International IDEA invites you to the East and Southern Africa Regional Governance Forum and International Day for Democracy 2023 celebrations from 13 until 15 September 2023 in Lusaka, Zambia.
Búsqueda
Region
Country
Type
This Brief presents some findings on the Summit for Democracy process from the perspective of participating countries based on a selected number of interviews with representatives from the governments of six countries (Germany, Lithuania, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Zambia) and the European Union (European External Action Service).
The Government of the Republic of Zambia, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), in commemoration of the International Day for Democracy 2023, organized a series of events under the title East and Southern Africa Regional Governance Forum.
New Zealand maintains a robust, long-established democratic system in the South Pacific. It enjoys a reputation for integrity and is generally ranked among the world’s top countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. The outbreak of Covid-19 and the consequent first postponement of an election since World War II failed to mar that status.
One of the particularities of what is currently being negotiated between Saudi Arabia and Ansar Allah is that the parties are contemplating establishing a revenue allocation mechanism in the absence of an overarching constitutional or political framework.
عملت المؤسسة الدولية للديمقراطية والانتخابات في عام ٢٠١٦ مع خبراء بارزين في القانون الدستوري على وضع منهجية جديدة لتقييم الدساتير. وتتألف المنهجية من تقييم ‘أداء’ الدستور المعني، وهذا يتضمن تحديد أهدافه والسعي للتأكد من تحقيقها بناء على بيانات مأخوذة من مصادر مختلفة. وقد طبقت المؤسسة تلك المنهجية منذ ذلك الحين على عدد من البلدان بالتعاون مع خبراء وشركاء محليين.
This study from 2002 was one of the first to use International IDEA’s State of Democracy Assessment Framework.
The Framework is different from other methodologies because its assessments are led and owned by local actors, and move away from the practice of ranking democratic performance and making external judgements.