This text was written by Ivan Verbytskyi, then director of the CEDOS think tank, as a keynote speech at the Green Academy in August 2024.
The speech was based on the work of the Green Academy since 2019 and therefore emphasized the core values of the green movement - climate justice, gender equality, democracy and participatory approach. Its goal was to explore the interplay and challenges between democratic processes and the efforts to counter Russian aggression and preserve Ukrainian statehood.
This keynote tries to answer the following questions:
- what restrictions on democracy are justified in times of war;
- how to criticize the government during a war;
- can Ukraine actually trade democracy for victory;
- is it possible to advance democracy in the face of a threat to the existence of the state;
- how democratic processes facilitate victory.
This text outlines the trends, opportunities, and challenges for democratic civil society in times of war, suggests ways how society can simultaneously promote democracy and bring victory closer.
A year after the text was written, these issues and challenges remain relevant. The developments in the world, in particular, the victory of Donald Trump in the US presidential election, on the one hand, confirm some observations, and on the other hand, challenge them, drawing attention to the complexity and ambiguity of social reality.
In any case, the purpose of this text was not to provide answers, but to look for similarities and differences, to ask questions and outline key concepts that can contribute to a broader and deeper discussion of democratic transformation in times of war. Interest and focus on this topic have only increased in the past year.
Kleptocracy
"If you want to steal, steal a little and do it nicely. But if you steal too much and become rich overnight, you will be caught." This is not a quote from a mafia man or a convicted criminal, but from the leader of the state, Mobutu Sese Seko, President of the Republic of Zaire (the country we know today as the Democratic Republic of Congo), from his speech on May 20, 1976, delivered at a stadium in Kinshasa to an audience of 70,000 of his compatriots.
Kleptocracy is the best possible term to describe the political regime of Mobutu. It is a system focused on the personal enrichment of those in power, utilizing all the country's resources for this purpose. That is systemic corruption in its highest form. In this sense, it stands in opposition to democracy. In kleptocracy the interests of the ruling class, rather than citizens' needs, become the state's primary objective. It is estimated that in 1970, for example, Mobutu stole 60% of the country's annual budget. To go shopping in Paris, he chartered a Concorde jet, and the evening news began with a picture of his portrait among the clouds to present him as a deity.
Mobutu was president for 32 years, from 1965 to 1997. Part of his success was his skillful use of the Cold War situation and balancing poles of influence: Belgium, France, China, the Soviet Union, and the United States. To limit the spread of communism in the world, the United States regularly sent financial aid to Zaire.
Mobutu rather succeeded in achieving his goals thanks to the services of lobbyists. In 1989, for example, Mobutu paid $1 million to the company of a lobbyist Paul Manafort, and the following year, Congress allocated $63 million in military and economic aid to Zaire.
A few years later, the American non-governmental organization Center for Public Integrity named Manafort one of the top 5 lobbyists receiving money from regimes that violate human rights. Perhaps Manafort's most famous clients were two other presidents: Viktor Yanukovych, for whom Manafort worked from 2004 to 2014, and Donald Trump, whose first presidential campaign Manafort managed in 2016. It is estimated that Manafort earned up to $20 million while working in Ukraine.
Paul Manafort's clients have something in common. And it's not just a love of luxurious residences - from the "Versailles of the Jungle" in the Congo to Mezhyhirya (Ukraine) and Mar-o-Lago in Florida. The desire to exploit state power for personal benefit and enrichment understandably leads to a fear of losing that power, which in turn results in undemocratic efforts to retain it.
Much like Yanukovych, Mobutu lived out his last days as an exile after a national uprising. Trump's attempts to stay in power ended with the storming of the Capitol, and the 2024 presidential campaign is, among other things, an opportunity to avoid prosecution in the ongoing court cases.
Polarization
There are, however, other parallels. In both Ukraine and the United States, Paul Manafort offered similar political strategies to both of his most famous clients. They were based on fomenting polarization in society, exploiting fears and economic turmoil caused by structural changes in the economy and weak social policies in an era of flourishing private property and growing inequalities.
"It makes you want to avoid holiday family gatherings, so you don't hear your uncle's cringe-worthy political arguments," is how the Democratic vice-presidential candidate ironically explains Trump's negative impact on American society. This describes too well my aunt's ex-husband, who once told me why he supported the Party of Regions (Party of Victor Yanukovych, tr). It was the same "political technology" proposed by literally the same "technologist".
The problem is that such divisions not only allow for manipulation of political views but also negatively impact democracy.
The need to find common ground, solutions and compromises that take into account the needs, positions and interests of different social groups is critical to the functioning of a democratic political system.
At the same time, of course, these three categories - needs, interests, and positions - should be distinguished.
Positions are what people express.
Interests are what they stand for, what they want.
Needs are the life conditions necessary for normal functioning.
An example of a need is communicating with others or breathing clean air. An interest - to prevent new buildings from replacing parks or green areas. A position - demanding a moratorium on construction or whatever else is written on posters during the demonstration. At the same time, making money on new constructions is not a need. It is an interest.
A person as a living being does not have that many needs: to eat, to drink, to have a roof over one's head, to communicate with others, to self-realize. These needs correspond with the inherent human rights. It is the duty of states to ensure them and create opportunities to meet the needs. Though not all positions and interests are related to meeting needs. That is why not all interests can be fulfilled. Understanding this distinction is what can help navigate conflicts and political disputes, and provide a basis for finding compromises without undermining values.
Democracy is rooted in such discussions, compromises, and efforts to understand and consider the needs of other people and other social groups. Democracy is a system that creates various opportunities for representing, expressing and protecting the different needs of different people, as well as platforms for discussion, comparing different positions and finding solutions.
Solidarity
For a democracy to function, it is crucial that society recognizes the value of finding common ground and tries to understand the needs of others and match them with their own.
Research shows that for this understanding, it is critical to communicate with people who are different from oneself. Not only with friends, relatives, or those who share our political views. But also with those who are significantly and fundamentally different from us.
This is the opposite of echo chambers - communication in groups whose members share and reflect our views. Of course, communication with people who are similar to us is also necessary. At the same time, if we communicate only with those who are similar to us, it becomes more difficult for us to understand and sympathize with others, to take into account their needs. Political polarization is a process that reduces this interaction, reduces openness to this interaction, recognition of the legitimacy of other points of view, and willingness to seek common solutions. Political polarization is what turns democracy into autocracy or dictatorship, even if it is a majority dictatorship.
In fact, democracy is not only about majority rule, it is equally about taking into account the needs of minorities. This includes special attention to those who are most vulnerable. Equality and brotherhood, if we use the language of the French Revolution. But also equality and sisterhood, to make this motto more relevant today. Mutual aid, solidarity, caring for common good, cooperation - these are the things that are essential for democracy. Specifically, to prevent a scenario where a social group's circumstances or quality of life become intolerable, causing them to feel neglected and wronged, and consequently to no longer treat the current political regime as legitimate because it disregards their interests. This can be a prerequisite for alienation, vulnerability to populism, or even more radical actions, including violence and terrorism.
The normal functioning of democracy requires care for minorities, vulnerable and disadvantaged social groups. It is about ensuring that the state does not function only in the interests of the ruling class, as in a kleptocracy, or the wealthiest people, as in an oligarchy.
Democracy implies equality and inclusiveness, taking into account different needs. It may mean, for example, that power is not vested in a hereditary ruler but in elected bodies. It may mean that property rights are not limited to aristocrats. The right to vote is not just for men, but for women too. Not only heterosexuals but also homosexuals have the right to marry. Ethnicity is not an obstacle to settling in a certain region or working in a certain job. Skin color is not a reason for greater police control.
Democracy makes it possible to continue the struggle for gender equality. At the same time, gender equality requires democracy. The power of empires over colonies is linked to the absence of the right of the colonized to have a voice in their present and future. Racial segregation, corruption, oligarchy, and even climate change are linked to a lack of solidarity and democracy, the opposite of which is the concentration of power and resources, their use for short-term gain, the benefit of limited groups of people instead of development in the interests of all members of society, and consideration of the interests of not only present but also future generations.
Ukraine
Ukraine is not a perfect democracy. We still have some corruption and even oligarchs. We still have a long way to go in terms of gender equality, combating discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. We are not pioneers in climate policy and could do a much better job of protecting the environment. We have our homework to do in terms of overcoming ethnic discrimination, for example, against Roma. A substantial part of the responsibility for the violation of Crimean Tatars' rights, spanning at least 1991 to 2014, rests with us. We are not always sensitive to the anti-colonial struggles of other peoples, and we strive to become part of the West or the Global North without being critical enough of the sources of wealth and injustice against former colonies of Western countries.
However, our struggle against Russia is also a struggle for democracy, a struggle against oligarchy, a struggle for gender equality, a struggle against imperialism, a struggle for the preservation of the planet.
It is Russia that is one of the largest oligarchies that exists thanks to the burning of fossil fuels, which exacerbates climate change. We can criticize President Zelensky a lot, but he is not the largest Ukrainian oligarch, and the entire Ukrainian state system does not work for his personal enrichment. We do have corruption, but the corruption of 2024 is significantly different from the corruption of 2014.
If you compare us with Russia, everything works very differently there. It is Russia that supports authoritarian regimes and interferes in democratic elections in favor of political forces that promote polarization and restrictions on civil liberties. From Mali to Venezuela, from Germany to the United States. It is Russia that is the force behind many "anti-gender" movements around the world - movements that oppose abortion and same-sex marriage, and restrictions on the rights of transgender people. Russia has literally recognized the "LGBT movement" as an "extremist organization" and banned the "international LGBT public movement." A few years ago, Chechnya actually had a literal death penalty for "wrong" sexual orientation. Russia is the largest state in the world precisely because it is an empire consisting of the territories of enslaved peoples, whose representatives actually have fewer civil rights than ethnic Russians and Slavs. Racism, the eradication of languages, cultures, and history are deliberate state policy and social norms. Like every empire, Russia engages in extractionism, siphoning off natural resources from conquered territories and creating inequalities in quality of life and wealth between imperial centers and peripheries.
Russia's victory over Ukraine could strengthen all opponents of democracy and weaken faith in democracy as a means of protection and resilience for those fighting dictatorships around the world. Russia's victory will strengthen its disruptive influence on other democracies. Big countries will realize that they can still interfere in the affairs of smaller neighbors.
A Ukrainian victory, on the other hand, will show that democracy prevails in the end. Ukraine's victory will deprive juntas and dictators from Belarus to North Korea of support, deprive gender equality opponents of support, and cut off financing for the parties that are trying to undermine European integration and climate policies.
The struggle for Ukraine is also a struggle for democracy, human rights, gender equality, for our planet, for the right of nations to self-determination, and for fair distribution of resources. Ukraine has international support and moral justification for its struggle precisely because of this. If there is no Ukrainian state here, there will be no more democracy, human rights, care for the environment or justice.
Autocracy
But does it work the other way around? Can Ukraine win through abandoning its democracy? The formal answer is yes. Among other things, Ukraine is a nation-state of the Ukrainian nation. The Ukrainian people have no other state, and the existence of the Ukrainian state is important for their preservation, for the protection of their language and culture. There are authoritarian states in the world, too. An authoritarian Ukraine, however, would be a very different state from the one we are fighting for today. The experience of Belarus shows that risks created by such a political regime are substantial.
Does the struggle for Ukraine mean merely preserving a state on this territory and under this name? Is the fight for Ukraine equals the fight for the Ukrainian nation-state, regardless of whether it stays democratic? Does the struggle for Ukraine mean the struggle for a democratic Ukrainian state, because democracy is one of the fundamental values for the Ukrainian political nation?
The state is also important because it ensures basic human rights. Even a bad state is better than no state. As Professor Timothy Snyder points out, during the Holocaust, 90% of Jews in prewar Poland perished, while 74% of Jews in France survived. Even if it was a puppet state, there was a French state whose citizenship reduced the risk of being killed. Without citizenship and the dissolution of a state, individuals face a heightened risk of lawlessness.
The occupied Ukrainian territories illustrate how the fall back of the Ukrainian state reduces the available space for rights and freedoms.
The history of the Second World War teaches us that statelessness creates a situation in which local police, for example, in the context of regime change, become more susceptible to breaking laws, thus demonstrating their loyalty to the new government.
Turning back to autocracies and democracies, a relevant discussion point is which of these regimes proves more effective in wartime, and consequently, which is more capable of achieving victory. Ukraine's war with Russia is one of the cases that can be used to examine the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
On the one hand, one-man rule is a factor that can generally increase the likelihood of war. Democracies have more checks and balances to account for the risks. At the same time, administrative mobilization of resources is easier in autocracies. In democratic Ukraine, mobilization is difficult. The dilemma between the value of one's personal life on the one end, and civic duty and the values of preserving the nation, state, and democracy on the other, leads to the need for certain restrictions on freedom.
Even the question of raising taxes to finance the war in a democratic Ukraine is a matter of wide debate, when Russia has already made its increases without any further discussion. The Russian government pays high salaries, hiring the best economists to make sure that their economy can withstand military challenges. In Ukraine, the government offers several times lower salaries to civil servants, as increasing spending on "bureaucrats" is not a popular political move.
A democratic Ukraine, however, relies on the strength of civil society to support the army, the greater democracy of the armed forces themselves, and the existing "organic" motivation to defend their country rather than fight for the ideas or ambitions of an authoritarian leader.
Technocracy
Among the arguments against democracy is frequently the concern about potential chaos or a loss of control, stemming from the chance that a populist party or an incapable leader might be elected. Using this logic, with any luck, a dictator might turn out to be smart and make good decisions, albeit arbitrary ones. Enlightened absolutism, in other words. We need to raise taxes - we do it, we need to mobilize more people - we do it quickly and without the possibility of objecting to anyone.
The problem is sustainability. The democratic way of making decisions is longer and more complex, requires consideration of different needs and discussion, but it is precisely because of this that the decisions made are more sustainable. They do not rely solely on one person’s will, who may change their mind tomorrow, or someone else may come in and change their mind. Democratic decisions are based on a balance of power and agreements between different groups of influence, and mutual balancing between them is the key to honoring the agreements reached. The change of one person is less unpredictable because the power of that person is limited.
Finally, enlightened authoritarianism easily can be flawed. The autocrat may appear not to be so enlightened after all. Or, over time, in the absence of restraints, they may begin to make bad decisions rather than good ones. In fact, some of the worst dictatorships in world history began with the desire of certain parties or individuals to realize their vision of an ideal world. Utopias become dystopias because, instead of a democratic discussion about what needs to be done, they offer a vision without alternatives, in which everything and everyone who does not fit into this vision has no right to exist. And this, unfortunately, in many cases has led to mass murder and crimes against humanity.
Do we have enough research and data on how to better customize various government policies to make them work for the benefit of society? Do we need these democratic processes if science already has the right answers?
The thing is that, unlike evidence-based medicine, for example, evidence-based policy has its limitations. In medicine, it's easier to define an unambiguous goal that can be measured. A patient is alive or dead.
Is it possible to define the goal of state and society development in the same way? Different people and different parties may have different views. Behind the need for democratic dialog is, among other things, the need to find out what goals we all have. And based on these goals, in the interaction between data, analytics and research, and democratic discussions, solutions can be found.
Technocracy without democracy is dangerous. This "tool" can be used for both good and questionable purposes. "Technocrats" is literally a nickname for a circle of Russian economists, the most prominent of whom is the head of the Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, for example, who, without proclaiming any values, simply "do their job well" by saving the Russian economy and creating the opportunity to wage this war.
Structures
Now, turning our attention back to democracy, let's explore its essence and what constitutes it. One model that I find quite useful suggests looking at democracy in terms of four components.
The first is the usual and most known: elections. Democracy is a political system that establishes elections and change of government through free and fair elections.
The second component is the protection of human rights, those civil rights and freedoms that ensure a certain set of unalienable possibilities for all citizens equally.
The third is the rule of law, which is a system that ensures that rights and procedures are applied equally to all, regardless of any characteristics or belonging to certain social groups.
The fourth pillar is the active participation of people in politics and public life.
Such a structure, among other things, helps to address the issue of restrictions on democracy in times of war.
Does the absence of elections mean that Ukraine has ceased to be a democratic country? No, because it is not the mere fact of holding elections means democracy.
Another framework for looking at democracy can be offered by distinguishing between its different types.
Direct democracy, historically the first, involves all members of a community or society in decision-making. This is how we imagine the agora of a Greek polis, a veche, a general meeting of a condominium, or a referendum. It sounds beautiful and romantic, but in practice, it can be difficult. We can recall that most of the inhabitants of the polis, including women and slaves, did not participate in this direct democracy. As the population grows, it becomes increasingly difficult to gather all members of society for an agora. And it's not just about finding space for the 31 million people who lived in Ukraine in 2024. Apart from technical, there are substantive challenges as well, and a condominium meeting is a great example.
On other hand, a referendum can be manipulated. Not only to falsify it directly, but also to formulate the questions so ambiguously that answers poorly reflect the real public sentiment.
"Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?" was the question asked at the All-Union referendum on March 17, 1991. What was this question about: the preservation of the Union or the sovereignty of the republics, the increase of national rights or the creation of a federation? The details are important, but they fall victim to the reduction of complex social issues to simple yes-or-no dichotomies.
The idea of a representative democracy, on the one hand, resolves the issue of numbers. Instead of the need get everyone, we can elect representatives and delegate our votes to them, along with the right to make decisions. On the other hand, these representatives can dedicate more time to studying various issues, analyzing, discussing, and negotiating solutions that take into account the details and balance different, sometimes conflicting, interests.
At the same time, representative democracy also has its drawbacks and risks. Do voters have any mechanisms of influence and control other than political accountability, i.e. re-election or non-re-election after a term? On the one hand, representatives should be somewhat detached: sometimes making unpopular decisions, compromising and sacrificing the interests of the social group they directly represent in favor of the needs of another social group that must also be considered. On the other hand, in the absence of any accountability, elected representatives can turn into a class acting in their own interests, completely ignoring the needs of those who elected them.
This implies that direct democracy, while useful for affirming major state decisions or facilitating smaller group choices, is not the sole form needed. Similarly, we require more than just the mechanisms of representative democracy, which allow us to elect representatives typically every four or five years and then delegate all decision-making to them until the next election. We also need public and political participation throughout these four or five years; involvement in decision-making, the opportunity to express needs, exercise control and accountability. This form of democracy is called participatory, deliberative or grassroots. It implies movement from both poles: one way - top-down - involvement of people by the authorities, and on the other way round - bottom-up - self-organization, creation of grassroots movements, initiatives, and development of civil society.
Participation
This civic or political participation varies in intensity. The simplest, but also the most important, is informing people about decisions, the state of affairs, plans, and results. This can be followed by consultations, elaborating solutions or processes together. The final step is delegating certain functions to civil society.
However, like other forms of democracy, participatory approaches have their limitations and weaknesses. For example, citizen involvement allows better problem identification, generation of better ideas, sharing of responsibility, and increased trust in the decisions made. At the same time, the information provided can be intentionally biased or disclosed only in part. One can invite people to decide on spending 1% of the city budget, while not taking their needs into account when distributing the remaining 99%, thus fostering conditions for corruption.
Like any other tool for involving citizens in government decision-making, participatory budgeting can be manipulated. For example, to legitimize decisions that have already been made, or to shape processes in a way that significantly limits the possibilities of free choice or creates space for abuse.
Once there was a plan to raise the fare in Kyiv. It was mandatory to hold public hearings. How, where, and when – these questions imply multiple possibilities. The public hearing was planned at a bus depot located in an industrial area on the outskirts of the city, far enough away from any residential development. This location was accessible by only one bus route, which ran once an hour. The public hearing was scheduled for the middle of a business day. Information about it was disseminated through official channels, but it seemed that not many tram passengers regularly checked the administration's website. As a result, participants in the public hearing supported the fare increase. As you might guess, not many people were able to join them. Most participants were bus depot employees, administratively dependent on the decision-makers. These employees also had a vested interest in increasing their employer's income, as it could lead to improved working conditions for them.
Formally, everyone could participate in the process; formally, all citizens were invited. However, in reality, the opportunities to attend the hearings were different. And I’m talking not just about announcement dissemination or availability of free time. By the way, people with lower incomes or caregivers may have significantly less free time. I’m talking also about the ability to come and participate in the discussion in a reasoned manner, referring to laws, concepts, or research data. This all requires skills, both soft and literal knowledge of the topic under discussion. Economic security, background, quality of education at school, free time, and life's troubles all significantly limit people's ability to meaningfully engage in political debate and discussion. The dilemma of the balance between expert knowledge and democratic participation becomes very important in this context.
Power
This raises the question of how power itself exists in different forms.
First, at different levels. There are global processes and influences, for example, changes in oil prices; the national level, where the law is passed on who can set fare; and local level – the fare themselves.
Secondly, visibility can vary. Power can be visible - literally, the decision to increase the fare, hidden – how to organize the decision-making process, who decides where to hold public hearings and how. It can also be invisible – what makes citizens to prefer profitable or self-sustaining public transport (like a business activity) over publicly funded as a public good that benefits everyone.
The third dimension is the location of power. Closed are the mayor's office, where he meets with his subordinates and decides to increase the fare. Invited spaces are public hearings, where anyone can come and express their opinion in a very carefully constructed format, but one can still come, nevertheless. Also, created spaces are when people come to the city administration to rally against a decision and even achieve some changes.
Analyzing these dimensions allows us to better deconstruct who exercises power and how it is distributed.
The Ukrainian government makes sovereign decisions on how to conduct the war, but it is also dependent on global processes and the situation inside the country. The structure and capabilities of the authorities and forces that are supposed to implement the decisions impose their own limitations. In turn, public perceptions of where the "red lines" are and what things cannot be tolerated also create a corresponding framework of possibilities. Some issues are resolved behind closed doors, others are voiced for public discussion, while some are brought to the attention by civil society, forcing the state to react.
Civil society
Civil society is undoubtedly one of the strengths of the Ukrainian state, one of the pillars in its struggle for survival, and one of the guarantors of democracy. In Ukraine, civil society is stronger than in many other countries. It can really influence the agenda, draw attention to certain topics, and change the vector of the country's development.
Power always comes with responsibility. Unlike the state, the responsibility of civil society is largely self-regulated. When implementing or advocating for change, civil society often puts pressure on sore spots, draws attention to problems and actualizes them. This destabilizes the system encouraging it to reformulate itself based on new and improved logic. In times of war, this otherwise normal approach poses risks. Both external restrictions and self-restrictions shrink the limits of possible. The pressure should be exercised with caution so not to weaken the state already weakened by war even further but strengthen it.
Even before February 24, Ukrainian civil society began preparing for a possible escalation of the war. Even after the full-scale invasion began, networks of solidarity and mutual support mobilized and eventually permeated all social ties. Because of the great shock, the chasm between the past and the present, people felt an inner drive to do something under new circumstances, to be useful, to help, to lean on something, to feel supported.
The usual routine collapsed, and a new stream of requests, needs, and a window of opportunity emerged, when mutual assistance and joint action were maximized despite the usual boundaries of social groups, professions, activities, regions, age groups, and so on. This reaction is an indicator of the existence of a society, a community, a network of connections that may be dormant in normal times of peace but are activated in emergencies. It's like neighbors in a house: they mind their own business and don't really go into other people's bedrooms, but a fire or a gas outage is a problem that forces them to act together and be as effective as possible. The capacity for such action and solidarity is the strength of civil society, which deteriorates under atomization and division.
Opportunities
During the war, public opinion polls show unprecedented levels of trust in the state. At the same time, people want Ukraine itself to be a fairer, more inclusive, democratic country after the victory. When asked about their role in society after the war, respondents often speak of their desire to increase participation in their communities' lives and their wish for greater control over local authorities. We saw a similar trend after 2014, when attention to local issues significantly increased, and a generation of civic initiatives emerged, aimed at improving yards, squares, and the spaces and environments closest to people. It's easier to check whether a pothole on your street has been repaired than to control the Ministry of Economy. Local activism was a way to fulfill the need for democratic public participation. Today, this need exists again.
On the other hand, democracy faces new challenges.
The truth is that different people have different experiences of war. This is influenced by many factors - from the usual socio-demographic differences to new variables: forced relocation, military service, loss of loved ones, loss of home - the combination of different experiences produces different optics. Even now, some people find it harder to communicate with those others whose experiences are different. There are risks of misunderstandings. Emotional exhaustion and fatigue are quite significant and are clearly confirmed by sociological studies. Economic difficulties or complex dilemmas resulting from the continuation of the war cause conflicts or misunderstandings. In this situation, it is critical for all of us strive to remain as united as possible, to care about others, to be compassionate and empathetic to other experiences. This capacity for understanding over division today is more important than ever. It is important for the preservation of democracy and important for the preservation of the state.
The task of civil society is to be attentive to inequalities and sensitive to injustices, to support those who are the most vulnerable. It is vital to prevent a situation in which entire social groups feel injustice and disregard of their needs in certain decisions. This could lead to an erosion of trust in the state and its political direction, and in democracy as a system capable of tackling current problems and needs. The lack of trust can lead to support for undemocratic processes and vulnerability to disrupting external influences. Consequently, this can pose a risk to both democracy and the state.
Democracy is not a norm in the sense that it is not the baseline.
Democracy is a choice, and a collective one. Democracy is a choice providing people freedom. This freedom is also a will - not only the possibility to be free of restrictions and circumstances, but also the possibility to develop one's human potential, to self-realize, to be what a person wants to be, to live with dignity, to have dignity. This freedom requires conditions. It requires health care, education, social security, traffic control, payment of taxes, fulfillment of civic duties, and punishment of those who infringe on the freedom of others. These conditions that make freedom possible are closely linked to the existence of the state. The state is a structure that creates conditions for freedom, dignity, and self-realization. Democracy is a way of organizing the state that offers safeguards against restricting freedom. It works when many people make individual choices to protect this freedom, to protect this democracy, to protect this state. To be a drop in the ocean, a grain of sand on the beach, a small part in a big mechanism. This detail does not seem important, but without it, the whole system can break down.
One donation can save a life, one post on Facebook can start a revolution.
On the other hand, people have weaknesses. Sometimes it is difficult to continue when the goals and aspirations are so big and unattainable, and the actions to be taken are sometimes difficult, not always extraordinary, often routine, and not that interesting every day, even if somewhere in the long run they lead to something meaningful, important, and desirable.
The power of great and collective achievements lies in the fact that different people in different places take these small steps and move the whole mechanism in the right direction.