Talk:National Democratic Institute

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jinnayang. Peer reviewers: Kojinglick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Activities Section

Frantj I am a staff member of the National Democratic Institute so have limited my changes to simply updating out-of-date information, like the members of the board of directors, but the Activities section, in particular, could use some TLC. There are only three examples listed and they are clearly highlighted with a bias. I'm including in this talk section a list of NDI activities or events related to NDI activities for consideration in the article. Thank you!

• 1984 – International political leaders hosted at U.S. Democratic Convention
• 1985 – Regional democracy conferences held in Africa and Latin America
• 1986 – Corazon Aquino of Philippines Becomes Asia’s First Female President
• 1986 – Philippines welcomes first NDI-IRI election observation mission
• 1986 – First Democracy Award is given to John Hume of Northern Ireland
• 1987 – NDI assists in the development of political parties in Korea and Taiwan
• 1988 – “Vote NO” coalition ensures credible plebiscite in Chile
• 1988 – NDI hosts first international women’s conference
• 1989 – Citizen monitors in Panama expose fraud by Noriega
• 1991 – South African partners develop “Project Vote!” with NDI help
• 1991 – Africa’s first parallel vote tabulation occurs in Zambia elections
• 1992-95 – Citizen election monitoring occurs throughout Eurasia
• 1993 – NDI supports UN-conducted multiparty elections in Cambodia
• 1994 – NDI mission exposes fraudulent elections in Dominican Republic
• 1996 – Civic Forum is launched in West Bank and Gaza to increase civic participation; program expands to 15 countries
• 1997 – Northern Ireland and South Africa political leaders share ideas on national reconciliation in NDI-sponsored exchange
• 1998 – After Suharto dictatorship ends, NDI supports elections in Indonesia
• 1999 – Sixteen emerging democracies issue “Sana’a Declaration” that emphasizes the importance of economic growth to democracy
• 2000 – NDI election monitors expose fraud in Perú; and are instrumental in peaceful removal of Milosevic from power in Serbia
• 2000 – Major international parties join NDI to support party development
• 2002 – NDI begins work in Afghanistan
• 2003 – First nationwide public opinion research in Iraq conducted by NDI
• 2003 – “Congress of Democrats in the Islamic World” is convened to develop governance principles in predominantly Muslim countries
• 2004 – Madeleine Albright launches Win With Women Global Action Plan
• 2004 – NDI begins work with Roma, Europe’s largest ethnic minority
• 2005 – African Statesmen Initiative with 17 former presidents is formed to assist political transitions on the continent
• 2005 – Global principles for international election observation established
• 2005 – Theoretical and practical guide for political parties created
• 2005 – First Madeleine K. Albright Award for women’s political participation
• 2009 – NDI and international partners create Global Network for Domestic Election Monitors (GNDEM) to support citizen election monitoring
• 2009 – Debates International is co-founded by NDI
• 2011 – NDI observes successful constituent assembly elections in Tunisia
• 2012 – NDI helps draft declaration of principles for parliamentary openness and for citizen election observation
• 2013 – Red Innovación: Spanish-language democracy platform is created
• 2013 – Silicon Valley presence established to facilitate technology support for democracy activists and local partners
• 2014 – NDI observers monitor Ukraine’s pivotal presidential election
• 2014 – DemTools created to improve use of technology in democracy
• 2015 – Ana Usharek helps 27,000 Jordanian youth learn about democracy
• 2015 – NDI helps Colombian partners develop reparations for war victims
• 2016 – In wake of historic La Plaza movement, NDI assists local partners in developing anti-corruption and election reform in Guatemala
• 2016 – TaalamSharek.org: Arabic-language democracy platform is created
• 2016 – #NotTheCost global campaign to stop violence against women in politics is launched
• 2016 – Blueprint for 21st Century Parties is published
• 2017 – INFO/tegrity to combat digital disinformation is formed
• 2017 – Women Mayors’ Network helps women in local government
• 2017 – Equal Voices campaign promotes LGBTI political inclusion
• 2018 – Risk Index and think10 safety planning tool is created to help politically-active women assess their personal risk of violence
• 2018 – International partners launch Design 4 Democracy (D4D) coalition to help social media platforms support democratic discourse

Untitled

I merged this article and the artice NDI, which now redirects to this article. I have done nothing with the actual text, apart from some minor typographical changes. The section "Background" is clearly written by a favourable observer, or perhaps the NDI itself, and I have therefore added an NPOV-check tag. The text should be made to conform with the Wikipedia NPOV-policies. --Thorsen 19:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What do you want it to say? That the NDI is a propaganda arm of the CIA? User:Babykul

Curious Connections

The past president of the NDI, Kenneth Wollack, used to be the legislative director of the American Israel American Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most powerful lobby groups in Washington. AIPAC has the expressed goal of isolating such groups as Hamas and Hezbollah, groups that run in elections which the NDI looks to influence and claims not bias in. I have difficulty in believing that the NDI is a group with the sole ideological goal of spreading democracy. Kenneth Wollack himself has made public statements casting doubt on President Hugo Chaves, someone who was fairly elected through a democratic process which the Carter Center observed and affirmed as fair (the irony being that Carter was also the one who founded the NDI).

All this to say, it is my opinion that the NDI is not an organization concerned with the expansion of democracy in the world, but are instead interested in using democracy up and to the point that it advances U.S. interests.

• Which is a criticism, and an anonymous one at that. First, Chaves is far from a pure democrat and human rights guardian, just look at what Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters without Borders, etc have said about him. The mere fact that he was democratically approved means nothing, in fact, one should look back at how Napoleon used a similar method to promote his dictatorship. Secondly, you're making an assumption that just because he has made critical comments about Chaves, it is impossible for him to head a group to monitor him fairly. Hell, HRW makes criticism of Chaves and Hamas all the time; therefore they can't be used as a human rights monitor?
• Find someone who makes the criticism, and post it on the article, this isn't the place for airing your personal views.--Dudeman5685 02:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to second Dudeman's comment. There's a lot of room to improve this article, so go for it. Also, Carter didn't start NDI. It was done under the Reagan administration. Waverly57 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article definitely needs some kind of criticism section. Like the NED, NDI has links to the CIA and has been accused to destabilization and regime-change operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:9500:C9F0:D85E:59A7:7DCA:2F9D (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The Democratic Century Fund

NDIPublicAffairs (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)The Democratic Century Fund is not at all affiliated with the National Democratic Institute (NDI), and it does not provide funding for NDI. I cannot find an official site for the Democratic Century Fund, but this SourceWatch profile explains what it does (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Democratic_Century_Fund). To see the organizations that NDI is associated with and funded by, please visit http://www.ndi.org/who_supports_our_work.

In full disclosure, I am an employee of NDI, so I would prefer someone else to remove the part of the entry on the Democratic Century Fund. However, if it is not addressed soon then I will edit the entry myself.

 DoneSadads (talk) 21:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, NDI's board of directors should be updated to match this list: http://www.ndi.org/board_of_directors.

 DoneFrantj (talk) 21:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Updates, July 2015

From what I can see, the NDI Wikipedia page has not been updated since 2010. The profile, history, sources of funding, events and honors, and board are all out of date. For full disclosure, I am a temporary summer intern at NDI. However, what I edit is meant to simply update this outdated information and add pictures

Requested move 14 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move with consensus. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

---

National Democratic Institute for International Affairs → National Democratic Institute – per WP:COMMONNAME, see https://www.ndi.org/, NY Times, or Monitoring Democracy. Full name may of course be kept in the lead paragraph. -- PanchoS (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support: the name used by the organisation itself and used by other organisations as well. Not even sure that 'for International Affairs' is part of their official name as there is no mention of it at all on their own website; we can probably remove this from the lead paragraph all together once consensus has been reached for the move. Ebonelm (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - The website and organization recognize the common name as the National Democratic Institute (per WP:COMMONNAME). The "international affairs" section of the title can be used within the lede as an alternative title, but should not be the main title of the article. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing the "Sources of Funding" Section & Adding a Section titled "Success"

After doing some research on the NDI, I think it would be good to change this section under "Sources of Funding:" "The NDI receives financial support from the United States Congress, the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development as well as from approximately 35 other countries, multilateral institutions and foundations. Previous supporters include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the United States Institutes of Peace, the government of Sweden and the Middle East Partnership Initiative. The NDI is not a grant-making organization."

to

"The NDI receives financial support from The National Endowment for DemocracyNational_Endowment_for_Democracy, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)[[2]], the U.S. Department of State[[3]], and the Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening (CEPPS)[[4]]. Furthermore, the NDI receives contributions from governments, foundations, multilateral institutions, corporations, organizations, and individuals. Some of these governments and multilateral institutions include the Government of Australia[[5]], Government of Denmark[[6]], and Government of Belgium[[7]]."

I have all the sources for it.

Also, I think a new section should be added, titled "Success" and should start with this: "In 30 years, the National Democratic Institute has worked in 132 countries and territories around the world and supported the efforts of 15,000 civic organizations, 850 political parties and organizations, 10,000 legislators, and 1,300 women's organizations. Furthermore, NDI has organized over 150 international election observer delegations in over 62 countries. The NDI has monitored over 340 referenda and elections and trained over 3 million election observers in over 85 countries. Furthermore, they have helped partner groups organize 300 candidate debates in over 35 countries.https://www.ndi.org/30th_anniversary_report/index.html#4"

Also, I think a list of some past recipients should be added under the Harriman Democracy Award:

Past recipients of the award have included:

Senator Barbara Mikulski, D-MD

Archbishop Desmond Tutu[1] of South Africa

President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf [2]of Liberia

former United States President Jimmy Carter[3]

former Czech President Václav Havel[4]

former United States President Bill Clinton[5]

Varela Project leader Oswaldo Payá of Cuba[6]

Burmese democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi[7]

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine K. Albright[8]

Yassine Brahim

Rafik Halouani

Wafa Makhlouf 

Sayida Ounissi

Jinnayang (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Democratic Institute. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150801192225/https://www.ndi.org/frequently_asked_questions to https://www.ndi.org/frequently_asked_questions
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.irss.unc.edu/odum/content/pdf/Bollen_Paxton_Morishima2005AJE.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Jacobin

There is a consensus that Jacobin is a generally reliable but biased source. Burrobert (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Venezuela disputed and better source needed for Jacobin???

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Burrobert (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Please at least try to show that you're taking these discussions seriously. The 2015 parliamentary elections in Venezuela were preceded by an economic crisis, shortages of goods, a significant wave of protests and fraud allegations in the presidential elections, yet the source is attributing victory to the opposition thanks to the NDI? WP:EXCEPTIONAL also applies here, and there shouldn't be doubts why the tags have been placed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The reason for the doubt was that I have temporarily lost my mind-reading powers so was unable to determine what the responsible editor was thinking when they placed the tag. The rest of the answer seems to be an editor's opinion, which we don't treat as a reliable source. It's better to stick to the green-tick reliable source used here, namely Jacobin magazine. Burrobert (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You can call it however you prefer. This is an exceptional claim backed only by a single source. It already has problems on its own, but even if we consider it reliable for facts, it omits crucial information, and its claim is not backed by any other reliable sources. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If there are other reliable sources which give a different view then add them to the article. Btw, you seem to misunderstand what the Jacobin source is being used for. It is not stating the the NDI played a significant role in the outcome of the 2015 election. It is saying that the NDI claimed that it played a significant role in the outcome of the 2015 election. The NDI's claim would probably not be appropriate for the wiki article about the election without further evidence. However, it is quite relevant to an article about the NDI itself. One other approach that you can take, although it is unlikely to be successful, is to find a source showing that the Jacobin source is mistaken, i.e. that the NDI never made the claim included in the article. Burrobert (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't. I have tried looking for NDI's original source, and the Jacobin is the only reference to be found. The only exception is Alliance for Global Justice, which is just as biased and directly cites Jacobin.

As for other sources to demonstrate the contrary, I cannot do that because that would be WP:SYNTH: this article is about the National Democratic Institute, not about the 2015 Venezuelan parliamentary elections. If I offer references demonstrating that there were other reasons for the opposition's victory but that don't mention the NDI, they should not be added to the main body. What I can do, however, is provide them to this talk page.

At any rate, my point remains: you're the editor supporting the inclusion, and if you have been unable to produce a wider coverage of the claim, then it is further proof that it should be removed. --NoonIcarus (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that you cannot include sources about the 2015 election unless they mention the NDI. However, you can include sources which say the NDI's claim is wrong. You can also mention sources which show that Jacobin's quote from the NDI is wrong. If Jacobin has misquoted the NDI then obviously the claim should not appear here. You mention that you have been unable to find such sources. That's unfortunate but there is nothing we can do about that. Providing sources to this talk page that offer other explanations for the 2015 election won't change the fact that the NDI claimed that its action played a determining role in the outcome of the election. It is that significant statement which is included in this article and which, in my view, is very relevant to an article about the NDI. Burrobert (talk) 07:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

If you likewise are unable to provide additional sources, it means either that the claim is poorly sourced or that it is undue per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and the tag should be kept as such. You have asked for a reason to place the tag and I have provided it. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to remove the tag, but have added this talk page section to the tag so that readers can gauge the nature of the dispute. You have placed the tag at the top of the section which indicates you are disputing all content in the section. In particular:

• You don’t believe the NDI provided funding and training to the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD) coalition of opposition parties in Venezuela.
• You don’t believe the MUD used the NDI's assistance to create a voter database and target swinging voters through Facebook.
• You don’t believe the NDI said a "determining factor in the success of the coalition in the parliamentary elections of 2015 was a two-year effort prior to the elections to raise awareness, train and align national and regional structures of communication of all the parties that conform the MUD". Burrobert (talk) 13:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: The most controversial claim is the last one. I don't really disagree that the NDI could have offered funding and assistance to the MUD, but I'm arguing that there should be additional sources for this, where we could benefit from further details (such as how much money are we talking about). Regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Then you should place the tag against the point that you dispute rather than the whole section. Burrobert (talk) 04:12, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

@Burrobert: Can you give me another reason to keep the content besides "Jacobin is generally reliable"? Can you argue why we should keep the content considering WP:EXCEPTIONAL?. I've literally found ZERO sources that backs this content, not even from the NDI, and God knows I've tried. The only reference remotely related I've found is this article from the NDI covering the victory of the opposition in the elections, but with no mention about any relationship with the MUD. No mention about funding, about Facebook, or about being crucial for the outcome of the election. --NoonIcarus (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, the Jacobin source is used for three factual statements. Which of these three statements do you regard as exceptional? Burrobert (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

The NDI discusses the success of the programme in this document [8]. Among other things it says, "A determining factor in the success of the coalition in the parliamentary elections of 2015 was a two-year effort prior to the elections to raise awareness, train and align national and regional structures of communication of all the parties that conform the MUD. This effort focused on promoting the strategic and efficient use of social networks as alternative means of communication in contexts that are politically closed and characterized by high levels of State-controlled media and censorship". Burrobert (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the document. Please notice that the article does not mention any involvement of the NDI, but rather discusses the MUD's own achievements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Let's go back to the three factual statements for which the Jacobin source is being used. We can use Jacobin as a source for these facts since the community has assessed it as being generally reliable. However, we have the primary sources to support Jacobin's statements. Presumably, you now accept that the NDI made the statement about "a determining factor ... ", since it is contained in the NDI's case study on Venezuela. The NDI's Venezuelan case study does not say it created the database etc., which is why both we and Jacobin say "The MUD used the NDI's assistance to create a voter database ... ". The details of the NDI's assistance is contained in another primary document, namely the National Endowment for Democracy grant notice. Btw none of this is controversial. The NDI itself boasts that it has been interfering in Venezuela since the mid-1990's. Burrobert (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)