WG2 TEDNAM 2026 Outcome & Reference Report: WG2 Manifesto 2026-2027 Beyond the Space, Beyond the Institution, Beyond the Ballot

At the TED Network Annual Meeting (TEDNAM) in June (16^th-17^th), Working Group 2 (WG2) began with a simple exercise: a search for common ground. The ground, it turned out, is shifting. Across contexts, members pointed to shrinking civic space, declining trust, disinformation and polarisation, while development cooperation is navigating an agenda stretching from security and geopolitics to investment and Global Gateway, with fewer resources and less predictable political space. We have become accustomed to asking “what is shrinking.” But there was another common ground: democracy is still moving - reinventing and (re-)claiming space. In communities turning solidarity into collective voice. In young people and women finding new routes into political life. In local authorities maintaining relationships with citizens when national politics fail. In grassroots organisations, local media and digital movements that do not traditionally fit. Between elections, in creating space for Team Europe to learn, act and prepare. And, in development cooperation itself, finding more flexible ways to stay engaged when restrictions close established routes. The question, then, is: where is democracy moving, what should we embrace, what should we challenge and how do we keep values credible? 

This is the starting point for WG2’s 2026-2027 agenda.

The discussions at the TEDNAM in June, followed by the WG2 focal group discussions in July, have moved WG2 from defining its offer to testing what that offer can mean in practice.

WG2 will use country cases, scenarios and peer exchange to ask: what can be done, by whom, when and through which instruments? And just as importantly: what works, what does not, what carries risks and where can Team Europe coordination add value?

Civic Space: Testing How to Stay Engaged

When civic space contracts, the instinct is often to document the contraction and raise the alarm. That remains important. But it leaves the harder question: what do you do and next?

Restrictive legislation and narratives are rarely single events. There may be warning signs before legislation is introduced, opportunities to influence its development, difficult choices during adoption and implementation and a new operating reality once restrictions are established.

WG2 will explore what development partners can do across this cycle.

A scenario-based webinar and Community of Practice could put practitioners into situations they increasingly face: a restrictive law is being proposed; funding rules are changing; a partner is suddenly under pressure; established routes of engagement are closing; or a political narrative is undermining the legitimacy of civil society.

The objective is not another overview of shrinking civic space. It is to make the choices concrete.

When is early action possible? When is adaptation necessary? What kinds of flexible funding or partnership models can work? Who can still be reached? Which actors have been overlooked? And when does “adaptation” become acceptance of restrictions as the new normal?

This also requires a broader view of who partners are. Established CSOs remain key, but they are not the whole ecosystem. Depending on the context, grassroots organisations, informal networks, youth and women’s movements, local media, faith-based actors, digital civic actors, foundations, trade unions and parts of the private sector all matter.

When one route closes, democratic participation does not necessarily disappear. It changes form.

WG2’s role is to guide Team Europe to recognise those shifts and identify ways to engage without creating new risks, substituting for locally owned action or retreating.

Local Democratic Governance: Building a Practical Toolbox

Democracy is often discussed at the level of national institutions. Citizens experience it somewhere else.

They experience it when a local authority responds to a concern; when people can influence a decision affecting their community; when public services work; when a local association can engage with government; when different actors can negotiate rather than simply compete.

Local democratic governance therefore cannot be reduced to decentralisation or institutional reform. It is about the relationships through which democracy becomes real.

WG2 discussions brought together examples from very different contexts, from Burkina Faso and the DRC to Tunisia, Libya, South Sudan, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, Moldova and Nicaragua. The lesson was not that these contexts are alike. It was that local governance can sometimes provide one of the remaining entry points for citizen-state engagement when national political space becomes increasingly constrained.

Nor is this only a question for countries labelled “fragile.”

Fragility is not a fixed country category. Polarisation, declining trust and pressure on democratic institutions can create local governance challenges in many different contexts.

The practical challenge is to understand what is happening beneath the formal institutional architecture.

Who has power? Who has a mandate? Who influences decisions without a formal mandate? Which relationships matter? Where can local authorities, communities, civil society, local media and economic actors work together?

A possible Fragile Contexts Toolbox could help practitioners answer these questions before designing an action. It could bring together stakeholder and power mapping, political economy analysis, multilevel governance, decentralised cooperation, city-to-city partnerships, community-to-community relationships and local economic development.

The test is simple: does it help a practitioner understand how democracy actually works in a particular place, rather than only how institutions are supposed to work?

If it does, it has value.

Electoral Support: Three Cases, Three Moments

Twenty years after the introduction of the Electoral Cycle Approach, its central conception still holds: elections are not isolated events.

But the political environment around elections has changed dramatically.

Information manipulation, artificial intelligence, cyber threats, online harassment, political violence and polarisation are reshaping how citizens experience electoral politics. Young people are mobilising through channels that do not always connect neatly to established political institutions. Women face barriers not only to candidacy, but to campaigning, holding office and participating safely in political life.

Yet election support is still often organised around election calendars.

WG2’s third priority asks whether we can do better.

Rather than conduct a retrospective review of the Electoral Cycle Approach, WG2 will use country cases to ask what electoral support needs to look like now.

What did a recent election reveal that could have been anticipated earlier? What happens between elections, when new movements emerge, coalitions shift or public trust changes? What can Team Europe strengthen before the next election, rather than waiting for the next electoral cycle to begin?

Cases from contexts such as Bangladesh, Nepal, Moldova, Brazil, Zambia and Kenya can provide the basis for this discussion.

The aim is not to identify a new universal model. It is to connect things too often treated separately: electoral assistance, election observation, follow-up to recommendations, civic and voter education, local elections, information integrity, youth and women’s participation, institutional/constitutional reform and the rule of law.

Sometimes what is missing is not another intervention, but a connection between the ones that already exist. That is where Team Europe coordination can matter.

Where the Priorities Meet

The three WG2 priorities are most useful where they overlap.

A shrinking civic space affects electoral participation. Local elections connect electoral support directly to local governance. Information integrity affects both civic and political participation. Inclusive participation of marginalised groups cuts across all three.

The same is true of Global Gateway.

WG2 made an important distinction: Global Gateway should not become a fourth WG2 thematic pillar. But investment-led cooperation raises democratic and participation questions that cannot simply be left outside the room.

Clarification is needed.

What does civic-political participation mean in investment programmes and corridors? When the pursuit of investment depends on projecting stability, what happens to fair elections? How is local ownership secured when major infrastructure or economic investments are planned? Who has a voice before decisions are made? 

These are not abstract questions. They affect whether development cooperation strengthens participation, locally rooted institutions and fair elections or (unintentionally) bypasses them in favour of “interest-based partnerships or investments.”

WG2 can contribute by bringing civic and political participation expertise into these conversations rather than creating another separate approach.

From Community of Practice to Community of Action

This is ultimately the shift WG2 is proposing.

Team Europe does not lack knowledge about democracy support. There is considerable experience across EU institutions, Member States, delegations, implementing partners and partner countries.

The challenge is that this experience is often dispersed, context-specific and difficult to mobilise when a decision has to be made.

WG2 looks to close that gap.

Its value is not to become another forum where experts present what they already know. It is to create situations where practitioners can say: Here is the problem we are facing. Here is what we tried. Here is what failed. What would you do?

That means scenario-based exchanges, country cases, peer learning, practical tools, repositories of experience and, where useful, TED Partner Country Engagement.

It also means connecting WG2’s learning to the policy moments where it can make a difference: the MFF 2028-2034 cycle, Civil Society Roadmaps, the Human Rights and Democracy Action Plan, Global Gateway and wider EU, UN and OECD-DAC dialogues.

The ambition for 2026-2027 is therefore not to produce a better description of democratic decline.

It’s to recognise that democracy support will rarely happen in ideal environments. And, above all, to also look beyond the institutions, spaces and electoral moments that have traditionally defined democracy support.

The question for WG2, and for Team Europe, is whether we can see where democracy is going and whether we are ready to meet it there, or challenge it.