Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and first lady Michelle Obama present the 2010 International Women of Courage Award to Ann Njogu of Kenya.

On the one hand, there is the argument that “putting a spotlight” on human rights abuses and the people who fight them actually helps.

In her remarks March 10 at the Women of Courage awards ceremony, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton praised women activists everywhere who have endured isolation, intimidation, violence and imprisonment and even faced death in their efforts to advance freedom and equal rights for everyone. Clinton said the stories of these women “deserve to be heard.” By publicly honoring them, the message is sent that although these activists “may work in lonely circumstances, they are not alone.”

Ann Njogu of Kenya, one of the Women of Courage awardees, gave a rather impassioned speech at an event sponsored by American Women for International Understanding (AWIU), a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization.

“Should this award mean nothing for those who oppress us, it means so much for the children, the elderly men, the women who find themselves in paralyzing poverty, poor leadership, bad governance, corruption that would otherwise have realized their fullest potential,” Njogu said. She said activists who win awards are a symbol for many others who labor in obscurity but who can feel “vindicated” by international recognition. She also added that such honors send “very strong signals to our respective governments that they must change and include human rights and virtues and standards in all they do and in the various institutions of governance.”

Inspiring words indeed. But on the other hand, a U.S. Foreign Service officer who has experience in the field told me that such awards often give activists a false sense of security. “They [the awardees] often end up in the same prisons as activists who don’t get awards,” the officer told me. And that, I can tell you, is one of the worst fears among the people who work at America.gov: That by telling the inspiring stories of brave human rights activists, we actually hurt them.

It’s a hard choice to make. What are your views?

The balance between freedom and security is always hard to strike in democratic societies. There is a famous quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” But we necessarily give up certain individual liberties when we enter into society for the betterment of everyone. Philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau addressed this balance in his treatise on The Social Contract in 1762. According to Rousseau, “Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association.” He also specified that the “… law considers subjects en masse and actions the abstract, and never a particular person or action.” (The Social Contract, Chapter VI)

Traffic laws are a clear example of a necessary condition for modern civil association. In order to help remind people of these laws and a police presence enforcing them, many of us have had the experience of being stopped at a roadside checkpoint. This seems very in keeping with Rousseau – everyone gets stopped and asked to show their licenses, regardless of who they are. They apply to everyone en masse regarding an abstract behavior we as a society find undesirable.

On the other hand, a fundamental tenet of the justice system in the United States is that you are innocent until proven guilty. At a traffic checkpoint, there is a certain presumption of guilt without any evidence of misconduct. Is it a violation of my personal right to move about freely (in accordance with the laws, of course) when I am stopped at a checkpoint simply because someone else on the road might be breaking the law? Seems a silly question to even ask when the relative inconvenience for everyone stopped is so small a detractor compared to the societal good of apprehending violators. But what if we take this to the next level?

The magazine New Scientist recently suggested that we should each give the police our DNA. DNA samples are powerful forensic evidence at a crime scene to identify culprits or exonerate those wrongly accused, but DNA evidence is less effective without an existing sample to match it against. The more DNA samples you have, the faster you are able to locate criminals – makes sense! And it’s Rousseau-like in its blanket nature – no profiling, no randomized samples, just everyone’s DNA, equal before the law.

How many of those who willingly pull over at traffic stops and flash their license though would also offer up a cheek swab or finger prick for the local sheriff’s records? UK police had been creating a DNA database for years, collecting samples from everyone they arrested – whether they were eventually convicted or not – and keeping them on record. Then, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that it was a violation to keep genetic samples from people not convicted of a crime and ordered as many as 4.4 million DNA samples destroyed.

Where do you think the balance between freedom and security should be?

First lady Michelle Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton present the 2010 International Women of Courage Award to Jestina Mukoko of Zimbabwe.

Many of us will never have to face the kinds of obstacles these women face to enjoy freedom, nor will we have to fight for our human rights. In fact, an amazing number of people in free societies would find it difficult to name even a few of the 30 human rights described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – after all, it’s not a topic taught in most schools.

The human rights activists I heard speak at the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit, however, all warned of the dangers of ignorance. At the summit, Maria Leissner, Sweden’s Ambassador for Democracy, said “democracy depends on human rights to evolve” but that there’s been a “backlash against freedom” in the last few years around the world. “This is about power,” she said.

It takes courage to push back against the powerful who would deprive people of their human rights – but it doesn’t take courage of superhero portions. Thanks to my work, I’ve run across a lot of ordinary citizens who are doing their bit to protect human rights. Nazanin Boniadi, for example, found time from her busy career to educate people about human rights. “Knowledge is power,” she told me in an interview, “and the more people who know their rights, the more people who can defend those rights.” Last year she and a group of Iranian expatriates put together the “United for Neda” video on YouTube to support freedom in Iran.

You don’t have to be a beautiful actress to share the message about human rights and democracy. The Democracy Video Challenge contest invites people from all around the world to join in the process of spreading the word about what democracy means. My favorite winner from 2009 was the video by Lukasz Szozda of Poland.

But some of the most amazing human rights activists – although they probably don’t think of themselves that way – were the volunteers I talked to at the Advocates for Survivors of Torture and Trauma (ASTT) in Baltimore and Washington. They had the guts to donate at least a little of their time to help people who have suffered the worst of human rights abuses. Having heard some of the horrifying stories of the torture survivors, I wondered how the volunteers coped with all the tragedy they encountered. One volunteer – Prisca Okeahialam of Nigeria – told me: “I would tell people not to be daunted by what they see,” she said. “I look at where I want to see the person at the end of the day. And that’s what gives me the strength to do what I do.”

NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium

How do I know this? Well, I could have just looked it up on the NATO Web site, but I actually learned this bit of democracy trivia while away on a six-month assignment to the U.S. Mission to NATO in Brussels, Belgium.

In between all the snack breaks for delicious Belgian chocolate and “frites,” I learned that countries wishing to enter NATO are encouraged to, if needed, undertake democratic reforms (for example, the establishment of civilian and democratic control over military forces), and have to demonstrate that they possess a “functioning democratic political system based on a market economy.” In this way, for certain countries, NATO membership becomes an incentive for democratization.

Of course, democratic reforms aren’t the only requirements for membership —others include the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations and being a European state — but they are the requirements we’re interested in talking about on this blog. Countries that are currently at some point along the path to ascension are Macedonia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

So, membership to international organizations as an incentive for democratic reforms: What do we think?

We’ve all heard of “computer geeks” who use their skills to hack into computer systems. Most of us, I think, would consider them to be dangerous but brilliant amateurs who enjoy defeating firewalls and creating fear and chaos; they threaten individuals, government and big corporations just because they can.

On the other end of the spectrum are computer geeks who work to allow human rights activists to get their messages out to the public, despite the efforts of repressive governments to control the Internet. One organization that employs geeks to ensure freedom of speech and association in cyberspace is Front Line, an international foundation that helps protect human rights defenders.

Andrew Anderson, a deputy director for Front Line, was among the human rights activists I met during the 2010 Washington Human Rights Summit sponsored by Freedom House and Human Rights First February 18-19. He told me his organization offers software he called “security in a box” to help human rights activists protect themselves and sidestep Internet controls imposed by authoritarian governments. He acknowledged that such security is only good for a year or two before the Internet censors figure it out. Even so, Front Line’s efforts buy valuable time, he said, for Internet freedom.

But other speakers at the summit complained that all too many Internet users living under repressive governments have come to accept Internet controls — if they can shop, play games and find most of what they want. This “bread and circuses” approach seems to work as well today in some parts of the world as it did in ancient Rome. Are we all in danger of becoming too complacent?

France recently handed out its C岢sars, the United Kingdom had its BAFTAs, and now the United States gets the chance to hand out its Oscars at this year’s Academy Awards. The festivities take place in Los Angeles, but the ceremony is truly an international event. Actors, actresses and other film industry personalities from around the world are always among the nominated, and countries up for best foreign film include Argentina (The Secret in Their Eyes/El Secreto de Sus Ojos), France (A Prophet/Un Proph岢te), Germany (The White Ribbon/Das Weisse Band), Israel (Ajami), and Peru (The Milk of Sorrow/La Teta Asustada).

How does this all relate to democracy? Well…the Academy does provide viewers with a printable ballot (PDF, 247KB) of the various people and films nominated to win a coveted Oscar. They also have a printable list, which could serve the same purpose. If you plan on watching the ceremony this weekend, make it an exercise in democratic behavior by downloading ballots for you and your viewing partners. Vote for your favorites and see how they do. Ok, so you and I don’t actually get to select the winners, but we can still have fun watching, cheering, and — yes — voting from home.

Coverage by citizen journalists brought international attention to the 2007 Saffron Revolution.

U Gawsita, a Burmese monk who is featured in the film, welcomed the Academy Award nomination in an interview with thewrap.com. “It shows that the world is standing with the oppressed people of Burma. It’s not ignoring the suffering of the people.”

Much of the film’s footage came from amateur journalists associated with the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), based in Oslo, Norway. In a video interview with the National Endowment for Democracy, DVB Executive Director Khin Maung Win says the station, which has expanded from shortwave transmissions to satellite television, is able to reach 10 million Burmese per month — a significant crack in the regime’s near monopoly on information. Providing DVB with content is a risky undertaking, since cameras must be hidden and footage must be clandestinely sent out of the country. There are now 10 DVB journalists in prison, but Win said that “even though they know the risk, they are committed.”

Their job is to cover precisely what the military regime is trying to hide, such as human rights violations and activities of opposition figures such as National League for Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Given their constraints, Win said probably only about 20 to 30 percent of the military’s abuses can be documented, but even that small percentage shows “the power of media and how it can challenge the authority.”

Burma VJ director Anders Ostergaard emphasized the importance of citizen journalism to democracy.

“I believe it’s very powerful. We saw the same thing happening in Iran in the spring. It is here to stay, and I think it’s a very powerful tool for democracy and awareness. We tend to think that new technology is always ‘big brother is watching you,’ but it can also be ‘little brother is watching you.’ And that’s quite a good thing,” Ostergaard said.

What is the state of citizen journalism in your country, compared with Burma? How much do you rely upon “unofficial” news sources?

International Women’s Day is coming up, and Americans will devote March to Women’s History Month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – ever the champion of women everywhere – has a number of events scheduled. Part of my job is to write about all of this for America.gov, and I’ve been writing about women’s issues for years. And year after year, I’ve heard a constant refrain: women have made a lot of progress, but still more needs to be done.

Personally, I’ve seen a lot of progress made for women both in the United States and around the world. Women in most places are gaining more access to better educations, well-paying jobs, and the political life of their countries. But it still mystifies me as to why there are people – women as well as men – who are hostile about or afraid of women’s progress, because so much of what is “women’s progress” is progress for men, progress for children, progress for nations.

If “women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights,” as Hillary Clinton said in her well-publicized speech at the 1997 World Conference on Women in Beijing, and if “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights,” as is delineated in Article 1 on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – then why is it so hard to accept the equal humanity of men and women? Is it simply a matter of power? Was Daniel Defoe correct when he wrote back in the 18th century that “all men would be tyrants if they could”?

On February 18, Niger’s military stormed its presidential palace and staged a coup, ousting the leader.

Taking over a government by force is clearly not considered a tenet of democracy. But the BBC reports an interesting finding – that in the case of Niger, many citizens believe the coup may bring democratic reforms and change for the better. “We’re proud of what the soldiers have done and we expect them to manage a clean, honest transition,” one man said.

The U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, recently spoke about the incident. The coup that has just taken place, he said, offers an opportunity to move Niger back into the ranks of democracy. He quickly cautioned, however, that “no coup, whether it is a civilian or military coup, is a good coup. Coups by their nature are bad” and a “disruption of the political process,” he said.

What do you think of Carson’s remarks? Do you agree that there is no such thing as a good coup?

Campaign posters in Basra, Iraq

“The true test of victory will not be in the behavior of the winners, when they are finally announced, but rather it will be how the losers accept the results,” Hill said. “I would argue in Iraq as elsewhere, losers have an even bigger responsibility to be … part of the political process.”

Eric Bjornlund of Democracy International Inc. made a similar comment in a recent America.gov publication on democratic transitions.

“Smooth political transitions after elections are essential,” Bjornlund wrote. “In a healthy democracy, candidates who lose elections relinquish power gracefully and peacefully. By doing so, defeated candidates can emerge with their dignity intact and through their example contribute to the strength of their nation’s democratic traditions, practices, and customs.”

But Bjornlund also talked about the responsibilities of those who win. “By reaching out to and showing respect for their political opponents, winning candidates help bridge differences and minimize the potential for conflict that can undermine democracy and development,” he wrote.

What do you think are the hallmarks of a strong democracy?