Fostering a Fourth Democratic Wave: A Playbook for Countering the Authoriarian Threat

Fostering a Fourth Democratic Wave is a joint project between the Atlantic Council and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), aimed at catalyzing support for nonviolent pro-democracy movements fighting against authoritarian rule. The project recognizes that civil resistance movements—using tactics such as strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, and a range of other nonviolent tactics—are one of the most powerful forces for democracy worldwide and therefore central to reversing the last seventeen years of democratic recession

Hold the Line: A Guide to Defending Democracy

This guide is designed to help people from all walks of life—political newcomers as well as experienced activists—take action to ensure that we have a successful election in November 2020. A successful election is one that is: ● Free , in which all eligible voters are able to vote without hindrance, interference, or intimidation. ● Fair , in which all votes are counted transparently, non-partisan rules and laws are followed, and any disputes are resolved without bias towards any particular candidate. ● Respected , by which the loser of the election accepts the results, concedes, and engages in a good faith transition process to the election’s winner. ● Safe , in which risks of COVID-19 transmission and political violence are minimized. The United States has hundreds of years of experience in election administration, so you would think we would have a robust process and institutions to ensure our elections are successful. However, we face a long list of real and potential challenges in the upcoming November election that demand a heightened level of civic awareness and engagement. Some of these challenges come from the COVID-19 crisis, which is leading to a significant shortage of poll workers. Fewer poll workers means fewer polling places will be open. This shortage alone is an issue that would impact any election, but in 2020 our problems are exacerbated by other political and infrastructural challenges. These include cuts to the U.S. Postal Service that may delay delivery of mail-in ballots; malfunctioning voting equipment; deliberate voter suppression and misinformation; possible voter intimidation at the polls; possible violence among political supporters; and the President improperly using the powers of the executive branch and communicating that he may refuse to accept defeat. You may have read about some of these problems already, or experienced or witnessed them firsthand at some point. They can seem overwhelming, and sometimes popular media focuses more on chaotic scenarios for the election than on possible solutions. Fortunately, there’s a lot that each of us can do to help. Everyone has a role they can play to ensure that voting is accessible and safe ; that people turn out to vote ; that the rules are applied fairly ; and that the results are respected . We conceive of these efforts in two stages: Stage 1: From now until Election day (Nov. 3, 2020) Stage 2: From Election day to Inauguration day (Jan. 20, 2021) This guide focuses primarily on Stage 2, covering the period of time starting from Election day and continuing through to Inauguration day. It attempts to answer the question of how to prepare and what to do in case attempts are made to subvert the election results. At the same time, we recognize that Stage 1 is critically important as well, and deeply related to Stage 2, so we begin by dedicating some attention to Stage 1, before diving more deeply into Stage 2. We’ve divided the guide into the following four parts: Part I focuses on critical actions people can take from now until Election day (Nov. 3, 2020) to ensure a successful election. Part II gives background on potential scenarios that could play out between Election day to Inauguration day (Jan. 20, 2021) . Part III provides a four-step process to start an election protection group in your community , and to begin planning actions to protect democracy in case they are needed. Part IV offers an in-depth analysis and model of change drawn from the field of nonviolent civil resistance, which informs our thinking about how to respond if there are attempts to subvert the election results. We draw lessons about how ordinary people have advanced democracy and won against authoritarian-style rulers in other parts of the world , and apply these lessons to the current situation in the United States. This guide is designed to be read in whatever order makes most sense to you. We recommend Part I as a good place for everyone to start, because the election protection efforts outlined in Parts II, III, and IV will be significantly more powerful if we use time now to ensure the November election is as successful as possible. Then, if you want more background information about possible scenarios that could play out on Election day and beyond, read Part II . If you are already familiar with potential post-election scenarios and want to jump straight into organizing a neighborhood election protection group, you can start with Part III . If you want a deeper sense of a model of change for how other societies have won rights, freedom, and justice against unaccountable rulers, and how those lessons could apply to the United States, read Part

Interprofessional education in geriatric medicine: towards best practice. A controlled before-after study of medical and nursing students

Objectives. To investigate nursing and medical students’ readiness for interprofessional learning before and after implementing geriatric interprofessional education (IPE), based on problem-based learning (PBL) case scenarios. To define the optimal number of geriatric IPE sessions, the size and the ratio of participants from each profession in the learner groups, the outcomes related to the Kirkpatrick four-level typology of learning evaluation, students’ concerns about joint learning and impact of geriatric IPE on these concerns. The study looked at the perception of roles and expertise of the ‘other’ profession in interprofessional teams, and students’ choice of topics for future sessions. Students’ expectations, experience, learning points and the influence on the understanding of IP collaboration, as well as their readiness to participate in such education again were investigated. Design. A controlled before–after study (2014/2015, 2015/2016) with data collected immediately before and after the intervention period. Study includes additional comparison of the results from the intervention with a control group of students. Outcomes were determined with a validated ‘Readiness for Interprofessional Learning’ questionnaire, to which we added questions with free comments, combining quantitative and qualitative research methods. The teaching sessions were facilitated by experienced practitioners/educators, so each group had both, a clinician (either geratology consultant or registrar) and a senior nurse. Participants. 300 medical, 150 nursing students. Setting. Tertiary care university teaching hospital. Results. Analysis of the returned forms in the intervention group had shown that nursing students scored higher on teamwork and collaboration post-IPE (M=40.78, SD=4.05) than pre-IPE (M=34.59, SD=10.36)—statistically significant. On negative professional identity, they scored lower post-IPE (M=7.21, SD=4.2) than pre-IPE (M=8.46, SD=4.1)—statistically significant. The higher score on positive professional identity post-IPE (M=16.43, SD=2.76) than pre-IPE (M=14.32, SD=4.59) was also statistically significant. Likewise, the lower score on roles and responsibilities post-IPE (M=5.41, SD=1.63) than pre-IPE (M=6.84, SD=2.75). Medical students scored higher on teamwork and collaboration post-IPE (M=36.66, SD=5.1) than pre-IPE (M=32.68, SD=7.4)—statistically significant. Higher positive professional identity post-IPE (M=14.3, SD=3.2) than pre-IPE (M=13.1, SD=4.31)—statistically significant. The lower negative professional identity post-IPE (M=7.6, SD=3.17) than pre-IPE (M=8.36, SD=2.91) was not statistically significant. Nor was the post-IPE difference over roles and responsibilities (M=7.4, SD=1.85), pre-IPE (M=7.85, SD=2.1). In the control group, medical students scored higher for teamwork and collaboration post-IPE (M=36.07, SD=3.8) than pre-IPE (M=33.95, SD=3.37)—statistically significant, same for positive professional identity post-IPE (M=13.74, SD=2.64), pre-IPE (M=12.8, SD=2.29), while negative professional identity post-IPE (M=8.48, SD=2.52), pre-IPE (M=9, SD=2.07), and roles and responsibilities post-IPE (M=7.89, SD=1.69), pre-IPE (M=7.91, SD=1.51) shown no statistically significant differences. Student concerns, enhanced understanding of collaboration and readiness for future joint work were addressed, but not understanding of roles. Conclusions. Educators with nursing and medical backgrounds delivered geriatric IPE through case-based PBL. The optimal learner group size was determined. The equal numbers of participants from each profession for successful IPE are not necessary. The IPE delivered by clinicians and senior nurses had an overall positive impact on all participants, but more markedly on nursing students. Surprisingly, it had the same impact on medical students regardless if it was delivered to the mixed groups with nursing students, or to medical students alone. Teaching successfully addressed students’ concerns about joint learning and communication and ethics were most commonly suggested topics for the future

Segmental uniparental isodisomy on 5q32‐qter in a patient with childhood‐onset schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a severe mental disorder affecting approximately 1% of the world's population. Although the aetiology of schizophrenia is complex and multifactorial, with estimated heritabilities as high as 80%, genetic factors are the most compelling. Childhood‐onset schizophrenia (COS), defined as onset of schizophrenia before the age of 13 years, is a rare and malignant form of the illness that may have more salient genetic influence. The first known case of paternal segmental uniparental isodisomy (iUPD) on 5q32‐qter in a patient with COS is described, which adds to the previously known high rates of chromosomal abnormalities reported in this sample. iUPD is a rare genetic condition in which the offspring receives two chromosomal homologues from one parent. Segmental UPD is defined as UPD on a portion of a chromosome with biparental inheritance seen in the rest of the homologous pair. Complications owing to this abnormality may arise from malfunctioning imprinted genes or homozygosity of recessive disease‐causing mutations. This aberration became apparent during whole‐genomic screening of a COS cohort and is of particular interest because 5q has been implicated in schizophrenia by several genomewide linkage studies and positive gene associations. This report, therefore, presents more evidence that schizophrenia susceptibility gene, or genes, may be found on distal 5q