Democracy Between the Ballots Webinar: Sustaining Engagement and Integrity Beyond Election Day

Author: Ellen Van Uytvanck, TED WG2 Facilitator  

But the real test lies in the complex, opportunity-rich stretches between ballots, periods where public trust is either rebuilt or eroded, institutions are reinforced or undermined and citizens either stay engaged or walk away in frustration.

This understanding animated the recent TED WG2 webinar (27 May 2025, 117 participants) “Democracy Between the Ballots.” The session brought together EU institutions, Member States and local partners to explore how we sustain civic engagement, strengthen institutional credibility and safeguard information integrity once the election headlines fade, but where democratic resilience is forged.

With rich case studies from Mozambique and Guinea, the discussion featured contributions from the European Centre for Electoral Support (ECES), the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy (NIMD), UNESCO and The Carter Center, drawing on both WG2 and WG3 expertise. The shared challenge was clear: how do we move from event-based electoral support to sustained, inclusive and locally grounded democratic engagement?

Two Case Studies, One Shared Journey: Mozambique and Guinea

In Mozambique, the unrest following the 2024 elections - unprecedented in scale and violence - did not erupt from nowhere. As the Institute for Multiparty Democracy (IMD) Mozambique put it, “no glass overflows with a single drop unless it is already full.” That overflow was years in the making: centralisation of electoral dispute resolution, contested 2023 local elections, unresponsive party leadership and mounting socio-economic frustrations all compounded to erode belief in procedural democracy.

The result? A surge of youth-driven protests, many larger than the electoral turnout, powered by a new political generation and party adept at reshaping political narratives through digital and social media platforms. There has been a growing embrace of what IMD termed “developmental democracy” - a demand for systems that deliver tangible social and economic results.  But amid this disillusionment, reform efforts are taking root. A broad political agreement signed by nine parties includes a ten-point roadmap for democratic reform, with civil society at the table and a new multi-stakeholder oversight committee established. The process is fragile, but it signals a pathway to channel civic unrest into renewed legitimacy, if political will holds.

Guinea, meanwhile, continues its uncertain transition following the 2021 coup. Despite a pledge by transitional authorities to restore constitutional rule within 24 months, the EU Delegation shared that as of May 2025, none of the 10 milestones within the roadmap - including electoral reform and a new constitution - have been fully achieved. A new draft constitution was approved by the National Transitional Council in April 2025, but it remains under presidential review and the legal basis for the planned September 2025 referendum is still uncertain. But with over 50 political parties dissolved and opposition leaders detained or exiled, the path back to democratic governance is not just behind scheduled it’s rather contested.

While Mozambique and Guinea may sit at different points between the ballots - post-electoral reform and pre-electoral transition - both presenters made a critical truth: democracy support cannot be episodic. It must be continuous, adaptive and grounded in lived political and civic realities.

Holding the Line: Civic Power, Trusted Institution and the Fight for Facts

ECES emphasised that civic mobilisation must go beyond symbolic inclusion. In fragmented or repressive contexts, trust cannot be rebuilt through one-off, ad-hoc, projects. Instead, ECES shares an effective conflict-sensitive approach starting with a Political Economy Analysis (PEA) to unpack institutional, community-level grievances and power dynamics. From there, inclusive civil society coalitions, such as Guinea’s Cadre de Dialogue Structure, decentralised civic platforms and regional peer learning networks like in Ethiopia and Madagascar, help connect citizens with institutions. Creative tools, beyond platforms, from youth parliaments to mobile democracy cinemas to social media literacy campaigns offer younger generations in places like Mozambique new ways to engage when formal avenues fail them. These efforts, if embedded within a Team Europe framework can shift citizen engagement from reactive protest to constructive, sustained participation.

Drawing on experiences in Somalia and Somaliland, contexts that mirror many of the institutional challenges facing Guinea today, NIMD supports the revitalisation of parliaments and political parties not just through training, but by embedding dialogue and accountability mechanisms between elections. Initiatives included auditing the voter register to rebuild trust in the electoral roll, supporting parliamentary committees pairing with citizen consultation mechanism and strengthening parties as both electoral actors and democratic brokers. This speaks directly to the risks seen in Mozambique, where electoral justice mechanisms were recently centralised without consultation, and in Guinea, where the absence of an independent electoral body has eroded confidence. 

UNESCO’s intervention highlighted how today’s digital landscape turns election day into just one episode in a permanent campaign environment, a reality that EU-Member State coordination must now strategically navigate. Fast, generative content and unregulated platforms allow disinformation, hate speech and coordinated influence operations to flourish, often outpacing oversight mechanisms and traditional election calendars. In Mozambique, digital mobilisation played a key role in shaping protest narratives. UNESCO’s response is layered: support electoral commissions to integrate information integrity into their operational planning; work with security forces and judiciary actors to understand legitimate constraints on free expression; promote anticipatory strategies, such as “pre-bunking” disinformation before it spreads and encourage civil society to conduct their own risk assessments when platforms fail to do so. Innovatively, it suggests training new digital actors such as content creators and influencers, who are often unaware of their role as political amplifiers and must be engaged with the same seriousness as journalists. For Guinea, where the state dominates electoral communication, and in Mozambique where digital blackouts were deployed, such strategies are essential to protect open and fair civic. Something TED’s WG2 and WG3 may like to explore further jointly. 

The Carter Center closed the session, with perspectives from outside the TED bubble, by reaffirming the value of shared democratic norms - transparency, inclusivity, impartiality - not as technical checklists, but as tools for domestic reformers. It was noted that democratic norms apply equally to informal institutions and political cultures, areas often overlooked in technical programming but critical for long-term legitimacy. Whether it’s civic actors in Mozambique citing international standards to challenge flawed results, or Guinean partners pushing for a credible transition process, these norms remain powerful anchors for local advocacy and international diplomacy.

As the conversation drew to a close, one message stood out: support for democracy must extend beyond the ballot box. In Mozambique, civil society’s inclusion in the reform process must be meaningful and youth demands for accountability must be heard beyond the protests. In Guinea, rebuilding electoral institutions and protecting civic space is urgent and progress must come through inclusive dialogue - not rushed timelines. Across both cases and the three pillars, recommendations converged:

• Strengthen civic education and decentralised platforms;
• Invest in parliaments, parties and oversight bodies;
• Embed information integrity into the democratic cycle;
• Use Team Europe as a platform for shared political leverage.

Ultimately, defending democracy between the ballots means shifting its centre of gravity: not to polling stations alone, but to the people and institutions that sustain it, day in, day out.