June 16, 2026 — UN Human Rights Council, Geneva
On 16 June 2026, AFI-ILA and INHR convened the side event “Reversing Democratic Backsliding” at the 62nd UN Human Rights Council to examine how democratic backsliding can be prevented and reversed. Drawing on experiences from the United States, Hungary, and other contexts, the discussion focused on strengthening democratic safeguards, protecting civic space, and ensuring that democratic renewal leads to more resilient institutions — not simply a return to the previous status quo.
Democratic backsliding follows familiar patterns
From OHCHR’s global perspective, Bikramjeet Batra emphasized that democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are mutually reinforcing. When one is weakened, the others are placed at risk.
The mechanisms of democratic erosion are also becoming increasingly familiar. Governments may adopt restrictive laws under the guise of national security, criminalize peaceful criticism, constrain civil society organizations, capture or censor independent media, or use legislation on issues such as cybercrime, misinformation, and hate speech to restrict freedom of expression. Minorities and marginalized communities can simultaneously become targets of political scapegoating.
Preventing this requires returning to the institutional foundations of democracy: independent national human rights institutions, meaningful checks and balances, political pluralism, an active civil society, and legal and constitutional safeguards that protect rather than restrict fundamental freedoms.
Importantly, international actors cannot substitute for national institutions and movements. Their role is to reinforce them. Examples from Benin, Senegal, Nepal, Uganda and other countries illustrated how international human rights institutions can help strengthen independent bodies, support human rights defenders, and expand participation — but sustainable democratic resilience ultimately depends on actors within each society.
Courts matter but they cannot carry democracy alone
Skye Perryman brought the discussion to the United States, where she described current pressures as an acceleration of a longer period of democratic backsliding rather than a phenomenon that began with a single administration.
At the center of the challenge is the weakening of checks and balances between branches of government. Democracy Forward has been heavily involved in litigation challenging executive actions, and Perryman stressed that courts remain an important mechanism for constraining unlawful exercises of power. At the same time, one of the clearest lessons from the US experience is that litigation cannot be the only line of defense.
Democratic safeguards must be designed not only for governments that respect democratic norms, but also for moments when those norms come under deliberate pressure.
When political institutions fail to exercise their checking functions, democratic resilience also depends on civil society, communities, and citizens being able to organize and respond. Perryman pointed to peaceful civic mobilization as an essential complement to legal action and stressed that even powerful executives remain responsive to sustained legal, political, and public pressure.
Looking toward a future moment of democratic renewal, she argued that reform cannot simply mean returning to previous arrangements. Among the areas requiring attention are protections for a professional and non-partisan civil service, stronger safeguards against large-scale government corruption, renewed investment in civic education and participation, and reforms capable of rebuilding confidence in judicial institutions.
Artistic freedom is part of democratic infrastructure
Sanjay Sethi expanded the conversation beyond institutions traditionally associated with democracy. Pressure on artists, museums, universities, cultural funding bodies, and other cultural institutions is not separate from democratic backsliding — it can be part of the same process.
Political appointments, manipulated funding, restrictions on minority expression, and pressure on cultural organizations all influence whose voices are able to participate in public life. Over time, this can also create a powerful chilling effect. Artists begin calculating risk before anyone explicitly orders them to censor their work. Curators narrow programming. Institutions become cautious. The public sphere contracts without the government necessarily imposing formal censorship.
Building institutional independence therefore requires more than protecting individual artists. It requires safeguards throughout the cultural ecosystem itself. Sethi pointed to measures including statutory protections for artistic freedom, independent cultural funding bodies, transparent and reviewable funding decisions, merit-based appointment procedures, and professional standards that insulate cultural institutions from political interference.
The underlying principle is the same as in other democratic institutions: independence cannot rely solely on political goodwill. It needs structures that make capture more difficult.
Democratic renewal is about more than institutional repair
Hungary provided a particularly important perspective on what happens when a political opening for democratic renewal actually emerges. Speaking after a change of government following sixteen years of increasingly autocratic rule, Márta Pardavi described a society experiencing both relief and exceptionally high expectations.
There is an enormous amount of institutional repair to undertake: reforming public media, restoring fair and transparent funding systems, removing restrictions on civil society and academic freedom, rebuilding anti-corruption safeguards, and reversing structures created to facilitate political control. But Pardavi stressed that institutional reforms alone are not enough.
One of the central challenges is sustaining the renewed public engagement that accompanied political change and creating an enabling environment for civil society, journalism, academia, arts, and culture. These spaces do more than benefit from democracy; they help sustain it by providing forums for participation, accountability, debate, and new ideas.
Hungary also illustrates another difficult question facing democratic transitions: how to balance urgency with democratic process itself. Reforms may need to happen quickly, particularly where access to resources or the restoration of rights is time-sensitive. Yet bypassing public consultation in the name of urgency risks reproducing some of the practices democratic renewal is intended to overcome.
Transnational cooperation among pro-democracy actors
The final discussion returned to the role of the international community. Participants highlighted the importance of using UN mechanisms — including the Universal Periodic Review, treaty bodies, and Special Procedures — not in isolation, but as complementary tools. Over time, these mechanisms can build a detailed body of recommendations and evidence. The challenge is ensuring those recommendations are implemented when political opportunities emerge.
The panel also emphasized something less formal but equally important: transnational cooperation among pro-democracy actors.
Autocratic governments increasingly learn from one another. Democratic movements need to do the same.
Networks connecting human rights defenders and civil society organizations can transfer knowledge across borders, provide practical support, reduce isolation and burnout, and help reformers avoid repeating mistakes made elsewhere. When democratic openings occur, international funding, diplomatic support, and mechanisms capable of translating existing recommendations into national implementation can become particularly valuable.
That may ultimately be one of the most important lessons from the discussion. Democratic resilience cannot begin only once a crisis has become visible, and democratic renewal cannot begin only after political change has taken place. The institutions, networks, knowledge, and safeguards required for both must be built in advance.
Panelists
Bikramjeet Batra, Democracy Adviser, OHCHR Rule of Law Section
Skye Perryman, President & CEO, Democracy Forward
Márta Pardavi, Co-chair, Hungarian Helsinki Committee
Sanjay Sethi, Co-executive Director, Artistic Freedom Initiative and Initiative pour la Liberté Artistique
Moderator
Luke Wilson, Deputy Director for European Operations, INHR
Looking ahead to HRC63: Blooming Afghanistan
For us, convening discussions like this is part of that process: bringing together practitioners working across different institutions and national contexts, creating space for lessons to travel, and connecting the defense of human rights today with the reforms that can make democracies more resilient tomorrow.
With the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council beginning in September, we remain committed to engaging in these conversations and creating space for civil society voices within international human rights forums. This time, our focus turns to a very different context: Afghanistan, where the space for democratic participation and fundamental freedoms has been profoundly curtailed since the Taliban’s return to power.
We will be joining the efforts of a coalition of Afghan civil society through Blooming Afghanistan, an initiative bringing together art and human rights advocacy. Developed in connection with Afghan civil society around the 63rd session of the Human Rights Council, the initiative seeks to create space for Afghan voices, experiences, and artistic expression alongside the international human rights discussions taking place in Geneva.
Join us in Geneva for:
- 7 September — Exhibition launch — Palais des Nations, Building A, Salle des Pas Perdus (13:00 CET)
- 8 September — Panel discussion and concert — Victoria Hall (18:30 CET)
