Belarus, and I know it definitely will, one of our first tasks will be to restore the real power and meaning of parliament. Parliament must serve the people, but not the regime. Moreover, strong parliamentary democracy is one of the best antidote to dictatorship. In a dictatorship, they want people to stay silent, obedient and loyal. They want people to stay away from politics.
From school, they teach you: don't stand out. Be like everyone else. Politics is not your business. This is what keeps dictatorship alive. This is what helped Lukashenko came to power 30 years ago and survive for so long, when people don't participate in politics and don't ask questions.
So the dictator can create a false illusion of stability and peace. For many years, I was like that too. Like many, I was trying to avoid politics, but in the end, politics not only came in my home, but it almost destroyed the country and dragged it into the war. Dictators who don't respect their own people will not respect their neighbors either. So today, I want to address especially the young people in this room.
If you want to protect your freedom and democracy, stand out, speak out, participate, run for parliament. Don't let anyone to steal your voice. Never take democracy for granted. Democracy must be cherished, it must be defended every single day. And this is task not only for governments, but for people, for civil society, for businesses.
Don't let populism and authoritarian leaders kill your democracy from within. Democracies don't need strong hand. We need smart heads, strong institutions and responsible citizens. Protect freedom at home, but also help those who fight for it every single day. The fate of democracy is being decided today in Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, but first of all, in Ukraine.
Ukraine is paying the highest price with human lives, defending the very future of Europe and the future of democracy. And I strongly believe that Ukraine's success will also open a window of opportunity for my beloved Belarus. And I know that sometimes there is a temptation to make a deal with dictators, Putin, Lukashenko, you name it. But dictators interpret weakness as invitation. We should have no illusion.
Dictators understand only the language of power, and democracies must be ready to show their teeth too. We must keep sanctions on Russia and Lukashenko, but at the same time to strengthen societies, because military power alone is not enough.
We need people ready to defend their values. That is why European Democracy Shield matters. Europe has recognized the threats: foreign interference, disinformation, attacks on elections and democratic institutions. Now we need actions, not only concern. And we Belarusian people are ready to contribute.
We have decades of experience resisting dictatorship, propaganda, and Russian interference. And this experience can be useful to Europe. Because more democracy at home and in our neighborhood means more security for Europe. And the stronger and more resilient our democracies are, the less space dictators have to exploit our weaknesses. Yes, dictatorships might look invincible until they suddenly collapse.
And usually it happens when nobody expects this. We don't know when and how changes will come to Belarus, but we must be ready and bring this moment closer. Dear friends, thank you to all the organizers, international guests and civil society representatives who came here today. And thank you to parliamentarians from across Europe represented here by Speaker Verona Murphy, who continue to stand for democratic institutions and human rights. My special thanks go to President Roberta Metsola, Vice-Presidents Katarina Barley and Esteban González Pons, and Director-General Sanna Lepola and her brilliant team for convening this forum and for giving democracy defenders a place at this table.
We are here today not to stay silent. We are here to speak out, to stand out, and to defend our democracy. And one message should be very clear: we will not give up. So thank you, long live Belarus, Žyvie Biełaruś, Slava Ukraini, and long live Europe.
Esteban González Pons
Thank you very much for your inspiring words, Sviatlana. You know that democracy rarely disappears in one day. It is often weakened step by step, sometimes before citizens realize how much democratic space has already been lost. Looking back at Belarus and looking at Europe today, what warning signs should we take seriously?
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
Look, definitely Belarus might be a lesson for Europe because after collapse of Soviet Union, Belarus was supposed to become democratic country. And we truly believed that it will be. But I remember in 1996, you know, when Lukashenko started, you know, to ruin Belarusian parliament, our Constitution Court. I remember how Russia sent its delegation to protect Lukashenko. But nobody came from Europe or from Washington to protect parliamentarians who still were trying to defend our parliamentary system in Belarus.
Maybe the same happened in 2020 when our people went to the streets to protect their votes and, you know, Putin was very clear about supporting Lukashenko personally. And Europe wasn't ready to protect Belarusians. Yes, we heard words of condemnation, you know, we just felt solidarity, but the first actions were made maybe in half a year after the start of brutal repressions, first sanctions were imposed only, you know, just in some time.
So people didn't feel huge support. So I think that it might be a good example how it's important to protect the institutions from the very beginning. And now, I truly believe that European democracy is strong, that national parliaments are strong and institutions are strong. But I think that I would encourage people, ordinary people, to be more active in politics, to be more active in conveying their thoughts and ideas to their parliamentarians. If you see the signs that populists are poisoning minds of people, or free media are suppressed, or parliament loses power, or courts lose independence, it should be like marks that something is going wrong with your institutions.
And it's obligation of people and other institutions to protect democracy from the beginning. Because believe me, the dictatorship can come very unnoticeably. Because you just one day you can discover that you are lack of voice, you are imprisoned if your words don't coincide with some party, you know, or narratives. So people have to be very cautious and don't think that, you know, politicians themselves know how to do it better. No, it's people whose task to protect democracy in their countries.
Esteban González Pons
Okay, thank you. Following that line, you and the Belarusian democratic forces have received a strong support from the European Parliament. But what do you think that we could have done better? What do you think that the European Parliament should improve, should do better about defending democracy in Belarus or perhaps in Europe?
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
Not easy. Yeah, it's not easy, of course, but I just want to say again the words of gratitude to all the parliamentarians who are supporting Belarusians for these six years and even before. I really feel strong support, I feel that we are not alone, though of course much more can be done. Maybe you remember that we signed a letter of cooperation with the President Roberta Metsola and it was very important political signal that European Parliament stands with the Belarusian people. What I encourage parliamentarians to do now.
Belarusian case showed how democracy and security are dependent. Because the lack of democracy in one country becoming threats to security of the neighbors. We see how Lukashenko dragged our country Belarus into the war against Ukraine. He made Belarus country co-aggressor and now from the territory of Belarus there are threats to European Union already. These migration attacks, these missiles over Lithuania, Poland, balloons over Lithuania, transnational repressions.
We see how the country under leadership of dictators became threat to security. So now when you talk about Belarus, please keep in mind that it's not only about political prisoners, though it's like extremely important topic. It's not only about repressions, but it's also about security and your security first of all. And if you overlook Belarus now, Europe can pay much higher price in the future. Because there are so many gossiping or thoughts that Russia can provoke or escalate on the borders with Europe and this threats go from the territory of Belarus because Lukashenko is puppet of Putin and he will provide all our infrastructure, logistics, our propaganda just to strengthen Russia.
So that's why we have to ruin dictatorship and help Belarusians to make Belarus free democratic and source of stability and security. Because while Lukashenko is there there will be constant blackmail constant threat and that's why when you talk about Ukraine and peace in Ukraine don't like overlook Belarus don't postpone Belarusian topic for one day later because if we freeze situation in our country if we let Lukashenko to serve to Russia's interest there will be no security no peace in the whole region neither for Ukraine nor for nor for Europe. So that's why we can speak more about about Belarus not from the not only in humanitarian context but in security context and pay more attention to this issue.
Esteban González Pons
Let me come to a personal question. When you received the Sakharov Prize in this house you said that you received the strength for thousand and thousands of Belarusians that were supporting you and democracy. Thinking not only about Belarus or European Union but as about democracy itself what message do you have to these people that think that their voice may cannot make a difference to those people who needs a reason to make hear their voices what message do you have to people who believe in democracy but don't feel that what they are going to do is important enough to defend it.
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
You know people of Belarus I think in 2020 understood that it's not external power that will change our country it not politicians it not one person. It's people who refuse to accept injustice who want changes will they these people will bring changes to Belarus. And changes in any country is not done by one heroic action or act by one person. It's hundreds thousands and millions of small acts of courage and power and strength that will bring changes in in the country. So I always say that I'm here only because of the people of Belarus.
I feel power of because behind me millions of Belarusians stand I I feel their support I know that despite all the repressions despite the fear despite hundreds of political prisoners behind bars you know they are not given up and I feel this and we you know I'm really proud what we have managed to achieve for these six years as democratic movement. We managed to build alternative institutions of power. We managed to formalize relationship with the democratic world with institutions. We managed to preserve our civil society our media and we managed to keep communication and coordination with the people on the ground.
And I know that now people are silenced inside the country because it's really, really scary to live under dictatorship if you can be detained at any moment for your anti-war position, for your pro-European position, for supporting political prisoners. Solidarity became crime in Belarus. And of course it is, of course it's scary, but people are every day doing small acts of bravery in Belarus, small acts of sabotage. They provide us with information. They talk to their children or to their parents, you know, what's happening in reality.
They watch free media, though this media are declared as extremist, you know, it's also dangerous. So people are not waiting for that somebody will come and save our country. They are doing, they're keeping this light inside and they are doing these small things every day. So my, your power is my power. And I really, you know, blessed, you know, to have such wonderful, law-abiding, heroic nation as Belarusians beside me.
And very often Belarusian people are considered to be very patient, you know, but when the moment comes, we show our bravery, show our power and strength. But again, no one war and no one fight cannot be won if you are alone. We need allies on this difficult path. And I'm so grateful for every person, every parliamentarian who contribute into our fight, who believe that free and democratic Belarus is in the interest of the whole European Union, that Belarusian problem is not internal one. It's already in the interest of our neighbors, of Europe.
And without you, we wouldn't survive, we wouldn't feel such power and we wouldn't irritate Lukashenko's regime every day.
Esteban González Pons
Thank you very much. If we don't understand that Belarus is our past, we will transform it in our future. That's the lesson. Now I'm going to open the floor. We have ten minutes, so I'm going to give the floor to as many members as I can for one minute.
I will call you by the number of your seats and then I will give the floor to Sviatlana to say the last words as a conclusion. My first speaker is going to be seat 189. Talk when the micro is okay.
Ville Niinistö
Thank you, Sviatlana. I'm Ville Niinistö, I'm the chair of the delegation on Russia in the European Parliament and we very much welcome you here again to be our guest and we very much support your endeavors. I think Belarus reminds us of something fundamental: democracy cannot be taken for granted and today democracy is not only attacked in the ballot boxes but through disinformation, cyberattacks and by spreading of foreign interference in all kinds of means. We know that authoritarian regimes like Russia's is spreading disinformation and propaganda massively online, also to corrupt the AI systems that use this data on the base of their models as information. At the same time, the digital giants are unwilling to set rules for their algorithms that would protect democracy and individual rights instead of eroding them.
So I think there's a big challenge to democracy from outside but also from within. And I don't think the goal of Lukashenko or Putin is that our citizens in Europe or in democracies would believe them. I think their goal is that people would believe in nothing, that people in democracies would not support their own institutions and that they would become passive because of this cynical spread of disinformation. So how do you see, what is the best way for Europe to counteract the spread of disinformation by the authoritarians and good luck for you in your endeavors.
Esteban González Pons
Thank you, Ville. Now next speaker is my colleague Assita Kanko, seat 234.
Assita Kanko
Yes, thank you. I would like to thank you, dear Sviatlana, for your courage. We've seen several times in this Parliament and you have always through your actions shown that courage, the passion, and your fight is known to us all. It's not only for your family, it's not only for Belarus, it's actually for Europe, for freedom, for what we are all fighting for. What's not so obvious for many, to me at least, is where you get your strength from.
What fuels your hope? What's the next thing you really hope for if you could make it happen today? And why do you carry on fighting? Do you feel more alone now than before or did we actually succeed to make you realize that we are with you? And as these dark clouds from the East are still gathering once again above our heads, above Europe, we see a lot of political apathy among us, a lot of people who feel powerless.
What do you say to our citizens? Thank you.
Esteban González Pons
Thank you, dear colleague. My next speaker is seat 291, Mai Kivelä from the Finnish Parliament.
Mai Kivelä
Thank you. Your work for democratic Belarus really reminds us that the democracy can never be taken for granted and it has to be defended every day. However, the democracy is under threat from many directions in Europe. The threat comes not only from outside but also within our own countries. Various groups, especially from the far right, are doing everything they can to erode the people's trust in democratic principles.
Mis- and disinformation is spreading, the hate speech has become commonplace, and as a candidate, the idea of campaigning free from harassment feels almost utopian. However, I want to stress that this is no force of nature. This is a process with active players and people profiting from it. So the oligarchs are profiting and tech oligarchs are among them. So my question therefore concerns the role of these techno-giants in anti-democratic activity and how it may show up in your work and how we could enforce the democratic elements in the era of AI boom.
And finally, I want to express our support for your work for democratic Belarus. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Thank you, colleague. And our last speaker is our Irish colleague from seat 64.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, Aigads. I'd like to commend Ms. Tsikhanouskaya. Obviously, it's absolutely vital that we see this level of courage and bravery and more difficult particularly when you're up against an absolutely oppressive and repressive regime in Belarus. Now, have we seen failure across the world? We have indeed.
We have seen some of the most powerful governments in the world, particularly America. We've seen what it has done and facilitated genocidal Israel.
We have seen that Russia took its opportunity and has gone back to what it has always done, and that is just Vladimir Putin introducing a new form of Russian imperialism. This is never good enough. And I would agree with an awful lot of what has been said earlier, that we need to be strong because democracy is under attack from the tech oligarchs, as has been said previously, who are just willing to endanger everything from a point of view of them maximizing their profit. It's about keeping people online and they have no cares for in relation to the misinformation, disinformation and the societal damage they're doing. Since as I've got this opportunity here, I'm also going to commend those brave people on the Garvaghy Road back in Ireland who are standing up for their rights for equality and democracy in what is a disgraceful decision that was made, and we will stand with them against a hatefest being put down in an area that has suffered over many, many years.
And I would just say it draws attention to the issues, and the issues that will always be caused by partition in Ireland. Go raibh maith agaibh agus maith sibh.
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya
First of all, thank you so much for all the words of support. There are so many people here and you understand what threats exist for democracy in your countries. It's misinformation, it's AI instruments that are very well used by dictators to poison minds of your people, it's populism. And I'm sure that you have fantastic conversation here and you know, just discuss how to protect your democracies. And actually you can take Belarus as very vivid example how to fight against dictatorship.
As I said in my speech, we have very good experience and we, you know, actually working with many parliamentarians to promote Belarusian cause. And maybe in my final speech I will encourage you to transform words of solidarity into practical actions and to promote Belarusian topic as how to fight with dictatorship and protect democracy. So encourage your parliaments to create groups for democratic Belarus in your national parliaments, especially, you know, there where they don't exist, like Hungary, Cyprus, Greece, Denmark, Malta, Romania. We are really, you know, eager to work with your countries. Already 24 nations have groups for democratic Belarus in your parliaments and thank you for promoting Belarusian situation.
I just have to say that even two, five MPs is enough to keep Belarus on agenda. And I encourage you to join the Alliance for Democratic Belarus and organizations and welcome you to meet in Oslo in January and in Vilnius in June during this event. Also I encourage you to sign a memorandum of cooperation with democratic forces of Belarus, the same as President Roberta Metsola did. It's good ground for more institutionalized work with you and it's opportunity to invite more Belarusians, especially Belarusian politicians, but also political prisoners to explain to your people what dictatorship is and how it's important to protect democracy. Also we encourage you to help us with future reforms, with constitutional reforms, because we are not only fighting with the regime, but we also preparing for the future.
And we want to take the best experiences from your countries, from nations who went through dictatorship to make this process of democratization fast and smooth.
So if you have this expertise, please help Belarusians to do the same. And of course I encourage you to keep topic of Belarusian political prisoners high on agenda. Because at the moment it's more than nine hundred people behind bars. Yes, recently a couple of hundreds have been released thanks to strong and principled position of European Union and diplomatic efforts of the USA, but every day people are detained. It's now at the moment it's like revolving doors, some are released, twice more are detained.
So I encourage you to tell to the world that the situation is not normal, it's not normalized in Belarus. Detentions are continuous, repressions are continuous and you as MPs can take godparenthood over political prisoners and through the stories of political prisoners tell the story of Belarus. And one more request, strengthen our presence in international assemblies. We are already in Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe and Parliamentary Assembly of OSCE. Next are NATO PA, the IPU, the observer status in Euronest.
So we ask you to cooperate more with Belarusians on these platforms. We need non-orthodox solutions right now. I understand that we democratic forces is not like state because our state is seized by dictators, but we non-conventional times need non-conventional decisions. So invite please our delegations on your events, on your like official events just to represent different Belarus, to rediscover Belarus to the world, to show that Belarusians and the regime are not the same, that we are fighting together with Ukrainians for freedom and independence of our countries from Russian imperialism. And please help us to protect our countries and the same you are protecting your, you're protecting Europe and democracy as well.
Thank you.
Esteban González Pons
Thank you very much. Thank you Sviatlana, you have shown us again that democracy is not only about what happens on election day. It is about whether citizens are truly free to choose, whether the opposition can exist, whether journalists can report freely, whether civil society can organize, whether parliaments can hold governments to account and whether our institutions, you said that, are strong enough to protect these freedoms when they come under pressure. This is why we can never take democracy for granted. Thank you for bringing the voice of democratic Belarus once again to this Parliament.
It is always a pleasure to be with you, an honor. And now I'm going to give back the floor to our General Director, Senna Lapola, because she has to continue with the first of the meetings that we have in the session. Thank you very much.
Sanna Lepola
Thank you Ms. Tsikhanouskaya, Vice-President González Pons, and thank you all of you who took part of the debate sharing your perspectives and for this very valuable discussion. I know that there were more people wanting to take the floor that we had the possibility, but I hope you will take the floor in the next sessions. We now open our first interactive session of the day, so I will pass the microphone over to our moderators, Delphine and Philippe, the floor is yours. Thank you.
Speaker 18
A single bird faces higher resistance, but together they ease the journey. Today, our democracies face complex challenges. No parliament can build democratic resilience in isolation. Through the European Democracy Shield, parliaments must engage with digital platforms and civil society to form a reliable network to protect our elections. Safeguarding our democracy.
Stronger in sync.
Delphine Colard
Good afternoon and welcome to this first session of the EU Parliamentary Democracy Forum. I'm Delphine Colard, the spokesperson of the European Parliament. I'm delighted to co-moderate this today's session with Philippe Tulkens. A very warm welcome again to all of you here in the hemicycle and also to those following us online.
Philippe Tulkens
Thank you very much, Delphine, and a good afternoon from me as well. I'm Philippe Tulkens, I'm the director for ICT infrastructure and security operations here at the European Parliament. The first session of the forum will focus on the following question: how can we mobilize all relevant stakeholders to safeguard elections? We all agree that free, fair, and credible elections are one of the cornerstones of our democratic governance. Yet, we see more and more that these elections are increasingly challenged by disinformation, foreign interference, cyberattacks, and even the intimidation of the candidates.
Speaker 15
Before we begin, maybe just some quick notes on housekeeping. We want this to be a real conversation, so please don't hesitate to take the floor when we open the debate. If you want to speak, just raise your hands and we will call the seat number. Note, of course, that interpretation is available in all EU languages. We ask you to respect the allocated speaking time, a minute and 30 seconds, to allow as many participants as possible to take the floor.
In this first session, our discussion will be structured around two main themes that you can see on screen now: how to strengthen regulatory guardrails and institutional defenses, and how to advance electoral integrity from the ground up. We will open the floor for debate twice on each of these topics.
Philippe Tulkens
Okay, so let's start with a quick pulse check. And for this, we would like to ask you to scan the QR code that is in front of you. There are actually two QR codes. We would like you to scan the one that is on this piece of paper, if you can, the blue paper with the black QR code. This will open Housepace.
Housepace is the tool that will be used throughout the forum to gather your opinions. It should be easy, you can use it in your own language. The results will be displayed on the screen and they will be displayed in English so everybody can follow. So, the first question you are asked to respond to is the following: which stakeholder has the greatest impact on protecting the integrity of elections in your country? The Housepace question is open now.
Speaker 15
Excellent, thank you for your participation. If we see the results and the cloud appearing on the screen, we see the people and the media coming up. It's probably for a resilient electoral system we need an active engagement of a wide range of actors. Before we discuss this in more details in this panel, we are delighted to welcome on stage Peter Kreko, the executive director of Political Capital, a Budapest-based political research and consultancy institute. Peter is also a political scientist, social psychologist and leading expert on disinformation.
His work sits very much at the intersection of these issues that we are discussing today. So Peter, how resilient are electoral systems in Europe? I give you the floor.
Péter Krekó
Okay, so first of all, ladies and gentlemen, dear vice-president, dear guests, thank you very much for the opportunity to be here and to be a scene-setter for this discussion that is coming up. I would start by saying that protecting elections today, especially in Europe, is no longer only about protecting ballots, voter registries or counting procedures. It is also about ensuring the integrity of the information environment in which citizens make political choices. Until the end of 2027, EU member states will face multiple and very consequential elections. For example in Germany, in France, in Spain, in Slovakia, in Italy and Poland, but in other countries as well.
The integrity of the elections is in many countries under pressure both from the inside and the outside. The latest assessment of the European External Action Service is quite explicit: elections remain primary targets of Russian foreign information manipulation and interference using state-controlled media, covert networks, local proxies and other parts of what it calls the Russian FIMI infrastructure. Russian FIMI follows a repetitive and predictable playbook, which means that they can also be anticipated and countered. At the same time, hybrid attacks from Russia clearly intensify, aiming to paint the Russian Federation stronger and more powerful than in reality. The Hungarian election of April 2026 offers some useful lessons on the limits of Russian influence and massive state-sponsored disinformation.
I will share three points of lessons with you now. First, prebunking does matter. One of the more interesting features of the Hungarian campaign was the increasing and efficient use of preemptive communication. Journalists, researchers and political actors publicly discussed expected smear campaigns, false flag operations, active measures and possible Russian influence operations from the Russian military and intelligence services and the Kremlin-linked information operations firm Social Design Agency before they appeared. Influence operations partly depend on surprise, ambiguity and secrecy.
In the case of Hungary, preemptive communication of investigative journalists, experts and politicians made the public opinion more immune and prevented some actions from happening. My think tank, Political Capital Institute, had a polling shortly before the election and provided an interesting indication of this changing awareness. Russia was perceived by large margin the foreign actor as potential source of election interference weeks before the election and not Ukraine and not the European Union as back then the official disinformation narrative suggested.
If the audience has been warned about interference techniques, foreign influence was no longer visible and conspiring is way more difficult in broad daylight. Second, AI-generated manipulation can reach a saturation point. Hungary became an important test case, I would say also a laboratory, for the large-scale political use of generative AI. Hundreds of emotional deepfakes reaching millions of users have flooded the social media space. Still, they did not reach the impact they aimed to.
Why was that? Shortly before the election, we have done a representative survey in Hungary that found that 73% of social media users had encountered political content they believed had been generated or manipulated using AI. At the same time, 90% said that the use of deepfakes in politics was totally unacceptable. This is why labeling deepfakes and synthetic content is important, awareness and recognition comes with stronger immunity. Third, political advertisement rules can reshape the information environment.
Before Meta and Google stopped political advertising in the EU in autumn 2025, government-affiliated actors have spent approximately 9.2 million euros in a country of 10 million inhabitants and 8 million voters, accounting for around 87% of all political advertising expenditure on these two platforms in Hungary. The previous Hungarian government was the all-time champion in the EU in terms of political advertisements. After paid political advertisement disappeared as a consequence, an indirect consequence of the transparency and targeting of political advertising legislation have come into force, government-aligned actors experimented with proxy organizations, fictional formats, influencers and AI-generated videos. Some of these techniques successfully bypassed platform filters, but they did not reproduce the previous level of paid amplification. The online political environment becomes significantly less asymmetric than before.
This is an important reassurance of European regulation. Restrictions can have an effect even if circumvention does not disappear. But still, there is an enforcement gap when it comes to political advertisement that have to be tackled. Let me conclude with four quick recommendations. First, we should build permanent national and European capacities for identifying influence operations way before elections begin.
There's a need for capacity to map networks, identify coordinated inauthentic behavior, trace advertising structures, detect synthetic content and share information quickly across borders within EU member states, but also in future EU member states. Second, extend the rapid response system, which is under the code of conduct of disinformation, a fast-track channel connecting platforms, fact-checkers, researchers and civil society organizations before elections, which even if not omnipotent, but at the same time can be efficient in in certain extent according to our experiences as well. It should operate earlier for longer periods than only 30 days before the elections with clearer obligations for platform response. Independent researchers, code of conduct signatories and European Digital Media Observatory hubs should have a systemic role in the process. Third, strengthen enforcement against political advertising proxy campaigning, fake accounts and deceptive deepfakes.
Platforms should face much stronger incentives to remove coordinated fake networks quickly, particularly during election periods. And the fourth one, I think we should challenge the idea that is quite widespread these days that strengthening democratic resilience is a kind of censorship.
In fact, it is quite the opposite. The principle is you have the right to hear different opinions, but you also have the right to know whether a person or institution speaking to you is fake or real. You have the right to know whether a photograph or a video is authentic or not. Whether an account represents a citizen or only a bot and an algorithm. Whether a political actor is spending millions of euros to artificially dominate what citizens see online, creating an almost Orwellian social media environment.
So the question is, should algorithms, fake identities, deepfakes, and foreign malign disinformation actors have an unlimited freedom to manipulate citizens? The real danger to free speech comes when authentic voices are suppressed by fake profiles, AI algorithms, and monetized disinformation. So the objective should not be to reduce political disagreement, diversity, and conflict of political views are indispensable for a healthy democracy. The objective should be to make the debate more genuine, and I would say that the Hungarian election provides a reason for some confidence. Disinformation, foreign and domestic, can be powerful but not omnipotent.
Citizens can recognize manipulation, they can become resistant to overuse propaganda, warning in advance can help them to make more informed decisions. And they can make informed choices even in highly distorted and manipulated information environment. But at the same time, we have to strengthen the very institutions, practices, and also the civil society actors that we could also see at the cloud, based on your votes, who can help to make citizens to make more informed decisions. Thank you for your attention.
Philippe Tulkens
Thank you very much, Peter, for those insights. This introduction shows that we still have quite some steps to take if we want to protect our electoral systems and make them future-proof. So let's get the views from our elected representatives. I would like to welcome to the stage Ms. Mary Dzoski and Mr. Mika Altola. Mr. Altola is a member of the European Parliament.
He is part of the Special Committee on the European Democracy Shield, where he serves as the coordinator for the EPP political group. And Ms. Dzoski is a member of the Austrian National Council and the vice chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Altola, the Committee for the European Democracy Shield has been examining the different threats facing European democracies and their electoral systems. Could you maybe outline the key proposals emerging from this work, and that you see as essential for guaranteeing comprehensive protection of elections?
Mika Aaltola
Well, elections are the key part of any democracy. So one vital element of fast recognize is that elections are critical infrastructure. So we are worried about what Russia might be doing to our actual physical infrastructure. We should be worried what they can do for our democracies. Election processes are sacred time for democracies, and it is existential if a foreign power or foreign powers intervene, they actually try by force to change our leadership.
So it is an existential situation, and we in our report recognize that gravity of the situation. And of course then we have to do things in order to safeguard, create preparedness, bring people together.
But first of all, it is about returning the ownership over elections to the people who vote in them. So democracy belongs to the people, so we have to activate the citizens' networks. We have to activate the people because they know what is going on, they have sensors in their head. They have brains that are still better than any Russian artificial intelligence bot network can produce. So when we come together, then things start to happen and the key recommendation was that there's an entity in the Commission, Center for Democratic Resilience, that brings different networks, it's a hub of hubs, brings different national level networks together and coordinates better than ever before the work around democratic critical infrastructure.
Philippe Tulkens
Thank you very much. So let's turn to an area where the challenge to our elections is developing particularly quickly: the digital information space. This is often weaponized for disinformation or for foreign interference. And the EU already has a comprehensive digital regulatory framework in place, but the regulation can only make a difference if it's effectively implemented and it actually translates into responsible behavior. Ms. Sosky, looking specifically at digital platforms, how can we ensure that these platforms align their policies and their practices with electoral integrity standards?
Mary Dzoski
Thank you so much for the invitation and for the opportunity to speak and to discuss such a crucial issue on our democracies today with you. We already heard that foreign interference is already part of our political reality. And I have seen this close, and I have seen how close this can come, I have to put in that words, how close this can come to the heart of our democratic institutions. I want to share with you what happened in 2025, where I served as the parliamentary group leader of the Greens in the Austrian committee of inquiry, where we investigated abuse of power. And we found evidence after evidence of close links between Austria's far-right Freedom Party, the FPÖ, and Russia.
Can you imagine that this party, the FPÖ, has signed friendship treaty with Putin's United Russia? Can you imagine? And in parliament, the FPÖ, this far-right party, repeatedly reproduced narratives that benefit the Kremlin: sanctions are portrayed as hurting Europe rather than Russia, support for Ukraine as prolonging the war, Ukraine and its president are discredited and Russia's responsibility as the aggressor is blurred. And just yesterday I read this when I came here, yesterday a new study analyzing more than 55,000 speeches in Austria's national and regional parliaments confirmed how systematic this has become. The FPÖ, the party I just mentioned, is by far the most frequently spreading the pro-Russian narratives examined in this study.
And why I'm elaborating on this, because foreign interference does not stop at the doors of parliament. Sometimes its narratives are carried straight through those doors. And that has a massive impact, of course, on our elections. And Austria is not an isolated case. So this is not a hypothetical future we're discussing, all of this is happening now.
But foreign interference, and that's why I have to refer to the platforms, needs infrastructure. It needs channels to spread narratives, it needs networks to reach people, and increasingly it also needs algorithms to amplify them. And that is what platforms are not neutral bystanders in this debate.
We also have to ask who gets reach, who gets amplified and why? An algorithm designed to maximize engagement does not care whether that engagement comes from democratic debate, outrage, disinformation or manipulation. And hostile actors know this and they exploit it. So that is why in my opinion Democracy Shield is right to focus not only on individual pieces of content, but on recommender systems, algorithmic amplification and the business models behind them. So we already have powerful tools, sorry, the DSA especially, but the question is whether we are prepared to use them.
If the design of a platform creates systematic risks for elections, those risks have to be investigated, mitigated and enforced against. Because the problem is no longer a lack of rules. It is an enforcement gap and it is also a political will gap. So what needs to be done to conclude? Independent researchers need real access to platform data, regulators need to be able to look inside these systems, citizens need genuine control over their feeds.
And platforms, and this is also important for me, platforms cannot be allowed to say, oh trust us, our algorithms are fine. Democracy cannot operate on trust us, because freedom of expression does not mean the right to opaque algorithm amplification. And yeah, I think that it's the democratic line that we have to defend.
Speaker 15
Well thank you very much for your contribution, both extremely telling. Let's open the floor now for debate. We would welcome any reactions, ideas, thoughts on how to strengthen regulatory guardrails and institutional defenses to protect elections. So a kind reminder to limit your contribution to a minute and a half so that more voices can be heard. Can we also ask you to state your name and the organization you're representing when you take the floor?
Do we have first interventions or requests? I see here seat 306, yes, 306.
Speaker 28
Muito obrigado. Gostaria de cumprimentar a mesa e todos os presentes. A minha intervenção tem a ver com o primeiro aspecto da informação falsa, da informação manipulada e da incapacidade que nós temos tido de controlar esta disseminação. Nós na União Europeia, infelizmente, não temos tido a capacidade de poder junto dos maiores detentores das plataformas, da Meta e da Google, de fazer o exercício da nossa legislação já aprovada. Isto é absolutamente crucial.
Uma questão que também gostaria de levantar tem a ver com o uso da inteligência artificial, este sim, uma utilização que tem perigado muito a capacidade de nós distinguirmos o que é a verdade do que é a falsidade. Também gostaria ainda de falar de um aspecto muito importante. Eu julgo que nós, actores políticos, temos que falar no terreno, temos que dizer a verdade para que esta verdade possa ser cara a cara confrontada com aquilo que é a mentira fabricada e disseminada. Finalmente, gostaria que pensássemos que num futuro não muito longe será a própria IA, a própria inteligência artificial, a gerar conteúdos para que estes conteúdos contribuam para a desinformação e para deturpar aquilo que é o sistema eleitoral e, em última instância, a defesa da democracia. Muito obrigado.
Speaker 15
Thank you.
We will take a second intervention, I think from seat 152. Maybe we'll take two or three and then give you the possibility to react. Yes, please.
Daniela Ternullo
Sì, grazie. Sono Daniela Ternullo, Senato della Repubblica. Lo sappiamo bene, dinanzi a queste minacce ibride, i processi elettorali e democratici così sofisticati quanto insidiosi, dobbiamo sviluppare davvero degli strumenti di difesa che siano efficaci senza compromettere quelle stesse libertà che vogliamo, insomma, proteggere. Noi apprezziamo tantissimo l'iniziativa del Centro europeo per la resilienza democratica, che deve diventare sempre più operativo e riteniamo quindi necessario il rafforzamento dei capitoli di bilancio che nella proposta del nuovo quadro finanziario pluriennale sono specificatamente destinati sia alla difesa e pure anche all'innovazione digitale. Sul piano nazionale, l'Italia ha varato norme per la difesa cybersicurezza, introducendo degli obblighi per le pubbliche amministrazioni e i soggetti connessi con le infrastrutture critiche e sanzioni severe per i reati informatici e sta sviluppando anche delle tutele per l'integrità dei processi elettorali e politici.
Inoltre, con l'approvazione della legge nazionale sull'IA nel 2025, il legislatore ha inserito degli specifici vincoli e quindi delle sanzioni per l'utilizzo manipolativo dei sistemi generativi, come i deepfake, se sono quindi impiegati per alterare quella che è l'informazione oppure danneggiare la reputazione dei candidati politici. Il Senato italiano è particolarmente attivo nella lotta contro la disinformazione e recentemente abbiamo istituito una commissione parlamentare di inchiesta che ha gli stessi poteri dell'autorità giudiziaria proprio allo scopo di analizzare le operazioni organizzate di manipolazione dell'informazione per valutarne l'impatto sui processi democratici e quindi proporre degli interventi legislativi mirati. Infine, e chiudo, desidero ringraziare la Presidente Metsola per aver promosso questo confronto che ci rende più consapevoli di quanto i parlamenti, che sono quelle sedi della rappresentanza, abbiano appunto una responsabilità decisiva nella tutela dell'integrità elettorale e dei processi informativi. Grazie.
Speaker 15
Thank you. I think we had a third request from the German representatives, 106, I think. Yes, you have the floor.
Bettina Martin
Yes, thank you very much. I'm Bettina Martin from Germany, representing the Bundesrat, the chamber, and being Minister for European Affairs in the far northeast in Germany. And I would like to also add my thanks for talking about this very important subject and for your impressions from Austria. We've just had a state election in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and I'm convinced if we don't get this problem you also addressed under control, our democracies in the whole of Europe are not just under strain but really in danger. And I was, you know, grassroots campaigning in my constituency and it was very obvious that people get their information from very different sources and you don't get through with information anymore at times.
And this really has to worry us if people don't know what's right or wrong, what's true and false, I think democracy is in danger.
So I think we've really missed opportunities through the past years, or maybe we also missed seeing the danger to its extent. But one claim I have after my experiences, because I also worry about the people, how the threshold that is lowered, how to treat people with different opinions, which is the basis for democracy to meet eye on eye. So we need to, I think, introduce the idea of only working with clear names when you discuss in the internet. I know this is a big no-go in many people's heads, but I'm convinced that people now, I mean for for years we've seen people using bad language and not just that in the web, and it's now in the streets. And people who have different opinions don't treat you with respect anymore.
And I think we need to do something, and I'm convinced the answer is, one of the answers at least, is in using clear names in the net, in the web.
Speaker 21
We'll take a fourth remark and then I'll let you respond. So we had Mr. at 64, right?
Speaker 10
Go raibh maith agat. I suppose here if we start straight out, there's an element of politics has to deliver for normal people and, you know, as much as there's an issue in relation to communication and messaging, that is the problem. When we leave a vacuum, we will have those with malign intentions to enter. But it goes without saying, there's going to be many repeated conversations here and what it'll come down to is that we have social media companies that are really interested in making money, that the regu- that their recommender algorithms are based on the fact of what works from a point of view of keeping you online. And while we will have Elon Musk and we will have Peter Thiel who have dreadful notions in relation to what the future holds, but we've a whole pile of people like Mark Zuckerberg and others who just don't really care as long as profit is maximized.
So we need the European Commission to act faster, we need domestic support such as our own Coimisiún na Meán, we need to make sure it has enough teeth and that it takes on what are monoliths and many of them with resources beyond what what a nation state actually has. And if we don't get serious about this, we will pay the price long time in relation to a democratic deficit. Some of them have been very straightforward in relation to what they're offering. I would like at times that they would be taken to task the same way a publisher is. I think we absolutely have to not allow anonymous accounts.
But then when we look at TikTok, which is like the rest of social media on steroids, the fact is we have absolute lunatics, people who have been have their own issues, who can go online and say whatever they want. And we've all dealt at committee level that individual states were to come in and say, oh, you don't realize, we take everything off, you don't see most of the bad stuff. Well, I'd hate to see it because I have not seen them, any of them that are interested in dealing with this and is having detrim- detrimental impact on democracy and on individuals throughout Europe and the world beyond. Go raibh maith agat.
Speaker 23
Thank you. Can I ask the two speakers if they want to quickly react, a minute, a minute and a half, so that we can take, I have four speakers already that have signaled their interest.
Mary Dzoski
Okay then, I'll switch to German for the Q and A and just one quick response. Nur einige kurze Anmerkungen. Vielen Dank für die Beiträge, die Sie jetzt gebracht haben. Ich stimme Ihnen in vielem zu. Eine Sache, die ich gerne ergänzen würde, die mir jetzt gefehlt hat, war tatsächlich auch die Rolle von öffentlich-rechtlichem Rundfunk und die Frage, wie öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk dort, wo wir sehen, dass Rechte, Rechtsextreme an die Macht kommen, einfach kaputt gemacht wird, weil dieser öffentlich-rechtliche Rundfunk natürlich gegen Desinformation geht, natürlich faktenbasiert kommuniziert und hier auch rechte Narrative zerstört.
Und weil wir vorhin Swetlana Tichanowskaja gehört haben, die ich schon einige Male auch hören und treffen durfte, sie hat etwas sehr Wichtiges gesagt, das glaube ich auch gut in diese Debatte passt, nämlich die Erinnerung daran, dass sich Diktatoren, dass sich Despoten von Zögern, von weakness, glaube ich, hat sie gesagt, eingeladen fühlen.
Und wenn es eine Sache gibt, die ich heute auch hier wirklich kritisieren möchte, dann das Einknicken der Kommission, der Europäischen Kommission hier vor dem immer despotischer und diktatorischer agierenden US-Präsidenten Donald Trump, der einfach die Interessen der großen Tech-Konzerne, der großen Tech-Mogule nach vorne gestellt hat. Und die Kommission ist hier eingeknickt. Und wir sehen, wie diese Digi-Plattformen Milliarden scheffeln, kein Interesse daran haben, dass reguliert wird. Und hier waren wir als Europa insgesamt glaube ich viel zu zögerlich. We missed seeing the danger hat jemand vorhin gesagt.
Ich glaube das ist das Problem. Aber die Rolle vom Öffentlich-Rechtlichen wie gesagt glaube ich darf man in dieser Debatte nicht vergessen. Klarnamenpflicht sehr sehr heiße Kartoffel. Ich persönlich, aber es ist nicht die Meinung meiner Partei, wäre sehr dafür.
Mika Aaltola
Yes, I agree with that, that we should be much readier to tackle the issue where the politics actually happens and increasingly it is algorithmic by its nature. So it is different from the streets when you go there and campaign. And that algorithmic politics is much more virality-based, viscerality-based. It's nasty. The more the company stakeholders make money, the nastier it gets.
And that of course leads into the problem of fear. And Swetlana also referred to that in the case of Belarus. Of course it is extreme there because it is a physical danger. But gradually that type of activity can spread to our elections as well. I can see in different corners of Europe hearing a lot of reports on how people are fearful in entering into politics.
Not only because of the character assassinations that can happen online through fake information or artificial intelligence tools done by Russians or by some internal actors. But also because of the fact that everything has become so nasty that they are turned off from democracies. And that is something for example Russia is actively trying to achieve. It doesn't matter who they support. They support candidates that are extreme.
They can be hard left or extreme right candidates as long as they don't take positions on Russia that would be negative to Russia. They lend you a campaign machinery. They lend you actually millions of euros for your campaign. And then they scare the opponents. They blacklist them.
They target list them. Russia loves listing of people. There's 5,000 names, European leaders listed on Russian lists that are operational to increasing degree. So the fear is spreading. And it leads to self-censorship very easily when it comes to aid to Ukraine for example, when it comes to different other topics like fining the platforms for example.
So we are becoming more and more timid and fearful. Remember that what happened in Hungary was about courage. It was a story of courage of a party that actually went there even though irrespective of Russian military intelligence presence in Budapest and Maga coming to Budapest. Péter Magyar took the physical risk.
He is as vulnerable as we all are as physical human beings. We can be genetically affected very easily. So courage is something that is an antidote to the fear that is spread by the algorithmic politics and those empowered by the algorithms.
Speaker 32
Thank you. Thank you. As a Hungarian MP, I feel very much that I'm most willing to contribute, but I'm also obliged to contribute to this discussion. I think it has been discussed right from the beginning that democracy belongs to people. And in another keynote, we've heard that awareness and recognition.
So in exactly during or before during the Hungarian elections or the campaign, we've seen millions, tens of millions of of of Hungarian forints actually going into that, but AI-generated videos. But at the very end, and this is where awareness and recognition came to play a role, at the end, we did not see the same impact. Why is that? Because democracy belongs to people. And just chipping into your latest thought, this is actually local presence.
So it means that we do not just have an online space, but there is a there is a very important local presence of the politicians who are in the campaign. And I think we have to trust ourselves that it has a true meaning to the people because they are truly empowered by that. So a resilient democracy, what my message is, resilient democracy is therefore not a democracy or society without disagreement. It is a society that needs to learn how to disagree without dehumanizing the the the other in the in the in the discussion. And as the as the my input is related to the regulatory guardrails, I think we need to enhance the idea or that we already have a regulatory environment, DSA and AI Act.
Do we really need a parallel regulatory environment or we just have to capitalize what we already have? And just want to close with one one thought that ever since the the new parliament has been formed, we actually did introduce a special regulatory act that is to restrict political advertising outside of campaign periods and prohibiting political content that has been all over the country for years outside on billboards. So what I'm saying is we have if we have the EU tools, we need to rely on them. If we have something which we can solve on a national level, then we need to strive for that. Thank you very much.
Malika Sorel
Thank you. We have a member of the European Parliament, seat 189.
Bonjour, Malika Sorel, je suis députée française. Ici au Parlement, j'ai pris la parole plusieurs fois pour dire que l'une des rares possibilités que nous ayons pour endiguer un certain nombre de discours, des discours qui veulent détruire, nous le savons, l'Union européenne et même répandre la haine dans nos sociétés, c'est la levée de l'anonymat sur Internet. Donc je suis très heureuse qu'une collègue allemande vienne de prendre la parole pour en parler. Donc la levée de l'anonymat, ça permettrait de faire en sorte qu'un certain nombre de personnes réfléchissent avant de s'exprimer et répandre un certain nombre de discours. Et deuxièmement, ça permettrait également de lutter contre les robots, les bots.
Donc si nous voulons véritablement agir pour protéger nos sociétés, s'il vous plaît, chers collègues, votons une loi pour lever l'anonymat. Le reste, comme on dit en français, n'est que de la poésie, c'est-à-dire que ça ne servira pas à grand-chose, hélas. Donc je répète, levée de l'anonymat, s'il vous plaît. Merci.
Speaker 30
Now we have an intervention at seat 155. Yes, you, Mrs. Yes.
Merci beaucoup.
Guna Kalniņa
Guna Kalniņa. I'm a parliamentarian from Latvia, also NATO PA. And I wanted to thank you for this panel. It's about time that we had some real discussion on this issue. I also wanted to thank my colleagues for being so frank about the situation.
And publicly, I'd like to thank the President of Moldova. Maia Sandu came to Latvia in 2024 to tell us, your storm is coming. Your elections are coming and you need to be prepared. Well, our elections are this Saturday. And I would say that Latvia is prepared.
We listened to her. We listened to her and resulted in some significant changes in our parliamentary law. We will be counting elections by hand. We also have asked our diaspora to be very careful and also submit by post to a certain date. But what concerns me is the lack of cooperation by Meta.
And I think my colleagues brought that up, that they resist the more money they make. That was a great phrase, the more resistant they are. You can tell from my accent that I don't have a Latvian accent. My parents were World War II refugees. I had to be born in New York, not a bad place to grow up.
But it concerns me on what is happening in the US. A president who has also been favorable to the far right, who has infringed upon the far right in Germany and encouraged this. Thankfully in the Baltics, that hasn't happened. He likes us because we're at almost 5%. So that's on the positive side.
What concerns me is the fact that here is a president who also takes advantage of the media, his own public, personal, I'm lacking for the word, yeah, internet. And that's an example of the alpha male taking over and deciding what we can do and what we can't do. So thank you very much for this. I don't have a question. My concern is that we're not reaching out enough to the guys who are responsible for this.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
Thank you. I'll take three short interventions, so please can I ask you to stick to the speaking time and then we will continue with our speakers, but don't worry, there are other sessions where you can ask questions. So the last speakers at seat 307. Again, if you can limit to one minute and a half, we can then make sure that we can have numerous panels after.
Speaker 34
Thank you so much, I will speak in Portuguese. As lacunas do Democracy Shield podem vir a fazer com que o mesmo se torne um escudo contra a legítima dissidência democrática. E a minha pergunta é esta: como podemos garantir uma abrangente proteção das eleições se continuamos a apostar na centralização de competências em Bruxelas e no aumento de redes de fact-checking, continuando a criar estruturas públicas ou financiadas pela União que funcionam como árbitros da verdade, ao mesmo tempo que se aumenta em milhares de milhões de euros as ONGs financiadas, pagas para introduzir conteúdos antes de uma ideia política legítima chegar ao público, para que algo ou alguém passe a poder classificá-la, limitá-la, despromovê-la ou removê-la? Afinal, quem decide o que é desinformação? Quem decide se opinião é risco?
Quem decide se narrativa é ameaça? Uma democracia supervisionada por centros supranacionais deixa de ser soberana, passa a ser uma democracia administrada. A Europa nasceu de modo a proteger a liberdade contra os abusos de poder, e o contexto geopolítico atual é muito exigente. Combater a interferência estrangeira, sim, mas criar mecanismos europeus capazes de condicionar o debate democrático, não. Muito obrigado.
Speaker 35
Thank you. We had a request at seat 70 from Ireland. Yes. Seat 70, the microphone is not on. Yes, it's working now.
Laura Harmon
Thanks very much. My name is Laura Harmon. I'm a senator from Ireland, from Cork in Ireland, and it's really a privilege to be here today in the Parliament to be part of this discussion and to be part of a wonderful delegation from the Oireachtas in Ireland. I suppose I wanted to say that I think democracy is under threat in many countries all across Europe. The threat of misinformation, disinformation, we've heard it at the sessions today, and those who would threaten our very elections as well.
And certainly places like Ireland are not immune to this. We haven't had a far-right government in Ireland, but places like Ireland are not immune to this. And I think we have a lot to learn from other countries in relation to this, those who have been fighting back for many years from a very real threat of the far-right in their countries. I think Ireland needs to do more to protect our institutions. Certainly our free press as well is so important, having free media.
The far-right own a lot of their own media, and we can see that happening in Ireland now as well, having a chilling effect, I believe, on politicians as well. We need to absolutely guard against this, and we need to have a sustained plan. So I suppose my questions ultimately are, do you think we're very behind the curve on this? How urgently do we need to be acting? And what can countries like Ireland learn, countries where we haven't had this develop to the extent that it may have developed in other countries?
How can we learn from that experience to make sure that it doesn't happen in our country? Because I am worried as a parliamentarian in Ireland about the misinformation, disinformation that's out there, the lack of regulation in terms of our big tech companies, many of them headquartered in Ireland, as we know, they have their headquarters there. They've been quite difficult, many of them, in terms of engaging with our Oireachtas committees in Ireland as well, coming in to actually engage with parliamentarians. It's been a struggle to get them to engage in many instances. So how can we learn to make sure that we can nip this in the bud in countries where it hasn't taken hold as much yet?
Thanks.
Thank you. We'll take a last intervention, that was seat 402. Yes, miss. Yes. Could you possibly stand up and then press the speak button?
Yes, or the microphone is not on, 402.
How can we ask civil society help in this difficult situation? Of also normal people, how can we help in this situation? Thank you.
Speaker 15
I think I will thank you all for the contribution in this round and maybe to wrap up this discussion I will turn to the speakers again. Maybe first Ms. Distowski, elections as we heard are primarily organized at national or regional level. Many factors can affect them and they don't stop at national border as you said. You outlined that very clearly. How can then parliamentarians from national and European parliament cooperate better to protect electoral system?
How can they count on civil society? You heard the question from your counterparts.
Mary Dzoski
I think that the starting point is quite simple. The threats we are facing are cross-border, but our parliamentary scrutiny is still largely national. So that's a problem. We just heard it. Foreign interference crosses borders, disinformation crosses borders, platforms cross borders, and the algorithms who are deciding what millions of Europeans see, they do not stop at national borders too.
So our parliamentary scrutiny cannot stop there either. And we cannot have 27 separate learning curves against the same actors and the same platforms. And let me give you a very concrete example that is particularly important to me because in my parliamentary group in Austria I'm responsible not only for European and foreign affairs but also for women's rights and gender equality. And maybe you have read it that just yesterday an EU-wide investigation revealed sexualized AI-generated deepfakes of 138 female politicians across 22 EU countries. Women in politics are 30 times more likely to be targeted than men, and one in 14 MPs across Europe is affected.
For men it is one in 500. And one of these women affected is my colleague here in the European Parliament, her name is Lena Schilling. But this is much more bigger than one individual case because as women in politics we are much more likely to be digitally stripped naked without our consent, our faces put on sexualized images and videos. And this is violence. This is not freedom of speech.
This is violence. And the European Democracy Shield report rightly highlights this problem. The report highlights this problem. It says digital intimidation and disinformation campaigns targeting women in politics, including deepfakes and non-consensual sexualized content, are not simply online harassment. Because when women are targeted, when platforms distribute all these images, it becomes a tool to intimidate women, to silence them, and to push them, and that's the point, to push them out of democratic participation.
And I'm really angry. I'm really angry for every woman who looks at this and asks herself, is politics worth it? Do I really want to expose myself to this? Because when violence makes women think twice about entering politics, speaking publicly, or staying in public life, it attacks their political participation. And that of course affects our democracy and the condition of elections in which elections take place.
And this cannot be the new normal. So what needs to be done? I think as I already mentioned, 138 women from 22 member states, why should 22 national parliaments discover the same phenomenon separately? We need to identify these patterns together and jointly demand answers from the platforms that distribute and amplify them. I think that national parliaments and the European Parliament need to coordinate their scrutiny.
And we need to ask platforms the same questions.
What are your algorithms amplifying? What risks have you detected? What have you done about them? And can independent researchers verify your answers? What I just described is an imbalance of power that parliament should definitely, parliaments should definitely challenge.
And I think that we need structures for cooperation. This I want to outline by concluding. We need structures for cooperation. We do not need another talking shop.
Philippe Tulkens
Mr. Altola, from our discussions here today but also from your experience, can you tell us which ideas you consider the most vital for a robust election protection framework and why?
Mika Aaltola
Well, the enemies are within the gates already. We have enemies outside of the gates and the autocratic solidarity is clearly spreading. We have issues with our transatlantic partnership. We have a war going on on the European continent, biggest land war since the Second World War. There's a war in Middle East.
So we are in a middle of very turbulent time. And the duty to protect and safeguard democracy is much bigger than it used to be. We are the generation that actually failed the promise that was given after the Second World War, never again. And we are the European Union who allowed us to fail our citizens and we lost the peace. And so we have duties when it comes to democracy now that we cannot leave to our children without difficulties.
So your point about the women in politics, yes, exactly. You know, they have their value systems and they want to keep women out of politics. They are ultra-conservative movements in many cases. So we are talking about radicals when we judge them from the European way of life perspective and our sense of freedoms. I'm worried about our media as well because the platforms, they are taking the advertisement money out of our local national media.
It's weakening. There's a lot of uncovered regions in Europe where demography is weakening as the democracy is weakening at the same time. Local reporting is non-existent, so people naturally turn into their Facebook groups for information about the local events. So the platforms with the algorithms, the American and Chinese ones, are present in our localities. So we are losing ground quite a lot.
And therefore we need to also have two things. We need to activate the citizens so that they work as vigilant democracy promoters. We need to empower them. And at the same time we need to coordinate much better.
So there was a question that is there some kind of a conspiracy by the Commission when it comes to suffocating democracy? No, there's nothing like that. It's a nation's member state level activity elections and it's going to remain like that. But it doesn't prevent us from learning from each other when it comes to the best practices when we are facing this new time for the first time ever, artificial intelligence, algorithmic politics. We need to learn.
And so it is about coordination and the Center for Democratic Resilience is coordinating activities, allowing for for cognitive learning because you know the fight is about our cognitions. It's about our minds. And we cannot lose that. And we will lose it definitely if we don't learn from each other, if we think for example that Ireland is is far away remote place and it's not affected by this. Yes, as you pointed out, you are affected by this.
All the corners of the world are affected by this phenomena that we are facing. So if we don't proactively tackle the problem ahead of us, we will regret and our children will regret it even more and they will blame us for breaking that promise that was given after the Second World War.
Philippe Tulkens
Thank you very much. Can I have a bit of warm applause for two panelists? And I think this is we will move on to the second part of our discussion.
Speaker 15
Yes, the second part of our session will be on advancing electoral integrity from the ground up. One of the central ideas behind Democracy Shield is that protecting democracy cannot be seen as an isolated task for electoral authorities or government alone. I think it was already raised by the speaker from the civil society, how can they have a role? So what does a genuine whole of society approach to electoral resilience looks like and how can we make it work in practice? To explore this topic, we are delighted to welcome on stage Vasilije Čarapić, chairperson of the Committee on International Relations and Immigrants of the Parliament of Montenegro, Rodrigo Saraiva, Vice-President of the Assembly of the Republic of Portugal, and Gillian Coughlan, Vice-President of the Committee of the Region.
Please.
Philippe Tulkens
So, Ms. Coughlan, you're a councillor at the Cork County Council. You have an extensive experience in local and regional government where citizens often have their most direct interactions with public institutions. Local communities and civil society organizations are often much closer to citizens than national institutions. So we would like to ask you for your opinion. Can you tell us how local and regional communities as well as civil society organizations can contribute to enhancing electoral resilience?
What should the governments and public institutions do to create the conditions for these actors to contribute? And where do you see opportunities for closer cooperation between parliaments and political institutions with civil society and local communities?
Jillian Coughlan
Go raibh maith agat. Dia dhaoibh, a chairde, agus go háirithe a chairde Gaeilge ó Éirinn, ó na hOireachtas, tá fáilte romhaibh anseo. I'm very pleased to be here this afternoon to represent President Catuțo. She asked me to delegate for her, the President of the Committee of the Regions, and of course I'm here in my own capacity as a county councillor from Cork as you said. And so that's a very it's a very important question and we have had some really insightful inputs here into this into this debate.
When we begin to discuss electoral resilience, we often focus on electoral authorities, the register, and on institutional legal safeguards. However, really, the the electoral ecosystem, the democratic ecosystem begins at local level. And that is where I think we must really focus our resilience. And so making sure that there is real political legitimacy where people's actions and people's desires are brought to bear in their local communities, that's so very, very important. The Committee of the Regions has consistently argued that it's it's tested first, democracy is tested first at local level.
Declining trust, polarization, disinformation, and intimidation frequently become visible in towns and cities first before they become visible on the national stage. As a local as member of a local authority, we know that we are interacting with citizens every day. We are subsidiarity in action. We are empowering the local citizen. And we we organize public participation, we communicate with residents and respond directly to their concerns.
However, and I feel this myself in my local in my local area, increasingly our voices and our opinions and even our our utterances are being drowned out or are being manipulated and being sold as mistruths. So in particular I think as regards the environment in Ireland, you know, there are strong climate deniers. And they are being given great backbone and strength by I suppose the President of the United States and and others who would say that there is no no need for for climate protection. And in spite of our great efforts at local level to protect rivers, to protect biodiversity, to enhance our local our local environment, you know, we are being we are being shot down. So I think in in congruence with that, in congruence with local authorities, we need to strengthen civil society groups, particularly I think environmental activism, LGBT, youth organizations.
These are so very important for a good, strong democratic ecosystem in our countries. Again, increasingly we're seeing these being perhaps sidelined, being intimidated, and in fact discredited. I think this is really a word and I think particularly Ms. Dubravka earlier mentioned that. You know, our the weight of our opinion, the weight of our our facts, the weight of our research is often just discredited with a snide remark, a throwaway comment. Oh, for me in particular what I'm hearing in the last couple of years, she's just an old teacher.
What would she know? Teachers, they think they know everything. You know, this is the sort of sort of remark that is being made. So we do need I suppose to empower and many oftentimes, you know, it is women and it is activists in the community who are trying to keep this local democracy ecosystem strong, but they are being discredited by by sort of elites. So we are laboratories for democratic innovation at local level.
Participatory budgeting, citizens' assemblies, and youth councils can help strengthen democratic culture between elections and create habits of democratic participation that carry over into the electoral process. So I suppose what I'm saying is that it's not just on election day, it's not just on the election cycle that we must begin to think of this. This is every day. This is like healthy eating, you know. This is it must be a habit.
Our ecosystem must be kept healthy every single day in order for it to to be strong. And so what we see in particularly in Ireland, we must empower local communities.
We must empower local government. We must empower regional governments. We can no longer hold firm the central purse and the central power. And this is a big step for us, particularly in Ireland. I know from my role here in the Committee of the Regions that, you know, there are national politicians in some countries have resigned their national role in order to go to go to become the mayor of their city or their region because they feel they have more power and influence there.
My goodness, certainly that would not happen in Ireland. You know, our local our local structures, while they're strong because of the people, you know, and the institutions that are there, they could be much more impactful, I think. And I think we really need to to continue with that and to keep that sort of power of the local level, that subsidiarity where decisions are made closest to the ground. That's real democracy in action.
Speaker 15
Well, thank you very much, Ms. Coghlan. Mr. Čarapić, let's turn to you now. Western Balkan countries are also increasingly challenged by disinformation campaigns. We often speak about citizens as potential victims of disinformation, but citizens can also be part of the solution. So how do we equip people to recognize manipulation?
How can we promote media literacy, critical thinking among voters? And how do we move beyond the one-off awareness-raising campaign? You were saying it's not just before the elections, towards building these skills as a sustained part of the democratic citizenship.
Vasilije Čarapić
Thank you for the question. I'll first start by saying that not every country has the is in a same position when it comes to disinformation. And I think, for example, Montenegro is a very small country, and this gives us an advantage, I would say, advantage knowing that community the the disinformation is rarely going to remain faceless. We're going to identify who is spreading it very quickly because there's few of us. And I think this is important because once you identify this disinformation, you can actually tailor a personal solution to fixing the issue.
And we all must remember that in in I've heard very valid talks about bots, algorithms, and such. But we all must remember that people most of all trust people. People trust people, and I think this is my main, let's say, step towards a solution. And when we look at the pollings, I think every every country does it, we always have like the the question, who do you trust the most, which institution or which organization or which individuals? And for example, in Montenegro, consistently for decades, people will say we trust the religious organizations, we trust the education system, we trust the military, we trust the police, we trust the president maybe, or we trust the civil society.
And these are like top trustees. Politicians are very ranked quite low on some other or some other organizations. But people trust, you know, that there is an authority amongst people that they trust. And my thinking, the way we see it if we think in grassroots terms, is utilize those who people already trust to help you with your legitimate democratic agenda, promoting democracy or electoral integrity, and use those voices, reach out to those voices that people already trust and have them help you as allies in tackling disinformation because it's also in their very good interest to fight disinformation the same way you want it as politicians, but for different reasons. And if this sounds a bit idealistic, I think it is very what is very realistic is if we don't build alliances with these trusted voices, trusted people or trusted organizations to help us in promoting democracy, the other side who is attacking our democracy might use these same channels to spread disinformation.
And I've seen this happening in my country. I've seen this happening maybe in Europe and in other examples where credible organizations or voices are actually now becoming loudspeakers for disinformation or in some way sort of aiding to this FIMI agenda.
Speaker 39
So if we don't use it, the other side might use it. They know that people trust people and they will use those among us to help them amplify their response. And this is how people, this is why people are at the center of all of it. And when I said, for example, educational, people in Montenegro trust education system, then use education system to promote media literacy in schools. And that's a one, one quick fix where we can, you know, raise it at the level of maybe a mandatory subject and teach media literacy to children for future generations, what the democracy is all about, media literacy, one classic skill to tackle this disinformation.
And on the other hand, we must acknowledge that many people do not go to schools and older voters or those who are living outside big cities, you know, they're also sort of trapped in a, in a message box sometimes of who spreads information where they live. And going after this, these specific small information hubs and talking to them and actually using them to be your allies in promoting democracy rather than doing the opposite can help you with spreading media literacy to those who are not in school. And lastly, but I think most importantly, I don't want to take up too much time, people always want to see structures and structural, let's say, institution cooperation is really important. People need to trust in institutions. But unlike other communities, like for example church, institutions build their credibility and raise their trust amongst people by through institutional performance, through concrete results.
And we are, I would say, several steps behind this war on democracy going against democratic institutions because our institutions are failing people in coordinating at the, at the basic level in this fight against misinformation or disinformation. If it's not only the point of identifying disinformation and saying this is not factually correct and rebutting it, it's, it's about pre-bunking, so to speak, understanding which narratives are prevalent here in your country, but also in other countries, in case of Western Balkans, who are all candidate countries, it's the same narrative. I, I will just, to for you guys to know, to understand, we have three narratives that we always hear. That EU is threatening our sovereignty, that EU will endanger our traditional values, it's the so-called decadent Brussels, quote-unquote, narrative, and also the third narrative that EU, joining the EU will destroy our economies and our businesses. So we know what the narratives are, they're present since 2016, 17, and they never change.
And it's not about just saying, no, this is not true, EU will do that, it's actually you taking the stage and through these grassroots, grassroots voices saying that this is going to help us in this way, countering the narrative, understanding what it is and it's, and understanding the fact that it's not going to change. So I think this is how we use people.
We trust each other more than we trust algorithms. Bots are not people. Maybe there's some personality behind it, but they're amplifiers. You know, they just spread the news and someone else has to take benefit from that false information. And we can also identify who that person is and understand the whole picture.
So I think we're well equipped to fight this. And we benefit from equipping those who can be our allies to fight this as well. So this is how I see how we can utilize actually the people and other grassroots organizations to help in this fight.
Speaker 15
Well, thank you, Mr. Čarapic. We see also across the European Union some recurring narratives being played in a playbook every week. We heard about the importance of media literacy, about the importance to build on trustworthy sources in our communities. And now let's maybe turn to the role of the media. Today, traditional media continue to play an important role.
They coexist with social media, content creators, citizen journalism, messaging apps, chatbots, we already mentioned. And online content creators have the ability to reach large audiences and potentially influence electoral process. So I want to turn to you now, Mr. Saraiva. What specific challenge does this new digital media landscape pose for the integrity of elections and what practical tools or measures should be put in place to increase its transparency and accountability?
Mr. Saraiva
Thank you so much for the invitation to participate on this very important debate that is occurring not only in Europe, but all over the world. I could make this intervention take just five seconds saying that I subscribe what you said. Trust. This is the word that I was coming here and thinking that I want to share with you in the end. Trust.
And you talk about that, but a specific trust. Trust the people. If we don't trust the people, if we don't trust each other, we are going to lose this war. We are going to lose this enormous challenge of disinformation. Last year on this room, the President, the Speaker of the Portuguese Parliament, take the stand and he share some thoughts and three ideas, three challenges, three recommendations how to face this challenge that we are facing.
The first one, a special focus on young people. And you both talk about that. The second one, open space that people can debate with the politicians. Okay, because people shouldn't be in their own bubble, politicians are not in their own bubble, we are all in the same stage and the same facing the same challenge. And the third one, cooperation between parliaments.
This is a good example and it's not just between parliaments, it's also open to, I don't like to call civil society because it seems that politicians are not civil society, but I will use the expression, politicians and civil society cooperating on this challenge. But let's, one thing during these days I was thinking is like everybody agrees with the diagnostic. Okay, even the ones who benefit from what's happening. Even though they agree that there's a problem and we should face it.
Okay, then are several ways how to face this challenge. We already know that disinformation doesn't change the the bail vote, the the ballot, okay? It's not that. It's previous. It's the choice of the people, the people that we must trust.
That's the what we should be concerned because of disinformation. But even disinformation is not something new. Yeah, since the people when they live in caves there was the rumor until today. So what's different? Different is the speed, the scale, and the quality of what's fake.
Even people that know that's fake we we sometimes we doubt if it's even fake. So that's more technical. That's why we should focus on the on the machine, we should not focus on the people because it's a very thin line between when we start realizing that this kind of censorship. So the problem is not the people, the problem is not the message, the problem is previous than than that. And so the answer is not less freedom, it is more maturity.
And I don't believe machines and algorithms can have maturity. That's about humans. And one thing one problem is that credibility and you both talk about that, but I want to quote you because you touch a point because credibility is fragmented. This is the problem of credibility. If people don't trust each other because they are not credible.
And normally we are talking about just institutions, but at some point you give the example of the teachers. And teachers normally it was like it's teachers and doctors. It was the most credible persons in the in the society. So when young people start not giving credibility to the teachers, it's not only a problem of the politicians and institutions. The problem is very bigger than we sometimes think.
So credibility should be the focus. And once again, this should always be about how we build trust. Of course we can talk with the major IT tech companies. Of course a bot is not a person, an algorithm is not a person, bots doesn't have freedom of speech, algorithm doesn't have freedom of speech, they should have specific rules, but we don't we cannot make confusion and going back to the people because if you go to people they will less trust you. So this is always a problem around trust the people.
About the media because I I went to the to the example of the teachers because I think it's so more put us thinking much more than we think about the media because about the media is of course for me is the fourth power, I believe in rule of law, it's not only the three powers, media it's essential in a rule of law. We know the the challenge that media traditional media is facing, but we shouldn't also forget that we can also looking to the traditional media get good examples how to deal with these new media.
Let's deal with them calling them media. They are a new media and should they have ethic like the old media? Yes, a different kind of ethic codes, it's different, but they should have it. And media is essential. So if media was always essential building the rule of law and the states that we know, we should get in account that the new media should also make part on this trust process that we all should giving, trusting the people.
Philippe Tulkens
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for the opening contributions. So now we would like to bring you, the participants in the room, into the conversation. As we're running slightly behind schedule, I would like to ask you to limit your interventions to one minute if that's possible. And I see we had a first hand raised in position 303, the gentleman.
Speaker 45
Thank you very much, António Rodrigues from Portugal. I'll try to keep it to one minute. Two issues to reflect about. First of all, we are talking about democracy in danger. It seems that we all have to implement some changes, a lot of changes, in order to keep on with the expression of the people when we go to elections and to the politicians that will develop their programs when they are elected.
So this means two things for me. First of all, time. We have to have, we cannot wait anymore for another kind of decisions, we cannot wait for implementation of legislation that is created now and will be in order in two or three years. That is a main issue that we have when we're talking about Europe. And I believe that the response has to be at an international level, has to be in a European level and not at the national level.
The second thing is the actors. Nobody spoke about the actors of politics. We have on one side those that are against the rules, all of the platforms, all of the social networks they are working sometimes against democracy. And we have spoken about the people, but we didn't speak about the politicians. And those are, they are the first responsibles for taking in order the things that we are discussing today.
That means probably that we should have the courage to ask for all the politicians before elected and after that they had a code of integrity, that's the name of the panel that we are discussing, a code of integrity that would force them to assume their responsibilities, to force them from the beginning to not only promise, but to do what they are promising in the now, at the campaigns and in the future.
Pim Walenkamp
Dank u wel. My name is Pim Walenkamp from the Dutch Senate. If you allow me I speak in Dutch. Een heel belangrijk onderwerp. Ik zou graag enige punten willen noemen.
Informatiemilieu moet zuiver en gezond zijn. Dat betekent primair dat jonge mensen en ook mensen die elkaar ontmoeten op de arbeidsmarkt worden geholpen elkaar beter te leren kennen. En het grote probleem is de lokale media die is weggezuiverd. De lokale media bestaat bijna niet meer. Dus ik zou alle politici hier een spiegel willen voorhouden.
Help je de lokale media onafhankelijk als countervailing power, als tegenmacht, of ben je alleen maar met partijpolitiek, met partijvoorlichters bezig? Ten tweede zou ik iedereen willen vragen op lokaal niveau scholen te helpen het vak religie en het vak filosofie te stimuleren en het vak debattechnieken. Debattechnieken helpt om ander te begrijpen. Filosofie helpt om de ander te doorgronden en niet bang te zijn voor de leegte.
Een horror vacui en een in plaats dat is negatief en een tabula rasa is positief. Het vak religie zorgt dat we ook niet bang zijn voor migranten en voor moslims. We moeten van onderop beginnen en daar hebben we goed onderwijs en goede media bij nodig. Succes.
Jeremy Dodeigne
Hello. Thank you. I'm Jeremy Dodeigne, I'm professor of comparative politics, I'm also the principal investigator of a European Research Council project called Political Style where we study the democratic electoral campaigns and how they have been eroding on social media. And I'm here because I truly believe that research teams can also make a contribution in keeping political accountability as well as promoting free and fair elections. And we believe that at some point with the Digital Service Act, we were finally accessing decisive assets in accessing data on large platforms.
It could be possible to analyze political discourse, to identify early warning signals. But in practice, unfortunately, it's almost impossible with some platforms to get access to this data, or not under a reasonable timeframe. So my question is indeed how can we promote the effective access to those platforms with a reasonable timeframe so that we are also ready to study forthcoming elections, including the 2029 elections. Thank you very much.
Speaker 50
So, a thánasach, a dhuine chóir, a chathaoirligh, más féidir liom, I'd like to speak in Irish if that's okay. Just nuair a tháinig an t-uachtarán Zelensky go hÉirinn le déanaí, an méid bolscaireachta a tháinig ar mhalairt Facebook nuair a cuireadh grianghraf leis, tháinig sé as gach ról. Agus bhog an córas ón rud dearfach a tharla ar an lá go dtí an céad fiche milliún euro a thugamar do rialtas na hÚcráine. An bhfuil gá anois le dlí comhchoiteann Eorpach chun dul i ngleic leis an mí-fhaisnéis agus an córas mí-rúnta atá ar siúl sna comments in aice le leathanach Facebook? Sin an cheist díreach chuig an gcomhairleoir cathrach, más féidir liom, go raibh maith agat.
Speaker 48
Okay, thank you very much. I'll give the floor to number 64, who also...
Speaker 10
Aon rún orm. All right. Well anyway, I was only introducing myself, having spoken a number of times beforehand, and apologies for all the people who I've now annoyed by speaking for too long. Look, like I said, there will be much agreement. We all know that there is a lack of trust in politics.
An awful lot of this goes right back to the financial crash. We need to ensure that communication within politics gets better. Obviously there is an issue at times, as much as it's facilitated by online platforms, that right-wing disinformation and misinformation can be better communicated sometimes than the opposite. So there's an onus on politicians not only to build their credibility at a local level, I think it's absolutely necessary that we protect local media, particularly local radio, I know it's absolutely fundamental to democracy at all levels. But I think there's also a fact that we have to look at at times that there are malign forces that have greater access to moneys.
We can look at America and Donald Trump and, you know, people like him on the basis sometimes of how he speaks, never mind the madness that he's involved himself in. But the fact is, the fact is, AIPAC and we can talk about the gun lobby have far too much power because they have money in America.
But we are now seeing crypto billionaires putting huge money right across Europe, even we see in Britain with Reform UK. And I think there's a necessity to follow the money as much as we need to keep the feet to the fire of the oligarchs that have control of social media. And we also then have to ensure that we train as much as possible resilience in our young people and that they can critically analyze information. And probably they would say not only young people, but people across the board. Anyway, go raibh maith agat.
Philippe Tulkens
Thank you very much. In the interest of the coffee break, we're going to have one more intervention in 551.
Adela Militaru
My name is Adela Militaru. I'm a program director with the Roma for Democracy Foundation, which seeks to strengthen and expand the voice and the political power of Europe's 12 million Roma, half of whom are EU citizens. And I wanted to welcome, I particularly enjoyed this session because we spoke about ecosystems and we spoke about networks of people who are there locally to advance electoral integrity. I wanted to bring some examples from our work over the past five to seven years where we have trained over 2,000 Roma election observers who participated in the integrity of the election process by reducing vote buying on the ground, especially in precincts where we knew that one in 10 Roma had been approached to sell their votes prior to elections. And I think this is not a Roma-specific example, but it expands to many other constituencies that have been left at the margins or where literacy rates are low.
We've heard the example of less-resourced communities. And I think it's high time to speak about this infrastructure, as Mr. Altola was saying in the previous panel, that this is critical infrastructure. I think election observers can be a network of people who can help us defend our democracies and restore the trust in the process by citizens. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Well, thank you all. I think we have covered quite a lot of ground through our panelists and your very interesting interventions. So maybe I would like to end with a short forward-looking question to our three panelists, to give also the opportunity to them to react maybe to some of the statements. And at the same time, I would like to ask our participants in the room and online to give their answer to the very same question through the System House space. So you remember the card and the QR code, the black one.
So the question will stay open until we close the debate and we'll show you a visualization of the answers after. So the question is, if we accept that election integrity is a shared responsibility rather than the responsibility of one institution and one sector alone, and I think it has been discussed, what action should be prioritized to make our election more resilient? And I'll start with you, Ms. Cocklan.
Jillian Coughlan
Thank you very much. And thank you to everybody for their interventions. And I'm going to make the answer, if I may, to yourself quite short and say that there should be more cooperation as we have said. And I think for, you know, Balkan countries coming in, the cooperation is so very, very important. But if I may, I'm going to go back to some of the questions from the floor, and particularly, you know, the question about maybe philosophy and religion being taught at school.
The people who are debunking and the sort of nihilistic attitude of sort of trying to iconoclast and try to break up everything that has gone before, they do not know what has gone before. They have not studied history.
They do not want to study history. They want the soundbite, they want things to be short and easy answers. So they don't want to listen to a 20-minute exploration of why and whatever. I absolutely think every young person should study philosophy and history in order to understand the context of where our politics is today. But many of the people, and you said earlier, you know, young people maybe debunking teachers, it's actually older people.
It's older people who may not have had a very good experience in school themselves and now see people with degrees or people with that sort of information as some sort of elite. And that's what it's being framed as, that you have some sort of, you think you know more. And now that the internet, sure we can learn everything we want to on the internet, you don't know any more than me. I don't want to proclaim to know any more than anybody else. It's about understanding.
But TikTok now is their teacher. And they believe that they know and understand everything that all the philosophy and history of the world. And it really came home to me when we had a debate again about the environment in my local council. And there's a very famous phrase in Irish history, the three Fs: free sale, fixity of tenure, and freedom from being evicted. And one of the politicians in the council started to quote this to me.
And those people, when they were talking about free sale, it was the sale of a lease because it was pre-famine Ireland. Okay, it was during the famine. None of those people who were emigrating could actually sell their land because they didn't own the land in the first place. And because he had the catchphrase, he was equating the sale, even though it was the sale of a lease, to the sale of land. And he was, you know, really hitting this home.
Now, for his sake, I did not rebut it and undermine it. But perhaps I should have. You know, perhaps I should have. And this is what I'm saying, that if I had then, I would have been seen to be the all-knowing teacher coming in and lecturing to them. So this is what I'm saying, that it shrinks, this type of politics shrinks knowledge, it's trying to create a lowest common denominator of human existence, of human understanding, and it's trying to create a monolith.
I want to, if I may as well, just to refer to Professor Krenko earlier, you know, the right-left dichotomy and the real focus on Russia. Of course Russia is an aggressor. But we have, and I think it's been said by my own Irish colleagues, we have way more aggressors in the world than Russia at the moment. And in Ireland, we're seeing certainly a sort of a Brexit, an anti-European Union, Eurosceptical idea awakening. It's also, I'm feeling that personally, people say, oh God, and you're off to Europe now as well.
You know, what would you be doing over there? What good is that to us here in our local community? We must bring Europe back to the people. That is so very important. We're here in the heart of Europe, and I particularly think it for the candidate countries.
You know, that idea of the elitism that you said earlier, if it's not seen to be active in local communities, it is an elite. You know, so we really must, and I think at Irish level, the local level, the moneys from Europe, okay, we're a net contributor, but moneys from Europe are not always distributed in a very transparent way. And that lack of transparency leads to lack of trust.
So we must mind our own house, we must clean our own houses as well before we start throwing stones at others. Thank you.
Speaker 39
So, thank you for all the inputs. I must say that I agree with most of what is said. I think like this general notion of local media, that's I as a representative, I specifically only go to national broadcaster and local media anywhere in the country. Although I'm a central representative, I think private media, I respect them and everything, but as a representative, I want to, you know, go to the local media as much as I can. Most of them are publicly funded and I feel like this is how we work together.
It's really important to not say that these institutions become irrelevant because in the era of social media, they can be, the mainstream media can also become irrelevant. I look at this board of what we should do today to make and I think, you know, the best, I really personally most strongly agree with what the representative from Ireland has said: follow the money. That we can do that today. As a candidate country, we are currently in the process of adapting our legislation to the ones in the EU. And while doing so, we actually figured out that EU has a very good system for following the money.
Maybe, you know, you don't use it or people don't overlook it, but following the money works. When we hear disinformation spreading, we tackle all of our efforts into debunking that information and saying this is false. And we have fact-checkers saying this is not correct. However, we're not looking at who was sort of promoting disinformation. And if we go to the media, for example, or obscure online portal or media outlet or whoever was sort of spreading this disinformation, our institutions can actually look at their structures, financial structures, investigate, you know, why is this media now spreading disinformation and find something there.
We've seen this most recently as a candidate country. Most common disinformation is about EU accession, whether the pace is fast or not, whether we're going to join or not, what's the vibe in the member states, are they going to admit new members or not. But quite recently, we had this good example of one mainstream media spreading this information that five countries are blocking Montenegro's accession. Then we immediately had five mentioned member countries saying we are not actually doing that. And this was a good disinformation defense.
It came like very rapidly. But then you ask yourself why is this mainstream media now spreading this disinformation? And when you look at the financial structures and money flows, we found something. I'm not going to say what, but we found some interesting connections. And I think this helps.
And the system EU has set up is really effective. And we can combat this this way. And one last thing about social media. I don't think anyone in this room nor any country has a real strategy on how to regulate social media in a comprehensive way. But we know that those who utilize social media to their own political benefit, you know, they benefit from these disinformation campaigns, algorithms, bots and everything.
Until we figure out how to regulate it sufficiently, why don't we fight fire with fire? If they have 500 bots on social media platforms, why don't we have 500 bots on social media platforms just like, you know, going after whichever narrative that they're spreading? It's going to benefit social media temporarily because they'll probably going to make more money, but it's fighting fire with fire that works. And these are the unconventional methods the first speaker from Belarus was saying that we as candidate countries have also seen, you know, you utilize it but for good. They utilize it for bad.
And then you benefit the same way those who benefit from adverse campaigns are benefiting for now until we find a way to actually properly regulate it.
That's my hot take on social media.
Speaker 15
Thank you. I noted three priorities, but Mr. Saraiva, from your end, what should be the priority?
Mr. Saraiva
Yes, to end I will be back on the word that during some time was in yellow, in the end is in white in the dashboard, that is trust. It was in yellow, then it came white. But the words are words that are very related. Transparency is obvious one major objective that we should all have in our mind. But so to end, let me share three principles that we, I think, we should always have on this challenge that we are facing.
The first: protect information, not control information. And every time you have the instinct to propose a restriction, think that in the future that restriction could be turned on you. Think that when you think on propose a restriction. Second: regulate the machine, not the message. Fake accounts have no free speech right.
Free speech is for people, not for machine. Third: treat citizens as adults. Even if it's child, even if it's young people, treat them as adult. And this is to end once again saying trust, trust the people, because before any system, before any state, comes the people. And it's with them that we will win, I believe we will win this challenge.
Philippe Tulkens
Thank you very much. Well, we've come to the end. I would maybe use one sentence to actually end the debate, which is, which I really liked, was elections are critical infrastructure. We heard it once, it was repeated in the room, and maybe that's the one thought to take away.
Speaker 15
Yes, I want to thank all the speakers and everyone who joined us in the discussion. It's now time for a pause, a coffee break, and we will reconvene here for session two on EU strategy for civil society after the break. So please can we ask you to be back in the hemicycle by five o'clock sharp so that we can kick off the next session. Thank you to the speakers, the participants, and thank you Philippe.
Speaker 57
Okay, please. If everyone could take their seats, please, we need to get started on session two. If you could all take your seats, we'll get going. Okay, welcome everyone, session two is about to start, if you could all take your seats. Intro video now.
Will we start the video? Oh yeah, okay. Let's start the video. Video. Yeah.
Um. We can start the video I think, yeah.
Emily Tortonier
Good afternoon everyone, and welcome to the second session of the Parliamentary Democracy Forum 2026. Let me introduce you to my co-moderator for this session, David Landy, acting head of strategy and communication in our Directorate for Partnership, Parliamentary Partnership.
David Landy
And I'm pleased to introduce you to deputy spokesperson of the European Parliament, Emily Tortonier.
Speaker 56
You have just seen the video highlighting the vital role of civil society and the many voices and organization, organizations that make this essential part of our democracies. Like an orchestra, democracy depends on different voices coming together, each in their own role, but contributing to a common purpose. Last year, the European Commission launched its civil society strategy, built around three pillars: safe civic space, meaningful participation, and sustainable and transparent funding. The strategy sees civil society as the key part of a healthy democracy, and we know it is. The question is whether our institutions are doing enough to protect this civic space and whether we are giving civil society a meaningful role in shaping decisions.
David
Right, so there's two main parts to this session, two main parts to the discussion. The first is about strengthening civic space and democratic resilience. We'll be asking: are current tools enough to protect civil society when it comes under pressure, and what role Parliament should play in ensuring these protections are upheld? Then we're going to turn to our second topic: embedding civil society in decision-making. So how can we move beyond ad hoc consultations and make sure civil society is involved throughout the EU policy process?
Speaker 56
And before we get started, we want to hear from you. We have a HouseSpace question on the screen. Here it is. I would like to invite you to scan the QR code that you will find printed on the tables and to open HouseSpace, the tool we will use to gather your opinions. It's very easy and you can use it in your own language.
Results will display in English on the screen so everyone can follow. Please take a moment to now to share your thoughts, and the question is, as you can read: what is civil society's most important role today, according to you? You have four options: is it building trust and communities, holding power accountable, giving citizens a voice, or delivering services and solutions? We'll be using the responses throughout the session to steer our conversation, so please participate. The HouseSpace question is now open.
Okay, time's up. And it looks like most of you have selected holding power accountable. So we'll hear from that in the debate that will follow.
David
All right, that gives us a useful snapshot of the feeling in the room. But now we can move to our panel and hear how these kinds of questions look from the perspective of people working on them day in, day out. Joining us on stage is Marina Kaljurand. She's Vice-Chair of the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. She'll give us the view from inside the institutions, what tools the EU has and whether they're working.
Also Galyna Mykhailiuk is the representative of the President of Ukraine in the Verkhovna Rada and People's Deputy of Ukraine. Galyna brings the Ukrainian perspective, where democracy is being tested under the extreme conditions of Russia's war of aggression. Let's get into it. We'll start with a brief contribution from each of our speakers, and then we'll open the floor to you, the audience. So Marina, if we could start with you, where do you see the biggest gap between the protections we have on paper for civil society and the reality faced by those kind of groups?
Marina Kaljurand
Yes, thank you. The mic is on, yeah. Yes, thank you. Well, to start with, I'm really humbled and honored to be on the stage with Galyna. Coming from Estonia, needless to say that we understand your fight, not only for your independence, but also for the democracy and peace in Europe.
So maybe to start with, I would also like to remind my colleagues in this house not to forget that what Ukrainians are doing and what they are suffering and dying is not only for themselves or for their country, but it's for the whole of Europe. But but now coming to the question. Well, you all know that EU is very fond of regulating. Sometimes we are being we are being told that we regulate too much. So I looked at the toolbox we have at hand.
We have Charter of Fundamental Rights. We have the rule of law toolbox. We have the annual rule of law report. We have European funding programs supporting civil society. We have anti-SLAPP directive.
We have Commission's EU strategy for civil society and I can continue. So we have I would argue that we have instruments in place. But what is what is missing is implementation. EU is very good at regulating and not so good at implementing, not only in this field, but unfortunately also in many other fields. And I would also like to I argue that the civil society measures the progress differently from the institutions, from the EU institutions.
Because they ask, they do not ask about what is said in the laws and regulations and directives, but they ask whether they can speak freely, whether they can organize, whether they can criticize their government, participate in policy making policy making, defend themselves, and whether there is an effective way to seek redress. And that is the real test. Let's take SLAPP strategic lawsuits against public public participation. The EU has created a framework to protect people who speak out on matters of public interest from abusive litigation. But European legislation is just beginning.
And now imagine any small organization or a local journalist who is facing a lawsuit, usually from a much more powerful actor. And they do not care about the regulations. They need lawyers, they need financing, and they need somebody who will pay for the time that they are losing in the courts. And in the end, they are thinking about the chilling moment when people start thinking that perhaps it is safer simply not to speak. And that is that's how implementation looks in real life.
So I'm looking also at my colleagues in the European Parliament, our work does not end with vote. We also have to follow up and we have to keep accountable those who are responsible for implementation. Second point I would like to raise is participation. We have the new we have the new civil society strategy and we have the planned civil society platform. These are important steps, but consultation cannot be only box-ticking exercise.
And civil society needs to be involved early enough to have an impact on decisions and not some simply invited to comment when the decision has been already already been already made. So we need realistic, pragmatic, and timely participation. Then funding, it brings me to funding.
A civil society organizations can have every legal right and still be unable to exercise that right if it does not have the resources to do it. It's easier for the big umbrella NGOs and big organizations, and it's much more difficult for the small ones and for the grassroots level organizations. They need financing, but at the same time, we have to protect their independence. We need civil society that is strong enough to support us when we're right and strong enough to challenge us when we're wrong. And then it brings me to the digital civic space.
Digital is everywhere. Digital came to stay. But when we look at the online world, we see how unstable and unsecure it is. It's full of harassment, it's full of information operations, it's full of disinformation. And unfortunately, members of the civil society, journalists, and activists are among those who fall under the harassments and under the online crimes.
So we have to get the balance right. We have to protect democratic institutions, but we should not protect them at the cost of shutting down some democratic organizations, civil society, or democratic voices. And to conclude. So for me, the central question is implementation. As I said, we have tools in place, but where we are missing, we are missing in implementing the tools.
It is whether when a person or organization exercises their democratic rights, and Europe should be there to protect them. So that's the question I'd like to raise at the beginning of today's panel. Thank you.
David
Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you for that. It's a great useful perspective to get. Galina, then over to you.
Ukraine has really shown the world what resilience looks like in the last few years. From that experience, what do you think it takes to keep democracy and civic space alive when people are under such extraordinary pressure?
Galyna Mykhailiuk
Dear colleagues, it's a great privilege for me today to share the Ukrainian experience of keeping resilience during the fifth year of the full-scale invasion of Russia into Ukraine. For Ukraine, the democratic resilience is a live reality, the one that we were forced to face with when the aggressor actually entered our territory. And for us, this is the only one opportunity actually to keep our sovereignty, freedom, and independence during this full-scale invasion. So the resilience that Ukraine has demonstrated in February 22 had been forming over the decades. Back to 2004, when actually Ukrainians mobilized on a massive scale to defend the electoral integrity, to defend the electoral right, and in 2014, 2013, when actually thousand hundreds of Ukrainians went on the streets to defend our EU integration aspirations.
So actually when the Russia entered Ukraine on a full-scale invasion in February 22, actually Ukrainian society mobilized and had this kind of institutional memory, I must say, of defending its choice to live in a free European democratic country. It took us a short time when citizens organized themselves, when communities responded to immediate needs, when volunteer networks expanded within days, and governmental institutions actually were flexible enough actually to keep the country running and to continue to function under extraordinary pressure. The Parliament of Ukraine, we continued to function. We didn't have plenary meetings only the first week after the full-scale invasion started, but afterwards every single week we were coming to Kyiv and having the plenaries so to show to the citizens of Ukraine that Parliament is there in Kyiv, we control the situation and do our best actually not only to survive but to succeed. The civic capacity is part of Ukrainian democratic infrastructure, and it is built in the way that our society responds when its freedom and democratic choice are being challenged.
The resilience also depends on recognizing the threats and democratic space early. It was quite important that in May 2021, before the full-scale invasion, we took a decision to close all Russian-sponsored TV channels. And I should say that the mass of this disinformation was minimized. And regarding the, you know, there were here lots of references on the previous panels regarding the disinformation campaigns, like, you know, follow our example, close the Russian-sponsored media resources. And also we did the same if the source of finance was from occupied Ukrainian territories.
It helped us somehow, you know, to realize what is the pure information and what is the actual Russian disinformation campaign. So this experience has been more relevant even today. Information operations, disinformation, and manipulation are now recognized across Europe as instruments of capable undermining democratic societies from within. For us, protecting democracy therefore also requires protecting an environment in which democratic debate still take place. Full-scale war has created another challenge for Ukrainians.
This is to preserve an open democratic society when protecting the physical security of our citizens, because Ukraine remains operating under the martial law. Massive gatherings are forbidden due to security reasons during the martial law. At the same time, the conditions for public participation are inevitably affected by the war in which cities are attacked by missiles and drones on a regular basis. This large gatherings can create additional security risk that Ukraine has already faced a number of times.
Just this summer in July, a Russian missile unfortunately killed a number of people and dozens were injured during the defense event where aggressor state got information that there will be gathering of people in a particular part of Kyiv. So this is the lessons learned again for us that all the mass gatherings, they either should be in the bomb shell underground or that's better to postpone it for the victorious time. Today this challenge is becoming particularly visible in the capital itself. You might have seen that every single day my capital is being bombed. When I was coming here to this event and I was going out of Kyiv, there was a smoke all over just a couple of minutes after the missiles destroyed different infrastructure, civilian infrastructure objects.
The situation is very much complicated, unfortunately. That's why public events, they are restricted or cancelled when the security situation requires this. Therefore, Russia is seeking to affect not only Ukrainian security but the very ability of our cities and communities to function normally. And civic space under these circumstances takes different forms. Democratic participation has to adapt to the environment when protecting citizens' lives itself is a responsibility of the democratic state.
There is also a broader lesson here for the relationship between the civil society and democratic institutions. A strong democracy depends on active citizens, vibrant civil society and capable democratic institutions. And therefore their relationship is the strongest when it's based on the structured cooperation, transparency, respect for their respective roles and mutual trust. Despite all these difficulties, Ukraine is very much looking forward to enter the EU and we do our best to actually meet all the conditions, deadlines within our EU inspirations. Just yesterday when I was here in the Parliament at 9:00 PM, we had extraordinary online meeting with the Speaker of my Parliament, heads of the factions and groups, discussing actually the security situation in Kyiv together with meeting deadlines of EU and necessary amendments to the parliamentary timetable to meet those deadlines actually within the worsened security situation in Kyiv.
And our European integration is very much important and fundamental for Ukrainians. And this is something that gives us light in the end of the tunnel, inspires Ukrainians to continue their fight and still keeping our hope that one day we can join the EU family and bring added value actually to the European countries. For us, the value of this cooperation lies also in bringing together institutional capacity and civic engagement around a shared objective: Ukraine's successful integration to the European Union.
And this Ukrainian experience ultimately shows that democratic resilience is built over the years. It rests on institutions capable of functioning under the pressure, citizens ready to take responsibilities, communities are able to organize themselves and a public space protected from hostile manipulation. We do believe that Europe can strengthen these foundations before the crisis puts them into the test. And I hope that our Ukrainian experience can contribute to this discussion by showing how democratic resilience works when it's tested under the most extreme conditions. But I truly hope that Ukrainian experience will never be used in European Union member states.
Thank you.
David
Thank you, Galyna Mykhailiuk, and thanks to you both for those opening thoughts. I think we heard two very different but very connected perspectives on civic space and democracy. Now let's bring you in, the audience. The question we'd like you to answer is going to be on your screens in just a second. We're going to use Howspace again.
Yes, so it's: are current European and national tools sufficient to protect civic space? So you can kind of rank how sufficient you think it is on a scale of one to ten, assuming zero is not very sufficient and ten is perfectly sufficient, I suppose. Let's see what people are saying and then we'll get into our first debate. Right, are we having some kind of technical hitch there? Okay, I'm seeing some kind of technical problem there.
I mean, the average it says is 4.8, which would suggest it's not very sufficient or on the lower side, but I'm seeing a funny thing with the answers. I think we move on to the next bit. Emily, so it's over to you.
Speaker 56
Yeah, let's open the floor. We have heard from our distinguished speakers. Now we want to hear from you. So how can, according to you, can we strengthen civic space and democratic resilience? And if you think that current European and national tools are not sufficient to protect this civic space, then what should be done according to you?
I don't know if we have people who would like to take the floor. Yes. We will take maybe a first round of five speakers. Yes, so seat 305, please. Can you please stand up, introduce yourself and then the institution you represent?
Thank you.
João Torres
João Torres, do Parlamento português. Antes de mais, muito boa tarde a todas e a todos. As organizações da sociedade civil são muitas vezes o primeiro radar dos problemas que as sociedades enfrentam e são também muitas vezes o último reduto dos próprios sistemas democráticos. E por isso estas organizações têm de ser apoiadas, mas têm de ser apoiadas por forma a garantir a sua liberdade: a sua liberdade de funcionamento, a sua liberdade de ação. E esta é uma preocupação que se deve colocar a todas as democracias, desde aquelas que enfrentam mais desafios àquelas que já estão, felizmente, mais consolidadas.
E de facto não existe resiliência democrática sem organizações da sociedade civil fortes, interventivas e com uma capacidade inquestionável para terem uma palavra participativa, mas efetiva, nos diferentes processos de construção das respostas democráticas.
Speaker 61
E por isso a minha pergunta é muito simples e muito direta. De que forma podemos evoluir de um paradigma que é um paradigma de consulta mais pontual e de envolvimento mais pontual destas organizações da sociedade civil para um paradigma de um envolvimento mais estruturado, mais permanente, mais efetivo, diria, sem contornar os princípios fundamentais das democracias representativas? E é um princípio muito importante, naturalmente, que a todos nos une no espaço da União Europeia. E simultaneamente salvaguardando que não são apenas as grandes organizações, aquelas que tipicamente são mais profissionalizadas, a ter voz. Isto é, como garantir que mesmo entre as diferentes organizações da sociedade civil há também democraticidade no acesso aos processos de participação e de construção dessas mesmas respostas democráticas.
Muito obrigado.
Speaker 56
Thank you very much. We will ask you to stick to the one minute and a half speaking time so it will allow more voices to be heard. I think we have another speaker in seat 400. Please press the speak button. Thank you.
Speaker 62
Yes, thank you very much. I'm from Civil Society Europe. I would also like to speak a bit about participation that has been mentioned and also one of the challenges that they are also in national parliaments across Europe is sometimes the use of fast-track legislative procedures which do not give enough time for civil society to participate and also for members of the parliament to really work on the basis of evidence-based policies. So my question would be and also to make a plea as the previous speaker to actually use what we have in the civil society strategy which is the recommendation for participation of civil society in public policy making, so both in national parliaments but also for national parliaments to really work on those to make national governments accountable and develop really structured participation rules. Thank you.
Thank you. And I think your neighbor in seat 401 would like also to take the floor, please.
Andris Gobiņš
Thank you, Chair. I would go with Mrs. Kalniete and that we need implementation, especially in four areas. One of which is algorithms. We need transparency because all the harassment and all those things, manipulation, mainly goes via algorithmic elements both in artificial intelligence and social media. Second is that we have conditionality on EU funding.
So only if you stick to democratic rules you get funding. Third is a real implementation of the partnership principle, which is a promise but isn't really implemented. And fourth is EU funding. I'm fully with the European Parliament with saying we need stronger Agora, stronger actually even as it is now and fully in line with the European Parliament. I didn't introduce myself.
I'm Andris Gobiņš from the European Movement in Latvia and from the Economic and Social Committee. Thanks.
Emily Tortonier
Thanks. Thank you very much. We have a speaker, yeah, in seat 64, please, can you press the button? Yeah.
Speaker 10
Right, go raibh maith agat, not for the first time. Look, I will speak very quickly in this stage. We've, I've already said plenty in relation to regulation. We get the idea that we need trust, but the huge, huge issue that that we have at the minute is the fact that we do not have enough civic engagement. We have a huge amount of people that see themselves outside of civic bodies and NGOs, but they also see themselves outside of politics altogether.
So it is a matter of actually engaging properly, showing that politics works. And and the fact is, unfortunately, there are malign elements that are able to sell the idea that there's an elite that involves non-governmental organizations and politics, and then there's you. And that this elite is all about screwing you over, excuse my language. So we have to ensure that not only we teach the resilience and digital literacy and all those other pieces, that we get the regulation piece properly, but that we engage those, particularly those from socio-economic groups and whatever, that don't necessarily involve themselves, and particularly those that see themselves at the edge or periphery of society that need further support. And again, it's the big one: politics and the and civic engagement, it has to work for people to give them a better life.
David
Thank you. Okay, thanks for those contributions. We can go back to our panel maybe for some reactions on those comments, but also Marina, from yourself, I'd like to know in particular just to try a quick thought experiment. If you wake up tomorrow as the all-powerful, omnipotent goddess of EU civil society policy, what's the first thing you're changing before breakfast?
Marina Kaljurand
Well, thank you for the million-euro question. But first I would like to reflect on what Galina said. I listened to your aspirations to be part of the EU, and needless to say, you have the full support at least of my country. I can't speak on behalf of everybody, but you have the full support of my group of the Social Democrats. But I also thought that maybe the fact that for 50 years we were in the same historic tragedy, and after that my country has joined EU and you're on the way.
So maybe that's also the light at the end of the tunnel that might encourage your people in your endeavors of joining the EU. And when I listen to Galina, we came like from different planets. I'm talking about regulations being implemented not so well, and she's talking about bombs. She's talking about civil society working and doing its best under war conditions. So yes, we we have to listen much more to you and we have a lot to learn from you.
Reflect quickly on what the gentleman from Portugal said, involvement of civil society, 100% agree with you. For me, it's very much the question of political culture. You might have a very quick procedure, legal procedure, and you just give, I don't know, 48, 72 hours to the civil society to respond, you can tick the box, it's done. But it's not done in the proper way. And that's the reason why I mentioned that participation of civil society should be real and at an early stage so that civil society can contribute.
And yes, it's a question of political culture. I used to be in Estonian government at some point in my previous life, I was Estonian foreign minister. And trust me, sometimes it was so frustrating to talk to the civil society until you understood that they are partners. They are not somebody who is on the other side, but civil society is a partner. And as soon as you get that, I think that might change the political culture in the country.
On on the engagement of people that was raised by the Irish colleague, agree very much.
And for me, politics is everything. Yes, politics is being elected, politics is being politician, but politics is also about how your mother gets her social benefits, or how your child, what kind of education your child gets. It's also the, I don't know, the branch of Scottish Terrier Association. It's also politics. So I think we should engage more and more people on the grassroots level from the very, very early stage, because everything that surrounds us is in one way or another way politics.
And now very quick answer to a question, yeah. I think it's important to bring more responsibility and accountability. Responsibility for civil society, it can't be only a legal decision. It has to be a political decision and it has to be a political responsibility. What we are missing today, I would say in the EU, we are not reacting or we are not acting quickly enough when we see the first marks of deterioration.
Maybe because EU was wasn't created to to act in the time of crisis or to call the member states that do not value the principles and the values of the EU to call them to responsibility. It started in a different world, it started with six, now it's more than twenty and very different member states. But I think it's important to act as quickly as we see the first signs of deterioration. And here again, I see the role of the Parliament, not only in voting, but also in managing and financing. I'm really happy that you raised the question and I consulted with my colleagues who are working on the MFF, and I understand that in the next MFF there will be an emergency mechanism that into the future funding framework so that civil society organizations and fundamental rights defenders will get more easily support when they need it most.
So implementation, political responsibility, financing and engagement with civil society not as somebody who is on the other side, but with real partners. They can say when we're right, they have the right to say when we're wrong, and they have the right to criticize. It's so easy to understand these basic principles. Thank you.
Speaker 64
Thank you, MEP Kaljurand. Then Galina, what struck you the most from what you heard from the comments from the audience?
Galyna Mykhailiuk
I will also make some comments from the previous panels as well. But what is very much important to stress is that we in Ukraine feel time in a bit different way. Time is crucially important for Ukrainians because we don't have, you know, enough space just to waste time because aggressor is innovating, is developing and continue to send every single days missiles to the territory of independent Ukraine. There was a remark of Irish colleague earlier today when the President Zelenskyy attended, well, visited Ireland and there were lots of bots afterwards tackling his personal account.
One of my colleagues in Ukrainian parliament from opposition, he made a test. He registered TikTok account as a male of conscripted age in Ukraine. And he told that the first couple of things that popped up on his screen was actually massive propaganda campaign against conscription in Ukraine. So this TikTok account realized that this is potential man in Ukraine who can be conscripted and again there was lots of disinformation on his screen against the governmental policy. So basically I urge you just to be more careful with this kind of software that can actually lead to different detrimental, you know, effects in your societies.
It is very much important to invest into defense. I understand that a number of countries they think in a different way, that should be more invested into, you know, development of communities, building new schools and kindergartens, but the lessons learned from Ukraine is that when your territory is occupied, you actually might not need so many kindergartens on that territory when you have urgently actually to evacuate your people there. So change a strategy into the defend one, defense one. Because the problem in Ukraine is that we have more than six million of Ukrainians outside of Ukraine being refugees. We do our best, the government of Ukraine does it best to bring them back as soon as possible, to provide enough security for ladies and kids to be back on the territory of peaceful Ukraine.
And this fact of course makes civil society in Ukraine a bit fragmented because there are people outside, there are people inside, there are internal refugees who have their own issues when and you know, it's in a constant flux because people in Ukraine they have to leave the territory that is next to the frontline every single day. So we do our best to have victorious peace on the territory of Ukraine and we are sure that only with the help of your respective governments, parliaments, democracies all over Europe we can one day share the fame of our victory together. Thank you for your support.
David
Okay, thank you so much Marina Kaljurand and Galyna Mykhailiuk. Thanks to all our speakers whether from the stage and from the audience. Let's now move to the second part of our discussion. So far we've been talking about the conditions that allow civil society to exist and operate, but that's only half the equation. The other question is of course once that space exists do the institutions actually listen?
And that's what our second cluster is all about, embedding civil society in democratic decision making. Over to Emily.
Speaker 56
Yeah, the EU strategy for civil society provides a roadmap, but the real challenge is turning its ambitions into everyday democratic practice. So one of its flagship initiatives, and you have mentioned it, is the Civil Society Platform, a permanent framework for dialogue between European Commission and civil society organizations. But how can participation be meaningful rather than symbolic? How can such a platform influence decision making while remaining independent, representative and trusted? So to tackle these questions, we are joined by two outstanding speakers.
First we welcome Katarina Barley, Vice-President of the European Parliament for relations with national parliaments as well as for relations with European civil society organization. This latter portfolio shared with Vice-President Stefan Uta. And Vice-President Barley, you have a unique vantage point on how civil society engagement can be woven into parliamentary practice at both European and national levels. Please take a seat. And we are also delighted to have with us Séamus Boland, President of European Economic and Social Committee.
President Boland brings the perspective of an institution that has for decades been the formal voice of organized civil society in EU decision making. And joining us from a national parliament perspective is Ivan Angelov, Vice President of the National Assembly of Bulgaria. You will bring an important perspective on how parliament, national parliament can engage with civil society, translate civic participation into parliamentary practice and strengthen democratic resilience at national level. Thank you for joining us on stage. We'll begin first with your opening contributions.
Vice President Barley, you have worked extensively on relations with between the parliament, European Parliament and national parliaments. How can we make civil society engagement a more systematic part of parliamentary democracy?
Katarina Barley
Well, first of all, you have to want it. You have to want to engage with civil society and I've, excuse me, I found the discussion extremely interesting that we had, but there is a bit this elephant in the room that actually there is a movement, a sort of backsliding when it comes to civil society that as well on a national level as on a European level, there are voices who sort of demonize civil society as being, you know, people who work against politicians and why should we support, include, fund people who actually work against us? So, therefore I think this is a very, that's the starting point. You have to, as Marina also said it, you have to realize that civil society actually are partners, that it is good to have a constructive criticism, that it is good to listen to other points of views, to other views, to other aspects that you haven't thought of before. So this is, this is the one, I would say the starting point.
And if you then want people, citizens to, to trust, I think it was, I think it was our Irish colleague who said that if you want people to trust in a democratic process, you have to give them a meaningful way of being part of it. So not only making it an exercise that is, that is sort of formal, but that has no, no impact, no effect, no result. Now, Article 11 of the European treaties say that, that we are obliged to have this open, transparent and regular dialogue with civil society. What we see, what is usually happening is that civil society is being included when you have a, the proposal on the table. And then you start asking civil society.
Actually, this is too late. Actually, it should already be before we have made up our minds for two reasons. One is the more you have already written down, the less likely you are, it is to be changed. But it's, it's not only the question, what do you think about this proposal? It should be before the question, are we actually asking the right questions?
Are we raising the right problems with this proposal? So it should be much earlier than we are doing it now. Then of course, if we take the treaty seriously, our engagement with civil society has to be more consistent than it is at the moment. We're trying to implement that better, and also it should be more coherent amongst the institutions. We have a strategy by the Commission.
We are working on it very hardly on the parliamentary side now, with Nico Stefanuta and myself both being extremely committed on it. But there is still room for improvement. We're still doing double work and I think it could be more coherent than it is at the moment. Another aspect is we need to close the feedback loop. We ask in the beginning, not in the very beginning as I said, but we ask when the proposal is on the table.
When we do not ask is afterwards. The law is in place, the regulation is in place. Is it really being implemented well? That also has been raised before. And it is of course civil society that can give us the answers to that.
We should work better between the different levels, interparliamentary like here, we should exchange more already on the question, what is actually civil society? That actually has something to do with what I said in the very beginning. I mean, some politicians look at civil society as the big climate foundations or the migration NGOs and think they have to fight them. But civil society is really everywhere and they are, in Germany we have a lot of voluntary firefighters in the small villages. They are all volunteers and they have a very strong organization.
And they are of course civil society. Or even, I don't know, hunters, or they have a strong association. This is all civil society. So you have to look at it in a broader sense and then include them in a holistic way. That is the question, who gets to participate?
And again, I don't know if it was again the Irish colleague who said we have to look most at those who get included least in the parliamentary process, because they are the least to become politicians, which are of course people from a particular social background, it's migrants, it's people with disabilities, it's single moms, it's these people who we need especially to be heard. So I could break it down to three questions: are we engaging civil society early enough, are we engaging them inclusively enough, and does it really have an impact? Can they experience what difference their engagement make? I think if we can answer those three questions with a yes, that would be a meaningful participation of civil society.
Speaker 56
Thank you, Vice-President Barley. President Boland, the European Economic and Social Committee has decades of experience bringing organized civil society into the European decision-making process. How according to you can the EU civil society strategy and its platform meaningfully enhance participation without becoming another consultative layer without decision-shaping power? Also, how can EU institutions together with national parliaments work towards a more participatory democratic system?
Seamus BOLAND
Do you have an idea?
Yes, well, first of all, the EESC has been saying this for quite a while, and I suppose I've devoted my career to a kind of social partnership, social dialogue that actually answers those questions. And I think the speaker in the last session made a most interesting point when she said, if you look at the civil society part in the dialogue as partners, then this thing, are they another group, are they another part of the institution, falls away. Because if you really count them as partners, then it's a serious piece of listening that you're going to have to do, hearing. And Katarina, our Vice-President of the Parliament, said it very well in the sense that if we keep ignoring those voices, then as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't be surprised if we have strange protests, difficult protests, people veering to various political ideologies that doesn't make sense because we're not listening. And you talked about the firefighters in Germany.
I can talk to you about a voluntary sector in Ireland and indeed across Europe, usually the first responders, usually the people on the ground. So when we come up with a system of preparedness, which is a very good part of the language here in the EU, do we bring those people right to the heart of the decision process which decides what the preparedness plan is? Do we ask them what could be in that preparedness plan that would be of use? Now, again, we're going back to a very clear, and the EESC is very clear about this, you need an infrastructure. It's not just a matter of, oh, who do we call?
It's having together an infrastructure which allows civil society and in its wider form, unions and employers, to be available in a structured way to participate as a partner in those discussions. So that's the, once you have that. So when you ask the question, what can the EU or indeed governments do, we've already got agreement that there will be a civil society platform established in the European context. I would go a lot further, of course. I mean, what you do is you start, you set the infrastructure in such a way that it becomes an automatic, not just consultation, but dialogue and discussion, so that when you're developing a new defense policy, a new financial, even the MFF, you already have a cadre of organizations in their own way structured, and that takes time, that does take time, that you can connect to.
It's not a reactive event, it's part and parcel of the process. Now, it's a challenge for civil society as well, but that's how you get things done. And as I said, our opinion talks a great deal about safeguarding civic spaces, resources, etc.
Speaker 56
Thank you.
Thank you, President Boland. I now turn to you, Vice-President Angelov. We have heard perspectives from the European Parliament, from the European Economic and Social Committee on how civil society can be better integrated into the decision-making. Now, for you, at national level, what can national parliaments do in practice to strengthen this dialogue with civil society and ensure that their voices meaningfully inform legislation and parliamentary work? Are there any good practice that you would like to share from Bulgaria?
Ivan Angelov
First of all, thank you very much. I'd like to sincerely express my gratitude for being here with all of you. And I'm convinced, truly convinced, that this forum will lead to building a strategy that will support embedding civil society in democratic decision-making. Anyway, I believe that the relationship between parliaments and civil society is not simply a matter of consultation. It is a question of quality of democracy itself.
This is the way how we measure quality. And we all know that nowadays we suffer lack of quality, especially in these challenging, in these challenging activities such as democracy. A parliament may have this constitutional mandate. It may have the electoral majority. It can have the power and the authority to legislate.
But at the same time, none of these on their own guarantees that its decisions adequately reflect the needs, concerns, and aspirations of society. I would like to remind all of you that democracy is not something that has been given for free. We need to fight for democracy every single day. We need to stand up for it. We need to protect it.
For democracy to remain meaningful, the citizens must have more than the opportunity to vote every few years. We need to make them feel engaged. They must have these genuine opportunities to contribute to public decisions, to public decision-making, to challenge them constructively, and at the same time to hold and not feel their opinions not feel overlooked. So, we the policy-makers, we've been very often blamed that about our decision-making. We've been very often blamed that we speak mostly in theory but not in practice.
But that's not true. And we must persuade and convince and prove this is not true. How can we do it? By putting emphasis, by emphasizing, by outlining what actually is important, what actually matters, by putting emphasis on practice. And here, I will give three practical steps that I truly believe are particularly important.
The first one refers to engagement. The second one refers to accountability, going first through credibility to accountability. And the third one refers to inclusion.
But let's now look at the first one, namely the engagement. So the social civil society engagement must begin before legislation is finalized. What do I mean? Once we have made our decisions, why should we face the civil society? What are we going to expect from the representatives of different organizations, of different social groups, of people with disabilities, etc., etc.?
We need to engage them before, before the legislation is finalized, before we have taken that important decisions. Parliamentary committees should engage them systematically with relevant organizations when legislation is being prepared, not after that. We need to invite independent expertise and ensure that different perspectives are heard. It's not that difficult. Consultation should be meaningful, timely, and at the same time accessible.
It should be accessible rather than a procedural formality. In a second place, I mentioned accountability that we reached through credibility. When civil society organizations submit proposals, Parliament should make every reasonable effort to explain how those proposals have been considered and to announce the result. If they are not adopted, for example, why they have not been adopted? We need to give an adequate reasonable response to the expectations of the civil society.
So consultation here should be meaningful. But people, citizens, they do expect their contributions to be taken seriously. And seriously means they have the necessary and the respective and the relevant feedback and explanation about their expectations. In a third place, participation must be inclusive. We should not limit dialogue with the organizations that already have access to decision-making.
For example, smaller civil organizations, local communities, young people, people with disabilities. So organizations representing vulnerable groups, we need to give them chance to actively participate, take part in these processes. We need to have a mean, they need to have, sorry, a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Otherwise, we risk confusing the voices of the most organized with the interest of society as a whole. So I'm coming from a country that has experienced turbulent changes in the past nearly four decades since 1989.
But we are improving, or we have been improving every single day.
And I think nowadays, nearly four decades later, we are on the right path. And once again, I truly believe that forums like this, that active participation like this, that the voices of the people, of the citizens, of those who vote, of those who want to change the place, of those who want to change the earth, of those who want to live in a better environment, will be heard. Thank you.
David
Thank you. Okay, go raibh míle maith agaibh, Séamus, Catherine, agus Ivan, for those contributions. You've really laid out the immense potential of civil society engagement for the EU. So here's where we bring the audience back into the conversation. We're going to have another house-based question, and how it's going to work, we do that, then we're going to do questions and comments from the audience, and then we're going to have the reactions and wrap-up from the panel.
So the house-based question is on the screen, focused more on what we've heard in the last few interventions. If you could improve one thing about how institutions work with civil society, what would it be? Earlier involvement, more transparent consultations, better funding, or stronger follow-up on recommendations? Just take a few seconds to select which one you think it should be. All right, thanks.
We had a last dash to victory there from earlier involvement after stronger follow-up on recommendations was leading for most of that minute. All right, we'll move to the debate now. Let's hear from the room. Same question to you. What's the best way to improve how institutions work with civil society?
Just a reminder, please limit your contributions to about a minute if you can, so more voices can be heard. Yeah, who'd like to start? Okay, I see a question right at the back. Unfortunately, I can't see your number.
Vous m'entendez ?
Can you stand up?
Speaker 72
Permettez-moi d'aller en français. Tout d'abord, vous avez pensé au droit européen, donc c'est très bien, Madame Barley. Vous avez invoqué la base juridique de l'article 11. Donc je pense à l'article 11 du TUE, et cet article instaure l'ICE, l'Initiative Citoyenne Européenne, donc qui permet d'avoir un million de voix, donc de pétitions. Et ma question c'est comment éviter un sentiment de consultation de façade, sachant très bien que cet article, cette consultation n'est pas obligatoire, la prise en compte n'est pas obligatoire.
Donc comment ne pas avoir ce sentiment de façade alors que la société civile a même les moyens, de par l'article 11 du TUE, de faire valoir sa voix ? Bon, voilà ma question, c'est un peu une contribution mais à la fois une interrogation. Merci.
David
Merci beaucoup.
Further questions or comments from the audience? Yes, please number 551.
Adela Militaru
Thank you, again Adela Militaru from the Roma for Democracy Foundation. I wanted to reinforce what has been said about the integrity of institutions and about the idea that actually we have to restore the conditions for robust participation starting from the very ground. And I think one question that comes to my mind, especially to Vice-President Barley, is whether the strengthening of civic space where it's supposed to happen, not within professionalized civil society organizations, because some of us, you know, made a career working in civil society, but you brought the examples of firefighters or of different associations that are interest-based, that are voluntary-based. How do we create the offline spaces for community building where this genuine dialogue is being enhanced or is being permitted through face-to-face interactions between citizens that avoids then an industry of civil society as it has become in some nuances over the past years, especially with European funds being allocated. And one thing that might sound a bit out of the box, why don't we involve citizens in decision-making on how funds get allocated from this Agora EU program?
Because maybe this is a way to give them power to decide who is genuinely, effectively benefiting them and delivering results, impact and effects as Ms. Barley put it very nicely in her opening remarks. Thank you.
Hisam Despish
Thank you very much. My name is Hisam Despish from the Kurdish movement. Basically I have a concern as a main question, which is in the past what we had was a battle between state and institution, state and the people, or let's say institution and the people. Nowadays the battle is between institution, digital world and the people. So the main question here is whether institution try to balance this relationship or no, trying to manipulate situation and stay with the digital world rather than people.
Because at the end the civil society is the paying the main price.
Speaker 73
Boa tarde, meu nome é Sandra Ribeiro e venho do Parlamento Português. Eu gostaria de colocar uma questão sobre a representatividade, a transparência e a independência das organizações da sociedade civil. Todos nós reconhecemos o importante papel que a sociedade civil pode desempenhar no reforço da resiliência democrática. No entanto, se a União Europeia pretende estabelecer um quadro de longo prazo de apoio à sociedade civil, considero igualmente importante garantir transparência relativamente às organizações envolvidas, às suas fontes de financiamento e aos critérios utilizados para determinar quais as organizações que recebem apoio institucional ou financeiro.
E a minha questão é, portanto, como pretende a Comissão garantir que a estratégia europeia para a sociedade civil apoia uma verdadeira diversidade de vozes e organizações, incluindo aquelas que possam ter posições diferentes ou críticas relativamente às políticas da União Europeia? E que salvaguardas serão estabelecidas para garantir que o financiamento público e o acesso às instituições serão atribuídos com base em critérios transparentes e objetivos e não em preferências políticas ou ideológicas? Por fim, de que forma poderão os parlamentos nacionais exercer um controlo efetivo sobre estes mecanismos? Muito obrigado.
David
Muito obrigado, deputada Ribeiro. Let's go now to number 246 for the last one and then we go back to the panel.
Fiona Fiedler
Thank you. I'm Fiona Fiedler, member of parliament of the Austrian parliament. Thank you for the inclusive side of involving civil society. As a speaker for people with disabilities, for me it's basic to involve especially people with disabilities from the beginning on, for I can't know what they actually need as a person with no disabilities. So, actually I can't understand why not everyone is doing it that way.
It's like more or less building a house without windows and doors because I didn't ask anyone if anybody wanted to enter it. So, I think it's our duty to involve everybody inclusively. That is what that is what democracy is all about in my world especially. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. So we have heard from you and those rich intervention. Now we will go back to our speakers. Maybe first, yes, Vice-President Angel, I think you might take the floor and you have also closing remarks that you would like to add to those answers, please.
Ivan Angelov
Okay, thank you very much for your questions. They were really, I think I can consider these questions as very important. And what I said about the people's, for example, with disabilities as something very important, something that we're working hard on it. And people with disabilities, they have, I can say, equal here access to the decision-making process, no matter which committee they attend at the national parliament in Bulgaria. I will give you a practical example from my country.
So we have this parliamentary experience that offers this practical examples of how this engagement, but I mean not only people with disabilities, but also people that come from other less represented organizations. And public hearings and parliamentary committees, written submissions by professional and civil society organizations and consultations on draft legislation provide institutional channels through which expertise and citizens' concerns can enter these legislative processes. And this is the way we are fully convinced this is the right path for the future development in the decision-making process as a whole. So one more thing from the other colleagues that mentioned about funds allocation. So this is something very interesting and that we have discussed many times.
It's not that easy and I will give you a certain direct instance coming from my country, namely that we have created a committee for direct participation and interaction with the civil society representatives.
And in June we adopted the rules for application and entering the advisory board of this committee. And we have currently we have representatives from different social groups, from different organizations, from different non-governmental organizations as well. And the results until now prove that we are on the right path. So this is what we are doing, this is what we are fully convinced is right, true, and we can of course exchange our experience with other colleagues, with other parliaments. And we are ready to of course to incorporate or to embed other practices from other parliaments into the national into our national parliament so we can improve.
We are ready to do this. Thank you.
Speaker 76
Thank you. Yes, you would like to go and then we will give vice-president.
Seamus BOLAND
I know people are thinking of their evening supper and it's a long day, but let me clearly take at least some of the questions quickly and then I want to just say one or two points. First of all, transparency, which was an issue raised. That's always been raised and it's a very legitimate question. Absolutely. The organizations in a proper social partnership, social dialogue, on equal partners, of course have to be transparent in the same way as political parties have to be transparent, in the same way as lobbying groups around this town, which are two a penny.
Everybody needs to be transparent. That's a problem in managing this process, but it's not the ultimate reason not to have it, because here is the price of not having civil society as part of an equal partnership. The price is no democracy. The price is massive social discohesion. The price is the end of democracy.
And as for people with disability, having worked in that area, can I assure you that they're usually everyone forgets about them. They need to be part of the process. Can I say about the EESC and then I'll finish because I know time is running out. We have in our house, we have the Civil Society Week. We have the youth test, which is a real action.
It brings young people into the opinions that we are writing, which eventually advise this house and indeed the Commission. So that's an action. We have a situation where people are part of it. The end of the day, the question to ask frankly is, do we continue with a Europe that doesn't have a real social dialogue partnership, or do we just let Europe descend into anarchy? That's the question.
Speaker 56
Thank you, President Boland. And now we would like to hear from you, Vice-President Barley, and maybe final reflections on this debate.
Katarina Barley
Well, after these final words by Seamus, I don't really know what to say, what to add. Well, concerning the consultation de façade, just I mean we live in a representative democracy and I believe in the representative democracy and I think it should stay that way. And to have the to have citizens express their their wish, one million is is the threshold in in the European Union, leads to the elected bodies having to deal with this.
And that is, that is how a representative democracy works. I mean, if not, you would have 1 million citizens who could decide for 450 million people. I mean, I think this is, this is a decision that you have to make. Do you believe in representative democracy or do you want more direct democracy? Everyone can have his or her preferences there, but, but I would tend to stick to this sort of hybrid version of the elected representatives who also have to carry the responsibility for it.
I mean, if, if people don't like what we do, they can, they can kick us out of Parliament. They just elect someone else. But if you are a citizen who, what is your consequence if you, if you were wrong? I mean, this is just simply how it works and I think that has nothing to do with facade, it's just a combination of two important branches. When it comes to the integrity of the institutions, oh, I found that very interesting talking about an industry of civil society because this is a point that I'm sure you also do, but we, we struggle a lot with.
Of course we have these umbrella organizations that we, that we hear and that are very powerful and well-organized and well-funded. But I find it extremely important to also see the others. I think probably it has to do with the levels a bit. I mean, already on the national level, if we ask the very, very small entities, I live in a country with 84 million people, that's really a lot of work to do. So probably you would have to have like a pyramid or a, or a cascade or however you would call it.
And we naturally on the European level cannot consult all the very small ones. I myself am president of the German Samaritans with 1.6 million members. So I think we speak for a lot of people, also those with disabilities, but also the elderly, also the sick, also people in, in financial trouble. And, and yes, this is a sort of umbrella organization, but on a, on a more regional level, on a local level, you can involve the smaller ones. So I think it's a sort of cascade.
And it can be, of course, you can have people who are being consulted also on budget. We are trying this in Germany with sort of citizens' councils, but they have to be put together in a representative way. That's very, very important. You can't just, if you, if you take the people who, who say I, I want to be part of it, you get the usual suspects. So it really has to be inclusive also.
And, and there are very, very encouraging examples for this, not only for, for the budget, but also we had one in Germany on, on food, on healthy food, how do you guarantee that? And it was, they had really brilliant results, a citizens' panel or council, however you want to call that. The digital world is, is a chance and a danger. I mean, you, you get stuck in your bubbles, but it also enables very small entities to have a voice and to participate. So, so I have to be short, I know we're already running out of time, but maybe very importantly, the transparency, I'm a bit proud and I have my excellent assistant here who was a huge part of it, that we managed in the last term to, to establish the transparency register.
And in the European Union, really everyone who lobbies needs to be transparent. And I think this is very important, and Europe is on a forefront there. So I think those are the answers. And just the last remark is, it's exercises like this one where we engage between European and national level, which are actually also part of this exercise that we need to do with civil society, because of course you, as I said, you know your national civil societies, and the regional come to you, and you also gather that. So we have to put all the efforts together to have civil society and politics come together and the different political levels coming together.
And we have to work more on that. We did this last year with the first Civil Dialogue Forum, where Seamus was also present, and we really want to enforce this. I cannot tell you what the Commission does, it's not our cup of tea, but we as a Parliament are very, very much determined to work on this issue.
David
All right, thanks, Vice-President, for those words, and thanks everyone for what was, I thought, a really thoughtful debate. We covered a lot of ground. Two major messages, I think, came through: meaningful participation requires a lot more than ad hoc consultations, and defending civil society means giving us a real voice in the institutions.
Speaker 56
Thank you, David. Thank you to our speakers today. Thank you to you for your participation, to the interpreters also who stayed with us until the end, and to the team who made this session possible. The conference and the forum goes on tomorrow. We hope you'll join us for the networking dinner tonight.
Good evening.