Digital Democracy at a Crossroads. Key Takeaways from RigthsCon2025

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Education, Featured, Gender, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

RIO DE JANEIRO / ABUJA, Apr 7 2025 (IPS) – In an increasingly digital world, democratic practices are evolving to encompass new forms of participation. Digital democracy – the use of technology to enhance civic action, movement building and access to information – has become a crucial force in shaping local and global political landscapes.

As digital spaces become central to public discourse, civil society’s work is crucial to ensure these spaces remain accessible, open, participatory and resistant to disinformation, censorship and repression.

RightsCon 2025, recently held in Taiwan, offered an opportunity to discuss the current challenges and opportunities at the intersection of tech and human rights.

The digital democracy dilemma

Internet access has expanded among excluded communities, providing new opportunities for civic action and organising for historically excluded communities. But at the same time there’s increasing use of digital surveillance, censorship and algorithmic manipulation by governments and companies with the aim of suppressing dissent and controlling public discourse.

In 2023, the last year for which full data is available, internet penetration in low-income countries grew by three per cent, but this came alongside a record decline in global electoral integrity, with state-backed disinformation campaigns influencing elections in at least 30 countries. This means there’s an urgent need for policies that both enhance digital inclusion and safeguard civic freedoms from technological threats, particularly given that AI use is growing.

Civil society is calling for a global regulatory framework that ensures tech is beneficial for all, while facing the challenge of tech-facilitated attacks on civic freedoms. At the same time, civil society resourcing is shrinking and stigmatising narratives from authoritarian governments spread by tech are on the rise. Meanwhile – as CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines – big-tech corporations focus on protecting their political and profit agendas. This makes spaces for convening and deliberation like RightsCon more vital than ever.

What next?

A global framework is crucial to ensure technology serves the public good and contributes to a more inclusive and equitable society. As digital technologies become deeply embedded in every aspect of governance and civic space, as well as cultural and belief systems, the risks of fragmented digital policies and regulations grow, leading to inconsistent mechanisms for protection and unequal access across regions. This fragmentation can significantly increase exposure to disinformation, exploitation and surveillance, particularly for traditionally excluded and vulnerable groups.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) agreed at last year’s UN Summit of the Future represents the kind of comprehensive, multilateral framework civil society should advocate for. By fostering global cooperation, the GDC aims to establish shared principles for digital governance that prioritise human rights, democratic values and inclusive access to digital tools.

Through international bodies and cross-sector collaborations – such as those held at RightsCon – civil society can contribute towards shaping this framework, ensuring that civil society, governments and the private sector, including tech companies, work together to create a cohesive and accountable approach to digital governance.

Challenges and opportunities

Follow-up to the GDC must address a wide range of challenges, including digital access and inclusion. The existing digital ecosystem hinders equitable participation in democratic processes and efforts to realise human rights. There’s a need to close digital divides through targeted investments in education, digital skills and infrastructure, ensuring that everyone, regardless of geography or socioeconomic status, can access the tools needed to participate fully in shaping society. Civil society’s work here must be locally led, putting communities’ needs at the heart of advocacy and focusing on curating spaces for consultation and participation.

Another critical challenge is the intersection of government digitalisation and civic engagement. E-governance and online public services offer the potential for greater transparency, efficiency and participation, but they also introduce risks for privacy and security, reinforcing longstanding structural injustices such as racism and gender discrimination. Guidelines are needed to ensure transparency and accountability in digital governance while protecting the right to privacy. Polices need to enable the use of digital tools to fight and prevent corruption and ensure governments are held accountable.

And then there are the complex issues of AI governance. As AI technologies rapidly evolve, there come growing threats of algorithmic biases, a lack of transparency and the manipulation of public discourse and information ecosystems. Robust ethical standards for AI are needed that prioritise human rights and democratic values.

From the manipulation of public opinion, efforts to distort electoral outcomes and the generation of false narratives that can incite violence and social unrest, disinformation has many negative impacts on democracy. Evidence has repeatedly shown that in countries where politicians intensively use disinformation tactics, people’s trust in public institutions and democratic processes wanes and civic participation, a critical ingredient for democratic progress, falls. Conversations during RightsCon 2025 emphasised that civil society must engage with governments and regional and global institutions to help develop policies that regulate how information is managed in the digital age while working to improve media literacy and fact-checking initiatives.

The added value of civil society lies in its ability to act as a convener, broker and watchdog, and an advocate with and for traditionally excluded voices. Civil society is key in pushing for the inclusion of strong data protection laws, digital rights protections and regulations that curb the unchecked power of tech companies, where many grey areas for accountability remain underexplored. Working alongside governments and the private sector, civil society can lead the way in developing policies that safeguard democratic values, enhance accountability and ensure technology remains a tool for positive societal change. Through collective advocacy and partnership, civil society can drive a vision of a truly inclusive and ethical digital future.

Digital democracy and the challenges it faces aren’t national issues but global ones. Disinformation, cyberattacks and the erosion of digital rights transcend borders. More grounded international solidarity and cooperation is needed to create and enforce standards that protect online civic space and rights. The GDC must be supported and made more robust as a global framework for digital governance that upholds human rights, promotes transparency and ensures accountability.

Initiatives like the Digital Democracy Initiative should be championed in recognition of the unique role society plays in monitoring, analysing and challenging threats to digital democracy. It’s never been more crucial to enable and amplify civil society action in the face of global democratic decline amid an increasingly digital age.

Carolina Vega is Innovation Quality Management Lead at CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance. Chibuzor Nwabueze is Programme and Network Coordinator for CIVICUS’s Digital Democracy Initiative.

  Source

‘Energy Transfer’s Lawsuit Against Greenpeace Is an Attempt to Drain Our Resources and Silence Dissent’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Education, Education Cannot Wait. Future of Education is here, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Apr 4 2025 (IPS) –  

CIVICUS speaks with Daniel Simons, Senior Legal Counsel Strategic Defence for Greenpeace International, about the lawsuit brought by an oil and gas company against Greenpeace and its broader implications for civil society. Greenpeace is a global network of environmental organisations campaigning on issues such as climate change, disarmament, forests, organic farming and peace.

Daniel Simons

In March, a North Dakota jury ruled that Greenpeace in the USA and Greenpeace International should pay damages of over US$660 million to Energy Transfer, which filed lawsuits alleging that Greenpeace instigated resistance against the Dakota Access Pipeline in 2016 and 2017 and caused operational disruptions and financial losses. The protests were led by Indigenous communities, particularly the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, and focused on water protection and tribal rights. Energy Transfer claims the pipeline was properly regulated and provides economic benefits. Civil society has condemned the legal action as a SLAPP – a strategic lawsuit against public participation – designed to silence criticism. Greenpeace is appealing.

What prompted Energy Transfer to take legal action against Greenpeace?

The route of the Dakota Access Pipeline crosses underneath the Missouri River a short distance from the reservation of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In April 2016, tribal members set up prayer encampments to express their opposition to the construction. They worried that sites of cultural importance would be damaged, and that the pipeline might contaminate the river, the Tribe’s water source.

Energy Transfer took a number of provocative actions. It sued the Tribe’s chairperson and other participants in the Indigenous resistance, and not long after, bulldozed an area less than 24 hours after the Tribe had filed a declaration in court stating there were burial grounds and resources of cultural significance in the area. These events coincided with a huge growth in attention for and attendance at the camp.

Energy Transfer alleges that the Greenpeace defendants were somehow the masterminds, coming in and secretly organising everything that happened during the Standing Rock protests, and that this included trespassing, property damage and creating public nuisance. The company also accuses the Greenpeace defendants of defamation, complaining about nine statements in particular. Additionally, Energy Transfer claims Greenpeace’s actions delayed the refinancing of the pipeline’s construction loan, causing financial harm to the company.

What was Greenpeace’s actual involvement in the protests and its relationship with Indigenous communities?

Greenpeace – including Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund, both based in the USA, and Greenpeace International, a Dutch foundation – played only a limited role in the protests. Greenpeace Inc had some connections to the Indigenous communities at Standing Rock; as I understand it, the relationship was respectful but not extensive.

Greenpeace Inc supported the protests by funding five trainers from an independent Indigenous network to provide training on non-violent direct action for two weeks, conducting supply drives for the camps, providing short-term staff mainly to help with preparing the camp for winter and donating some lock boxes that protesters could use to form a human chain, although no evidence suggests they were ever used. It also published articles and co-signed two letters to banks containing the nine statements Energy Transfer now claims are defamatory. These statements had already been widely reported by media and United Nations bodies before Greenpeace’s involvement.

According to an Indigenous activist who testified in court, Greenpeace Inc was present but followed the lead of people on the ground. Its involvement was so minimal that most tribal nations at Standing Rock wouldn’t even have been aware of it. The activist described claims that Greenpeace controlled the resistance as ‘paternalistic’ and emphasised that many Indigenous leaders had the ability to run a complex movement and engage with media themselves.

Greenpeace International’s only relevant action was signing an open letter led by the Dutch civil society organisation BankTrack, alongside 500 other organisations. Meanwhile, Greenpeace Fund had no involvement in the Standing Rock resistance, yet Energy Transfer argues that sharing resources such as office space and contact details with Greenpeace Inc makes it liable.

How is Greenpeace defending itself and what impact has the lawsuit had on its operations?

We argue that Energy Transfer has greatly exaggerated our role in the protests and is attempting to recover costs that are all unrelated to our actions. There is just no evidence of any link between the Greenpeace defendants’ activities and the damages the company claims. And there is certainly no link to any act of violence or property damage.

Greenpeace International has also taken legal action in the Netherlands, using the new European Union anti-SLAPP directive for the first time to challenge what we view as an attempt to drain our resources and silence dissent. Defending ourselves has required significant financial and personnel resources. While Greenpeace has the capacity to fight back, there are concerns that such lawsuits could deter smaller or less experienced organisations from challenging the powerful US oil and gas industry – which appears to be one of the goals of this case.

What are the next steps in the legal proceedings and how do you see this case resolving?

While the jury has reached a verdict that decided the Greenpeace defendants must pay US$666 million for defamation and the other claims, the judge still needs to enter a final judgment. There are obvious issues with jury verdict and we are in the process of challenging those. Greenpeace Inc and Greenpeace Fund have already announced they will appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Greenpeace International is pursuing its case against Energy Transfer in the District Court of Amsterdam, with the first procedural hearing scheduled for 2 July.

The battle is far from over. Greenpeace is determined to defeat these claims and hold Energy Transfer accountable for filing repeated SLAPP suits. This fight extends beyond Greenpeace – it concerns the protection of freedom of expression. An attack on one is an attack on all, and we hope civil society will stand with us.

GET IN TOUCH
Bluesky
Twitter

SEE ALSO
Italy: ‘Authoritarian tendencies manifest themselves in efforts to control information and stifle dissent’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Ilaria Masinara 22.Jun.2024
Europe: ‘Members states must introduce national anti-SLAPP legislation to protect public watchdogs’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Francesca Borg Constanzi 21.Mar.2024
How SLAPPs undermine democracy: a case study of the USA CIVICUS 02.Jul.2018

  Source

‘Student Protests Have Sparked Solidarity, Empathy and a Renewed Belief in Collective Action’

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Europe, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, Press Freedom, TerraViva United Nations

Mar 31 2025 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses recent protests in Serbia with Alma Mustajbašić, researcher at Civic Initiatives, a Serbian civil society organisation that advocates for democracy, human rights and citizen engagement.

Alma Mustajbašić

Following the deaths of 15 people in the collapse of the roof of a newly reconstructed railway station in November 2014, student-led protests have swept across Serbia, uniting diverse social groups against governance failures and government corruption. Despite harsh crackdowns including arrests and violence, the movement has employed direct action and effective social media strategies to demand systemic reforms. The movement has even made a rare impact in rural areas through long protest marches, breaking the government-imposed climate of fear and inspiring renewed political engagement.

What triggered the current protests?

Protests started following a tragedy that occurred in Novi Sad, Serbia’s second-largest city, on 1 November last year. That day, the canopy of a newly reconstructed railway station collapsed, killing 15 people. The station had already had two official inaugurations, one in 2022, attended by President Aleksandar Vučić, and another in 2024, in the presence of other high-ranking officials.

The reconstruction contracts, signed with a consortium of Chinese companies, were kept secret, leading many to blame corruption for the collapse. People’s immediate reaction was to protest, holding 15-minute commemorative traffic blockades under the slogan ‘Serbia must stop’, to pressure the authorities to identify and punish those responsible for the tragedy.

At one of the commemorative gatherings outside the Faculty of Dramatic Arts in the capital, Belgrade, protesters including students and professors were attacked by ruling party members and supporters. This was the immediate reason that the students of this faculty, and then from other state universities and some private ones, decided to blockade their institutions and suspend classes until their demands were met. They demanded the publication of all documents related to the station’s reconstruction, which still remained confidential, the dismissal of charges against those arrested and detained during the protests, the identification, prosecution and removal from public office of those responsible for the attacks on students and other protesters, and a 20 per cent increase in the higher education budget.

The tragedy in Novi Sad was a tipping point, but public frustration had been building up for years. Deep-seated corruption, secretive government contracts and ruling party-based recruitment practices have eroded trust in public institutions. With biased media, unfree institutions, unresolved government affairs and consistently unfair elections, many people feel voiceless. The daily targeting of political opponents and Vučić’s increasingly repressive rule only add to the anger.

How has the protest movement evolved?

The Novi Sad station collapse sparked a powerful student movement that united diverse parts of society, quickly gaining support from cultural figures, educators, farmers, industry workers and lawyers. For months, there have been protests almost every day, growing in size and intensity, with tens of thousands participating in road blockades, silent vigils and long marches across Serbia.

In early March, hundreds blockaded the public broadcaster, Radio Television of Serbia, in Belgrade, accusing it of biased coverage favouring Vučić. Vučić had appeared on the main news bulletin condemning the movement, accusing protesters of carrying out a ‘colour revolution’ and being supported from abroad and warning they could ‘end up behind bars’. Clashes erupted as riot police used batons in an attempt to disperse the crowd.

The government has cracked down hard. It has arrested students and orchestrated violent attacks, including serious assaults on female students. There have been reports of phone hacking and smear campaigns in pro-government media. People who support the protests, including teachers and civil society organisations, have also faced intimidation and retaliation.

One of the latest in a series of incidents happened at a protest held in Belgrade on 15 March, which was the largest in decades, with several hundred thousand people joining, according to independent observers. The 15-minute silence was broken, according to eyewitnesses, by a loud noise and a feeling of heat, which led to a stampede. More than 3,000 people had symptoms that included nausea, headaches, rapid heartbeat, hearing loss, anxiety, panic, tremors, disorientation and a sense of losing control. The authorities deny they used a sound cannon against protesters, although one such device was photographed on a police vehicle close to the protest site.

How do these protests compare to previous movements?

Serbia has a long history of civic movements, from student protests in the 1990s to the ‘1 of 5 Million’ protests following an attack on an opposition leader in 2018 and 2023 ‘Serbia Against Violence’ protests following two mass shootings. But these protests have lasted much longer and have received support from wider social groups.

The 2024 student movement is also different from previous ones in several ways. It uses direct democracy, discussing plans and making decisions in plenary meetings. Each faculty has working groups that manage accommodation, logistics, media communication, security and overall coordination. There are no formal leaders. The movement operates as a collective.

As part of Generation Z, protesters use social media effectively, blending creativity and humour to reach a broad audience, which is crucial in a country where media freedom is limited. Their messaging also reaches beyond Serbia’s borders.

This student movement is also different in that its demands are not focused on changing the government for an alternative political option. Protesting students refuse to align with opposition political parties and instead seek to strengthen cooperation with trade unions. They want deeper systemic changes to establish the rule of law and independent institutions. These are calls for profound social change in a society burdened by corruption.

Significant judicial and political reforms will be needed to respond to students’ demands. This won’t be easy, but the momentum suggests people are ready to fight for it.

What are the biggest obstacles to change?

There are numerous obstacles. The biggest are corruption, the lack of independent institutions and the absence of conditions for free and fair elections.

Right now, it’s hard to predict where these protests will lead. Just a few months ago, a movement of this scale, led by young people, seemed unlikely. Yet students have managed to break the climate of fear imposed by the regime and inspire more people to engage in political life.

Students have held long protest marches, walking hundreds of kilometres to support mass demonstrations in other cities and stopping in small towns and villages along the way, reassuring people in rural areas that they are not forgotten. They’ve sparked solidarity, empathy and a renewed belief in collective action. Their determination has sent a powerful message: perseverance can lead to real change.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
Email
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube

SEE ALSO
Serbia: ‘We live in a system that’s allergic to pluralism, with a government hostile to critical voices’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Tamara Branković 02.Jul.2024
Serbia’s suspicious election CIVICUS Lens 26.Jan.2024
Serbia: ‘People are concerned that a critical tool to hold political elites accountable is being taken away’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Raša Nedeljkov 19.Jan.2024

  Source

How to Turn the Tide: Resisting the Global Assault on Gender Rights

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Education, Featured, Gender, Gender Identity, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, LGBTQ, TerraViva United Nations, Women’s Health

Opinion

Credit: Amanda Perobelli/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 27 2025 (IPS) – This year’s session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), the world’s leading forum for advancing gender equality, confronted unprecedented challenges. With Saudi Arabia in the chair and anti-rights voices growing increasingly influential in the forum, the struggle to hold onto international commitments on gender equality intensified dramatically. On 8 March, International Women’s Day mobilisations also took on added urgency, with demonstrations from Istanbul to Buenos Aires focusing on resisting the multiple manifestations of gender rights regression being felt in communities worldwide.

CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report shows that hard-won women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are at risk, challenged by coordinated anti-rights movements that use gender as a political wedge issue. But it also provides abundant evidence that civil society is rising to the challenge.

Global regression

They call it ‘child protection’ in Russia, ‘family values’ in several Eastern European countries, ‘religious freedom’ in the USA, and ‘African traditions’ across the continent. The terminology shifts, but the objective is the same: halting progress towards gender equality and dismantling rights. Of course, it isn’t about differences in cultural values – it’s an orchestrated political strategy.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban’s system of gender apartheid has reached its brutal endpoint: women are effectively imprisoned in their homes, barred from education, work and public life, their voices literally silenced by prohibitions on singing or talking in public. Iranian authorities have gone to extreme lengths to maintain control over women’s bodies. In Iraq, lawmakers are considering lowering the minimum marriage age to just nine years old.

These extreme examples exist along a spectrum that includes Ghana’s parliament criminalising same-sex relations, Russia expanding ‘propaganda’ laws to prohibit any positive portrayal of LGBTQI+ identities, and Georgia – a country that says it wants to join the European Union – adopting Russian-style legislation restricting LGBTQI+ organisations under the cynical framing of ‘protecting minors’.

In the USA, Trump-appointed justices overturned constitutional abortion protections, triggering restrictions across numerous states. The second Trump administration has now reinstated the global gag rule, restricting international funding for organisations providing reproductive healthcare. The Guttmacher Institute projects this will deny 11.7 million women access to contraception, potentially causing 4.2 million unintended pregnancies and over 8,300 maternal deaths.

A coordinated transnational movement

Across Africa, there’s an intensifying wave of anti-LGBTQI+ legislation, often driven by political opportunism. Mali’s military junta passed a law criminalising homosexuality as part of its broader crackdown on rights. Ghana’s parliament passed a draconian ‘anti-LGBTQI+ bill’, while Uganda’s Constitutional Court upheld the country’s harsh Anti-Homosexuality Act. In Kenya, a Family Protection Bill that would outlaw LGBTQI+ advocacy remains before parliament.

As recently seen at CSW, the ongoing backlash is transnational in nature. Anti-rights forces share tactics, funding and messaging across borders, with conservative foundations from the USA promoting restrictive legislation in Africa and Russian ideologues exporting their playbook to former Soviet states and beyond. US evangelical organisations and conservative think-tanks are a particularly influential source of anti-rights narratives and funding: they’ve funnelled millions of dollars into campaigns against reproductive rights and LGBTQI+ equality worldwide, while providing intellectual frameworks and legal strategies for adaption to local contexts from Poland to Uganda.

Victories against the odds

Against this daunting backdrop, civil society continues achieving remarkable victories through strategic resistance and persistence. In 2024, Thailand became Southeast Asia’s first country to legalise same-sex marriage, while Greece broke new ground as the first majority Orthodox Christian country to do so. France enshrined abortion rights in its constitution, creating a powerful bulwark against future threats.

A regional trend continued in the Caribbean, with civil society litigation successfully overturning colonial-era laws that criminalised homosexuality in Dominica. Colombia and Sierra Leone banned child marriage, while women’s rights groups in The Gambia defeated a bill that would have decriminalised female genital mutilation.

These successes share common elements: they’re the result of sustained, multi-year advocacy campaigns combining legal challenges, community mobilisation, strategic communications and international solidarity.

Take Thailand’s marriage equality victory. Success came partly through the campaign’s intersection with the youth-led democracy movement, which connected LGBTQI+ rights to broader aspirations for a fairer society. In Kenya, despite harsh anti-LGBTQI+ rhetoric from political leaders, strategic litigation by civil society secured a court ruling preventing incitement to violence against LGBTQI+ people.

Even in the most repressive contexts, activists find ways to resist. Afghan women, denied basic rights to education and movement, have developed underground schools and created subtle forms of civil disobedience that maintain pressure without risking their lives. Along with their Iranian sisters, they continue to campaign for gender apartheid to be recognised as a crime under international law.

The path forward: intersectionality and solidarity

Progress in realising rights is neither linear nor inevitable. Each advance triggers opposition, so every victory needs defence. To solidify and last, legal changes must be accompanied by social transformation – which is why civil society complements policy advocacy with public education, community organising and cultural engagement.

Advocacy is most effective when it embraces intersectionality, recognising how gender, sexuality, class, race, disability and migration status create overlapping forms of exclusion that need integrated responses. Feminist movements are increasingly centring the experiences of Black women, Indigenous women, women with disabilities and trans women.

Even where progress can feel elusive, civil society is playing a crucial role in keeping hope alive. Organisations defending women’s and LGBTQI+ rights are maintaining spaces where people are allowed to be their true selves, providing support services that nobody else will provide, documenting violations that would otherwise go unrecorded, keeping up the pressure on the authorities and building solidarity networks that sustain activists through difficult times.

International support for these efforts has never been more important. The USAID funding freeze highlights a troubling trend of shrinking resources for gender rights defenders at precisely the moment they’re needed most. This makes diversifying funding sources an urgent priority, with feminist philanthropists, progressive foundations and governments committed to gender equality needing to step up. More innovative funding mechanisms are required to rapidly respond to emergencies while sustaining the long-term work of movement building. Individuals have power: anyone can contribute directly to frontline organisations, amplify their voices on social media, challenge regressive narratives in their communities and demand that elected representatives prioritise gender equality domestically and in foreign policy. In the global struggle for fundamental rights, no one should be a spectator. The time for solidarity is now.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source

A Test of Humanity: Migrants’ Rights in a World Turning Inward

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Labour, LGBTQ, Migration & Refugees, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Pietro Bertora/SOS Humanity

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Mar 25 2025 (IPS) – The United Nations Refugee Agency faces devastating cuts that may eliminate 5,000 to 6,000 jobs, with potentially catastrophic consequences for millions of people fleeing war, repression, hunger and climate disasters. This 75-year-old institution, established to help Europeans displaced by the Second World War, now confronts an unprecedented financial crisis, primarily due to the US foreign aid freeze – and the timing couldn’t be worse.

As CIVICUS’s 14th annual State of Civil Society Report documents, a series of connected crisis – including conflicts, economic hardship and climate change – have created a perfect storm that threatens migrants and refugees, who face increasingly hostile policies and dangerous journeys from governments turning their backs on principles of international solidarity and human rights.

At least 8,938 people died on migration routes worldwide in 2024, making it the deadliest year on record, with many of the deaths in the Mediterranean and along routes across the Americas, including the Caribbean Sea, the Darién Gap between Colombia and Panama and the extensive border between Mexico and the USA. Just last week, six people died and another 40 are missing after their boat capsized in the Mediterranean.

Such tragedies have come time again over the last year. In March 2024, 60 people, including a Senegalese mother and her baby, died from dehydration after their dinghy was left adrift in the Mediterranean. In June, US border agents found seven dead migrants in the Arizona and New Mexico deserts. In September, seven people were found clinging to the sides of a boat that capsized off the Italian island of Lampedusa, after watching 21 other people, many of them family members, drown around them.

These tragedies weren’t accidents or policy failures. They were the predictable results of morally indefensible political choices.

The reality behind the rhetoric

The facts contradict populist narratives about migration overwhelming wealthy countries. At least 71 per cent of the world’s refugees remain in the global south, with countries such as Bangladesh, Colombia, Ethiopia and Uganda hosting far more displaced people than most European countries. Yet global north governments keep hardening borders and outsourcing migration management to prevent arrivals. The second Trump administration has declared a ‘national emergency’ at the US southern border, enabling military deployment and promising mass deportations while explicitly framing migrants as invaders – a rhetoric that history shows can easily lead to deadly consequences.

Europe continues its own troubling trajectory. Italy is attempting to transfer asylum seekers to Albanian detention centres, while the Netherlands has proposed sending rejected asylum seekers to Uganda, blatantly disregarding the state’s human rights violations, particularly against LGBTQI+ people. The European Union is expanding controversial deals with authoritarian governments in Egypt and Tunisia, effectively paying them to prevent migrants reaching European shores.

Anti-migrant rhetoric has become a common and effective electoral strategy. Far-right parties have made significant gains in elections in many countries by campaigning against immigration. Demonising narratives played a key role in Donald Trump’s re-election. The mobilisation of xenophobic sentiment extends beyond Europe and the USA, from anti-Haitian rhetoric in the Dominican Republic to anti-Bangladeshi campaigning in India.

Civil society under siege

Civil society organisations providing humanitarian assistance are increasingly being criminalised for their work. Italy has made it illegal for search-and-rescue organisations to conduct more than one rescue per trip, imposes heavy fines for noncompliance and deliberately directs rescue vessels to distant ports. These measures have achieved their intended goal of reducing the number of active rescue ships and contributed to the over 2,400 migrant drownings recorded in the Mediterranean in 2024 alone. Tunisia’s president has labelled people advocating for African migrants’ rights as traitors and mercenaries, leading to criminal charges and imprisonment.

Despite mounting obstacles, civil society maintains its commitment to protecting the human rights of migrants and refugees. Civil society groups maintain lifesaving operations in displacement settings from the Darién Gap to Cox’s Bazar in Bangladesh. Legal aid providers navigate increasingly complex asylum systems to help people access protection. Community organisations facilitate integration through language instruction, job placements and social connections. Advocacy groups document abuses and push for accountability when state authorities violate migrants’ human rights.

But they’re now operating with drastically diminishing resources in increasingly hostile environments. Critical protection mechanisms are being dismantled at a time of unprecedented need. The implications should alarm anyone concerned with human dignity. If borders keep hardening and safe pathways disappear, more people will attempt dangerous journeys with deadly consequences. The criminalisation of solidarity risks eliminating critical lifelines for the most vulnerable, and dehumanising rhetoric is normalising discrimination and institutionalising indifference and cruelty.

A different approach is possible

Rather than reactive, fear-based policies, civil society can push for comprehensive approaches that uphold human dignity while addressing the complex drivers of migration. This means confronting the root causes of displacement through conflict prevention, climate action and sustainable development. It also means creating more legal pathways for migration, ending the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance and investing in integration support.

There’s a need to challenge the fundamental assumption that migration is an existential threat rather than a manageable reality than requires humane governance, and an asset to receiving societies. Historically, societies that have integrated newcomers have greatly benefited from their contributions – economically, culturally and socially.

In a world of unprecedented and growing global displacement, the question isn’t whether migration will continue – it will – but whether it will be managed with cruelty or compassion. As CIVICUS’s State of Civil Society Report makes clear, the treatment of migrants and refugees serves as a litmus test: the way societies respond will prove or disprove their commitment to the idea of a shared humanity – the principle that all humans deserve dignity, regardless of where they were born or the documents they carry.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Senior Research Specialist, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source

Civil Society: The Last Line of Defence in a World of Cascading Crises

Posted on by admin

Armed Conflicts, Civil Society, Climate Change, Crime & Justice, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Featured, Gender, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Inequality, LGBTQ, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Credit: Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay / LONDON, Mar 20 2025 (IPS) – In a world of overlapping crises, from brutal conflicts and democratic regression to climate breakdown and astronomic levels of economic inequality, one vital force stands as a shield and solution: civil society. This is the sobering but ultimately hopeful message of CIVICUS’s 14th annual State of Civil Society Report, which provides a wide-ranging civil society perspective on the state of the world as it stands in early 2025.

The report paints an unflinching portrait of today’s reality: one where civilians are being slaughtered in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine and elsewhere, with perpetrators increasingly confident they’ll face no consequences. A global realignment appears underway, with the Trump administration dismantling longstanding international alliances and seemingly determined to reward acts of aggression. Any semblance of a rules-based international order is crumbling as transactional diplomacy and the dangerous principle that might makes right become normalised.

Climate change continues to accelerate. 2024 was the hottest year on record, yet fossil fuel companies keep banking record profits, even as they scale back renewable energy plans in favour of further extraction. The world’s economies are reaching new levels of dysfunction, marked by soaring inequality and worsening precarity, while billionaires accumulate unprecedented wealth. Tech and media tycoons are no longer content just to influence policy; increasingly they want to control politics, raising the risk of state capture by oligarchs. Democracy is under siege, with right-wing populism, nationalism and autocratic rule surging. Democratic dissent is being crushed.

These compounding crises create a perfect storm that threatens the foundations of human rights and democratic freedoms. But in this precarious moment, precisely when civil society is needed most, it faces an accelerating funding crisis. Major donor agencies have cut back support and aligned funding with narrow national interests, while many states have passed laws to restrict international funding for civil society. The malicious and reckless USAID funding freeze has come as a particularly heavy blow, placing many civil society groups at existential risk.

At times like these it’s worth thinking about what the world would look like without civil society. Human rights violations would flourish unchecked. Democracy would erode even faster, leaving people with no meaningful agency to shape decisions affecting their lives. Climate change would accelerate past every tipping point. Women would lose bodily autonomy. LGBTQI+ people would be forced back into the closet. Excluded minorities would routinely face violence with no recourse. Whole communities would live in fear.

As events during 2024 and early 2025 have shown, even under extraordinary pressure, civil society continues to prove its immense value. In conflict zones, grassroots groups are filling critical gaps in humanitarian response, documenting violations and advocating for civilian protection. In numerous countries, civil society has successfully mobilised to prevent democratic backsliding, ensure fair elections and challenge authoritarian power grabs.

Through strategic litigation, civil society has established groundbreaking legal precedents forcing governments to take more ambitious climate action. Struggles for gender equality and LGBTQI+ rights keep being won through persistent advocacy, despite intensifying backlash. Across diverse contexts, civil society has employed a wide range of ever-evolving and creative tactics – from mass mobilisation to legal action – and proved it can and will hold the line even as civic space restrictions intensify and funding is slashed.

The message is clear: civil society represents a vital source of resistance, resilience and hope. Without it, many more people would be living much worse lives.

But if civil society is to keep doing this vital work, it may need to reinvent itself. The funding crisis demands innovation, because even before the USAID catastrophe, the donor-reliant model had reached its limits. It has long been criticised for reproducing economic and political power imbalances while constraining civil society’s ability to confront entrenched power. More diverse and sustainable resourcing models are urgently needed, from community-based funding approaches to ethical enterprise activities that generate unrestricted income.

To thrive in this changing and volatile context, civil society will have to embrace a movement mindset characterised by distributed leadership, nimble decision-making and the ability to mobilise broad constituencies rapidly. Some of the most successful civil society actions in recent years have shown these qualities, from youth-led climate movements to horizontally organised feminist campaigns that connect people across class, race and geographic barriers.

Civil society must prioritise authentic community connections, particularly with those most excluded from power. This means going beyond traditional consultations to develop genuine relationships with communities, including those outside urban centres or disadvantaged by digital divides. The strength of the relationships civil society can nurture should be one key measure of success.

Equally crucial is the development of compelling narratives, and infrastructure to help share them, that speak to people’s legitimate anxieties while offering inclusive, rights-based alternatives to the widely spread and seductive but dangerous appeals of populism and authoritarianism. These narratives must connect universal values to local contexts and concerns.

In this current cascade of global crises, civil society can no longer hope for a return to business as usual. A more movement-oriented, community-driven and financially independent civil society will be better equipped to withstand threats and more effectively realise its collective mission of building a more just, equal, democratic and sustainable world.

The 2025 State of Civil Society Report offers both a warning and a call to action for all concerned about the shape of today’s world. Civil society represents humanity’s best hope for navigating the treacherous waters ahead. In these dark times, civil society remains a beacon of light. It must continue to shine.

Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist and Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. They are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org.

  Source