Defending Democratic Values in a Digital Age

Lively, solution-driven debates bringing together diverse voices to confront disinformation and defend core democratic values are essential. In this critical moment, the dialogue itself is as vital as the outcomes—sparking ideas to strengthen democracy for the digital era.

 10:45 - First democratic debate: disinformation and gender equality

• Zita Gurmai, Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
• Jelle Postma, Chief Executive Officer, Justice for Prosperity
• Maja Zaric, Chair of the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society- CDMSI

Highlights: Disinformation and Elections

In a gripping and, at times, unsettling discussion, the panel exposed how disinformation is increasingly being weaponised to undermine democratic institutions, target vulnerable groups, and manipulate public opinion.

Speakers urged a shift in narrative: we must put our hearts into protecting democracy and defending women in public life, who are often the first targets of digital hostility. They called for gender-sensitive digital governance and meaningful support structures for women policymakers, grounded in a clear framework for action.

A stark warning was delivered: the greatest threat doesn’t lie in social media’s “useful idiots,” but in the fire starters—those with money, power, and strategic intent. Oligarchs, ultraconservative networks, and industry actors exploit fear-based narratives (like “demographic decline”) to divide societies and weaken democracies. This is not simply about culture wars—it’s an orchestrated attack on democratic cohesion, often carried out by actors both outside and within the EU and US.

Examples included how European ultraconservative groups are exporting anti-democratic strategies to Sub-Saharan Africa, training local partners to push laws that restrict rights—particularly for women and LGBTQ+ people. These campaigns, while not always aimed at erasing minorities, are designed to fracture democracy by targeting its moral core.

The role of the Council of Europe was highlighted, particularly in building high-level standards to counter disinformation and hate. But these standards must be vigorously translated into national action. It is essential not to normalise online abuse or hostile narratives. Democracy must feel like freedom—and that includes how institutions, platforms, and leaders communicate.

A key message echoed throughout: media literacy alone is not enough. Public institutions and international organisations must investigate the source actors behind disinformation, not just react to its surface effects. It matters who is behind the message—not just what it says.

Audience voices raised a timely warning against binary thinking: we must move beyond false dilemmas and expose the full machinery of manipulation. As one panellist put it, “We’re rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.” Solutions must go beyond reports—they must reach schools, communities, and digital cultures, where the harm is already happening.

Importantly, the panel stressed that democracy itself needs to be rebranded. In terms of communication, our values and standards must be translated into messages that are simple, human, and emotionally resonant. Even the most complex issues need to be explained in a way that connects—especially with younger generations navigating a noisy, fragmented information landscape.

The session concluded with a reminder: democracy is delicate, human, and complex. If our message fails to land, the failure is ours. We must work harder—not just to speak, but to truly connect.

 14:30 - Second democratic debate: debates on disinformation and elections

• Antoine Bernard, Director for Advocacy, Reporters without borders
• Iva Nenadić, Assistant Professor at the University of Dubrovnik’s Faculty of Media and Public Relations and Scientific Coordinator of the Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom
• Gobnait Ni Mhuimneacain, Member of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe
• George Papandreou, Member of Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, General Rapporteur on Democracy Committee on Political Affairs and Democracy

This second democratic debate offered a sweeping and at times urgent analysis of the fragility of electoral processes in today’s disinformation-saturated world. The discussion underscored that to preserve democracy, well-informed, conscientious citizens are essential—particularly in how they engage online.

Participants explored how the information environment has fundamentally shifted. Once dominated by traditional media, which played a central role in informing society and shaping public views, the ecosystem has now been overtaken by powerful online platforms. These new actors, often more influential than any traditional media in history, have profoundly changed how information is created, shared, and consumed—without the journalistic standards that once anchored public trust.

While this democratisation of access to information holds potential, it also poses serious dangers. Algorithms often privilege harmful, divisive content designed to maximise engagement, rather than inform. The result is an ecosystem that magnifies disinformation, erodes trust in institutions, and threatens social cohesion—especially around elections, where the stakes are highest.

Speakers stressed that democracy demands more than free speech—it requires access to accurate, reliable information, a right that remains unevenly protected across Europe. The debate called for a new convention on the right to information, potentially under the leadership of the Council of Europe, along with the creation of a multi-stakeholder mechanism to monitor compliance among member states.

The press and media, once the backbone of electoral coverage, are now facing existential threats. From financial collapse to political harassment—including SLAPP lawsuits and abusive regulations—journalists are increasingly targeted by both hostile foreign actors and domestic politicians. In response, the Council of Europe has championed anti-SLAPP protections, but panellists urged further action. “We don’t need more regulation—we need better regulation,” one speaker noted.

International efforts to support a human rights-compliant information ecosystem must go beyond principles—they must be implemented in practice. Ethics and high standards cannot be left to voluntary adoption by tech companies. Without action to counter harmful business models, democracy risks being subverted by autocrats and opportunists.

There was consensus that media literacy and fact-checking, while necessary, are insufficient. Disinformation spreads faster than corrections can keep up. What’s needed is greater transparency in algorithmic systems, and shared standards to prevent the manipulation of public debate by actors with no accountability.

Despite the challenges, the debate also spotlighted positive forces. Many young people are mobilising their peers in defence of democracy. Yet the same tools used for empowerment can also be used for manipulation. We must better understand who is informing us, who is influencing narratives, and why some communities are more vulnerable or resilient than others.

Importantly, the Council of Europe was called upon to be at the forefront of innovation. Not just to protect freedom of expression and support journalists, but to take initiative: launch conventions, coordinate states, and create real-time responses to the evolving information landscape. Its existing standards are strong, but the urgent task is to operationalise human rights in the digital age—bridging the generational gap, anticipating future risks, and building a positive agenda for democracy that goes beyond restriction to foster trust, creativity, and civic resilience.

In closing, the panel returned to a fundamental question: If we no longer share a common information space, can democracy truly function? The answer lies in building it—deliberately, transparently, and together.

 16:30 - Third democratic debate: disinformation and culture

• Denise Bertchi, artist and post-doctoral researcher, Collegium Helveticum, ETH Zürich
• Philippe Bischof, Strategic consultant in cultural policy and management; Director of the Swiss Arts Council Pro Helvetia from 2017-June 2025
• Inês Fialho-Brandão, Head of Cultural and Digital Mediation at the Calouste Gulbenkian Museum in Lisbon

Is culture political? Not always explicitly—but always in impact. Across the debate, it became clear that culture and the arts are not peripheral to democracy—they are a core part of its fabric. They offer space for critical reflection, dialogue, imagination, and plurality—precisely what disinformation aims to erode.

Key takeaways include:

• Culture as a training ground for democracy: Through disagreement, interpretation, and empathy, the arts help us “agree to disagree,” fostering the mindset necessary for pluralism. Galleries, museums, and theatres become spaces where difference is encountered and accepted.
• Freedom of artistic direction must be defended. Cultural expression must be free from political instrumentalisation. As one speaker noted, “culture should be political, but not politicised.” Its power lies in its independence.
• Cultural institutions as safe spaces for truth and skills-building: From major national museums to local initiatives like Pinocchio in Schools in Portugal, institutions can build critical thinking, information triage, and media literacy—especially among youth—through slow, participatory, trust-based engagement.
• “Contrats de résonance” as a model for cultural partnerships: A new model of collaboration between the state and cultural institutions based on context, co-creation, and dialogue, rather than top-down programming. Resonance here means listening, responsiveness, and authentic exchange.
• Transparency in cultural policy is urgent. Cultural soft power is real—and sometimes abused. Participants called for cultural policies to be public and accountable, citing past examples of strategic manipulation of cultural diplomacy.
• Arts can illuminate forgotten histories and silenced voices. They hold the power to reconnect us with contested narratives—colonial pasts, marginalised communities, and stories excluded from official memory.
• Culture fights disinformation not with counter-claims but with context, complexity, and emotional connection. It’s uniquely placed to reach those actively drawn to disinformation because it speaks not only to the mind, but to emotion and identity.
• We must invest boldly in culture. That includes large-scale, integrated initiatives—like schools working with local museums on critical history research—as well as everyday support for artistic freedom, diverse programming, and image literacy.

In short: If democracy is to remain resilient, culture must be central, not an afterthought. It is both shield and catalyst—a space to imagine, question, remember, and connect.