Jan 24 2025 (IPS) – CIVICUS speaks with Olivia Sohr about the challenges of disinformation and the consequences of the closure of Meta’s fact-checking programme in the USA. Olivia is the Director of Impact and New Initiatives at Chequeado, an Argentine civil society organisation working since 2010 to improve the quality of public debate through fact-checking, combating disinformation, promoting access to information and open data.
Olivia Sohr
In January 2025, Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, announced the suspension of its US data verification programme. Instead, the company will implement a system where users can report misleading content. The decision came as Meta prepared for the start of the new Trump presidency. Explaining the change, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the company was trying to align itself with its core value of free speech. Meta also plans to move some of its content moderation operations from California to Texas, which it says is in response to concerns about potential regional bias.
What led to Meta’s decision to end its fact-checking programme?
While the exact details of the process that led to this decision are unknown, in his announcement Zuckerberg alluded to a ‘cultural shift’ that he said was cemented in the recent US election. He also expressed concern that the fact-checking system had contributed to what he saw as an environment of ‘excessive censorship’. As an alternative, Zuckerberg is proposing a community rating system to identify fake content.
This decision is a setback for information integrity around the world. Worryingly, Meta justifies its position by equating fact-checking journalism with censorship. Fact-checking is not censorship; it’s a tool that provides data and context to enable people to make informed decisions in an environment where disinformation is rife. Decisions like this increase opacity and hamper the work of those focused on combatting disinformation.
The role of fact-checkers in Meta is to investigate and label content that is found to be false or misleading. However, decisions about the visibility or reach of such content will be made solely by the platform, which has assured that it will only reduce exposure and add context, not remove or censor content.
How the community grading system will work has not yet been specified, but the prospects are not promising. Experience from other platforms suggests that these models tend to increase disinformation and the spread of other harmful content.
What are the challenges of fact-checking journalism?
Fact-checking is extremely challenging. While those pushing disinformation can quickly create and spread completely false content designed to manipulate emotions, fact-checkers must follow a rigorous and transparent process that is time-consuming. They must constantly adapt to new and increasingly sophisticated disinformation strategies and techniques, which are proliferating through the use of artificial intelligence.
Meta’s decision to end its US verification programme makes our task even more difficult. One of the key benefits of this programme is that it has allowed us to reach out directly to those who spread disinformation, alerting them with verified information and stopping the spread at the source. Losing this tool would be a major setback in the fight against disinformation.
What are the potential consequences of this change?
Meta’s policy change could significantly weaken the information ecosystem, making it easier for disinformation and other harmful content to reach a wider audience. For Chequeado, this means we will have to step up our efforts to counter disinformation, within the platform and in other spaces.
In this scenario, verification journalism is essential, but it will be necessary to complement this work with media literacy initiatives, the promotion of critical thinking, the implementation of technological tools to streamline the work and research to identify patterns of disinformation and the vulnerability of different groups to fake news.
MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Jan 8 2025 (IPS) – Colombia has just marked a historic milestone in the global campaign against child marriage, with the Senate passing one of Latin America and the Caribbean’s most comprehensive bans on child marriage and early unions. In a country where one in five girls under 18 and one in 10 under 14 are married or live in marriage-like conditions, the new law raises the minimum age to 18 with no exceptions, eliminating a 137-year-old Civil Code provision that allowed children over 14 to marry with parental consent. This achievement aligns with goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which has a target of eliminating harmful practices like child marriage by 2030. The new law now awaits the signature of President Gustavo Petro to come into effect.
The breakthrough
Child marriage disproportionately affects Colombia’s most vulnerable communities, with rates of between 40 and 65 per cent among rural, Indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations. In some communities, girls as young as 10 are married off. These early unions expose girls to unequal power relations, deny them education, limit their bodily and economic autonomy and lead to higher rates of gender-based violence and health issues linked to early pregnancy.
The passage of the #SonNiñasNoEsposas (‘They are girls, not wives’) bill reflected the power of persistent civil society advocacy. After several failed attempts since 2007, the bill, authored by two congresswomen, passed with unanimous support. This success was driven by a coalition of Colombian civil society organisations as part of the Girls Not Brides global network, including the Foundation for Gender and Family Development, Fundación Plan and Profamilia, working alongside international partners such as Equality Now and Plan International, with Girls Not Brides directly supporting legislative advocacy and media campaigns.
Beyond raising the marriage age, the new law establishes the National Comprehensive Programme for Life Projects for Children and Adolescents. This preventive initiative targets the structural causes of early unions – poverty and lack of education – particularly in remote rural areas. The programme includes the participation of Indigenous communities through their own governance structures, recognising the importance of cultural sensitivity in implementation.
The global landscape
Colombia is by no means alone in having a child marriage problem. Around the world, some 12 million girls are married each year, two million before the age of 15. While child marriage can affect boys as well, girls are six times more likely to be married as children than boys.
According to the Child Marriage Monitoring Mechanism, a collaborative initiative to generate evidence to support efforts to end child marriage, one in five young women worldwide are married before their 18th birthday, with rates highest in sub-Saharan Africa.
To tackle this problem, The Elders, a group of senior public figures, launched the global Girls Not Brides partnership in 2011. With over 1,400 member organisations in more than 100 countries, Girls Not Brides works to prevent under-age marriage, recognising it as both a human rights violation and an obstacle to development. It identifies four main drivers of child marriage: poverty, limited educational and economic opportunities, gender inequality and insecurity in conflict or disaster situations. It tackles the problem with awareness-raising campaigns, national and international policy advocacy and community engagement to challenge social norms that perpetuate child marriage.
Since then, efforts have multiplied. In 2016, the United Nations Population Fund and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) launched the Global Programme to End Child Marriage. Now in its third phase, set to run until 2030, the programme operates in 12 high-prevalence countries in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Working directly with governments, it has reached millions of adolescent girls, focusing on education, healthcare and economic opportunities.
Many more initiatives work at national and local levels. They combine multiple responses, including working with religious and community leaders to change social norms, supporting girls’ education and economic empowerment, engaging with men and boys on gender equality, advocating for stronger laws and their enforcement, providing support services to girls at risk of child marriage, using media and technology to raise awareness and change attitudes and building networks of young advocates and change-makers.
Progress and challenges
These efforts have contributed to a global decline in child marriage rates. According to UNICEF, the proportion of young women married as children has decreased from 25 per cent to 21 per cent over the past decade, meaning that 25 million child marriages have been prevented. However, the global number of child brides is still estimated at 650 million, including girls under 18 who have already married and adult women who married as children.
The average annual rate of reduction has been 0.7 per cent over the past 25 years and 1.9 per cent over the past decade, showing the impact of recent initiatives. But at this rate, the SDG target of eliminating the practice by 2030 won’t be achieved.
Setbacks have been caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, conflict and economic instability. Wherever insecurity rises, so does child marriage, as parents see early marriage of daughters as a financial and security solution. During Syria’s conflict, for example, the rate of child marriages shot up among refugees in countries such as Jordan and Lebanon.
Looking ahead
Colombia’s new law marks significant progress, but it’s just the beginning, as evidenced by the fact that many of the early marriages that take place in Colombia would have been illegal under the old law.
The real work of implementation begins now. Colombia’s efforts over the next few years will be crucial in demonstrating how legislative change can translate into real protection for vulnerable girls. For Latin America and the Caribbean, it should open up opportunities for strengthened cross-border cooperation and similar legislative reforms.
Colombia’s comprehensive approach could serve as a model for change in a region where many countries still have legal exceptions that allow child marriage under some circumstances, while others have strong laws that aren’t adequately implemented.
While the declining trend in global child marriage rates offers hope, the current pace of change remains far too slow. Colombia’s example shows that significant progress is possible through sustained, multi-stakeholder commitment and comprehensive approaches that change laws but also address underlying social dynamics. The international community must build on this momentum. This means scaling up successful initiatives, increasing funding for civil society organisations and maintaining political pressure.
Jan 2 2025 (IPS) – CIVICUS discusses the challenges Palestinian civil society faces in resisting digital suppression and advocating for justice with Palestinian lawyer and researcher Dima Samaro.
How are digital platforms influencing the narrative on Palestine?
Digital platforms have become key to shaping narratives about Palestine, often amplifying the Israeli narrative while systematically silencing Palestinian voices. Platforms such as Meta, TikTok and X, formerly Twitter, routinely remove Palestinian content under vague ‘policy violations’. This has intensified since October 2023, with the Israeli Cyber Unit issuing over 9,500 takedown requests, 94 per cent of which were approved. These actions have resulted in the removal of posts, shadow bans – a form of censorship that limits visibility of pro-Palestinian content without user notification – and account suspensions, and have extended to the censorship of hashtags such as #FreePalestine.
Algorithmic bias further marginalises Palestinian narratives. For example, Instagram once mistranslated the Arabic phrase ‘alhamdulillah’ – praise be to God – next to a Palestinian flag as ‘terrorists fighting for their freedom’. On WhatsApp, AI-generated images depicted militarised scenes as illustrations for ‘Palestinian’ but benign cartoons for terms such as ‘Israeli boy’ or ‘Israeli army’. While these incidents are often dismissed as technical errors, they reveal a systemic bias.
Policies such as Meta’s Dangerous Organisations and Individuals framework are heavily influenced by US terrorism designations and stifle Palestinian discourse by prohibiting expressions of ‘praise’ or ‘support’ for major political movements. Meanwhile, hate speech targeting Palestinians – including posts celebrating violence or calling for the destruction of Gaza – often goes unchecked. While ads inciting violence against Palestinians are allowed, the use of terms like ‘Zionist’ is flagged as hate speech. This double standard silences Palestinian voices while enabling propaganda that justifies collective punishment and shields atrocities from scrutiny.
Platform complicity goes beyond censorship. In April, +972 Magazine reported that WhatsApp, which belongs to Meta, played a role in supporting the Israeli AI surveillance system Lavender, which has been linked to the killing of civilians in Gaza. These disturbing revelations suggest direct corporate complicity in violations of international law.
Digital platforms are distorting narratives, dehumanising Palestinians and normalising violence against an already oppressed and besieged population. They actively suppress efforts to document war crimes and manipulate information. They must be held accountable for this.
What challenges does Palestinian civil society encounter?
Palestinian CSOs work under immense pressure, facing arbitrary arrests, travel bans, funding cuts and violence. In October 2021, Israel designated six prominent Palestinian human rights groups as terrorist organisations. These unfounded accusations delegitimised their work, fuelling defamation campaigns and enabling harassment and other restrictions on their work.
Many human rights defenders have also become targets of digital surveillance. Pegasus spyware, developed by the Israeli company NSO Group, has been used to hack the devices of Palestinian activists and human rights defenders, putting their safety and work at risk. This surveillance has been widely condemned by organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
But the crackdown on Palestinian civil society goes beyond digital tactics: human rights defenders are harassed, arbitrarily detained and physically attacked. In Gaza, the situation has worsened after October 2023. Several civil society workers have been killed, injured or detained, and many have been displaced by the ongoing bombardment. The destruction of infrastructure has further hampered their work.
Journalists also face violence. Gaza has become the world’s deadliest place for journalists, with 195 media workers killed to date, many of them deliberately targeted while carrying out their duties. This loss of independent reporting creates a massive information gap, leaving human rights violations unreported and unchecked.
To make matters worse, international donors such as Germany, Sweden and Switzerland have suspended funding over unsubstantiated allegations of links to terrorism. The European Union’s imposition of ‘anti-incitement’ clauses also stigmatises Palestinian CSOs by forcing them to prove their neutrality, limiting their ability to document human rights violations without risking their safety.
How is Skyline International helping address these challenges?
We work at the intersection of technology, social media and human rights in Palestine and the region. We track, monitor and document human rights violations committed by states and corporations, particularly in the digital sphere. This includes tracking digital surveillance, analysing the ethical implications of AI in conflict settings and advocating for the protection of fundamental online rights such as freedom of expression, access to information and the right to privacy.
In Palestine, we support civil society activists and journalists by tackling online censorship and digital bias. We work closely with human rights defenders to document cases of over-enforcement of policies, content takedowns, account suspensions and algorithmic bias by social media platforms, as well as the illegal use of spyware and new technologies to target media workers. We also condemn Israel’s use of digital tools to target journalists in Gaza and Lebanon. Our aim is to draw national and international attention to these violations and advocate for the protection of press and online freedoms, ensuring that journalists can report without fear of retribution.
We also hold technology companies to account for their impact on human rights. In September, for example, we sent an open letter to Binance, a leading cryptocurrency exchange, expressing serious concerns about allegations of a mass seizure of Palestinian crypto wallets at Israel’s request. These actions exacerbate the economic and financial blockade of Gaza, making it even more difficult to access essential resources such as water, food and medical supplies. We demanded transparency regarding the criteria used to determine which accounts were frozen and immediate action to mitigate the humanitarian impact on Palestinian users. Although Binance responded, it didn’t provide a clear explanation or take any action.
What can the international community do to support Palestinian civil society?
Support for the work of Palestinian civil society is crucial to documenting abuses and advocating for justice. But this support must go beyond expressions of solidarity or charity. We need our allies to support our struggle for freedom and dignity.
The international community must move beyond empty rhetoric and take tangible action. It must also do more than just provide financial aid: it must put political pressure on Israel to end its occupation and respect Palestinian human rights. This includes protecting activists, fighting Israel’s constant attempts to criminalise and silence our work and holding accountable those who profit from the ongoing genocide. It means stopping arms exports to Israel and holding tech platforms accountable for their complicity in suppressing Palestinian voices, amplifying hate speech and facilitating Israeli surveillance and repression.
LONDON / MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Dec 24 2024 (IPS) – It’s been a tumultuous year, and a tough one for struggles for human rights. Civil society’s work to seek social justice and hold the powerful to account has been tested at every turn. Civil society has kept holding the line, resisting power grabs and regressive legislation, calling out injustice and claiming some victories, often at great cost. And things aren’t about to get any easier, as key challenges identified in 2024 are likely to intensify in 2025.
Andrew Firmin
1. More people are likely to be exposed to conflict and its consequences, including humanitarian and human rights disasters, mass displacement and long-term trauma. The message of 2024 is largely one of impunity: perpetrators of conflict, including in Israel and Russia, will be confident they can resist international pressure and escape accountability. While there may be some kind of ceasefire in Gaza or halt to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, those responsible for large-scale atrocities are unlikely to face justice. Impunity is also likely to prevail in the conflicts taking place largely off the global radar, including in Myanmar and Sudan. There will also be growing concern about the use of AI and automated weapons in warfare, a troublingly under-regulated area.
As recent events in Lebanon and Syria have shown, changing dynamics, including shifting calculations made by countries such as Iran, Israel, Russia, Turkey and the USA, mean that frozen conflicts could reignite and new ones could erupt. As in Syria, these shifts could create sudden moments of opportunity; the international community and civil society must respond quickly when these come.
Inés M. Pousadela
2. The second Trump administration will have a global impact on many current challenges. It’s likely to reduce pressure on Israel, hamper the response to the climate crisis, put more strain on already flawed and struggling global governance institutions and embolden right-wing populists and nationalists the world over. These will bring negative consequences for civic space – the space for civil society, which depends on the freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly. Funding for civil society is also likely to be drastically reduced as a result of the new administration’s shifting priorities.
3. 2025 is the year that states are required to develop new plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change under the Paris Agreement. The process will culminate in the COP30 climate summit in Brazil, likely the world’s last chance to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels. This will only happen if states stand up to fossil fuel companies and look beyond narrow short-term interests. Failing that, more of the debate may come to focus on adaptation. The unresolved question of who will pay for climate transition will remain central. Meanwhile, extreme weather events such as heatwaves and floods can be expected to continue to devastate communities, impose high economic costs, drive migration and exacerbate conflicts.
4. Globally, economic dysfunction is likely to increase, with more people struggling to afford basic necessities, increasingly including housing, as prices continue to rise, with climate change and conflict among the causes. The gap between the struggling many and the ultra-wealthy few will become more visible, and anger at rising prices or taxes will drive people – particularly young people deprived of opportunities – onto the streets. State repression will often follow. Frustration with the status quo means people will keep looking for political alternatives, a situation right-wing populists and nationalists will keep exploiting. But demands for labour rights, particularly among younger workers, will also likely increase, along with pressure for policies such as wealth taxes, a universal basic income and a shorter working week.
5. A year when the largest number of people ever went to the polls has ended – but there are still plenty of elections to come. Where elections are free and fair, voters are likely to keep rejecting incumbents, particularly due to economic hardship. Right-wing populists and nationalists are likely to benefit the most, but the tide will eventually turn: once they’ve been around long enough to be perceived as part of the political establishment, they too will see their positions threatened, and they can be expected to respond with authoritarianism, repression and the scapegoating of excluded groups. More politically manipulated misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and anti-migrant rhetoric can be expected as a result.
6. Even if developments in generative AI slow as the current model reaches the limits of the human-generated material it feeds on, international regulation and data protection will likely continue to lag behind. The use of AI-enabled surveillance, such as facial recognition, against activists is likely to increase and become more normalised. The challenge of disinformation is likely to intensify, particularly around conflicts and elections.
Several tech leaders have actively taken the side of right-wing populists and authoritarians, putting their platforms and wealth at the service of their political ambitions. Emerging alternative social media platforms offer some promise but are likely to face similar problems as they grow.
7. Climate change, conflict, economic strife, repression of LGBTQI+ identities and civil and political repression will continue to drive displacement and migration. Most migrants will remain in difficult and underfunded conditions in global south countries. In the global north, right-wing shifts are expected to drive more restrictive and repressive policies, including the deportation of migrants to countries where they may be at risk. Attacks on civil society working to defend their rights, including by assisting at sea and land borders, are also likely to intensify.
8. The backlash against women’s and LGBTQI+ rights will continue. The US right wing will continue to fund anti-rights movements in the global south, notably in Commonwealth African countries, while European conservative groups will continue to export their anti-rights campaigns, as some Spanish organisations have long done throughout Latin America. Disinformation efforts from multiple sources, including Russian state media, will continue to influence public opinion. This will leave civil society largely on the defensive, focused on consolidating gains and preventing setbacks.
9. As a result of these trends, the ability of civil society organisations and activists to operate freely will remain under pressure in the majority of countries. Just when its work is most needed, civil society will face growing restrictions on fundamental civic freedoms, including in the form of anti-NGO laws and laws that label civil society as agents of foreign powers, the criminalisation of protests and increasing threats to the safety of activists and journalists. Civil society will have to devote more of its resources to protecting its space, at the expense of the resources available to promote and advance rights.
10. Despite these many challenges, civil society will continue to strive on all fronts. It will continue to combine advocacy, protests, online campaigns, strategic litigation and international diplomacy. As awareness grows of the interconnected and transnational nature of the challenges, it will emphasise solidarity actions that transcend national boundaries and make connections between different struggles in different contexts.
Even in difficult circumstances, civil society achieved some notable victories in 2024. In the Czech Republic, civil society’s efforts led to a landmark reform of rape laws, and in Poland they resulted in a law making emergency contraception available without prescription, overturning previous restrictive legislation. After extensive civil society advocacy, Thailand led the way in Southeast Asia by passing a marriage equality law, while Greece became the first predominantly Christian Orthodox country to legalise same-sex marriage
People defended democracy. In South Korea, people took to the streets in large numbers to resist martial law, while in Bangladesh, protest action led to the ousting of a longstanding authoritarian government. In Guatemala, a president committed to fighting corruption was sworn in after civil society organised mass protests to demand that powerful elites respect the election results, and in Venezuela, hundreds of thousands organised to defend the integrity of the election, defeated the authoritarian government in the polls and took to the streets in the face of severe repression when the results weren’t recognised. In Senegal, civil society mobilised to prevent an attempt to postpone an election that resulted in an opposition win.
Civil society won victories in climate and environmental litigation – including in Ecuador, India and Switzerland – to force governments to recognise the human rights impacts of climate change and do more to reduce emissions and curb pollution. Civil society also took to the courts to pressure governments to stop arms sales to Israel, with a successful verdict in the Netherlands and others pending.
In 2025, the struggle continues. Civil society will keep carrying the torch of hope that a more peaceful, just, equal and sustainable world is possible. This idea will remain as important as the tangible impact we’ll continue to achieve despite the difficult circumstances.
Andrew Firmin is Editor-in-Chief and Inés M. Pousadela is Senior Research Specialist at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation. The two are co-directors and writers for CIVICUS Lens and co-authors of the State of Civil Society Report.
Dec 23 2024 (IPS) – CIVICUS discusses the ongoing crackdown on civil society in Belarus with Natallia Satsunkevich, human rights defender and interim board member of the Viasna Human Rights Centre.
Belarusian authorities have stepped up arrests in a bid to stifle any remaining opposition to President Alexander Lukashenko, who is seeking a seventh term in the January 2025 presidential election. Over 1,200 people have been detained since the end of September, many for participating in online chats that have been used to organise protests since the 2020 election. The authorities describe these as part of an extremist network. Some of those arrested have been charged with conspiracy to seize power, carrying a potential prison sentence of up to 15 years. Around 1,300 political prisoners are currently being held in overcrowded prisons, while opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya remains in exile.
Natallia Satsunkevich
How has the political atmosphere changed in the run-up to the presidential election?
As the presidential election approaches, the authorities have intensified their crackdown on civil society and political opposition. This isn’t new – repression has been escalating since the protests following the 2020 stolen election – but in recent months it has taken an even darker turn.
One of the regime’s main tools is the criminalisation of independent organisations and media. Viasna, for example, has been declared an ‘extremist formation’. This means anyone who interacts with us – whether by sharing information, giving an interview or offering support – risks being arrested and prosecuted. This level of repression has created a climate of fear where people are too afraid to speak out about human rights abuses or take part in activism.
There has also been an increase in arrests, house searches and interrogations. Many of those arrested during the 2020 protests are still in prison and new arrests are taking place almost every day. The political opposition inside the country has been effectively silenced, with most of its leaders imprisoned or driven into exile. It’s clear that Lukashenko’s authoritarian regime is determined to hold onto power at all costs.
Is there any question of the outcome being at stake?
Unfortunately, no. Elections in Belarus are so heavily manipulated that they’re little more than formalities to legitimise Lukashenko’s rule. We’ve been monitoring and campaigning for free and fair elections for years, along with groups like the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, but at the moment those conditions simply don’t exist.
The opposition has been completely sidelined. Many of its leaders are either in prison or have fled the country. Alternative candidates aren’t allowed to run, and any form of opposition campaigning is banned. The state-controlled media is completely one-sided, constantly pushing the narrative that Lukashenko has overwhelming public support, while silencing anyone who disagrees.
With no transparency or accountability, the outcome is already decided. This election is just another tool to keep Lukashenko in power for as long as possible.
What are the likely post-election scenarios?
After the election, things are likely to stay much the same. The regime is likely to continue its authoritarian rule and we have little hope for immediate change.
For Belarus to move towards democracy, the first step would be to release all political prisoners. Almost 1,300 people, including opposition leaders, activists and journalists, are currently behind bars on politically motivated charges. They should be allowed to participate in the political process.
The government must also end its campaign of repression. Widespread arrests, searches, interrogations and torture have created an atmosphere of fear that stifles any form of dissent. Reform of the police and judicial systems is essential to address this.
Belarus also needs genuinely free and fair elections. This means opposition candidates should be able to campaign openly and people must be able to vote without fear of retribution.
Finally, accountability for human rights abuses is crucial. Those responsible for torture, unlawful detention and silencing dissent must be held accountable. This is vital for restoring trust and building a democratic future.
How can the international community support democratic transition?
The international community has been a lifeline for the Belarusian people, and this support must continue. Financial aid and solidarity from democratic states, particularly the European Union and the USA, have enabled many activists, including myself and others who’ve had to leave Belarus for our own safety, to continue our work.
Public condemnation of the regime’s actions also helps. Even if it doesn’t lead to immediate change, it shows Belarusian people and the government that the world is watching and reminds the authorities that actions have consequences.
It is also important to seek accountability through international legal mechanisms. Since we can’t hold perpetrators to account inside Belarus, it is essential to seek justice outside the country. States such as Lithuania and Poland have already begun investigating crimes committed by the regime and have referred cases to the International Criminal Court. These efforts show that there is a global determination to hold those in power to account.
The crisis in Belarus must be recognised as an international issue and kept on the international agenda. The United Nations has described the regime’s actions as crimes against humanity, making it clear this is not just a domestic matter: it’s an international crisis that demands international attention and action. GET IN TOUCH Website Facebook Twitter
LONDON, Dec 20 2024 (IPS) – Democracy is alive and well in South Korea. When President Yoon Suk Yeol tried to impose martial law, the public and parliamentarians united to defend it. Now Yoon must face justice for his power grab.
President under pressure
Yoon narrowly won the presidency in an incredibly tight contest in March 2022, beating rival candidate Lee Jae-myung by a 0.73 per cent margin. That marked a political comeback for one of South Korea’s two main political parties, the rebranded centre-right People Power Party, and a defeat for the other, the more progressive Democratic Party.
In a divisive campaign, Yoon capitalised on and helped inflame a backlash among many young men against the country’s emerging feminist movement.
South Korea had a MeToo moment in 2018, as women started to speak out following high-profile sexual harassment revelations. South Korea is one of the worst performing members on gender equality of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development: it ranks third lowest for women’s political representation and last for its gender pay gap.
Some modest steps forward in women’s rights brought a disproportionate backlash. Groups styling themselves as defending men’s rights sprang up, their members claiming they were discriminated against in the job market. Yoon played squarely to this crowd, pledging to abolish the gender equality ministry. Exit polls showed that over half of young male voters backed him.
Human rights conditions then worsened under Yoon’s rule. His administration was responsible for an array of civic space restrictions. These included harassment and criminalisation of journalists, raids on trade union offices and arrests of their leaders, and protest bans. Media freedoms deteriorated, with lawsuits and criminal defamation laws having a chilling effect.
But the balance of power shifted after the 2024 parliamentary election, when the People Power Party suffered a heavy defeat. Although the Democratic Party and its allies fell short of the two-thirds majority required to impeach Yoon, the result left him a lame-duck president. The opposition-dominated parliament blocked key budget proposals and filed 22 impeachment motions against government officials.
Yoon’s popularity plummeted amid ongoing economic woes and allegations of corruption – sadly nothing new for a South Korean leader. The First Lady, Kim Keon Hee, was accused of accepting a Dior bag as a gift and of manipulating stock prices. It seems clear that Yoon, backed into a corner, lashed out and took an incredible gamble – one that South Korean people didn’t accept.
Yoon’s decision
Yoon made his extraordinary announcement on state TV on the evening of 3 December. Shamefully, he claimed the move was necessary to combat ‘pro-North Korean anti-state forces’, smearing those trying to hold him to account as supporters of the totalitarian regime across the border. Yoon ordered the army to arrest key political figures, including the leader of his party, Han Dong Hoon, Democratic Party leader Lee and National Assembly Speaker Woo Won Shik.
The declaration of martial law gives the South Korean president sweeping powers. The military can arrest, detain and punish people without a warrant, the media are placed under strict controls, all political activity is suspended and protests are widely banned.
The problem was that Yoon had clearly exceeded his powers and acted unconstitutionally. Martial law can only be declared when there are extraordinary threats to the nation’s survival, such as invasion or armed rebellion. A series of political disputes that put the president under uncomfortable scrutiny clearly didn’t fit the bill. And the National Assembly was supposed to remain in session, but Yoon tried to shut it down, deploying armed forces to try to stop representatives gathering to vote.
But Yoon hadn’t reckoned with many people’s determination not to return to the dark days of dictatorship before multiparty democracy was established in 1987. People also had recent experience of forcing out an evidently corrupt president. In the Candlelight Revolution of 2016 and 2017, mass weekly protests built pressure on President Park Guen-hye, who was impeached, removed from office and jailed for corruption and abuse of power.
People massed outside the National Assembly in protest. As the army blocked the building’s main gates, politicians climbed over the fences. Protesters and parliamentary staff faced off against heavily armed troops with fire extinguishers, forming a chain around the building so lawmakers could vote. Some 190 made it in, and they unanimously repealed Yoon’s decision.
Time for justice
Now Yoon must face justice. Protesters will continue to urge him to quit, and a criminal investigation into the decision to declare martial law has been launched.
The first attempt to impeach Yoon was thwarted by political manoeuvring. People Power politicians walked out to prevent a vote on 7 December, apparently hoping Yoon would resign instead. But he showed no sign of stepping down, and a second vote on 14 December decisively backed impeachment, with 12 People Power Party members supporting the move. The vote was greeted with scenes of jubilation from the tens of thousands of protesters massed in freezing conditions outside the National Assembly.
Yoon is now suspended, with Prime Minister Han Duck-soo the interim president. The Constitutional Court has six months to hold an impeachment process. Polls show most South Koreans back impeachment, although Yoon still claims his move was necessary.
Democracy defended
South Korea’s representative democracy, like most, has its flaws. People may not always be happy with election results. Presidents may find it hard to work with a parliament that opposes them. But imperfect though it may be, South Koreans have shown they value their democracy and will defend it from the threat of authoritarian rule – and can be expected to keep mobilising if Yoon evades justice.
Thankfully, Yoon’s attacks on civic space hadn’t got to the stage where civil society’s ability to mobilise and people’s capacity to defend democracy had been broken down. Recent events and South Korea’s uncertain future make it all the more important that the civic space restrictions imposed by Yoon’s administration are reversed as quickly as possible. To defend against backsliding and deepen democracy, it’s vital to expand civic space and invest in civil society.
