At the midpoint of a two-day OSCE human-dimension meeting in Vienna, attention has focused on a growing concern across Europe and beyond: how democracies can be weakened not just by open repression, but also by the laws they enact, the manner in which they are passed, and the safeguards that fail to halt democratic erosion in time.
As delegates continued through the second day of the first Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting of 2026, discussions in Vienna concentrated on a theme increasingly relevant across the OSCE region: “Lawmaking for Democratic Resilience.” Held on 16 and 17 March at the Hofburg Conference Center, this meeting was organized by the Swiss OSCE Chairmanship alongside the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).
The framing is crucial. According to the official agenda, the meeting begins with the premise that democratic backsliding increasingly occurs not through overtly unlawful actions, but through the weakening or circumvention of legislative procedures. Simply put, the concern is not only what governments do, but how they legislate, who is heard, and whether democratic checks remain effective under political pressure.
This theme shaped the opening day. Monday’s program began with remarks from Ambassador Raphael Nägeli, Chairperson of the OSCE Permanent Council, and ODIHR Director Maria Telalian, followed by a keynote address from Eirik Holmøyvik, Vice President of the Venice Commission. The first working session then explored the role of robust lawmaking itself as a democratic safeguard, emphasizing inclusive deliberation, meaningful consultation, evidence-based policy, and proper parliamentary scrutiny as initial protections against democratic decline.
By Tuesday morning, the meeting had shifted from general principles to practical accountability. Session II emphasized the role of civil society and independent oversight in defending democratic lawmaking. The agenda stresses that legislation is not merely a technical drafting exercise. It requires policy discussion, impact assessment, and meaningful consultation before and during the drafting process. Therefore, civil society organizations, ombuds institutions, and national human rights bodies were central to discussions on how transparency, participation, and rights-based scrutiny can help prevent abuse or exclusion.
The importance of these discussions extends beyond Vienna. Concern grows across many democracies over rushed laws, reduced consultation, shrinking civic space, and tighter control over public information. The OSCE meeting suggests these are not peripheral issues. They strike at the heart of democratic resilience. A system cannot credibly claim to defend democracy if its laws are crafted behind closed doors, pushed through without scrutiny, or shielded from independent criticism.
Later on Tuesday, the meeting turns to what may be its most consequential session: judicial review and accountability in democratic lawmaking. Introduced by Oleksandr Vodiannikov from the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, Róbert Dobrovodský, Public Defender of Rights in Slovakia, and Chinara Aidarbekova from the Constitutional Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, this session examines what happens when preventive safeguards and public scrutiny fail. In such cases, courts might become the last corrective mechanism.
This emphasis on judicial review reflects a broader truth that many European legal systems now confront. Democratic erosion is often gradual, occurring through procedural shortcuts, weak consultation, or legislation that appears formally legal while undermining pluralism, accountability, or equal protection in practice. Courts, ombuds institutions, and constitutional review bodies are not secondary actors in a healthy democracy. They are part of the system’s emergency brakes.
The meeting also highlights the value of these ODIHR gatherings as spaces where participating States, institutions, civil society groups, and other stakeholders can openly test ideas against democratic standards. As The European Times noted during an earlier ODIHR meeting in Vienna, these forums matter not just for official speeches, but because they allow states and non-state actors to challenge each other’s assumptions on rights, procedures, and accountability.
Leave a Reply