Latest news with #FreedomHouse
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
When democracies falter, women lose ground
She is a tech entrepreneur, author, and relentless advocate for gender equality in STEM and beyond. Over the past 20 years, she had immersed herself in the fast-paced world of technology and AI, building innovative products and leading initiatives that challenge the status quo. LESS ... MORE Why the rise of authoritarianism always drags misogyny along with it Democracy is in trouble, and women are feeling it first. Across the world, democratic systems are eroding. So are the rights and freedoms of women and girls. This isn't coincidence. Wherever you see democratic backsliding, you're likely to find a parallel tightening of control over women's bodies, voices, and choices. That's because democracy and gender equality have always been deeply intertwined. Strong democracies tend to support personal autonomy, freedom of expression, and the rule of law, all essential for women's rights to thrive. But when those structures crack, when civil liberties weaken, one of the first groups to be silenced is women. Today, that's exactly what we're seeing. A dangerous slide The warning signs are impossible to ignore. Freedom House has tracked a decline in global freedom for 19 straight years as of 2024. In most of those years, more countries have moved toward authoritarianism than toward democracy. That decline doesn't just affect elections or parliaments; it bleeds into everyday life, particularly for women. The SDG Gender Index reveals a bleak reality: out of 139 countries assessed, 91 were rated 'poor' or 'very poor' when it came to guaranteeing personal autonomy and freedom from discrimination. In short, most women around the world don't live in countries where their rights are truly protected. And where democratic norms collapse, those rights get even harder to claim. This erosion of democratic space, through censorship, repression of civil society, and dismantling of independent institutions, creates fertile ground for inequality. For authoritarian leaders, restricting women's freedoms becomes part of the political strategy. Why authoritarianism targets women Strongman politics thrives on control, and controlling women is a powerful symbol of control. Many modern autocrats use gender regression as a tool to consolidate their power, often cloaked in appeals to 'traditional values' and cultural preservation. This playbook is consistent across countries. In Russia, reproductive rights have been curtailed. In Brazil and the Philippines, anti-gender rhetoric has been amplified. In Hungary and Poland, LGBTQ+ rights and abortion access have been aggressively rolled back. In each case, the government positioned itself as a defender of heritage and family while pushing women and minorities to the margins. This isn't a coincidence, it's a tactic. When leaders invoke nationalism and patriarchal norms, they rally conservative support and legitimise crackdowns on dissent. Feminists and gender rights activists become easy targets, painted as agents of 'foreign influence' or cultural decay. In captured democracies where economic inequality is growing, as the Equal Measures 2030 coalition notes, women often lose the most. Budgets and policies become increasingly skewed toward elite interests, and women's needs are sidelined. At the same time, right-wing populism has resurrected old resentments. Women's gains are framed not as progress, but as threats, fuel for backlash among those who feel left behind. The result? A surge in anti-feminist sentiment and growing normalisation of misogyny. How the crisis plays out There are three key ways in which the decline of democracy chips away at gender equality: Civic space is closing Women's rights groups, NGOs, and grassroots movements are finding it harder to operate. New laws restrict public protests. Independent media faces censorship. Activists risk intimidation, arrests, or worse. In such environments, feminist voices don't just struggle; they're actively suppressed. The SDG Gender Index's poor ratings on freedom from discrimination reflect this shrinking space. When civil society can't function freely, it's women who lose their megaphone. Misinformation and polarisation fuel hate The internet, once seen as a space for connection, has also become a weaponised arena. Misogynistic abuse, false narratives about women leaders, and doctored content targeting activists, it's all part of the modern authoritarian arsenal. These campaigns aren't just cruel; they're strategic. They undermine women's credibility, push them out of public discourse, and recast gender equality as a 'controversial' or 'political' issue rather than a basic right. Polarised societies lose sight of shared values. Gender equality, once a bipartisan goal, is now treated like a partisan threat. Justice systems are being hollowed out Even where protective laws exist, they're often not enforced. In many backsliding democracies, courts are politicised, corruption is rampant, and patriarchal interpretations dominate. Survivors of domestic violence, rape, or discrimination frequently find no justice. Sometimes, the legal system itself becomes a tool of oppression. Women's testimonies are disbelieved. Progressive judgments are overturned. Judges are appointed not for fairness but for loyalty to the ruling regime. Real-world consequences The impact isn't abstract; it's painfully visible. In Poland, a conservative government's grip on power has led to some of Europe's strictest abortion laws. In Hungary, the government has banned gender studies programs and refuses to legally recognise transgender people. In Myanmar, the military coup of 2021 didn't just erase democratic progress; it directly increased risks for women, from displacement to sexual violence, while systematically excluding them from peace-building efforts. Even in established democracies, the warning signs are there. The attempted overturning of a US election was accompanied by rising extremism, including groups espousing open misogyny. The pattern is clear: wherever democracy crumbles, women's rights come under attack. But women aren't staying silent Despite the risks, women are rising up. We've seen it in Belarus, where women marched with flowers and courage against a dictator. In Sudan, where young women were instrumental in toppling a military regime. In Myanmar and Thailand, where mothers protested side-by-side with students, demanding an end to violence and injustice. Women journalists, lawyers, doctors, and human rights defenders around the world are keeping civic space alive, often at great personal cost. Their fight is a reminder: democracy isn't something we inherit. It's something we defend every day. Democracy is a feminist issue If democracy is about representation, then it cannot exist without women's voices. If it's about justice, it cannot function without gender justice. If it's about freedom, it cannot survive if half the population is controlled. To push back against authoritarianism, we need to: Ensure equal representation at every level of government, from panchayats to parliaments. Protect the right to protest and organise, especially for feminist movements. Challenge false narratives that weaponise culture against gender equality. Hold governments accountable when they suppress dissent under the guise of 'security' or 'tradition.' Tie international support and funding to concrete progress on human rights, especially gender inclusion. As Freedom House says, the defence of democracy is a collective effort. And women are at the frontlines of that defence. The fight is one and the same Let's be clear: women's rights cannot survive in an authoritarian system. And democracy cannot be meaningful if it excludes half the population. The battle for equality and the battle for democratic values are not parallel struggles; they are the same fight. A society that empowers women is a society that defends liberty. And one that upholds liberty must also champion gender equality. By saving democracy, we save women's futures. And by advancing women's voices, we might just save democracy itself. Coming up next: Political freedom is only part of the story. Across the globe, from living rooms to war zones, women face another daily threat: violence. In our next article, we'll explore the 'shadow pandemic' of gender-based violence and how authoritarianism and patriarchy keep it alive. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Crimean Tatar activist Mustafayev, illegally imprisoned in Russia, receives international human rights award
Crimean Tatar and Kremlin political prisoner Server Mustafayev has received an award from Freedom House, an international human rights organisation. Mustafayev was previously illegally sentenced in Russia to 14 years in prison. Source: Freedom House website Details: The Freedom Award website announced that Mustafayev would receive the prize for his contribution to human rights and democracy. Oksana Markarova, Ukraine's ambassador to the United States, received the Alfred Moses Liberty Award on behalf of Server Mustafayev. Quote from Markarova: "It was a great honour for me to receive this award on his behalf and to remind everyone about Server and all our other hostages and Ukrainians illegally detained by Russia [...] This recognition is an important reminder of the struggle of Ukraine and the Crimean Tatar people against the brutal repression by the Russian Federation. The Kremlin's crimes against the Crimean Tatars and the genocidal war against Ukraine are a continuation of the unpunished hateful policy of the evil empire, the deportations of 1944 and all other crimes against Ukrainians." Details: Freedom House is an international human rights organisation founded in 1941 to unite politicians in the fight against Nazi Germany. The organisation's mission is to promote and defend freedom around the world and to support democracy, particularly activists and human rights defenders who fight for these values. Every year, Freedom House honours individuals and groups for their significant contributions to the advancement of human rights and democracy. Previous recipients include the spiritual leader of Tibet, the 14th Dalai Lama, former UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. For reference: Server Mustafayev is a Crimean Tatar who reported on human rights violations under Russian occupation as coordinator of the Crimean Solidarity association of relatives of political prisoners, lawyers and activists. He also spoke out in defence of victims of political repression. In May 2018, the Russians arrested Mustafayev on charges of supposedly participating in the Hizb ut Tahrir organisation, which is banned in Russia. Its representatives say their mission is to unite all Muslim countries in an Islamic caliphate. Meanwhile, members of the organisation reject terrorist methods and claim to be persecuted in Russia and occupied Crimea. Later, Mustafayev and other detainees in the case were illegally transferred to the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don. He repeatedly complained about violations of his rights in a Russian pre-trial detention centre, in particular saying that he was denied medical care when he was ill, starved and restricted from taking walks in the fresh air. In September 2020, they were sentenced for alleged participation in terrorist activities. Server Mustafayev received 14 years in prison. At the time, the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs called the Russian court's decision unlawful and expressed its strong protest. Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Yahoo
Opinion - Can we save ourselves from the dark side of AI?
There is little consensus on the future of artificial intelligence. But that hasn't dampened the euphoria over it. Nearly 400 million users — more than the population of the U.S. — are expected to have taken advantage of new AI applications over the last five years, with an astounding 100 million rushing to do so in the first 60 days after the launch of ChatGPT. Most would likely have been more deliberate in purchasing a new microwave oven. Technology is undoubtedly improving the quality of our lives in innumerable and unprecedented ways. But that is not the whole story. AI has a dark side, and our futures depend on balancing its benefits with the harms that it can do. It's too late to turn back the clock on how digital technologies have eviscerated our privacy. For years, we mindlessly gave away our personal data through web surfing, social media, entertainment apps, location services, online shopping and clicking 'ACCEPT' boxes as fast as we could. Today, people around the globe are giddily scanning their retinas in World (formerly Worldcoin) orbs, the brainchild of OpenAI's Sam Altman, providing it unprecedented personal data in return for the vague promise of being able to identify themselves as humans in an online world dominated by machines. We have been converted into depersonalized data pods that can be harvested, analyzed and manipulated. But then, businesses and governments realized that they no longer needed to go through the charade of asking permission to access data — they could simply take what they wanted or purchase it from someone who already had it. Freedom House says that, with the help of AI, repressive governments have increasingly impinged on human rights, causing global internet freedom to decline in each of the previous 13 years. Non-democratic nations are learning how to use AI as weapons of mass control to solidify political power and turn classes of people into citizen zombies. To understand where we are going, we must first appreciate where we have been. Humans have always been superior to animals despite the fact that animals can be stronger and quicker. The difference maker has always been human intelligence. But, with certain aspects of that superior intelligence now being ceded to machines, could humans eventually become answerable to a higher level of non-biological intelligence? The threat of machine dominance is not new. In the 1968 movie by Stanley Kubrick, '2001: A Space Odyssey,' the congenial computer known as H.A.L. eventually turned on its human handlers because they became roadblocks to the completion of its mission. In a story that could be apocryphal, it has been said that during the Navy's use of AI in war game simulations, the program sunk the slowest ships in the convoy to ensure that it reached its destination on time. Any reasonable version of the future must also consider that, to the extent that humans are the product of millions of years of evolution, they may not represent the end point in that process. Primates may have thought they were that end point 6 million years ago, but that didn't work out for them. That future as told by futurist Ray Kurzweil in 2005 will include the merger of biological and non-biological intelligence. Perhaps shockingly, 50 percent of AI experts today go even further, believing that there is a 10 percent chance that intelligent machines will lead to human extinction. AI doomsday clocks are counting down to the days when AI makes all of our decisions, as brain computer interfaces are being studied and implanted. We shouldn't need these catastrophic predictions of the future to encourage us to act. For all their positive contributions, AI is already facilitating the creation of vast criminal conspiracies perpetrating deep fakes, cyberattacks, the distribution of child sexual abuse material, money laundering, and elaborate new ways of committing violent crimes and acts of terror. We all want to believe that a dangerous parade of AI horribles won't happen because governments are on the job and AI entrepreneurs have made solemn pledges that their AI will be benevolent. Many companies even agreed to halt AI development for six months. Based on what has followed, we would be wise to be skeptical about such assurances and promises. Policymakers don't seem to be concerned about the dark side of AI. So far, every administration and Congress has stood back and allowed the current AI arms race that no one bargained for to play out. In this version of the future, we are left to hope that as AI capabilities proliferate, the good guys and mutually assured digital destruction will keep things in balance. Democratic nations must pursue an alternative and come together to establish international accords — a tech version of the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement, where 44 nations agreed on a system of global monetary management and commercial relations. These agreements would begin by establishing international controls and regulations that would first secure the internet and create effective forms of online governance, including oversight infrastructures focused on enhanced authentication, digital hygiene, enforcement, and the imposition of liability to make everyone responsible for the technology they deploy. Similar recommendations have been made by noted AI leaders. As AI regulatory infrastructures and processes expand, AI innovation could admittedly slow. As surveillance increases to optimize security, there may be tradeoffs in personal freedoms. But it is better to slow innovation so that the threats can be better understood and compromises on personal freedoms can be reached rather than permitting unfettered AI to fast-track us to an end point where freedom may be an illusion and humanity is no longer in charge. If other nations want to race forward to that point, let them. The futures of our children and grandchildren depend on smartly harnessing the power of AI, particularly given that China is already surging ahead in the race to be AI, quantum and 5G dominant. While we are still capable of unplugging intelligent machines, the president and lawmakers must make sure that the United States achieves AI dominance first, and then leads a global effort to establish AI standards that leave humans and democracies in control. Thomas P. Vartanian is the executive director of the Financial Technology and Cybersecurity Center, and the author of 'The Unhackable Internet.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
18-05-2025
- The Hill
Can we save ourselves from the dark side of AI?
There is little consensus on the future of artificial intelligence. But that hasn't dampened the euphoria over it. Nearly 400 million users — more than the population of the U.S. — are expected to have taken advantage of new AI applications over the last five years, with an astounding 100 million rushing to do so in the first 60 days after the launch of ChatGPT. Most would likely have been more deliberate in purchasing a new microwave oven. Technology is undoubtedly improving the quality of our lives in innumerable and unprecedented ways. But that is not the whole story. AI has a dark side, and our futures depend on balancing its benefits with the harms that it can do. It's too late to turn back the clock on how digital technologies have eviscerated our privacy. For years, we mindlessly gave away our personal data through web surfing, social media, entertainment apps, location services, online shopping and clicking 'ACCEPT' boxes as fast as we could. Today, people around the globe are giddily scanning their retinas in World (formerly Worldcoin) orbs, the brainchild of OpenAI's Sam Altman, providing it unprecedented personal data in return for the vague promise of being able to identify themselves as humans in an online world dominated by machines. We have been converted into depersonalized data pods that can be harvested, analyzed and manipulated. But then, businesses and governments realized that they no longer needed to go through the charade of asking permission to access data — they could simply take what they wanted or purchase it from someone who already had it. Freedom House says that, with the help of AI, repressive governments have increasingly impinged on human rights, causing global internet freedom to decline in each of the previous 13 years. Non-democratic nations are learning how to use AI as weapons of mass control to solidify political power and turn classes of people into citizen zombies. To understand where we are going, we must first appreciate where we have been. Humans have always been superior to animals despite the fact that animals can be stronger and quicker. The difference maker has always been human intelligence. But, with certain aspects of that superior intelligence now being ceded to machines, could humans eventually become answerable to a higher level of non-biological intelligence? The threat of machine dominance is not new. In the 1968 movie by Stanley Kubrick, '2001: A Space Odyssey,' the congenial computer known as H.A.L. eventually turned on its human handlers because they became roadblocks to the completion of its mission. In a story that could be apocryphal, it has been said that during the Navy's use of AI in war game simulations, the program sunk the slowest ships in the convoy to ensure that it reached its destination on time. Any reasonable version of the future must also consider that, to the extent that humans are the product of millions of years of evolution, they may not represent the end point in that process. Primates may have thought they were that end point 6 million years ago, but that didn't work out for them. That future as told by futurist Ray Kurzweil in 2005 will include the merger of biological and non-biological intelligence. Perhaps shockingly, 50 percent of AI experts today go even further, believing that there is a 10 percent chance that intelligent machines will lead to human extinction. AI doomsday clocks are counting down to the days when AI makes all of our decisions, as brain computer interfaces are being studied and implanted. We shouldn't need these catastrophic predictions of the future to encourage us to act. For all their positive contributions, AI is already facilitating the creation of vast criminal conspiracies perpetrating deep fakes, cyberattacks, the distribution of child sexual abuse material, money laundering, and elaborate new ways of committing violent crimes and acts of terror. We all want to believe that a dangerous parade of AI horribles won't happen because governments are on the job and AI entrepreneurs have made solemn pledges that their AI will be benevolent. Many companies even agreed to halt AI development for six months. Based on what has followed, we would be wise to be skeptical about such assurances and promises. Policymakers don't seem to be concerned about the dark side of AI. So far, every administration and Congress has stood back and allowed the current AI arms race that no one bargained for to play out. In this version of the future, we are left to hope that as AI capabilities proliferate, the good guys and mutually assured digital destruction will keep things in balance. Democratic nations must pursue an alternative and come together to establish international accords — a tech version of the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement, where 44 nations agreed on a system of global monetary management and commercial relations. These agreements would begin by establishing international controls and regulations that would first secure the internet and create effective forms of online governance, including oversight infrastructures focused on enhanced authentication, digital hygiene, enforcement, and the imposition of liability to make everyone responsible for the technology they deploy. Similar recommendations have been made by noted AI leaders. As AI regulatory infrastructures and processes expand, AI innovation could admittedly slow. As surveillance increases to optimize security, there may be tradeoffs in personal freedoms. But it is better to slow innovation so that the threats can be better understood and compromises on personal freedoms can be reached rather than permitting unfettered AI to fast-track us to an end point where freedom may be an illusion and humanity is no longer in charge. If other nations want to race forward to that point, let them. The futures of our children and grandchildren depend on smartly harnessing the power of AI, particularly given that China is already surging ahead in the race to be AI, quantum and 5G dominant. While we are still capable of unplugging intelligent machines, the president and lawmakers must make sure that the United States achieves AI dominance first, and then leads a global effort to establish AI standards that leave humans and democracies in control. Thomas P. Vartanian is the executive director of the Financial Technology and Cybersecurity Center, and the author of 'The Unhackable Internet.'
Mint
06-05-2025
- Business
- Mint
Singapore has voted for familiarity and stability in uncertain times
Singapore's ruling party was always going to win this election, but in a world rocked by American unpredictability, the trade-dependent island reached for security. The People's Action Party (PAP), which has been in power since before the city-state became independent in 1965, won a resounding mandate. It's a sign of how insecure voters are feeling about the future. The party would be wise to pay attention to them. Under the PAP, Singapore has transformed into Asia's richest nation, but it's also among the most unequal. Citizens live in what Freedom House ranks as only a partly free society. Opposition parties have struggled to gain ground in a system they describe as stacked against them, and say the PAP has built-in advantages when it comes to setting the terms of the election—claims it denies. Still, the message that the party knows best how to steer the country through global uncertainty clearly resonated. Voters in Singapore, like those in many countries, are anxious about bread-and-butter issues—the cost of living, housing and whether their children will have stable job prospects. The PAP should not let them down. Singapore has benefited immensely from globalization and free trade , but that world order is under pressure. US President Donald Trump's trade war is threatening the economy—the initial round of new tariffs is already set to hit 60% of exports to the US. This could act as a drag on future growth while keeping inflation elevated, according to the central bank. The economic picture is growing more challenging. Consumer prices are on average 17% higher than they were in the last election in 2020. The cost of public housing, where about 80% of citizens live, has soared too. The PAP leaned into the uncertain environment as part of its campaign, arguing that only a tried-and-tested team could get Singapore through the coming storm. For Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, who was appointed a year ago, this election was also a referendum on his personal credibility. He should be pleased with the result. Wong, who took over from Lee Hsien Loong, son of the country's first prime minister and founding father Lee Kuan Yew, made his name during the pandemic, providing reassurance as one of the senior politicians leading the response. He has promised a kinder, more compassionate way of governing . But many have wondered whether this rhetoric will translate into real political reform. Now is the time to make good on those words. PAP officials might be tempted to think that voter confidence means that they don't have to worry about internal change and more transparency. That would be a mistake. Singaporeans may not have handed more seats to the main opposition Workers' Party than in previous elections, but thousands attended their rallies. Young people appear to be drawn to their ideas of more inclusivity and greater openness in governance, with some expressing a desire for more political engagement. The ruling party may feel that to maintain the control it has had on Singaporeans, it needs to further clamp down on independent media or citizens' freedom to vent their frustrations online. Doing so would breed more resentment. It should not treat engagement by younger voters as a threat, and instead allow them to help shape the conversation around national issues like housing and education. After all, it is the next generation that is the most impacted by decisions made by today's politicians. PAP politicians would also do well to avoid being tone-deaf on economic issues. They are among the most highly paid public servants in the world, something Singaporeans regularly complain about. The government could address this by finally completing the delayed review of political office holders' salaries that was due in 2023. It was deferred because of what the government called other pressing issues, such as the uncertain geopolitical situation. Renewing the discussion around the level of ministerial salaries would help reassure Singaporeans that their politicians aren't out of touch with regular citizens' problems. Despite having one of the shortest campaign periods in the world—this one ran for nine days—voters used the time well, engaging in discussions at housing estates, coffee shops and rallies, comparing manifestos, questioning prospective members of parliament and creating some of the most entertaining political memes that I've seen in my time covering Singapore politics. These lively conversations reflect a maturing electorate, as I've noted before. Singapore may have voted for stability in the face of the trade war, but that shouldn't be taken for granted. ©Bloomberg The author is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia politics with a special focus on China.
