Human Rights Advocate Thor Halvorssen Slams “Double Morals,” Defends Stance on US Democracy Amid Trump Concerns
Oslo, Norway – Thor Halvorssen, the outspoken human rights advocate and founder of the Human Rights Foundation (HRF), is back in Norway for the Oslo Freedom Forum, but he’s not mincing words about what he sees as hypocrisy, notably when it comes to criticism of the united States. in a recent interview, Halvorssen addressed why his organization hasn’t been as vocal about perceived democratic backsliding in the US under a potential “Trump 2.0” management, despite HRF’s strong condemnation of authoritarian regimes worldwide.
Halvorssen, a Venezuelan-Norwegian dual citizen, took a full eleven minutes to answer a single question about HRF’s perspective on the state of american democracy. He emphasized the need for the full context of his response, wary of selective quotes that could misrepresent his nuanced view.
The core of Halvorssen’s argument lies in a distinction between authoritarian behavior and authoritarian state policy.While acknowledging concerns about rhetoric and actions emanating from the US, he argues that America’s democratic institutions – its independent judiciary, robust civil society, and (relatively) free and fair elections – still function, even if strained.
“there is a difference between behaving and talking as an authoritarian and actually engaging in it from a state policy perspective,” Halvorssen stated.
He elaborated on HRF’s internal ranking system, which categorizes countries as “free,” “hybrid regimes,” and “completely authoritarian regimes.” This system, he explained, allows for a more granular assessment than other widely used rankings. He used the example of Mexico, which, despite facing challenges like cartel violence and state-level corruption, would still be classified as “free” due to its underlying democratic structures.
Halvorssen stressed that the erosion of democracy is a gradual process, comparing it to a table losing its legs.These “legs” include:
Free and Fair Elections: The ability for anyone to stand for election without fear of retaliation.
A Strong Civil Society: The presence of active ngos and organizations that can voice dissent without state interference.
* An Independent Legal system: A judiciary that is free from political influence and can operate impartially.
He contrasted the US with countries like Russia, Belarus, China, and Venezuela, where the state actively suppresses civil society, manipulates elections, and controls the legal system.
Halvorssen’s comments are sure to spark debate, particularly among those who believe the US is already experiencing a significant decline in democratic norms. However,his perspective offers a valuable framework for analyzing the complex challenges facing democracies around the world and highlights the importance of distinguishing between rhetoric and systemic action.
The Oslo Freedom Forum, where Halvorssen will be speaking, promises to be a platform for further discussion on these critical issues, bringing together human rights defenders from across the globe.
Thor Halvorssen Defends Stance on US Democracy: A Conversation with Anya Sharma
Time.news: Welcome, Anya, and thank you for joining us today. With Thor Halvorssen’s recent comments at the Oslo Freedom Forum sparking debate, especially regarding the state of democracy in the US, we wanted to get your expert perspective. Halvorssen’s Human Rights Foundation (HRF) is well-known for its strong condemnation of authoritarian regimes. Yet, his organization hasn’t been as vocal about perceived democratic backsliding in the US. is this a fair criticism, and how do you interpret his position?
Anya Sharma: Thank you for having me.It’s a complex issue, and I appreciate the possibility to discuss Halvorssen’s remarks. I think the criticism, while understandable, overlooks the nuance he’s trying to convey. Halvorssen is essentially highlighting the difference between authoritarian behavior and actual authoritarian state policy. Many are concerned with the former, particularly the rhetoric and actions that echo authoritarian tactics.Halvorssen isn’t dismissing these concerns but arguing that US institutions, while perhaps strained, continue to function.
Time.news: He emphasizes the importance of an independent judiciary, a robust civil society, and free and fair elections as the core pillars of a functioning democracy. How relevant are these “legs,” as he calls them, when evaluating a country’s democratic standing?
Anya Sharma: Thay are absolutely critical. think of it as a diagnostic framework for assessing democratic health. Free and fair elections ensure citizen participation and portrayal, preventing the consolidation of power by a single individual or group. A strong civil society, comprising activist NGOs and organizations, acts as a check on government power, holding leaders accountable and advocating for the rights of marginalized groups. an independent legal system provides a neutral arena for resolving disputes and upholding the rule of law, preventing targeted government persecution of political rivals. When these legs start to wobble, it’s a danger sign indicating democratic backsliding. Halvorssen is right; it’s a gradual process, but these elements are vital for resilience. Any deterioration in one of these areas should be a cause of deep concern.
Time.news: Halvorssen uses HRF’s internal ranking system to differentiate between “free,” “hybrid regimes,” and “fully authoritarian regimes.” can you elaborate on the value of having such a granular evaluation, and why this might be different to other global rankings?
Anya Sharma: A granular system is essential for accurately assessing the state of democracy. Global democracy indexes can sometimes oversimplify complex realities. By contrast, A more detailed system allows for a more nuanced understanding of specific strengths and weaknesses. For example, mexico, as Halvorssen mentioned, faces meaningful challenges with cartel violence and state-level corruption, impacting safety and the integrity of local governance. However, mexico would still be considered “free” because it has an accepted electoral process at the national level; a degree of freedom of expression, even in the media, and relatively free elections. Such a granular system allows for that complexity to feed into the final ranking, giving it validity. Ultimately, it facilitates a more accurate diagnosis and more targeted solutions.
Time.news: Given Halvorssen’s perspective,what advice would you offer to individuals concerned about the state of democracy,both in the US and globally?
Anya Sharma: Be vigilant,but also informed. Don’t fall into the trap of equating concerning rhetoric with the complete dismantling of democratic institutions.Focus your energy on strengthening those “legs” Halvorssen mentioned. Support independent journalism and civil society organizations. Demand accountability from elected officials.Participate actively in the political process – not just during elections, but throughout the year. Educate yourself and others about democratic principles and the importance of safeguarding them. Most importantly,encourage respectful dialog across differences; one of the key features of a civil society.
Time.news: What is your final opinion on Halvorssen’s controversial comments?
Anya Sharma: Halvorssen plays a valuable role in that he is able to be objective in his observation of the state of US democracy, and that he is able to hold that alongside his observations of actual dictatorships, and totalitarian regimes. It lends more weight to both his criticism of those regimes, and also of that he sees as areas to safeguard from democratic erosion in the USA. While some people will likely remain unconvinced by his words, they come from a place of decades’ long experience in democracy.
Time.news: Anya, thank you for providing such valuable insights on this crucial topic.We appreciate your time and expertise.
