The country's sinking ranking by international freedom indexes underscores the government's antidemocratic turn

Originally published on Global Voices

A fading Georgian flag. Image by Arzu Geybullayeva. Created using Canva Pro.

The detention of opposition politician Nika Melia on May 29, coupled with a wave of arbitrary entry bans and expulsions targeting activists, journalists, and even diplomats, paints a grim picture of the ruling Georgian Dream (GD) government's intent to silence dissent and consolidate power. The country's sinking ranking on international freedom indexes underscores how the ruling government is drifting away from its former European aspirations.

Melia, who is one of the leaders in the opposition political alliance Coalition for Change, is not the only opposition politician facing detention. On May 22, Zurab Japaridze, leader of the Girchi – More Freedom party, was also detained.  GD officials detained Japaridze after he refused to participate in what he termed a “fake” anti-United National Movement (UNM) commission. UNM is the former ruling party, and it was in power from 2003 until GD won the 2012 parliamentary elections. Both detentions are part of a larger pattern of the ruling party's escalating crackdown on the opposition.

The commission, established in February 2025 to investigate the UNM during the party’s time in power, has since expanded its scope to the present day, thereby allowing GD to potentially implicate any opposition figure. GD soon initiated criminal cases against several opposition politicians — Japaridze and Melia among them — who refused to appear before the commission. If convicted, the politicians can face fines, up to a year in prison, or a three-year prohibition on public office.

When Japaridze refused to pay his initial GEL 20,000 (USD 7,300) bail, the Prosecutor’s Office requested that his bail be replaced with pre-trial detention, which the court granted on May 22. The sequence of events follows a pattern of legal harassment and politically motivated charges against those who challenge the government's narrative. Other opposition party members, as well as the country's former president, Salome Zourabichvili, attended Japaridze's trial. Domestic and international response was swift.

UK Minister of Parliament James MacCleary tweeted:

Georgia continues down its slippery slope of political repression.

Opposition politician Japaridze must be released now.

The Georgian Dream govt and their oligarch puppet master Ivanishvili have crossed another line. UK govt sanctions should follow. https://t.co/rdXuZ2zSgj

— James MacCleary MP (@JamesMacCleary) May 22, 2025

The Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also expressed its solidarity:

We are deeply concerned by the detention of Zurab Japaridze, leader of the opposition Girchi More Freedom party. Democratic decline, along with repressive actions against civic society, including unfounded detentions, is the way to nowhere. Our solidarity with Zurab Japaridze!

— Lithuania MFA | #StandWithUkraine (@LithuaniaMFA) May 24, 2025

The Swedish ambassador to Georgia, Anna Lyberg, noted:

is concerned by the developments in Georgia with growing pressure on the opposition including arrests of opposition leaders like Zurab Japaridze and adoption of repressive laws threatening the democracy. These actions are not in line with EU values.

— Anna Lyberg (@annalyb) May 24, 2025

In an Editor's Letter at Civil Georgia, Nata Koridze, Japaridze's wife, noted, “GD chose power over progress, authoritarianism over democracy, and the past over the future. It turned away from EU membership, a goal that the vast majority of Georgians share and that, as is now clear, the GD and its founder never supported in good faith.” She also announced she would be stepping down from her role as managing editor at Civil Georgia to be with her family, because she did not want her “personal circumstances” to “compromise the professional mission” of the Tbilisi-based independent news platform.

Denials of entry and punitive fines

The arrests are taking place against a wider backdrop of the ruling GD party seeking to limit scrutiny and criticism. On May 20, British journalist Will Neal was denied entry to Georgia, where he has lived since 2022. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has said that Neal was likely denied entry due to his investigative reporting. According to OC Media, an independent outlet covering the Caucasus, the government is weaponizing overly vague Georgian legislation to “bar people, including Western activists and journalists critical of the governments in Tbilisi and Moscow, from entering the country.”

In recent months, numerous individuals, including a Belarusian activist, French, Swiss, and Czech journalists, and even an EU diplomat, have either been turned away at Georgia's borders or deported without clear justification. The Ministry of the Interior was quick to respond to the entry ban against the EU diplomat, citing a “technical problem” and changing none of its practices. Since June 2024, the ministry has prevented 228 foreign nationals from entering the country, including 15 nationals in May 2025.

On May 13, the ruling Georgian Dream party passed, in its first reading, a legislative package allowing expulsions and reentry bans for various administrative offenses, including what it terms “petty hooliganism,” disobeying police, violating assembly rules, assaulting officials, and breaching travel regulations. Deputy Interior Minister Aleksandre Darakhvelidze stated that these measures could specifically target foreigners participating in anti-government protests.

On May 29, Polish and French embassies in Tbilisi issued travel warnings to their citizens considering travel to Georgia, including facing potential entry bans and fines.

Compounding these measures are punitive fines handed down to Georgian citizens who publicly criticize members of the ruling party, as the legislative amendments have significantly increased administrative and criminal liability.

Meanwhile, local journalists have been subject to arrest and intimidation; now, they must also wrestle with this legislative measure. In January 2025, the founder and director of the independent newspaper Batumelebi and the online outlet Netgazeti, Mzia Amaghlobeli, was remanded in custody for allegedly assaulting a police officer. If convicted, she faces four to seven years in prison. In response to Amaghlobeli's arrest, a group of local journalists launched a new movement promising to “use all local and international platforms for Mzia’s freedom.”

“The scale of the crackdown on the media since November 28, following the ruling Georgian Dream party’s decision to halt Georgia’s negotiation talks with the EU, has been unprecedented,” read a December 2024 letter, co-signed by international media freedom and rights watch groups. It highlighted the cases of more than 90 media workers who were subject to physical attacks, verbal abuse, and other forms of police violence while covering the pro-EU demonstrations.

Track record on decline

The country's standing in global freedom indexes has plummeted. In the RSF 2025 World Press Freedom Index, Georgia's fall of 11 spots to 114th place categorizes it as a “difficult” country for press freedom. This sharp decline reflects increasing physical violence against journalists, the imprisonment of media workers, and growing political control over public broadcasters.

RSF specifically highlighted concerns about the revised “foreign influence” law, which threatens independent media outlets receiving foreign funding. The Europe Press Freedom Report noted that Georgia experienced the steepest surge in journalist safety alerts among Council of Europe member states in 2024, with numerous attacks on journalists during pro-EU protests. Another report by DW Akademie concluded that Georgia's democratic gains have stalled, with a marked deterioration in media freedom driven by political polarization, government pressure, lack of journalist safety, and a challenging economic environment for independent media. 

Furthermore, the V-Dem Institute's 2025 Democracy Report downgraded Georgia to an “electoral autocracy,” citing a significant democratic backslide since 2018, with 2024 marking “the largest one-year decline since Georgia's independence.” The report underscored electoral irregularities, Russian meddling, media bias favoring the incumbent party, and increased legal and financial barriers to party formation.

Last year, Amnesty International's report on Georgia pointed to the ruling party's continued usurpation of power and suppression of dissent, noting new legislative amendments that expand state and police powers while unduly restricting peaceful protests and undermining civil society.

The Committee to Protect Journalists called the practice ‘a weaponization of financial and tax measures against the press’

Originally published on Global Voices

Head of the Hong Kong Journalists Association Selina Cheng meets the press on May 21, 2025. Photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP. Used with permission.

Hong Kong’s independent media sector has been penalised by the city’s Inland Revenue Department (IRD) with tax audits and backdated tax reviews, according to the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), a journalist union and free press watchdog. The harassment has extended to news outlets, media organisations, staff and even family members of media workers.

Selina Cheng, the Chairperson of HKJA, said in a press conference on May 21 that at since November 2023, least eight independent outlets and media organizations, including HKJA, InMedia, Hong Kong Free Press, Witness, Boomhead and ReNews, and 20 individuals, including directors and journalists of media outlets and their relatives, have received notification of audits and additional tax demands backdated to 2018/2019.

These organisations and individuals were requested to pay a provisional tax demand before IRD's investigation into any alleged underpayment was complete. The total provisional tax demanded from the eight media organisations was about HKD 700,000 (USD 89,300), while from individuals it was about HKD 1 million (USD 127,590). 

What's worse is that the tax authority has made errors and unreasonable claims when auditing profit tax for independent media outlets and their reporters’ income, according to Selina Cheng. Although they could apply for a review and a deferred payment, they had to prepare financial records to invalidate the authority’s estimations.

Cheng herself is also a victim of such arbitrary tax audits. She was asked to pay backdated tax for the 2018/2019 financial year. Her annual income at that time was only HKD 230,000 (USD 29,340), but the authority claimed her income was up to HKD 630,000 (USD 80,380) and demanded that she pay the backdated tax. Cheng stressed:

好多情況下，佢呢個 additonal assessment 係冇基於任何資料、任何證據同任何理由去提出…

Very often, this kind of additional assessment was not based on any existing information, evidence or reason…

She opposed the claim, applied for a review and a deferred payment. However, this process can be a major burden for the journalists, Cheng added, as they have to spend time, energy and money to dig up and audit their financial records and explain their bank transactions, which date back seven years. 

HKJA questioned why the authority picked journalists, who made very humble incomes by local standards, as tax audit targets and urged that the assessment of any backdated tax should be based on evidence rather than arbitrary estimation:

合理有據嘅調查，大家會配合接受，但如果而家話唔係用呢啲嚟做工具打壓媒體，有冇人信呢？

People would accept and assist investigations that are based on reasonable evidence. But would people believe that the current situation [audits and assessments] is not a means to suppress media outlets?

In addition to arbitrary estimation, the tax authority had made many errors in its assessments. For example, an individual was asked to pay profit tax for a firm that did not exist, and a media outlet had its tax audited for a financial year before the company was even established.

Although the Commissioner of Taxation stressed that tax audits are conducted transparently and fairly, without targeting specific entities or industries, according to the IRD’s 2023–2024 annual report, its Field Audits and Investigation unit only completed 1,802 tax avoidance and backdated tax assessment cases. As of 2024, there were over 1.46 million registered companies in Hong Kong.

HKAJ received a backdated tax demand of HKD 450,000 (USD 57,400) for the 2017/18 financial year in 2023. While the tax authority is yet to complete the 2017/18 investigation, it issued another backdated tax demand of HKD 130,000 (USD 16,580) for the 2018/19 financial year in 2025. 

International press freedom watchdog, the Committee to Protect Journalists, interpreted the tax audits and assessments as a “weaponisation of financial and tax measures against the press”, which is part of the playbook of authoritarian regimes:

“Hong Kong is taking a page out of the playbook of authoritarian regimes elsewhere that are using similar intimidation tactics,” said @behlihyi Beh Lih Yi, CPJ’s Asia program coordinator. “Targeting journalists with tax audits without sufficient evidence not only rings alarm…

— CPJ Asia (@CPJAsia) May 23, 2025

Current affairs commentator Fung Hei-kin pointed out in a Facebook post that the Chinese authorities have used similar tax audit tactics in the crackdown on the non-governmental sector, such as the forced closure of Aiyuanhui Education and Research Centre in 2010 and Xu Zhi-yong’s Open Constitution Initiative (公盟) Gongmeng in 2009.

In response to the allegation of “unreasonable” tax audits targeting independent media outlets, the city’s chief executive, John Lee, stressed that journalists “have no privilege to evade taxes”. 

And HKAJ’s chair, Selina Cheng, pointed out that Lee's response indicated that he “is quick to label those facing audits as ‘tax evaders’ and ‘lawbreakers’” and that the audited tax-players are “penalised and judged before the IRD even concluded its audit findings”.

Press freedom in Hong Kong has been in a backslide since the Beijing-imposed national security law (NSL) was enacted on June 30 2020, and the abrupt closure of around 10 media outlets, including Apple Daily, Stand News and Citizen News, in 2021. According to Reporters Without Borders’ latest Press Freedom Index, Hong Kong has fallen to 140 places, entering the red zone — meaning a “very serious” situation — for the first time, alongside China.

The defamation law is being used to silence journalists and media groups

Originally published on Global Voices

Lagi Keresoma (left) is the first woman president of the Journalists Association of Samoa. Screenshot from the YouTube video of ABC International Development. Fair use

Samoan and Pacific media groups have reiterated the demand to repeal Samoa’s defamation law after a senior journalist was slapped with a criminal charge over a report involving police officers.

Talamua Online reporter Lagi Keresoma, who is also the head of the Journalists Association of Samoa (JAWS), was charged with defamation over a report about a former police officer accused of forging signatures in a loan application. The police summoned and advised Keresoma to issue an apology to settle the case, but the journalist asserted that her report is based on facts.

“To apologise is an admission that the story is wrong, so after speaking to my lawyer and my editor, it was decided to have the police file their charges, but no apology from my end,” said Keresoma in a news report.

The case drew criticism about the state of press freedom in Samoa and the continuing use of the defamation law, which was scrapped in 2013 but reintroduced with harsher penalties in 2017 to address the misuse of social media.

JAWS issued a statement calling Keresoma’s case “a troubling development for press freedom in Samoa” and underscored its rejection of “the use of criminal libel laws as a means to silence journalists or discourage investigative reporting.” Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson, gender representative of JAWS to the International Federation of Journalists, criticized the “heavy-handed” and “disproportionate” response to Keresoma’s reporting.

[Keresoma’s] arrest under this outdated and controversial provision raises serious concerns about the misuse of legal tools to silence independent journalism. The action appears heavy-handed and disproportionate, and risks being perceived as an abuse of power to suppress public scrutiny and dissent.

Writing for the Samoa Observer, journalist Tanuvasa Satele bemoaned the rising political attacks against journalists in Samoa.

In recent months, legitimate media outlets have faced threats and backlash simply for reporting on judicial decisions and political disputes. Journalists have been harassed online for asking tough but necessary questions. Some political actors and their supporters have used social media to spread misinformation, painting professional reporters as biased while elevating politically motivated content that masquerades as news.

In another article, Satele also warned about the chilling effect of indicting the head of JAWS.

The charge against Lagi Keresoma presents a moment of reckoning — not just for media professionals, but for lawmakers, public officials, and the citizens of Samoa. We must ask ourselves: What kind of nation do we want to be? One where journalists are silenced by outdated laws? Or one where the truth, even when inconvenient, is allowed to breathe?

Repealing this law does not mean giving journalists a free pass. It means allowing for legitimate disputes to be resolved fairly, through civil channels where the emphasis is on truth, harm, and remedy — not punishment and fear.

Regional media watchdogs such as the Pacific Islands News Association and Pacific Freedom Forum (PFF) have called for the immediate repeal of Section 117A of the Crimes Act of 2013, which they described as “a law that has been criticised for enabling the criminalization of journalism and silencing investigative reporting.”

PFF chair Robert Iroga urged authorities to seek alternative ways to address complaints and grievances against media reporting.

The cost of media cases like this, brought by the state, will ultimately be borne by the taxpayer, with the legal costs of defence a huge burden on newsrooms that are unable to profit in the economies they serve, this places a question of intent over any defamation cases brought against media especially in instances where direct contact and low cost mediation has not already been pursued.

At the end of the day, the defense of truth and integrity is what works best for our profession and our people. An out-of-court resolution would help restore confidence and public perceptions that our leaders are more than happy to be held to account.

Pacific Media Watch noted the drop in Samoa’s ranking in the global press freedom index released by Reporters Without Borders from 22 in 2024 to 44 in 2025.

This is a disturbing development in Pacific media freedom trends. Clearly it is a clumsy attempt to intimidate and silence in-depth investigation and reporting on Pacific governance.

For years, Samoa has been a beacon for edia freedom in the region, but it has fared badly in the latest World Press Freedom Index and this incident involving alleged criminal libel, a crime that should have been struck from the statutes years ago, is not going to help Samoa’s standing.

If Ghana’s democracy is to survive, it cannot afford to let its press be muzzled

Originally published on Global Voices

Photo of Samuel Nartey George giving a speech.  Image by Amuzujoe on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0 Deed).

By Abdul-Razak Mohammed

Accra’s bustling streets hum with the chatter of market vendors, the popular midday radio show hosted by Aunty Naa, and the glow of smartphone screens. But beneath this familiar rhythm, a quieter battle is unfolding that could reshape Ghana’s democracy. At its center is Samuel Nartey George, the newly appointed minister of communication, digital technology, and innovation, whose office now wields unprecedented power over what Ghanaians see, hear, and say.

Sam George’s expanding control over Ghana’s media

Samuel Nartey George’s recent appointment as minister of communication, digital technology, and innovation marks a significant turning point in Ghana’s media and digital governance landscape. As the head of this important ministry, Sam George oversees the National Communications Authority (NCA). This is an agency entrusted with regulating all forms of communication, including radio, television, and digital platforms. The NCA’s mandate is not limited to ensuring compliance with technical standards; it is also charged with monitoring the content disseminated across the nation, together with the National Media  Commission (NMC). This broad regulatory scope falls squarely under George’s purview, placing him in a position of immense power over public discourse. With this authority, he not only shapes the media environment but also holds the potential to silence dissenting voices and marginalize groups deemed counter to his vision of traditional Ghanaian values.

At the heart of the controversy surrounding his appointment is the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Act, 2024, which opponents say is anti-LGBTQ+ as it offers prison time for “engaging in same-sex intercourse,” disbands all queer organizations in Ghana, and criminalizes promoting LGBTQ+ activities. George was one of the bill’s sponsors and has ardently defended the bill. In a recent media interaction, George reaffirmed his commitment to the bill, stating that he and his colleagues have reintroduced it to parliament. Although parliament has been recalled from recess, no official update has been provided on the current status of the bill.

Ostensibly designed to preserve Ghanaian cultural and moral values, the bill explicitly criminalizes the “propaganda of, promotion of, and advocacy for” activities that support LGBTQ+ rights. The law mandates a summary conviction penalty ranging from five to ten years in prison, a range that applies not only to individuals but also, under certain circumstances, to media houses and digital platforms. This legal framework is purposefully broad and vague, allowing for a wide interpretation of what constitutes “propaganda” or “promotion.” Such language provides a formidable tool for state control and grants the minister the power to unilaterally punish media entities, even before the bill is formally reintroduced in parliament.

A chilling effect on freedom of expression

A close reading of the Act reveals that its provisions do not differentiate between individual actions and the operations of institutional media. Any medium that facilitates the dissemination of content supportive of LGBTQ+ advocacy can be held criminally liable unless it can demonstrate that it did not consent to, or was not complicit in, the offending activity. This effectively means that the owners of broadcasting companies or digital platforms may be subject to prosecution if they host content that falls within the Act’s expansive prohibitions. The result is a chilling effect on free expression, where media outlets might preemptively censor themselves to avoid the risk of severe legal repercussions. In this context, it is clear that the minister’s office, empowered by the NCA, can be used to stifle any form of dissent or deviation from the prescribed national narrative.

The implications of such concentrated power are profound and far-reaching. In today’s interconnected world, where digital platforms serve as vital channels for political mobilization, cultural expression, and public debate, the ability to control or suppress content can fundamentally undermine democratic processes. Sam George’s position, coupled with the authoritarian potential of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Act, raises significant concerns about the future of media freedom in Ghana. With unilateral authority to penalize media houses and digital platforms, the ministry under Sam George’s leadership is poised to enforce a strict conformity to a narrow, state-sanctioned version of morality and tradition. This could lead to the systematic targeting of not only LGBTQ+ individuals but also any groups or voices that challenge the prevailing conservative ideology.

Ghana at a crossroads

The dangers inherent in such a system are not merely theoretical. International examples offer stark warnings of the outcomes when state power is leveraged to control digital expression. In countries like Russia, Egypt, Thailand, and even Chechnya, the combination of expansive surveillance capabilities and draconian legal measures has resulted in the suppression of dissent, the stifling of opposition, and widespread human rights abuses. In Ghana, previous reports have indicated the use of advanced surveillance tools such as NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware to monitor political adversaries. With the NCA already implicated in such activities in the past, and now under the stewardship of a minister who champions restrictive policies, there is an alarming possibility that similar tactics could be used to enforce the new bill’s provisions.

As Ghana teeters on the edge of a repressive digital era, the stakes could not be higher. The convergence of expansive state surveillance powers and legally sanctioned censorship creates an environment in which the fundamental rights of free expression and access to information are under constant threat. The NCA, which is under Sam George’s care, with its ability to unilaterally punish media outlets and digital platforms, becomes a potent instrument of control, capable of shaping public discourse according to the government’s ideological agenda. In such a scenario, the future of democratic engagement in Ghana hangs in the balance, and the voices of those who dissent, advocate for minority rights, or simply challenge the status quo may be silenced before they can be heard.

Sam George’s appointment and his sponsorship of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Act serve as a powerful illustration of the risks posed by unchecked state power in the digital age. The NCA, under his watch, is not merely a regulatory body but a potential mechanism for enforcing a narrow, state-approved narrative and one that could significantly curtail media freedom and marginalize vulnerable communities. If Ghana’s democracy is to survive, it cannot afford to let its press be muzzled by those who seek to control the narrative.

Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of any democratic society. The time to defend it is now.

An emotional facade masking the cracking down on dissent

Originally published on Global Voices

Image by Global Voices on Canva Pro. Nicolás Maduro, July 4, 2024, Photo: @maduro via Fotos Públicas. Public domain.

This story is part of Undertones, Global Voices’ Civic Media Observatory‘s newsletter. Subscribe to Undertones.

On May 25, 2025, Venezuela held regional and parliamentary elections in a government effort to demonstrate that the country still holds free and fair elections after President Nicolás Maduro's disputed reelection in July 2024 and despite credible evidence to the contrary.

Most of the Venezuelan opposition called for a boycott of the 2025 regional and parliamentary elections, faced with the dilemma of participating and risking winning without any guarantee the result would be recognized or abstaining and effectively handing all power to Nicolás Maduro’s government.

As preparation for the election, the Venezuelan regime launched a new wave of forced disappearances and detentions of dissidents, with Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello celebrating on May 23, 2025, the capture of notable opposition leader Juan Pablo Guanipa, who had been living in hiding since July 2024 and was considered a “terrorist” by the Venezuelan government. On that same day, Cabello announced the arrest of 70 politicians, activists, journalists, and lawyers over “national security” concerns.

Parallel to the crackdown on dissent, in an attempt to humanize the regime leadership and as part of what it calls efforts for the “protection and safe return of migrants” deported by the US, the government announced eleven days before the election the return of Maikelys Antonella Espinoza Bernal, a two-year-old separated from her family by the US government.

Narrative: President Maduro is the savior of the Venezuelan migrants

The people asserting this narrative frame, mostly the Venezuelan regime and its supporters but also desperate families, portray Nicolás Maduro as the only one who can guarantee the safety of the Venezuelan migrants targeted by anti-migration policies in countries like the US.

Under this reasoning, Maduro is depicted as the one making possible the reunification of families separated by anti-migration policies outside Venezuela.

The hostile climate against migrants in the US, where the country's government has sent over 200 Venezuelan migrants to a Salvadoran mega-prison without due process — including at least 50 men who had entered the US legally and never violated any immigration law — and deported thousands back to Venezuela, has become a political gain opportunity for the Venezuelan regime. 

The Trump administration's crackdown on migration has also affected around 350.000 Venezuelans under Temporal Protection Status, who are now looking desperately for an alternative after the US Supreme Court cleared the revocation of the program.

The Venezuelan regime shares this narrative frame, disregarding that, according to the UNHCR, nearly 8 million Venezuelans have fled the country due to widespread violence, hyperinflation, gang warfare, soaring crime rates, and severe shortages of food, medicine, and essential services.

The collapse of the Venezuelan economy has been linked to “decades of disastrous economic policies — and more recently, to economic sanctions” and the human rights crisis extensively documented by organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International.

Espinoza Bernal, now seen as the face of the regime's success story, was separated from her family upon arriving in the US in 2024. She remained in government custody after her parents were deported due to alleged ties to the Venezuelan-based Tren de Aragua gang, according to US authorities.

Yorely Bernal, Espinoza Bernal's mother, was deported to Venezuela on April 25, 2025. Espinoza Bernal's father was also deported around that same time — he is one of the men sent to the El Salvador jail.

How this narrative is shared online

Wave of arrests continues to target Istanbul municipality officials on baseless charges

Originally published on Global Voices

Image by Arzu Geybullayeva. Created using Canva Pro.

In December 2024, Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) began a multi-pronged assault on the main opposition Republican People’s Party’s (CHP) members and its democratically elected mayors. Chief among the targets was Ekrem İmamoğlu, the thrice-elected mayor of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IBB). The rising opposition star was first detained and then arrested in a sweeping crackdown on alleged corruption and terror links on March 19, just as he was poised to be nominated as the CHP’s presidential candidate for the 2028 elections. Since then, a systematic campaign of arrests and investigations targeting the CHP and other civic actors continues unabated, putting Turkey's democratic path and the country's rule of law under the spotlight.

The devil is in the details: Kanal Istanbul

Istanbul, a city of over 16 million, is more than just a municipality; it is a crucial economic engine. Before İmamoğlu's victory in 2019, Istanbul was an AKP stronghold, a “lifeline” providing significant revenues and a platform for large-scale development projects. Losing Istanbul was a major blow to the AKP, and targeting the mayor and many others affiliated with the office appears to be the ruling party's paramount objective.

There is also the controversial Istanbul Kanal, the planned 45-km artificial waterway connecting the Black Sea and the Sea of Marmara, which was perhaps Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s most ambitious infrastructure project since he took office 23 years ago. It will also bring everlasting consequences, globally and domestically.

Revealed in 2011, Turkey's “second Bosphorus,” as it’s been called, received the green light from the Environment Ministry in January 2021. Erdoğan justified the USD 12.6bn project to relieve ship traffic in the Bosphorus Strait. The new waterway will have a capacity of around 160 vessel crossings per day, according to authorities. For comparison, the Suez Canal supports 50 crossings a day, and the Panama Canal, around 50. Since its unveiling, the project has been criticized by civil society groups, scientists, and the İBB itself for the expected environmental destruction and the potential to worsen Istanbul’s earthquake risks.

On April 26, İBB Deputy Mayor Nuri Aslan stated that most of those detained were bureaucrats who had openly opposed the Kanal Istanbul project. As such, experts argue that for the government, it is not merely a construction project, but a strategic move to strengthen political and economic control over Istanbul.

CHP leader Özgür Özel, commenting on his personal Instagram account, supported this argument, writing that the decision to arrest İmamoğlu and others was political and the goal was to advance Kanal Istanbul. During a demonstration in Mersin on April 26, Özel addressed the crowd, saying, “We all know the issue here is not corruption — it's Kanal Istanbul. We will stand together against those who want to betray this city.”

‘Urban consensus’ and terror charges

The accusations against İmamoğlu and numerous municipality officials include “aiding a terrorist organization,” specifically, the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). These charges stem from the CHP’s cooperation with the pro-Kurdish Peoples” Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party in the last municipal elections. This “urban consensus” strategy, where DEM did not field candidates in certain districts and CHP adjusted its selections, is now being portrayed by prosecutors as orchestrated by the PKK.

This tactic of using terrorism charges against opposition figures and parties, particularly those with ties to Kurdish political movements, is not new in Turkey. The government has consistently used this mechanism to appoint trustees to replace elected mayors in pro-Kurdish municipalities, effectively nullifying electoral outcomes. According to documentation by local civil society, since 2016, the ruling government has removed 147 mayors, replacing them with government-appointed trustees. Kurdish mayors have often been targeted for replacement by trustee appointments, as well as arrests.

On May 12, the PKK announced it was to disarm and dissolve itself as part of the breakthrough peace deal. However, it remains unclear what this newfound peace will mean in the context of numerous ongoing trials for terrorism charges, among them academics for peace, and hundreds of elected mayors.

Protests amid ongoing arrests

Since March 19, Turkey has seen some of its largest protests to date, as the leading opposition CHP continues to rally people. On March 29, Özel announced via X that every Wednesday, a rally would be held in different parts of Istanbul, while on weekends, they will move to different provinces until İmamoğlu is freed and an early election takes place.

In the days following that announcement, it became clear that the initial arrest of İmamoğlu was just the beginning. In April 2025, a second wave of arrests took place, targeting 18 more individuals, as part of the Istanbul municipality probe. High-profile figures like Şafak Başa, head of Istanbul's municipal water authority (İSKİ), and İmamoğlu's secretary, Kadriye Kasapoğlu, were detained in the second wave. Then, in May this year, a third wave saw detention warrants issued for 22 people, including Taner Çetin, head of the municipality’s Press, Publications and Public Relations Department, on allegations of tender irregularities and bribery. 

These arrests, often carried out in dawn raids, are seen by many as attempts to create a narrative of a “criminal organisation” operating within Istanbul.

The ongoing targeting of the Istanbul municipality is a critical test for Turkey's democratic institutions. The judiciary, which the government insists is independent, is widely perceived by the opposition and international observers as being used as a tool for political ends. The annulment of İmamoğlu's university degree, a prerequisite for presidential candidacy, further underscores the perception of a deliberate effort to sideline him from future elections. Not surprisingly, the news of the academic who was behind the annulment of İmamoğlu's diploma and of his ties to the ruling party have been blocked in Turkey since April 10, when his identity became public. 

Debunking allegations

Since İmamoğlu’s arrest, scores of local reporters have looked into alleged corruption and terrorism charges. None have proven to be accurate; moreover, they are based on testimonies of “secret witnesses,” as explained by TurkeyRecap. Turkey’s use of secret witnesses, enabled by the 2008 Witness Protection Law (No. 5726), was originally intended to safeguard individuals testifying in dangerous situations. In 2022, the Constitutional Court ruled that anonymous testimonies alone are sufficient for arrest. However, this practice has been controversially applied in political trials, straying far from its initial purpose, according to reporting by TurkeyRecap.

Writing from his X account, İmamoğlu also dismissed allegations, calling the investigations a farce. The tweet is not accessible in Turkey because authorities blocked the mayor's account on May 9, citing a tweet which they claimed could incite criminal activity.

The relentless campaign against İmamoğlu and the Istanbul municipality, spearheaded by the AKP, reveals a clear pattern of political retribution and a determined effort to consolidate power. From the controversial Kanal Istanbul project to the weaponization of terrorism charges and the deployment of dubious “secret witness” testimonies, every move appears calculated to undermine the opposition and sideline a formidable rival in Ekrem İmamoğlu. Thousands who came to yet another Wednesday rally, on May 21, in Istanbul's Pendik neighborhood, received a message from a defiant İmamoğlu. In a letter read by CHP leader, Özel, the mayor called the wave of arrests a politically motivated assault by the ruling party, which fears losing power and public support. He emphasized the opposition's growing strength and unwavering commitment to a terrorism-free, democratic country, in light of the PKK's disarmament announcement, equality before the law and expanding the political sphere for all. He aligned his vision with the founder of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who once said, “National sovereignty is such a light that in its presence, chains melt, crowns and thrones burn and vanish.”

The mayor ended his letter with the slogan that became part of his election campaign in 2019 and endeared him to many — “Everything is going to be great. Stay well.”

ASHA women workers unite in Kerala to challenge their exploitation by the State and demand for minimum wage, retirement benefit and a reasonable workload

Originally published on Global Voices

Women protesting on Kerala. Image credit – Kerala Asha Health Workers Association (KAHWA). Used with permission.

The indefinite strike led by the ASHA Health Workers Association (KAHWA) in the Indian state of Kerala, ongoing since February 10, 2025, has crossed the 100-day mark. The milestone coincides with a nationwide strike organised by a majority of trade unions demanding decent work conditions and fair wages for Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) workers, Anganwadi (rural child-care), and Mid-day Meal Scheme workers. It also marks the ninth year of the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF) government in power. Over these 100 days, the striking women have endured extreme heat and heavy rains while camping day and night in a temporary shelter outside the Secretariat building in Thiruvananthapuram City. They have staged various forms of protest, including symbolic acts such as cutting their hair, organising public gatherings, and undertaking a 41-day hunger strike.

Paid less than unskilled daily labourers

ASHA workers provide voluntary healthcare to rural communities and act as a bridge between them and more formalised care through a government-sponsored program.

The Kerala ASHA Health Workers Association (KAHWA) is demanding that the state government increase their monthly honorarium to match the government-approved minimum daily wages for the state, INR 710 (USD 8.3). “Our demand is simple,” said KAHWA president V.K. Sadanandan:

An honorarium of Rs 21,000 (USD 245) per month — Rs 700 (USD 8.17) per day. This is not an impossible ask. If migrant labourers can be paid an average of Rs 700, why not ASHA workers?

KAHWA is also asking for several other measures: a one-time retirement benefit of INR 500,000 (USD 5,844), the removal of the compulsory retirement age of 62 (which has since been frozen by the state government), timely payment of wages (by the 5th of every month), and a fair workload — many ASHAs currently work 12 to 16 hours a day, every day.

Volunteers vs full-time workers

While the National Health Mission (NHM) designates ASHA workers as community health activists or “honorary volunteers” rather than formal workers, it explicitly stipulates that their workload should be voluntary and should not interfere with their ability to pursue other paid work or regular daily life. NHM guidelines suggest a commitment of just 1–2 hours per day. Since 2024, ASHA workers in Kerala have been receiving a fixed monthly honorarium of INR 7,000 (approximately USD 82), fully funded by the state budget.

According to a government order by Kerala's Health and Family Welfare Department, the responsibilities of ASHA workers in the state have expanded beyond those outlined in NHM directives. Importantly, this order prohibits ASHAs in Kerala from taking up part-time or full-time employment that could interfere with their assigned duties. The NHM assigns 100 tasks per month to ASHA workers, and the state has added 10 more responsibilities at the ward level, with intensive data work. In effect, these expanded duties occupy nearly all of their working hours, making them reliant on their ASHA income while still being officially classified as volunteers.

Failed negotiations

Three rounds of discussions between the Kerala state government and the Kerala ASHA Health Workers Association (KAHWA) have failed to yield a resolution. The government has since formed a committee comprising five bureaucrats from the departments of Health, Women and Child Development, Labour, Finance, and the National Health Mission (NHM), tasked with submitting a proposal within three months. Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, has stated that the government will no longer engage in further negotiations with the striking workers.

KAHWA has rejected the formation of the committee, calling it a delaying tactic. They also vowed that they would not end the strike unless the government agreed to increase their wages by at least INR 100 (approximately USD 1.17) per day and clear all pending dues.

Since the beginning of the strike organised by the Kerala ASHA Health Workers Association (KAHWA) — with support from leftist political organisations such as the Socialist Unity Centre of India (SUCI), the All India Democratic Students Organisation (AIDSO), and various civil society groups — the dominant Left, including supporters and leaders of the ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF), have dismissed the movement as “politically motivated”. They allege that the strike is backed by opposition parties such as the Indian National Congress (INC) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in an attempt to destabilise the state government. The state government has also tried to shift the blame to the central government.

The KAHWA strike is not an isolated case in its call for the right to decent work and fair wages. In recent years, Kerala has witnessed similar protests from fisherfolk, women civil police officers, farmers, and Indigenous communities, among others.

Silence of the civil society

Increasingly, academics and activists are challenging the prevailing narrative of the Kerala development model, once celebrated for its people and environment-centric approach, arguing that its foundational ideals are being compromised.

J Devika, a feminist Scholar from Kerala, notes the silence of the civil society on this issue:

There are no more public intellectuals, like V R Krishna Iyer or B R P Bhaskar, who could bridge political society and civil society. [..] Our writers, include those who have made a career out of selling women’s pain in middlebrow modernist and other kinds of aesthetic packaging — do not want to displease their consumer-bases, mostly Communist Party (CPM) supporters. Our film-makers are also of the same ilk — they produce really good cinema, crafted from the pain of ordinary people, but will be mostly silent when they cry out in pain. Thiruvananthapuram boasts of the first independent union of women workers, SEWA Kerala, who are, alas, among the silent.

Caught in the crossfire between the state and central governments — amid growing regional instability driven by climate breakdown, geopolitical tensions, and unchecked capitalism — ASHA workers in Kerala and across India face increasingly challenging conditions. Inflation and a deepening debt infrastructure have rendered them highly vulnerable, with little to no institutional safeguards for these essential community care workers.

Resilient protesters

KAHWA members argue that their demands are both reasonable and necessary, especially in light of the state’s substantial spending on public celebrations and wage increases for other sectors, such as workers within the Kudumbashree programme (poverty reduction and women's empowerment). While initially hurt and shocked by the government’s indifference and public slander, the ASHA workers have drawn strength from months of collective organising and the solidarity extended by global trade unions, civil society organisations, national people’s movements, women’s unions, medical professionals, and independent media. This support has renewed their resolve to continue their resistance.

At the failed minister-level negotiations, the strike organisers have remained steadfast in their demands, even as dominant, male-led, left-leaning trade unions such as the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU) and the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) align with the government and exert pressure to break the strike. Despite the union's outreach efforts, public sentiment remains divided, with popular narratives continuing to question KAHWA’s motives and the legitimacy of their demands.

On June 17, the union will conclude its 45-day-long statewide protest march in Thiruvananthapuram. Since May 5, they have organised over a hundred public gatherings across Kerala, mobilised thousands of supporters, and maintained a visible presence in public spaces through sustained protest camps.

Despite repeated claims that the union is corrupt or politically motivated, no evidence has been presented over the past three months to substantiate these allegations. The ASHA strike has exposed deep fault lines within the state’s ideological framework and governance approach, serving as a warning sign for the Left. As internationally acclaimed author and activist Arundhati Roy mentioned in a solidarity statement:

Today, as governments all over the world swing to the far right… I hope that in my Kerala the people as well as the government will support the demand of the ASHA workers. I stand with them.

The director of ‘Golos,’ a Russian movement of volunteers observing the elections, was sentenced to five years in a penal colony

Originally published on Global Voices

Screenshot from the YouTube video of the trial of Grigory Melkonyants. DW Russian YouTube channel. Fair use.

At the Basmanny District Court of Moscow, the trial against the co-chair of the election observer movement Golos, Grigory Melkonyants, accused of organizing the work of an “undesirable” organization, came to an end. On May 14, Judge Evgenia Nikolaeva of the Basmanny District Court sentenced him to five years in a general-regime penal colony. Golos published his final statement, which has been translated and edited for clarity by Global Voices. 

Your Honor, esteemed participants in the proceedings, dear friends.

Today is a joyful day for me. With the approach of the verdict, our trial is drawing to a close. This has been an enthralling experience. I have listened to wonderful, sometimes emotional, words spoken by people who testified as witnesses; I have read letters filled with warmth and received astonishing postcards. At times, it felt like a true celebration — as though I were a guest of honor at a jubilee, and not a defendant.

Twenty-one months ago, on August 17, 2023, a new and captivating chapter of my life began. Since then, I have passed through a search, an arrest, a temporary detention facility, three pre-trial detention centers, twelve cells, over a hundred cellmates, and twenty-six court sessions. I value this experience deeply, for it came at a great cost. But above all, it granted me the chance to remember my path and to discover much about a world to which I had not previously paid enough attention.

I have seen how prison destroys people’s lives by depriving them of joy and, thus, of happiness. For the joy of life is true happiness.

Do not be surprised by this word — “joy.” One might ask, what joy could there be in my situation, in the gloom of prison confinement, when for months you do not see your family, your friends, your colleagues? It is the joy that comes from the fact that, passing through this trial, I have become stronger and have not lost my faith in the cause to which I have dedicated my entire life.

Here, in captivity, I have met many people whom I likely never would have encountered in ordinary life — people with varied life experiences, different levels of education, and convicted under all manner of articles. Every day, we must find ways to agree on how to live together: how to organize chores in the cell, whether or not to air it out, where to get a refrigerator or a kettle. In essence, we are constantly holding small referenda and arriving at consensus.

What helps me greatly in prison is that I am an optimist — in any situation, I try to find something good, and I strive to support others. In this, I feel akin to the heroine of a novel, the orphan girl Pollyanna. Her father, a minister, taught her the “happiness game” — to find in everything something to rejoice over and seek grounds for optimism — and from then on, she taught the game to everyone around her. This does not mean one must deny problems, but rather that one should seek ways to resolve them and extract useful experience from them.

Try playing the “happiness game” yourselves, because, if you think about it, each of us has only the present moment we are living in, and there is no other time when life would not be this moment. And it does not matter where you are at this moment: at home or in exile, on vacation or at work, in an apartment or in a traffic jam, at a polling station or in a prison cell — this very moment must be lived with joy and with a positive spirit. There is only the now, which is why it is called “the present.”

Thus, the period of imprisonment has been, for me, both as a person and as a lawyer, a very fruitful one. I have turned to creativity: I began drawing, making collages and crafts, writing poetry. I have looked anew at people, at relationships, at processes.

I have begun to take greater pleasure in the flow of life itself — in labor, in creativity, in intellectual freedom. For a person may be locked away, but thought cannot be locked, cannot be stopped, cannot be taken away. My journey cannot be taken away, nor can what has been and remains my world. Perhaps to someone it may seem dull, but without just laws and clear, meaningful procedures, the kind of society we all dream of is impossible. I think about this constantly, and I am certain I am not alone. What unites us is an unshakable drive to think, to reflect on what can make the world better, and the will to make our own small contribution.

But let us consider joy from another angle. Can one feel true joy from deception, from fabrication, from the persecution of an innocent person? What joy can there be in pursuing this case? A case that should have fallen apart even at the preliminary review stage. A case no one wanted to open, tossed from one agency to another. A case not built on evidence, but on assumptions and the investigative authorities’ ignorance of the basics of civil, administrative, and criminal law. A case that has seen eight different investigators. This injustice — the persecution of an innocent person — is precisely what drains the joy from those entangled in it.

But I bear no malice toward anyone. The ability to forgive and let go of the bad, even in situations where one feels incapable of doing so, makes forgiveness a joyful moment in life.

Honorable Court,

The investigators have constructed a unique situation. For the first time in our country’s history, they wish to designate as the scene of a crime the hall of the Central Election Commission of Russia, and to declare a person who spoke there as an expert, a criminal.

As a lawyer, I do not understand why I am here, and why I stand accused in this case. And more importantly, I do not understand why it is I who must prove my innocence, rather than the investigators proving my guilt, as required by Article 49 of the Constitution of Russia. This case lacks the very occurrence of a crime. Yet I am compelled to prove a negative fact: that the “Golos” movement is not a structural subdivision of the international organization ENEMO, whose activities have been deemed undesirable in Russia; and to prove that I did not organize ENEMO’s activities by speaking at a roundtable in the Central Election Commission.

Ultimately, it was state authorities and stubborn facts that helped prove my innocence. From the first official response of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, it follows that ENEMO has no structural subdivisions in our country. From the second response of the Ministry of Justice, it is clear that the activities of the Golos movement were never declared undesirable. Nor were there any judicial or other decisions banning or restricting the activities of Golos. Finally, the fact that ENEMO and Golos are two different organizations is confirmed by the decisions of competent state authorities, who included them in two separate registries: ENEMO, in the list of organizations whose activities are deemed undesirable, and Golos, in the registry of so-called “foreign agents.”

It turns out that the entire prosecution is built on unfounded and unreliable information provided by operatives, lacking any evidentiary value, and on the subsequent fabrication of conclusions that distort the content of documents submitted to the case.

At this point, the constitutional guarantee must take effect — the principle that irreconcilable doubts regarding a person’s guilt shall be interpreted in favor of the accused, which must inevitably lead to an acquittal. Let it be that today, such verdicts account for only 0.26 percent across the entire country. But that means they are possible, and that not always, when passing judgment, does the court operate under the assumption that guilt is a foregone conclusion.

Friends!

I am a citizen of Russia. I love my country, and I hold my constitutional rights and freedoms in the highest regard. I am sincerely grateful to our forebears for these hard-won gains. Today, rights and freedoms may appear commonplace, but how differently they are perceived in prison, and how sharply one comes to understand here that it is not enough to win them once, with sweat and blood, they must be continually defended and upheld.

That is why I found great joy in working on proposals to ensure electoral rights under the conditions of pre-trial detention. For instance, how can an inmate, under conditions of isolation, sign in support of a candidate’s nomination? How can one make a donation to a campaign fund? How can one receive election materials from candidates? How should an inmate’s identity be properly verified when receiving a ballot? How can extraterritorial voting be ensured? How can effective observation be introduced? All of this is critically important because a person held in pre-trial detention retains the full range of voting rights until they are sentenced and sent to serve a term. This is often forgotten. Over these months of focused observation and reflection, I have managed to find many good solutions.

I do not know how long my imprisonment will last, but I am certain that sooner or later I will be free and reunited with my loved ones and friends. And the anticipation of that fills my heart with joy. I am happy that, even in prison, I can speak with my mother by phone, exchange letters with good people, meet with my attorneys, and continue to engage in the work I believe in.

Of course, I am deeply concerned for the fate of the Golos movement, to which I have devoted 12 years of my life. I cannot know what will become of it after the verdict is rendered. But I do know that over these years, hundreds of thousands of educated and honest people have become election observers. These thousands of my fellow citizens, while I have been behind bars, have not wasted time. They have continued, with great benefit to our country, to defend voting rights and monitor elections. During this time, nearly nine thousand electoral campaigns have taken place across Russia. This is a unique experience of citizen self-organization, an inspiring example of civic virtue. And I am filled with joy to be part of this community.

There are those who doubt whether honest elections are possible, who wonder whether participation is worthwhile. These are fair questions. In moments of doubt, one should not forget that human beings are imperfect — and so, too, are elections. In elections, we see revealed all the human flaws that we struggle with throughout our lives. Each of us, every day, makes choices between kindness and cruelty, love and hatred, loyalty and betrayal, strength and weakness, generosity and greed, truth and falsehood, optimism and apathy, humility and pride, sincerity and self-interest, joy and despair, engagement and indifference.

To make the right choices — to raise the level of honesty and common sense — this is our path. Elections cannot make themselves honest. Honest elections are made by people. By happy people. Observe. Participate. Rejoice more in life, raise the level of honesty and common sense — drop by drop, step by step, day by day.

Thank you for listening to me so patiently. In closing, I want to express from the bottom of my heart my gratitude to my family, my defenders, my colleagues, and the many kind people who support me and do not allow me to face injustice alone. To me, this means that what I have done is needed and important to people, and that it has not been in vain.

Thank you!

Russia amplifies framing of protests as coup attempts and part of Western interference against sovereignty of Serbia, Slovakia and Georgia

Originally published on Global Voices

Protest in Belgrade, Serbia. Photo by CRTA, used with permission.

This collaborative article by the teams of Istinomer (Serbia), Demagog (Slovakia), and FactCheck (Georgia) originally appeared at Istinomer (Truth-O-Meter), a fact-checking initiative of the Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA). An edited and updated version is published below as part of a content-sharing agreement with Global Voices.

Protests have erupted across Georgia, Slovakia, and Serbia, each fueled by distinct political crises but met with strikingly similar manipulative narratives from their governments. Despite the differences in local contexts, the ruling parties in all three countries deploy parallel rhetorical tactics to discredit protesters, delegitimize criticism, and consolidate their power.

In the political scene of these countries we are seeing governments that are openly distancing themselves from the EU, leaning toward Russia, or doing so less openly while employing Russian propaganda tactics. Mass protests by dissatisfied citizens on one side are pit against politicians in power who seem to be using the same playbook (and narratives from Russia’s playbook). Phrases about a color revolution, traditional values, the “evil” West, and Maidan (referring to Ukrainian Euromaidan uprising of 2013), are being repeated.

Foreign interference and the ‘Color Revolution’ playbook

In all three countries, governments frame protests as foreign-instigated attempts at a “color revolution.” The tactic is not new, but has resurfaced with renewed intensity.

In Georgia, the ruling Georgian Dream party accuses the West and international organizations such as USAID and NED of inciting a “Maidan-style” coup through local agents — NGOs and activists. For example, Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze has accused domestic critics of being “agents of the Global War Party” who tried to overthrow the government and drag Georgia into war with Russia four times since 2022.

In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico claims the protests are backed by foreign actors, including the Ukrainian intelligence service and the Georgian Legion, linking demonstrations to the Maidan uprising in Ukraine.

In Serbia, President Aleksandar Vučić revives 1990s rhetoric, portraying protesters as Western mercenaries aiming for a foreign-backed coup. He dismisses student demonstrations as a covert attempt at destabilization, also framing the protests as “color revolution.”

Delegitimizing protesters and denying agency

Another common tactic is the portrayal of protesters as puppets of foreign agendas, stripping them of personal agency and genuine grievances.

In Georgia, demonstrators against the Russian-style foreign agents law are painted as radicals, “liberal-fascists,” “LGBTQ+ activists” and anti-church agitators, accused of spreading “Western propaganda.” Protesters are also called “homeland-less” (meaning that their loyalties lie in other countries, rather than to Georgia) and “foreign agents.”

In Slovakia, the government propagates the false claim that one-third of protesters are Ukrainian nationals bussed in by the opposition.

In Serbia, the government weaponizes nationalism, accusing students of being Croatian spies and framing protests as a plot to separate Vojvodina from Serbia.

Fear, conspiracy, and hybrid warfare

All three governments lean on fear-based messaging, framing protests as precursors to violence and chaos.

Georgian authorities, including the State Security Service, warn of a foreign intelligence-backed violent coup, which will be followed by a war with Russia. Pro-government channels amplify conspiracies tying protests to Western plots to open a second front against Russia in Georgia. Without producing any evidence, Georgian officials systematically accuse international organizations of foreign interference and violating Georgia’s sovereignty by funding local CSOs and watchdogs, as well as the protests. 

Russia amplifies Georgian ruling party's framing of protests as coup attempts which will be followed by a war with Russia. Head of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Sergey Naryshkin stated that “Tbilisi is facing another attempted color revolution, or rather, a coup d’état” similar to “previous brazen attempts to destabilize Belarus and Kazakhstan that failed.”

In Slovakia, bomb threats and cyberattacks are linked to protesters without evidence, fueling the narrative that demonstrations are part of a larger destabilization effort.

Slovakian government is using a narrative of foreign interference and parallels with color revolutions, aiming to delegitimize the demonstrations and portray the opposition as part of a broader conspiracy against the state. Prime minister Fico blamed a shadowy “group of experts who had participated in protests in Georgia and Ukraine,” has been destabilizing the country. Fico and Interior Minister Šutaj Eštok also implied foreign interference from Ukraine, claiming significant portion (one third, sometimes even one half) of the protesters were Ukrainians, imported by buses by opposition parties (STVR).

Serbian officials and pro-government media spread conspiracy theories that the Novi Sad canopy collapse— a tragic accident — was an act of diversion aimed at destabilizing the country. They also claimed that protests are destroying the economy of Serbia.

Vladimir Đukanović, a MP from the ruing Serbian Progressive Party, blamed watchdog civil society organizations Trag and CRTA for “preparing chaos and a color revolution in Serbia,” while being as “financed by an organized criminal group, USAID, which used money from drug trafficking covering Mexican cartels.” After Serbian Parliament Speaker Ana Brnabić referred to the protests as a “well-coordinated action from abroad,” ​media outlets aired comparisons with protests against Russian President Vladimir Putin, suggesting that the opposition aimed to “overthrow the government using a Ukrainian-style approach” orchestrated by “the same centers of power.”

Aligning with global authoritarian trends

The narratives in all three countries mirror broader authoritarian trends. Terms like “deep state,” “foreign agents,” and “color revolutions” have become tools to smear opponents and justify crackdowns on civil society.

The overlap in narratives across Georgia, Slovakia, and Serbia is not coincidental but a shared authoritarian playbook that weaponizes disinformation and fear to suppress dissent. While each country faces its unique political challenges, the echoing rhetoric underscores a global trend of democratic backsliding.

What is really going on lately in these three countries?

In early November 2024, a canopy collapsed at the Novi Sad railway station, resulting in the deaths of 15 people. After that, protests against corruption have been ongoing across Serbia for over three months, led by students. In parallel, teachers, students, and graduates have continued protests and school blockades nationwide. By the end of January 2025, over 416 cities and villages have witnessed protest actions.  Public opinion survey conducted by CRTA in February showed that approximately 80 percent of Serbians support the student demands, with a third of the population participating in protests.

International watchdog Freedom House warned that Serbia has experienced its sharpest decline in democracy and human rights in the past decade. Amnesty International recently uncovered Serbia’s extensive use of surveillance technologies like NSO Group’s Pegasus spyware and a newly disclosed domestic Android NoviSpy system to suppress civil society. President Vučić, continues to function as a “spin dictator,” (authoritarian ruler that allows some democratic expression while overwhelmingly suppressing dissent), while the media continue to focus on him as a central figure, shaping his cult of personality, while spreading anti-Western narratives.

After Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico’s unannounced meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow in December 2024, a wave of public outrage erupted, leading to protests. The backlash intensified following remarks by the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, later endorsed by Fico himself, that Slovakia should not rule out the possibility of exiting the European Union. In response, protest organizers mobilized demonstrations to reaffirm Slovakia’s commitment to EU membership.

Protest in Slovakia. Photo by Demagog.sk, used with permission via CRTA.

Protests are taking place in more than 50 cities across various regions of Slovakia. The largest protest, on February 7, 2025, saw more than 100,000 people take to the streets: 45,000 in Bratislava, 20,000 in Košice, 8,000 in Banská Bystrica, as well as many smaller cities that do not have a tradition of organizing protests.

The protests are organized every second Friday by the organization Mier Ukrajine (Peace to Ukraine). They initially began as a reaction to Prime Minister Fico’s visit to Moscow but later expanded to express broader societal dissatisfaction with the government’s actions. Protesters demand that the prime minister stop attempting to change Slovakia’s foreign policy orientation, questioning its membership in the EU and NATO, and seeking cooperation with Russia. They also call for an end to attacks on Ukraine and demand the prime minister’s resignation.

In June 2022, mass demonstrations erupted after Georgia failed to secure EU candidate status. In February 2023, the ruling party introduced a Russian-style “foreign agents” law, widely seen as incompatible with international human rights standards on freedom of expression and association and to the 78th article of Georgian Constitution, which obliges all constitutional bodies to take all measures within the scope of their competences to ensure the full integration of Georgia into the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Due to protests and international condemnation, the draft law was retracted. However, in April 2024, the ruling party re-introduced it after promising it would not do so. Despite months of protests throughout Georgia, condemnation from Western partners, violent crackdowns on demonstrators, and a presidential veto, the law was ultimately passed in June, 2024.

Protests reignited after the October 26 parliamentary elections, but it was the Georgian Dream's statement on November 28 that ignited protests that have persisted since. The party declared that it would “not put the agenda of opening the accession negotiations with the EU before the end of 2028. Also, until the end of 2028, we reject any budget support grant from the EU” — effectively halting Georgia’s EU integration process.

Protest Tbilisi 21 April 2024. Image by Jelger Groeneveld via Flickr. CC BY 2.0.

People came out en masse in front of the parliament in Tbilisi and authorities responded by cracking down on protesters and journalists, arresting and beating them. Since the protests, the Georgian Dream has adopted several repressive laws increasing fines on protesters, making it easier to fire civil servants, expanding the scope of political appointments in civil service, expanding the scope for extrajudicial detention, and simplifying new recruitment into the police force.

Recently, the ruling party introduced further legislation aimed at censoring independent media and stifling civil society organizations. Despite the increasing authoritarianism, the protesters continue to demand snap elections and release of political prisoners.

Patience's story is part of a broader generational shift toward climate action

Originally published on Global Voices

Patience Nabukalu giving a speech in Amsterdam. Photo by Patience Nabukalu. Used with permission.

By Jacob Weissman

In the heart of East Africa, where the fertile green of Uganda’s countryside meets the resilient spirit of its people, a battle is unfolding — not one of arms or armies, but of resistance, resilience, and voices refusing to be silenced. At the center of this struggle is Patience Nabukalu, a 27-year-old Ugandan climate activist, whose dedication to environmental justice has become a powerful symbol of youth-led resistance to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The controversial oil pipeline

A map of the proposed oil pipeline which would run from Uganda to the Tanzanian coast. Image from Wikicommons. CC BY-SA 4.0

The EACOP, a controversial USD 5 billion project, is poised to become the world’s longest heated oil pipeline, stretching 1,443 kilometers (896.64 miles) from the oil fields of western Uganda to the Tanzanian port of Tanga. It is being constructed by a consortium led by the French oil giant TotalEnergies and the China National Offshore Oil Corporation, with the backing of the Ugandan and Tanzanian governments. The pipeline is designed to transport 216,000 barrels of crude oil per day, cutting through more than 400 villages and posing grave threats to water systems, farmland, and wildlife corridors.

Opposition to EACOP has grown in both intensity and scale. Environmental experts warn of the pipeline’s potential to emit up to 379 million metric tons of CO over its 25-year lifespan — more than the annual emissions of some industrialized nations. The pipeline’s route also crosses ecologically sensitive areas, including Murchison Falls National Park and the Lake Victoria Basin, home to tens of millions of people who depend on it for drinking water and agriculture.

Patience Nabukalu’s work and motivation

For Patience, these aren’t abstract concerns — they are lived realities. She grew up witnessing the degradation of natural resources in her community and felt the weight of climate inaction from a young age. In response, she emerged as a powerful voice in the Fridays for Future movement, inspired by Greta Thunberg but firmly grounded in the context of the Global Majority. Her activism blends deep local knowledge with a global perspective, and she has become a key figure in Uganda’s climate resistance.

Patience protesting on Climate Emergency Day. Photo by Patience Nabukalu. Used with permission.

Patience’s work with groups such as Fridays for Future Uganda and Rise Up Movement has led her to organize protests, give public talks, and engage in cross-border collaborations. One of her central missions is to raise awareness of the human cost of fossil fuel development in Africa — a cost that is too often ignored in the boardrooms of the Global North. In Uganda, activism comes with risks. Peaceful climate protesters have been arrested, harassed, and even beaten. The government’s close alliance with oil interests means dissent is not always tolerated.

Gaining international traction for climate activism work

Despite this, Patience refuses to be silent. She has brought her message to the international stage, participating in climate conferences such as COP26 and COP27, where she delivered powerful speeches about the realities communities like hers are facing. “I believe in people power,” she said.

We want solutions, not promises. We want implementations, not pledges.

Her speeches are marked by a rare combination of personal authenticity and strategic clarity. Rather than simply reacting to crises, Patience and her fellow activists are helping reframe the conversation around climate change. They emphasize the injustice of countries that contribute the least to global emissions being the ones most vulnerable to its consequences. For Patience, climate action must go hand in hand with equity, land rights, and democratic accountability.

Through her involvement with Young Planet Leaders and other youth coalitions, Patience is part of a rising tide of activists who are not only resisting harmful projects like EACOP but also proposing alternative futures. These young leaders are using technology, storytelling, and nonviolent direct action to shift the narrative and mobilize support. They are not waiting for permission to lead — they are already leading.

The campaign against EACOP, organized in part under the banner of #StopEACOP, has also gained traction internationally. Environmental NGOs, legal experts, and faith-based organizations have joined forces to challenge the project in court, pressure financial institutions, and raise global awareness. More than two dozen banks and insurance companies have already ruled out financing the pipeline due to reputational risk and climate concerns. Yet the project moves forward, bolstered by state support and new financiers from China and the Middle East.

A web of uncertainties

Meanwhile, on the ground in Uganda and Tanzania, many villagers remain caught in a web of uncertainty. Some have already been displaced or lost farmland to the pipeline. Others live with the fear of what will come. While compensation was promised for those who lost their land, it had been delayed, and some communities report a lack of transparency and consultation. It is in these vulnerable spaces that activists like Patience do their most vital work — educating, organizing, and giving voice to those who have been marginalized.

Her story is part of a broader shift — a generational uprising rooted in love for the Earth and anger at the exploitation of its people. Youth movements in the Global Majority are increasingly defining the future of climate activism, not as victims or side players, but as central protagonists. They are confronting not only fossil fuel dependency but also the legacy of colonialism, extractive capitalism, and political repression.

The fight against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline is emblematic of a larger, global reckoning. It forces society to ask: Who pays the price for progress? Who gets to decide what development looks like? And can we truly speak of climate solutions without listening to those on the frontlines?

As the world grapples with the accelerating climate emergency, people like Patience Nabukalu offer not only critique but vision. Her leadership is a reminder that another world is possible — and that it is being fought for right now, with courage, clarity, and boundless resolve.

The government continues to target independent journalists without pause

Originally published on Global Voices

Image by Arzu Geybullayeva, created using Canva Pro.

Ulviyya Guliyeva, or Ulviyya Ali as she is known among her friends, is the 25th journalist to have been sent behind bars in Azerbaijan in a vicious assault on independent and opposition-aligned media that started in November 2023.

The journalist, who reported for Voice of America until February this year, and is known for her coverage of rights violations, freedom of expression, and social injustice stories, anticipated her arrest. She has shared a personal note with friends whom she instructed to publish in case something happened to her. “As all my colleagues [sent behind bars], I have committed no crime,” read the note that has now been shared across social media platforms by Guliyeva's friends and colleagues. The journalist is facing the same charges that have been leveled against all previously arrested journalists — smuggling foreign currency. The police claimed they found over EUR 6,000 in cash in her flat, which they had ransacked. Guliyeva has refuted the charges as bogus and vowed to continue her journalism from behind bars.

November 2023 until now

Since November 2023, the state has targeted several online media platforms, arresting reporters, hacking their social media accounts, removing their online content, and denying that the country silences freedom of expression, even as the country ranks 167th out of 180 countries on Reporters Without Borders’ most recent Press Freedom Index.

It started with Abzas Media. The investigative journalism platform had its entire Baku-based newsroom imprisoned on false charges of currency smuggling. This was followed by incidents involving Kanal 13 and, later, Toplum TV, an online news channel. Toplum TV’s office was stormed by the police, leading to the detention of staff, the confiscation of equipment, and the sealing of the building.

The arrests targeted not just journalists but cleared a broader space of civic and political activists, just in time, prior to hosting the COP29 summit last November.

In December 2024, just a month after COP29, Meydan TV, an online news outlet covering Azerbaijan, was targeted with arrests, with its entire newsroom sent behind bars on spurious currency smuggling charges.

Since then, several independent journalists who remained in the country have been arrested and placed under pre-trial investigation as part of the criminal inquiry opened against Meydan TV. Among them, Fatima Movlamli, Nurlan Gahraman and Shamshad Aghayev.

The same day Guliyeva faced arrest, another civic activist, Ahmad Mammadli, was also arrested. Mammadli was the chair of Democracy 1918, a now-defunct pro-democracy movement. Three months ago, he started a YouTube channel, Yoldash, where he shared stories focusing on labour and human rights issues in the country. Both were subjected to police violence. Guliyeva reportedly received several blows to her head, and Mammadli was severely beaten and electroshocked, all because they both refused to give up passwords to their devices.

“At that moment, the frail policeman standing over me started punching me in the head. Every time I said ‘I don’t know,’ he would punch me in the head. By that point, he punched me five times in the back of the head, twice in the middle. And twice he hit me on the temple with his finger,” wrote Guliyeva in a personal letter from pretrial detention facility about how she was detained, then arrested, the interrogation and the police violence she was subject to during interrogation. “Once they saw I was not going to give up the passwords, they started pulling my hair in different directions, pulling it out. The frail policeman said: ‘Bring me an electric shock.’ They brought something and put it on the table. When I didn’t give them the passwords, the frail policeman said, ‘I’ll violate your womanhood.’ My heart was in my mouth at these words. We have long seen and heard what the Azerbaijani police are ‘capable of.’ The Azerbaijani police abuse people, beat them, and commit illegal acts. Little did I know, the Azerbaijani police can abuse and rape a woman,” wrote Guliyeva.

In 2017, the Azerbaijani penitentiary service was granted over one million euros as part of a reform package designed and funded by the European Union and the Council of Europe. This is on top of 23 million euros provided since 2014 to finance development programs meant to generate “capacity building of the judicial system,” “training for staff,” “increased oversight of prison conditions,” and “action to improve transparency and prevent corruption,” among others according to reporting by Forbidden Stories and publicly available documents.

In February 2025, during the second local steering committee meeting of the EU and the Council of Europe's Partnership for Good Governance program, stakeholders, including Azerbaijan government representatives, reviewed the past year's achievements, discussed challenges and solutions, and planned activities for 2025. The Council of Europe announced that the initiative underscored the commitment of national authorities to cooperate and align domestic reforms with European standards. They reported that “four country-specific projects are implemented in Azerbaijan, with a total budget of 2.5 million euros, co-funded by the EU and the Council of Europe.” These projects aim “to promote mediation in justice, prevent and fight economic crime, promote equality, and prevent and combat violence against women and domestic violence.”

And yet, ill-treatment and torture in prisons in Azerbaijan are not uncommon. Instances of mistreatment have been repeatedly documented by local journalists as well as by the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT), which issued a statement in July 2024, citing the outright refusal of the Azerbaijani authorities to cooperate with the CPT and the zero action taken by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan to end ill-treatment and even of torture by police officers. CPT also published a report in response to the lack of action.

According to “Article 11 of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the [country] report relating to a visit remains confidential until the authorities of the state concerned request its publication. There is no legal obligation for the state to publish the report.” CPT published the 2022 report two years later anyway in light of on-going torture and ill-treatment allegations.

On April 25, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas traveled to Baku and met with President Ilham Aliyev, Minister of Foreign Affairs Jeyhun Bayramov and a group of Young European Ambassadors from Azerbaijan. While they praised partnerships, there was no mention of the country’s track record on rights and freedoms — suggesting that Kallas has failed to use her position to advocate for universal human rights and international law.

The plight of Guliyeva and countless others in prison cells

After Voice of America’s license was revoked in Azerbaijan, Guliyeva said she would continue her journalism work even if she did not find employment. She kept her word and reported from trials she attended. “After other journalists were arrested, people subjected to injustice, violence, or repression would turn to me. I tried to be everyone’s voice. Even without a platform, I continued my work through my Facebook and X profiles. I was exposing the abuses faced by all political prisoners who had been falsely imprisoned,” wrote Guliyeva from prison, in the same letter describing how she was subjected to police violence. Reporting about these issues even after losing her job at Voice of America, she wrote, “undermined [the government's] narrative, that independent journalists and newsrooms were funded by Western stakeholders.”

Ulviyya Guliyeva is now the 11th journalist arrested as part of the Meydan TV investigation. In total, 25 journalists are behind bars, all facing spurious charges of smuggling and a list of other criminal offenses which journalists and the international human rights and press freedom community consider spurious and a vicious assault on independent and free media. On May 20, the prosecutor requested jail sentences ranging from 11 to 12 years for Abzas Media journalists, adding up to 80 years. On the same day, a young scholar and researcher of ethnic minorities, Igbal Abilov, who was arrested in July 2024, was sentenced to 18 years on treason charges. He was accused of making calls against the state based on orders from foreign actors, as well as inciting national, racial, social, or religious hatred and enmity.

An overview on the state of media freedom in Cambodia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia

Originally published on Global Voices

Filipino journalists in Metro Manila held a candle-lighting ceremony to denounce media killings and other attacks against the press. Photo from the Facebook post of Lito Ocampo. Used with permission

Media groups and human rights advocates across Southeast Asia marked World Press Freedom Day (WPFD) by highlighting the threats t0 free speech in their respective countries.

This year’s WPFD theme, “Reporting in the Brave New World – The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Press Freedom and the Media,” highlighted the opportunities and challenges posed by new digital technologies on how journalists fulfill their work in a changing media landscape.

Protecting Cambodia’s independent media

In Cambodia, more than 10 civil society organizations (CSOs) and networks gathered 100 participants in a forum where various stakeholders discussed the country’s state of media freedom.

They cited the Cambodian Journalists Alliance Association's 2024 report which documented 41 cases of harassment involving at least 64 journalists. The report also noted that three media licenses were revoked over the past year.

In a joint statement, CSOs warned that the “ongoing erosion of a free press not only stifles our voices and the voices of the Cambodian people but also undermines the very essence of our democracy.” They issued a list of demands to the government, including the protection of independent media. Their statement read:

Ensure a free, safe, and secure environment — both online and offline — for journalists and media outlets to carry out their work without restriction or fear.

End all forms of harassment against media outlets and journalists reporting on issues of public interest — such as land rights, access to natural resources, and government accountability — which are often unjustly labeled as ‘sensitive.’

The Cambodian Center for Human Rights uploaded a video featuring journalist Sam Oudom who urged authorities to stop harassing independent journalists and to listen to the voices of ordinary citizens.

Malaysia: AI and “authoritarian media control”

In Malaysia, the Centre for Independent Journalism (CIJ) looked into the impact of AI on the local media but it also pointed out the dangerous legacy of “authoritarian media control.”

When economic expediency leads to AI being used as a substitute rather than a support for human-driven journalism, the public suffers the loss of contextual, ground-level reporting essential for participatory democracy.

Nevertheless, AI is not the only root of the problems plaguing Malaysia’s media landscape. It lies in decades of authoritarian media control, opaque ownership structures, and legal harassment and intimidation.

CIJ pressed for the review and overhaul of laws that are often weaponized against critics and critical journalists such as Sedition Act 1948, Section 233 of the amended Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, and the recently passed Online Safety Act 2024.

CIJ expressed hope that the passage of the Malaysian Media Council (MMC) Bill “marks a potential turning point” in improving the media situation.

WPFD 2025 is a call to action. Malaysia must move beyond symbolic improvements and invest in real, structural change. AI must be harnessed ethically, not as a cost-cutting replacement, but as a tool that complements and elevates public interest journalism. The MMC must be empowered to protect media freedom, and journalists must be supported, not silenced.

In a statement, Vilasini Vijandran, the interim executive director of Amnesty International Malaysia, criticized the incumbent Madani government for reneging on its pledge to reverse the censorship of artists and journalists.

Amnesty International Malaysia warns of growing authoritarianism and increasing repression in the country.

“The Madani government’s actions in 2024 have not only failed to reverse long-standing restrictions on free speech but have actively escalated threats to such rights.”

1 pic.twitter.com/VVG6QyFloC

— BFM News (@NewsBFM) April 29, 2025

Philippines: An “enduring culture of impunity”

In the Philippines, the number of media killings has decreased, but the attacks against journalists have worsened based on the monitoring of the Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility (CMFR) and the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP). In a recent report, they recorded 184 press freedom incidents during the first three years of the incumbent Marcos administration. This represented an increase from the 128 cases during the first half of the previous government.

CMFR asserted that “media freedom and its full practice must proceed in an environment free of the fear of reprisal.” With regard to the reduced number of media killings under the Marcos presidency, it stated that the low rate of conviction and the low number of cases taken to court “are clear signals of the enduring culture of impunity.”

The recent killing of an 89-year-old journalist and publisher was flagged by media watchdogs including the Committee to Protect Journalists as a cause for concern.

The fatal shooting of Juan Dayang, one of the Philippines’ most prominent news publishers, shows that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s government hasn’t done enough to stop the killers of journalists. Authorities must leave no stone unturned in identifying his killers, uncovering their motive, and bringing them to justice.

NUJP added that, “the recent incidents show that our struggle for press freedom, media safety, and our sector’s job security and economic rights continues.” CMFR‘s statement summed up the role of media in society: “Without a free and fearless press, democracy dies in silence.”

Indonesia: Attacks on the student press

In Indonesia, the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) recorded 38 cases of violence against journalists in the first five months of the year, more than half of the 73 incidents reported in 2024.

In an interview with The Jakarta Post, AJI secretary-general Bayu Wardhana shared the difficulties journalists often encounter in their work in Indonesia.

The media are often obstructed when seeking information, directed to cover only what those in power want, banned from covering violent acts of law enforcement when dispersing protesters and pushed to act as a public relations tool for the government.

Meanwhile, the Indonesian Student Press Association (PPMI) revealed that from 2013 to 2021, there were 331 cases of violence against the student press perpetrated by campus and local authorities.

AJI chairperson Nani Afrida said in a seminar sponsored by PPMI that contrary to the report of the Press Council, “the reality on the ground shows a gloomier picture.” Nany added that the student press also faced constant attacks.

The future challenges are becoming more complex. On one hand, we face harmful content, hoaxes, disinformation, misinformation, hate speech, and others, but on the other hand, student press also becomes the target of censorship, institutional pressure, and even digital attacks.

A battle over the definition of the political system

Originally published on Global Voices

Image by Global Voices on Canva Pro.

This story is part of Undertones, Global Voices’ Civic Media Observatory‘s newsletter. Subscribe to Undertones.

On May 2, 2025, Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) officially designated the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) as a “proven right-wing extremist organization.” The classification followed an internal report that concluded the party fosters anti-immigrant sentiment, racism, and Islamophobia and actively undermines Germany’s democratic order.

The BfV’s designation permits authorities to use tactics to watch the party and its members, including recruiting AfD members and those connected to the party as confidential informants, known as “trusted persons.” It also allows for telecommunications monitoring in specific situations.

Germany’s far-right AfD party launched a counteroffensive on May 5, 2025, challenging its designation as a right-wing extremist organization and accusing the BfV of violating the constitution by seeking to criminalize what the AfD argues were legitimate expressions of opinion and criticism of Germany’s immigration policy over the past decade. In a statement, the party co-chairs, Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, said that with their lawsuit, they were “sending a clear signal against the abuse of state power to combat and exclude the opposition.”

After receiving the AfD’s lawsuit, the BfV followed a so-called “standstill commitment” (Stillhaltezusage), putting its official reclassification of the AfD as a right-wing extremist party on hold. The action, part of the due process of Germany, which gives the court time to conduct a proper review, was classified as a victory by the AfD.

The debate around the classification of AfD arose simultaneously with conservative leader Friedrich Merz, from the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), trying and barely securing the parliamentary vote to become Germany’s chancellor after an unprecedented failure in the first voting round.

Narrative: Germany is a tyranny in disguise

The people asserting this narrative frame, mostly AfD politicians and supporters, believe that the classification of the AfD as a right-wing extremist organization by the BfV is evidence of the decline of Germany's democracy.

Publicly, the AfD seeks to maintain a clear distinction between itself and Neo-Nazi organizations. Yet investigative reports showcase that the party retains relations with such organizations, and one of its current co-chairs, Alice Weidel, has been linked to Nazi heritage.

The BfV’s classification of AfD is not the first effort against the alleged unconstitutional activities of the AfD and its affiliates. Three years before, on March 22, the administrative court of Cologne had ruled that the BfV could apply such a classification. On May 13, 2024, the Münster administrative court confirmed the decision of the lower court in Cologne, permitting the BfV to classify the AfD as extremist and allowing the domestic intelligence service to keep monitoring the opposition party.

In December 2022, German police arrested 25 members of the Reichsbürger movement for plotting a monarchist coup. Among them was a former far-right AfD parliament member. Another ex-AfD lawmaker went on trial in January 2022 for inciting the overthrow of the state and participating in the 2020 protests against COVID-19 measures at the German parliament.

In January 2024, Correctiv, the nonprofit investigative journalism newsroom based in Essen and Berlin, shared an investigation on a meeting held in November 2023, where members of AfD met with a far-right network. The topics discussed at the meeting reveal a plan for forced deportations of millions of people currently living in Germany and address the issue of “ethnic vote” — foreigners who can vote and would likely support immigration-friendly parties. At the encounter, the participants also discussed an agenda to set a favorable climate, including propaganda tactics questioning elections and discrediting the constitutional court. One of the AfD attendees, Roland Hartwig, personal aide to party leader Alice Weidel, indicated the party board was willing to discuss the topics covered at the meeting.

In addition to significant voter approval, the AfD has the support of Elon Musk, who has called it a “centrist” party and has used X to promote party leader Alice Weidel, calling on Germans to forget Hitler and Nazi crimes.

How this narrative is shared online

Narrative: Germany’s democratic freedom protections are not unconditional

Those asserting this frame consider that under the basis of Germany’s commonly referred to in English as militant/defensive democracy doctrine (“Wehrhafte Demokratie” in German, also translated as resilient democracy), those who attack the fundamental democratic order must face resistance from the country’s institutions, as democracy must protect itself. They consider that the BfV's classification of the AfD as an extremist far-right organization is within the scope of action of Germany’s defensive democracy and, consequently, is coherent with the country's values.

Germany’s concept of resilient democracy emerged in response to the National Socialists’ efforts to undermine the Weimar Republic. The country’s legal framework gives the BfV the power to conduct efforts and analyze information about possible activities that oppose the democratic constitutional order, threaten the existence or security of Germany or its federal states, endanger Germany’s foreign interests through force or its preparation, or undermine international peace and understanding, especially peaceful relations between nations.

The German government has historically employed constitutional safeguards to limit the influence of parties that threaten democratic principles. In 2024, the far-right extremist National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), now known as Die Heimat, was excluded from state funding for six years. This measure followed prolonged efforts to sanction and ban the party due to its anti-constitutional activities.

How this narrative is asserted online

Even now, tens of millions of people inside Russia receive information from independent media — and that still has real influence.

Originally published on Global Voices

Screenshot of the YouTube video with Tikhon Dzyadko as an anchor from the YouTube channel TV Rain. Fair use.

Since the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine started in February 2022, the last media outlets in Russia that were opposed to the government and the invasion were blocked, and many journalists had to leave the country. Since that time, those outlets started to rely heavily on Western social media platforms, mostly YouTube, and new channels for news and opinion have appeared, which also use those platforms. 

Maxim Kournikov, editor of the Echo of Moscow website working from Berlin, said in an interview on the YouTube channel “Y Gryanul Grem”:

I’d say that independent media, which used to operate in Russia, mostly just changed their geographical location and adjusted their models of work. But in general, independent Russian-language media, which emerged back in the late 1980s in the Soviet Union, are still continuing their work today. I think this media environment is one of the key institutions of civil society. It emerged in time — even before the Russian Federation — and that likely helped it grow strong and influential in the 1990s. Later, despite pressure, especially from Vladimir Putin, who began his rule by cracking down on media, these media outlets kept working. Some of them, especially regional ones and individual journalists, are still active in Russia today. Without social media and new technologies, it would have been much harder to adapt. But even now, tens of millions of people inside Russia receive information from independent media — and that still has real influence.

The Russian government started blocking YouTube in 2024, and, by the first half of 2025, traffic to YouTube from Russia fell to just 20 percent of the previous levels. 

However, contrary to what the opposition journalists believed before, Western platforms had not helped them to get to the Russian audience. As Tikhon Dzyadko, the editor-in-chief of Dozhd (TV Rain) said in an interview to another opposition journalist in exile Dmitry Kolezev: 

I'm not a technical expert, but I'm absolutely convinced that if Big Tech spent a certain amount of resources — primarily intellectual ones — to bypass these blockings, they could easily do it. They just don’t want to. They claim that they’d have to enable some feature in the YouTube app, which is probably already built-in. I think in reality it's a bit more complicated, but still, the people who created and developed such giants as Apple, Google, etc., are obviously more initiative-taking and smarter than those working at Roskomnadzor [the Russian government censorship body] or the Russian Ministry of Justice.

So it’s not about whether they can do it. Sadly, they just don’t want to. All attempts — open letters, conversations in different formats with them or their representatives — have led to nothing over these past three years.

I think they simply don’t care. To be blunt, from what I understand, economically, it’s an insignificant market for them now. It’s a gray zone at best. It’s easier to avoid the hassle — they might have employees or relatives who could be taken hostage, so they just stay away. And that’s, of course, very sad in the context of the fact that almost three years of war and hundreds of thousands of casualties haven’t changed anything in their mindset. It's still: “It doesn't concern me, I won’t get involved.”

Despite YouTube being blocked in Russia, journalists of many political opposition channels on YouTube claim that they have not noticed the drop. Moreover, the fact that Russians are using VPNs to access these channels has grown their monetization on YouTube — at the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Google had cut all the monetization of YouTube for Russia-based accounts. Dzyadko adds:

Strangely enough, the YouTube block in Russia actually helped us financially. Our monetization increased, as it did for everyone targeting a Russian-speaking audience. Many Russians moved to places like the Netherlands, Singapore, the US, Germany, etc., and continued watching us.

Apart from technical problems with access to the Russian-based audience, opposition media also encountered funding issues, when US President Trump’s administration stopped USAID funds. As Russian philanthropist living abroad Boris Zimin said in an interview to an online Russian opposition media Breakfast Show the day USAID funds were frozen, Mikhail Khodorkovsky and he announced they would help NGOs from Ukraine and Russian opposition media and NGOs abroad. Since a lot of them had lost a large part of their funding, these two Russian philanthropists in exile would make up part of the funds they lost, to keep them afloat for 90 days.

This happened over three months ago, and, at the moment, it is not known whether their fund continues doing it.  But, as Boris Zimin said: “We can't replace USAID — those are massive sums, billions.”

At the moment, it is not known which media will stop working altogether after losing US funds. However, many of the outlets have tried to add layers of extra sources of funding. For example, Dozhd (TV Rain), Breakfast Show, and Echo of Moscow (website and YouTube channels that work from Berlin and some from Moscow), are selling their own merch, such as t-shirts or baseball caps, books.  They also organize public meetings or concerts with their speakers and anchors for the Russian speaking audience abroad, selling tickets.  In addition, they urge people to subscribe (but only those abroad, because it is punishable to do so from Russia).

Recently, many media joined a call to help Mediazona, an outlet originally founded by Pussy Riot members, and devoted to human rights and political prisoners of the regime in Russia. Other media and many YouTube journalists had called for donations from listeners, because Mediazona said they would not survive till the end of 2025 unless they get 10,000 monthly subscribers. The campaign is still going on; at the moment the outlet has a bit over 5000 monthly subscribers. 

Dzyadko said in an interview to Kolezev before the USAID cuts were announced:

After the war began and Russian journalists started leaving the country, a huge number of new independent media outlets were created — dozens. Most are small and niche. With less grant money, not all of them will survive. That funding is now declining because a lot was given initially due to the exceptional circumstances of the war. Now, things are scaling back to normal levels. But the number of media outlets relying on that funding is much higher than before. So some niche outlets will have to restructure, merge with larger ones, or close down. That’s not a good development. The more diverse the media landscape, the better. But it’s unavoidable.

Maxim Kournikov described the financial situation of the foreign-based projects of Echo of Moscow:

Like for most exiled media it’s tough. We’re short on funds, but our audience is growing. We’re publishing books, holding events. We recently released a book on US–Russia relations in the 1990s, and soon will publish a book on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church under Gorbachev and Putin. We’re also traveling with lectures.

Dzyadko, on the other hand, highlights that opposition media now, more than ever, needs to rely on its audience for financial support. 

This might sound grandiose, but it's absolutely true: all of Dozhd’s prospects are in the hands of our viewers. When we ask for donations on air and say we operate thanks to you, that’s the absolute truth. Yes, part of the funding comes from international organizations. But that money isn’t forever — it’s inevitably limited. We’ve also started to get some advertising revenue, which is gradually increasing month by month, and that’s great. But what really allows us to plan ahead is knowing that we have our viewers who support us, primarily through recurring donations. That’s what lets us see a future.  

There are millions of Russian-speaking people around the world ready to support media they trust. You need to find the right format and tone to encourage that support — and keep it growing.

The parliament is launching an inquiry into the matter

Originally published on Global Voices

Cullighan Tanda. Source: Facebook

The sudden termination of a prominent radio host from a state-owned media company in Papua New Guinea was described by media groups as a suppression of free speech.

FM100 (Kalang Advertising Limited) host Cullighan Tanda was initially suspended for three weeks after he interviewed opposition politician Allan Bird, who is the governor of East Sepik in Papua New Guinea. Tanda questioned the suspension and expressed “deep concern over the manner in which the disciplinary matter has been executed.” He was subsequently fired from his job.

FM100 is part of Telikom PNG Limited, a state-owned media company.

Neville Choi, president of the country’s Media Council, has condemned the “practice of silencing and suppressing media personnel who work for government-owned media organisations.”

A free, robust, and independent media is an essential pillar of democracy. It is the cornerstone of allowing freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. Being in a position of power and authority gives no one, especially brown-nosing public servants wanting to score brownie points with the sitting government administration, the right to suppress media workers who are only doing their jobs, and doing it well.

Choi mentioned previous cases involving journalists who also faced sanctions for posting critical reports.

In a Facebook post, Bird insisted that he said nothing slanderous or libelous in his interview with Tanda. He called for a “passive protest” by boycotting the businesses of Telikom PNG Limited.

It is frightening the road our country is taking in relation to the ruling cartels actions against journalists.

I am deeply disappointed in the way their management have responded especially when we met his CEO before the show and he could have objected then.

I now make a call on all PNGans to do a passive protest against these actions by government agents.

X (Twitter) user Adrian X uploaded the letter of complaint of Tanda and demanded to know the names of officials who pressured FM100.

The CEO of Kalang Advertising Limited should give us names of these people from the top. Who are they protecting? Why haven't released a press statement on the reasons behind Culligan's suspension and now termination? Something terribly fishy is going on.

Pacific Freedom Forum chair Robert Iroga condemned the firing and asserted the need to uphold editorial independence.

Oversight and management of newsrooms should not lead to muzzling and sacking of journalists, without process or accountability.

Editorial independence is what we get when journalists are allowed to be journalists. This is key to ensuring truth continues to deliver thriving democracies, credible governments, and informed people.

Fiji journalist John Rabuatoka expressed solidarity with Tanda.

When Cullighan asked management to point out any code of conduct he had supposedly breached, he was sacked. No explanation. No transparency. Just silence and censorship. All his boss said was “Pressure from the top”.

This is not just about one journalist, it’s about press freedom under attack in PNG and the Pacific. It is undemocratic for any government to interfere with the media, let alone punish professionals for giving voice to all sides of the story.

The Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Communication has set up an inquiry into the matter. Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape has also ordered a probe and added that he knows nothing about the issue.

Papua New Guinea is ranked 78th in the 2025 Press Freedom Index of Reporters Without Borders.