Just over a year on from the first Summit for Democracy, the backdrop for this year’s event – co-hosted by the United States, the Netherlands, South Korea and Zambia – is both very different, and depressingly similar.
It is entirely different in that the Russian invasion of Ukraine has prompted concerted and deep seated effort among democracies committed to showing common cause with extraordinary Ukrainian resistance against autocratic invasion. As recently as 18 months ago, these same countries were still fractured and quarrelsome over issues as diverse as procurement of submarines and COVID vaccines. Today, and with some exceptions, they are mobilising with a fresh shared purpose in defence of the democratic idea, and in resistance to a country where control of ideas has become a defining and depressing mission.
But the backdrop to this Summit is also all too familiar in that most indicators suggest democracy as an idea remains in retreat. Autocracy as a force for organising societies in the interests of unaccountable power remains on the march. The latest V-Dem report on the state of democracy in the world makes for gloomy reading, reporting a new record of 42 autocratising countries - up by nine from the 33 reported in last year’s Democracy Report, which was itself then a historical record. For the first time in more than two decades, the world has more closed autocracies than liberal democracies.
A constant theme
There are other similarities. Attacks on independent media - the strategy used by autocrats to seize and control power – have become a constant theme in any analysis of democratic decline in recent years.
“Aspects of freedom of expression and the media are the ones ‘wanna-be dictators’ attack the most and often first,” finds V-Dem. “At the very top of the list, we find government censorship of the media, which is worsening in 47 countries.”
Autocracy is at risk of becoming a global norm and the route to its advance follows a clear, predictable and demonstrably very successful strategy: first and foremost, intimidate and co-opt the media, and second, deploy disinformation to polarise and divide society. “Autocratising governments are those that are increasing their use of disinformation the most,” finds the report. “They use it to steer citizens’ preferences, cause further divisions, and strengthen their support.”
A press conference in Ukraine
Signs of collective response
There are some signs that democracies are just beginning to recognise this and to respond collectively and determinedly, beyond the many fragmented initiatives which have characterised democracy support in recent years. One of the principal outcomes of the first Summit for Democracy was US President Joe Biden’s leadership in being the first country to commit substantial resources – up to $30 million – to a newly established International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM).
Other heads of state committing resources included then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand and President Emmanuel Macron of France; countries as diverse as Taiwan, South Korea and Switzerland have also pledged their support. UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres had earlier his support for the Fund’s establishment.
IFPIM, originally suggested by ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Media Action, is now an independent entity that has raised almost $50 million and is being established in Paris, with a board co-chaired by Nobel Peace Prize winner Maria Ressa and former head of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ and the New York Times, Mark Thompson. In addition to a promising and significant source of new finance for independent media in low- and middle-income countries, IFPIM is positioning itself as a symbol of multilateral cooperation in defence of democracy. With support and representation from a broad range of countries, it aims to move beyond the idea that democratic defence is a preserve of the “West” – that, rather, democracy is a universal value and some of its greatest advocates can be found where upholding it is often most challenging.
A slow financial response
All that being said, autocrats still have it depressingly easy and the financial response required to protect independent media around the world is still being mounted by just a very small number – principally the US, Sweden, Switzerland and now France. Several are actually reducing their support. Total support as reported to the OECD stands at just 0.3% of development assistance; miniscule amounts of that support actually finds its way into the coffers of independent media who are under increasingly existential economic, as well as political, pressure.
The COVID pandemic made the autocratic task of undermining media easier still, as already crumbling business models further undermined the resilience of independent media. “In low- and middle-income countries, where many outlets operate in an unstable business environment and have limited access to investment capital, philanthropy and government support, the pandemic threatens the fundamental existence of free, fair, independent news media ecosystem,” found a major 2022 published by UNESCO and the Economist Intelligence Unit.
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Media Action is proud of the role it has played in helping to seed IFPIM, which is now entirely independent, and of other work to support independent media around the world. This has included, for example, facilitating the creation of a National Action Plan on independent media in Sierra Leone, and advising the Indonesian government on a new Presidential Regulation for Publishers’ Rights, ensuring media outlets are paid by the digital platforms and aggregators that carry their content.
An existential financial threat
But efforts like these, and those of other media support responses, cannot succeed unless there is a clear recognition of the existential financial threat that most independent media face. For that to happen, many more countries need to step up their currently negligible contributions to media support. Given the small sums involved, and the immense contributions of independent media to defending democracy and resisting autocracy, these are some of the best value-for-money investments possible.
A similar tide needs to turn on disinformation and toxic polarisation. ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Media Action is playing a key role here, too.
V-Dem has recommended that, to counter autocratisation, “pro-democratic actors could pursue strategies such as dialogues and civic education seeking to reduce political polarisation and to increase citizens’ resistance to the spread of disinformation.” We work at scale, providing support to more than 250 media partners worldwide to effectively disseminate trustworthy information while scrutinizing and exposing propaganda and disinformation. Last year, we reached over 120 million people with programming designed to encourage debate, dialogue and access to trusted information across divides. We are currently conducting research to gain insight into the factors that influence people's beliefs and their tendency to share information with others. In partnership with the University of Cambridge, we are working to support the creation of content that can scale up the application of ‘inoculation theory’ as a pre-bunking approach to build people’s resilience to mis- and disinformation theory to help prevent the spread of false or hate-filled narratives and news.
Glimmers of light
The tide may look like it is going out on democracy. But there are glimmers of light emerging, and not just with resistance to Russia. Many of the trends V-Dem highlights can work in reverse. It argues that while “disinformation is like a stick used by anti-pluralist parties to stir up polarisation,” the opposite also holds true: as democratisation takes hold, governments find it ever more difficult to spread disinformation.
If democracies all over the world can continue to find common cause, to work together rather than at odds with one another, to establish new multilateral institutions like IFPIM and take maximum advantage of innovation in combatting disinformation, the autocratic wave can be reversed. But there is a long way to go before that becomes reality.
---
James Deane is Head of Policy at ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Media Action. He has spent much of the last three years working with others to develop the International Fund for Public Interest Media.