environment in which they operate and implement their projects. It is unacceptable that we still witness donor­sponsored or – implemented development projects promoting technical projects within an autocracy without sufficient consideration of the wider social and political context. This approach is unacceptable because it tends to strengthen autocrats and even give them a lifeline, while ignoring or outright undermining the need for inclusive and democratic development. We believe on normative grounds that equitable and sustainable development cannot happen without democracy. In authoritarian contexts, development cooperation should prioritise horizontal and vertical actors who strengthen local capacity, democratic values and the voices of citizens. Projects that ignore these principles may inadvertently reinforce authoritarian regimes by bolstering their control and legitimacy. Engagement with governments in such contexts should be strictly limited to necessary formalities, and any projects involving the state should be kept to a minimum and be primarily symbolic. This ensures that the bulk of resources and influence remains with independent actors. Although this assumption has been challenged by certain countries in recent years, it still holds true for an overwhelming number of places in the world. For example, why are donors supporting the implementation of financial software for a highly autocratic and corrupt government’s ministry under the umbrella of‘good governance’? All development partners, whether national or international, have a responsibility to include elements that support or are conducive to democracy in their programmes, no matter how technical they appear. It’s not just about‘doing no harm’ but about‘doing good’. Many infrastructure, farming, fisheries, water access and renewable energy projects implemented by national partners could incorporate critical components of democratic practice, such as participation in decision­making, dialogue amongst the population and sustained local monitoring to foster accountability, transparency and inclusivity. This would make a difference for the following reasons: a. Democracy requires a foundation of economic development and social justice, in particular to provide the economic means for political participation, enable the inclusion of marginalised groups, and minimise the number of extremists who profit from dire economic situations. Development partners should incorporate elements that bolster democracy into their plans for economic, social and ecological development. b. Development projects could provide an opportunity to practise democracy on a small scale. For example, if a dam is built or renovated, why not include a series of dialogues with the local population? Why not recruit regional personnel for the construction work and allow them to form workers’ councils? Why not establish an elected local governance council for people living around the dam? If donors are supporting climate­adapted farming for women, why not include local roundtables and safe spaces for women, as well as ensuring their participation in decision-making around crops, harvests, how the profits are used and the impact on their social life? c. It is clear that projects planned in Western capitals will ultimately fail. Yet it still happens a lot. Including target groups in projects and ensuring their meaningful participation in decision-making creates a greater impact and improves the sustainability of every project. Beyond the democratic argument, this approach is also economically sound. Nobody needs any more‘white elephants’, yet they are still being built and more are planned. d. Development cooperation from international donors must constantly justify itself in the recipient countries. An increasing number of right-wing extremists, as well as ordinary citizens, are questioning the usefulness of development aid 50–60 years after many African countries gained independence. Although the arguments used by both the left and the right are generally problematic, some questions are quite justified. In times of reduced public budgets, explaining development aid by the number of boreholes drilled, farmers trained or maize delivered after an earthquake will no longer suffice. People need stories to believe in in order to be convinced. One great story of social democracy was that of continuous progress towards a socially just democracy with an economy for all. So why shouldn’t this story of democracy be at the heart of international cooperation? Incorporating democratic principles into all cooperation projects will enable this narrative to endure. This would convince and motivate those paying for the projects, those implementing them, and, most importantly, those profiting from them. Examples: In the context of infrastructure projects, such as the construction of roads and dams, or training sessions on technical topics such as smart agriculture, fishing and crafting, donors could organise roundtable discussions with communities to conceptualise projects together. They could also hold a series of dialogues throughout the project to allow for participation and accountability, encourage the creation of workers’ councils to enable democracy in the workplace, and even implement measures for the local governance of projects in coordination with village councils, etc. 2. Back to local politics: the vertical dimension for democracy supporters: National and international democracy supporters naturally gravitate towards the capital cities of countries, attempting to fulfil their mission through national representatives of NGOs, political parties, trade unions, and faith-based 4 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.