TED-CMI Webinar Outcome Report - The Intersection of Democracy, Peace and Security: A European Approach Responding to Global Transformation

Europe’s evolving security environment is reshaping how democracy and peace are understood. The recent Team Europe Democracy (TED) and CMI - Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation webinar on “The Intersection of Democracy, Peace and Security – A European Approach Responding to Global Transformation” (13th of May 2026, TED-CMI Webinar Recording - The Intersection of Democracy, Peace and Security: A European Approach Responding to Global Transformation | Capacity4dev) explored whether Europe’s growing focus on deterrence, military preparedness and strategic autonomy risks sidelining democratic governance and peacebuilding, or whether these agendas are becoming increasingly interconnected.

Moderated by CMI - Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation (CMI), the discussion brought together policymakers, EU institutions, researchers, peacebuilding actors and security specialists against the backdrop of Russia’s war against Ukraine, that in the Middle East, intensifying geopolitical competition, democratic backsliding and expanding hybrid threats. Across interventions, one message consistently emerged: democratic resilience is increasingly being treated not simply as a governance objective, but as a core component of security itself.

The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland stressed that democratic trust, institutional legitimacy, civic participation and social cohesion have become central elements of national preparedness and societal resilience. Finland’s “Comprehensive Security” Model (CSM) was presented as an example of how democratic governance and security policy are becoming more integrated. Within this whole-of-society approach, public authorities, civil society, businesses and citizens all contribute to safeguarding societal resilience. Media literacy, digital literacy and civic participation were also therefore framed not as secondary democratic concerns, but as strategic security assets.

These reflections were situated within a broader European policy shift linking democratic resilience with preparedness and comprehensive security. Reference was made to initiatives such as the Democracy Shield and the Centre of Democratic Resilience, aimed at countering Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI), strengthening electoral integrity and supporting independent media. It was also noted that democratic resilience should remain embedded in the EU’s next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), alongside initiatives such as the Council of Europe initiative on the Pact for Democratic Europe. 

Speakers also called for stronger coordination between democracy-support actors and traditionally security-oriented institutions, from both Europe and partner countries, and have regular security dialogues on democratic values.  

ODI Global challenged more conventional assumptions underpinning democracy support, peacebuilding and stabilisation approaches. Drawing on fragile and conflict-affected contexts, the intervention argued that democratic resilience cannot be engineered solely through institutional reform, electoral processes or technocratic governance programming. Instead, legitimacy often emerges through how societies negotiate inequality, exclusion, corruption and economic insecurity, tensions that frequently sit at the root of both democratic fragility and conflict dynamics. Examples ranging from youth-led protests in Kenya to feminist movements in Poland illustrated how political agency often develops through contestation and civic mobilisation rather than formal democratic channels alone. Democratic resilience was therefore framed less as a narrow governance outcome and more as a societal capacity to manage conflict, negotiate power peacefully and sustain accountability under conditions of political and security pressure.

With this as a broader context, the discussion then turned towards the implications of Europe’s increasingly securitised policy environment. Carnegie Europe argued that the EU’s democracy agenda is becoming simultaneously more strategic and more defensive as geopolitical instability, hybrid threats and societal polarisation reshape European foreign and security policy. Initiatives such as the Democracy Shield and the Defence of Democracy Package illustrate how democracy has re-entered European strategic debates, but increasingly through the language of resilience, preparedness and geopolitical competition. Particular attention was given to the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), where European engagement has progressively shifted towards more militarised approaches while civilian, governance and democracy-related dimensions have received comparatively less political attention (Paper: The EU Common Security and Defense Policy: Moving Away From Democracy Support).Yet recent geopolitical developments, particularly in Ukraine, Moldova and Armenia, were also presented as reopening space for reconnecting security cooperation with democratic resilience, institutional reform and rule-of-law agendas. The discussion suggested that security partnerships themselves are increasingly becoming arenas where democratic legitimacy and resilience are negotiated.

Linked to debates surrounding the EU’s Preparedness Union Strategy and whole-of-society resilience approaches, Carnegie Europe stressed that democratic oversight and civic participation must remain central within evolving European security frameworks. Citizens, civil society organisations, the European Parliament and national parliaments were all framed as necessary actors in scrutinising and shaping how security itself is defined and operationalised.

Reflecting on joint research with Search for Common Ground, ECDPM described current developments as part of a broader “European security realignment”, in which Europe is moving away from its traditional soft-power identity towards a posture increasingly shaped by deterrence, military readiness and strategic autonomy (Paper: Strategic Choices to Connect Peace, Defence and Deterrence (April 2026)). Three interconnected shifts were identified: Defence and deterrence have moved decisively to the center of political priorities, while peacebuilding and conflict prevention are receiving less political attention and financial space; EU external engagement is becoming more concentrated around Europe’s immediate geopolitical neighbourhood, raising concerns that fragile contexts elsewhere, particularly in Africa and the Sahel, risk losing sustained engagement; and deterrence itself is increasingly being reframed as synonymous with peace. If democratic governance and peacebuilding are treated as secondary concerns to be addressed only after security stabilisation, Europe also risks weakening precisely the societal foundations upon which long-term resilience depends. 

The discussion repeatedly returned to the operational difficulty of implementing integrated approaches across diplomacy, development, defence and peacebuilding. While frameworks such as the integrated approach, the humanitarian-development-peace nexus and broader “3D” (defence-development-diplomacy) approaches remain conceptually relevant, participants noted that institutional fragmentation, competing mandates and political incentives continue to hinder coherent implementation in practice.

Hybrid threats and information manipulation emerged as one of the clearest illustrations of the growing overlap between democracy and security. The European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (Hybrid CoE)  stressed that authoritarian actors increasingly exploit the openness of democratic societies through disinformation, election interference and societal polarisation designed to weaken democratic cohesion from within. In response, resilience-building measures such as media literacy, digital preparedness and emergency response systems are becoming increasingly embedded within European security thinking. At the same time, the growing tension between countering hostile influence and protecting democratic freedoms was acknowledged. Responses to hybrid threats, it was argued, must avoid becoming overly securitised in ways that undermine civic space, freedom of expression and open democratic debate, precisely the societal qualities resilience strategies seek to protect.

The final intervention from Fondation Hirondelle focused on the role of information ecosystems within the democracy-peace-security nexus. Independent media, particularly in fragile and conflict-affected contexts, was framed not simply as a governance issue but as critical for democratic and peacebuilding infrastructure. Reliable local journalism was presented as essential for enabling civic participation, strengthening social cohesion and countering manipulation during periods of crisis and instability. Experiences from the Central African Republic and the Sahel illustrated how trusted local radio stations operating in local languages can support conflict prevention, democratic participation and community resilience simultaneously.

Across the Q&A, a broader reflection emerged: Europe is entering a period in which democracy, peace and security can no longer be approached as separate agendas. Participants repeatedly warned against allowing increasingly militarised understandings of resilience to crowd out broader societal and political dimensions of security. Oxfam Intermón questioned whether current European debates risk reducing security to defence while overlooking “human security.”

Closing reflections from DG INTPA stressed the importance of preserving “positive peace” grounded in inclusion, democratic legitimacy and civic participation amid growing geopolitical pressures. Many of the themes raised during the discussion are informing ongoing EU policy processes, including the recent European Commission Joint Staff Working Document: Integrated Approach to Fragility (part of the Humanitarian Communication Package, publication 27th of May 2026), which aims to further integrate security considerations with conflict prevention, peacebuilding and resilience objectives.

Alongside more traditional security concerns, DG INTPA also pointed to the growing importance of addressing illicit financial flows, organised crime, societal resilience and “security by design” approaches. Particular emphasis was placed on the role of the private sector, especially within the EU’s Global Gateway agenda, also involving them in sensitive security and resilience discussions was presented as an increasingly important dimension of more coherent and joined-up external action.

The discussion ultimately converged around one broader conclusion: The challenge is no longer whether democracy, peace and security are interconnected, but whether European institutions are capable of operationalising that interdependence without hollowing out democracy and peace in the process. Long-term resilience will depend not only on preparedness and deterrence, but on whether democratic governance, civic trust, information integrity and inclusive political participation remain central to how security itself is defined.