Global Public Goods and Bads, Culture, Social Policy, Population and Migration, NGO's, NonProfit

Speakers

Related Events

A woman and boy stand next to a wheelchair loaded with humanitarian aid packages provided by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) in central Gaza

City. File picture: Omar AL-QATTAA / AFP

Published Nov 19, 2024

Will the whiny socialist kids please stop throwing tantrums about a global system that’s functioning just fine, thank you?

That’s essentially the gist of Kevin Bloom’s article in The Daily Maverick, where he dismisses the critiques of the upcoming World Movement for Democracy conference as nothing more than a fit of "incandescent rage".

His piece, titled Global Democracy Conference in SA Dodges Trump Bullet Fired by an Irate Zwelinzima Vavi, seems to imply that any criticism of this US-state-sponsored event — which is, let’s remember, designed to further the national interests of the US and its corporate backers — should just be swept aside. After all, who needs pesky questions about the role of NGOs in a system built on corporate exploitation and ongoing genocide?

As a journalist, though, Bloom’s evidence for his argument is embarrassingly weak. It’s underwhelming at best and frankly doesn’t even begin to tackle the real issues at play.

From the outset, he describes the South African Federation of Trade Unions (SAFTU)’s statement as the rantings of an individual — Zwelinzima Vavi — even though the statement was an individual pronouncement but a collective statement endorsed by the 21 organisations that make up the second-largest trade union collective in the country, representing something close to a million workers across South Africa. (COSATU, the largest trade union federation in SA, has withdrawn from the conference in protest.)

The personalisation of the issue as Vavi’s — a "past-his-sell-by-date" socialist — is, in my view, not a matter of writing style but a deliberate attempt to dismiss any critiques of the pertinent matter of SA NGOs’ relationship with the US military-industrial complex as ridiculous.

So ridiculous, in fact, that the claims might as well be seen as coming from children. This is the inference we get from the way Bloom justifies the normalcy of US national security personnel being part of the NED. After quoting the NED’s description of its members, which does include national security figures, the author’s condescension is clear: “Of course, it would have been nice had NED not mentioned ‘national security.’ But this was clearly a conference for adults, who knew the world for what it was.”

Aren’t we lucky to have the adults in the room steering us minors away from wayward thoughts like: What is a foreign government-funded organisation, whose co-founder called it an instrument of the CIA, doing holding a conference on democracy in a country that produced figures like Nelson Mandela? (Let’s not forget, it was the CIA that actually tipped off the Apartheid Security Police about Mandela’s whereabouts, leading to his arrest and imprisonment.)

Is it to remind us, girls and boys, that no matter how many times we appeal to international law via the UN or the ICJ, we will not have understood the meaning of ‘democracy’? That the magic wand of freedom can only be waved by the American Godfather (pun intended)?

I wonder how the wise adults would receive a Russian state-backed ‘NGO’ hosting a conference on democracy. Safe to say, The Daily Maverick would hardly be cheerleading for such a scenario. Much has been written about the links between the National Endowment for Democracy, which essentially funds the WMD Conferences, and US intelligence agencies — what Bloom accuses Vavi of as "sleight of hand" through association.

Less is known publicly about the overlap between the NED and AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, considered to be the most important lobby group in US politics, essentially the lobby that can make or break presidential careers.

High-ranking members of AIPAC have been influential in shaping NED policy, aligning US strategic goals with the maintenance of Israeli supremacy over the Middle East. Kenneth Wollack, for example, was AIPAC’s Legislative Director (1973–1980) and played an instrumental role in legalising the mechanisms for U.S.-Israel ties.

Wollack also held a senior position on the Middle East Strategy Task Force and is a member of the George W. Bush Institute's Advisory Council on Human Freedom. More importantly, since 2021, Kenneth Wollack has held the position of Chairperson of the NED.

Moreover, the NGO representatives slated to speak at the WMD conference are not only funded by the NED but also share the ideological consensus that considers democracy and neoliberalism inseparable from human progress.

This is reflected in the links between NED/WMD-sponsored ‘civil society’ organisations and institutions like the World Economic Forum and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR is a highly influential think tank, whose current Chairman, David Rubinstein, is also the co-founder of the Carlyle Group, which manages $447 billion in assets, including large sectors of oil and gas investments in North Africa and the Middle East.

Essentially, the critique of the WMD conference is not that the local participants are CIA agents working under the guise of South African interests, but the acute conflation of private corporate interests with what are portrayed as neutral concepts of ‘human rights’ and ‘democracy.’

By doing so, local NGOs actually work to strengthen the global status quo rather than challenge it.

While NGOs are, by their very nature, outside of the state in challenging the trespasses of the state against citizens, they also have the potential to neutralise structural change by atomising rights to the individual (such as women’s rights, human rights, environmental rights).

The individual is seen as a consumer of services with rights that will check the producer of such services, rather than a citizenry involved in the creation of meaningful change that would benefit a collective nation, regardless of their class status.

In the case of Palestine, funding for organisations that do not espouse the two-state solution or challenge the right of Israel to exist in its current form of illegal settlements are readily defunded and, worse still, placed on the U.S. list of sponsors of terrorism.

Arundhati Roy captures the depoliticisation of activism that dulls the edges of resistance when she says, “NGOs give the impression that they’re filling the gaps created by the withdrawal of the state, but really they’re there to manage dissent.”

Neoliberalism, with its emphasis on market-driven policies, privatisation, and individualism, has had a profound impact on Palestinian society. In the wake of the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, neoliberal economic policies were introduced into the West Bank and Gaza Strip under the guise of economic development. International donors and financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) promoted a framework that emphasised entrepreneurship, microfinance, and private sector growth as tools for "peace-building."

While these initiatives were presented as mechanisms for economic empowerment, they came with significant costs to collective solidarity against occupation. The focus on individual economic advancement undermined collective political mobilization. For instance, microfinance programs encouraged Palestinians to prioritise personal financial success over broader struggles for liberation. This atomisation of Palestinian society diluted the grassroots movements that had been central to resisting Israeli occupation.

Investment in judiciary and legalities of human rights in the West Bank creates a mirage of a state when, in effect, the Occupied Territories have no semblance of autonomy from the Israeli regime. Even in Israeli jails, Palestinians are separated from each other to limit a collective consciousness of struggle against the colonial occupation system, to the extent that they become focused on the well-being of their own individual families left behind. The Palestinian Authority’s complicity in the Israeli occupation has enabled the Israelis to extract much from Palestinian land without having to be responsible for Palestinian welfare. Services like health, education, and poverty alleviation have been made the responsibility of the PA in the absence of a Palestinian treasury or independent legal status.

Moreover, neoliberal policies entrench economic dependency on international donors and Israel. The Palestinian economy is tethered to aid packages and an uneven trade relationship with its occupier, perpetuating a cycle of vulnerability. This dependency weakens the capacity of Palestinians to build an independent economic foundation that could support sustained resistance.

International NGO emphasis on good governance, accountability, and state-building in Palestine is not only laughable but a violent reminder of the hypocrisy of the global unipolar order that undermines the national liberation project. As Khalidi and Samour describe the Palestine Reform and Development Plan developed by the PA’s Fayyad government in collaboration with donors:

“Underlying its (law and order) technical, neutral vocabulary is the desire to escape politics, and indeed the very political nature of the question of Palestine. The statehood program encourages the idea that citizens may have to acquiesce in occupation but will not be deprived of the benefits of smoother-running traffic, a liberal education, investor-friendly institutions, efficient public service delivery, and, for the middle class, access to luxury hotel chains.”

NGOs have been co-opting revolutionary symbols like Mandela and Malcolm X by using their images or names to legitimise their work or gain funding, even when their missions may not align with the radical ideals these figures represented. By associating themselves with these iconic symbols, NGOs tap into their moral authority and public appeal, making their causes seem more credible or worthy of support (think of the names Ahmed Kathrada and Desmond Tutu).

But this diverts attention from the deeper structural issues these revolutionaries fought against, such as inequality and systemic oppression, focusing instead on less confrontational, more palatable initiatives that don’t challenge the status quo. In doing so, NGOs inadvertently or purposefully water down the revolutionary spirit to maintain their relevance in a neoliberal framework.

Bloom signs off his opinion piece with quotes from the NGO’s statement on their commitment to highlighting the situation in Palestine (as if people needed any more evidence of Israeli massacres of Palestinians that have continued unabated for more than a year). I think the words of the prolific Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, who was fond of reading his poetry in public spaces, encapsulate the essence of how real revolution and political change are made:

“It is true that Gaza has its special circumstances and its own revolutionary traditions. But its secret is not a mystery: Its resistance is popular and firmly joined together and knows what it wants (it wants to expel the enemy out of its clothes). The relationship of resistance to the people is that of skin to bones and not a teacher to students. Resistance in Gaza did not turn into a profession or an institution.

It did not accept anyone’s tutelage and did not leave its fate hinging on anyone’s signature or stamp.

It does not care that much if we know its name, picture, or eloquence. It did not believe that it was material for media. It did not prepare for cameras and did not put smiling paste on its face. Neither does it want that, nor we.”

* Mariam Jooma Carikci is a researcher at the Media Review Network. She is the author of Kurdistan: Achievable Reality of Political Mirage?

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

As the host of the latest forum, South Africa must speak against the politicisation of the democratic movement and play a leading role in advancing the interest of indigenous people and get rid of actors acting on the whims of imperialism, says the writer.

Published 14h ago

By Sikho Matiwane

South Africa is playing host to the 12th Global Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy from November 20-22, 2024. This year marks 25 years since the first Global Assembly was held in Delhi, India.  While the theme suggests that, the forum is about “Revitalising Democracy and building resilience and innovation, with narratives such as fighting for more free, just and inclusive societies;” the experiences of countries in the Global South tell a different reality. The democratic project has little to do with freedom of choice and diversity of ideas but the desire to dominate and manipulate the Global majority into submission under Western ideals and norms. 

Democracy, once regarded as universal ideals of good governance, was hijacked by imperialist powers and weaponised by powerful interests to advance selfish neo-colonial domination of countries in the Global South. The admission by the founding president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA” is an indictment of “Western democracy” and the role of state and non-state operatives advancing imperialism in the guise of democracy.

Democratic norms became synonymous with western interests selectively approved and applied in different parts of the world for selfish gain. Unpopular governments and systems were installed in the Global South to bring them under western influence eroding the legitimacy of democracy itself.

For democracy to thrive, the relationship between states must be based on equality, mutual respect and non-interference. Countries should have the freedom and liberty to choose their development paths without interference and reference to other societies. Global values should represent the diversity of values, cultures and still leave room for innovation. 

Despite the supposed triumph of democracy after the cold war, decades of western prescribed democratic ideals and models in the Global South have delivered little to celebrate about. They have failed to deliver justice, equality, development and human rights to the world majority. In fact, the supposed model has entrenched political corruption, polarized societies and caused social inequalities and political instability in many countries. In the same vein, countries like China have managed to prioritise economic growth and development paths outside of western liberal democratic principles with much success compared to the majority in the Global South who are trapped in underdevelopment in pursuit of the elusive and contradictory western prescribed democracy.  

Developing countries in Africa can learn from the Asian tigers like Singapore who have combined state intervention with capitalist policies that serve the development interests of the country. Resource rich countries like Saudi Arabia have utilized their resources for national development outside of western democratic control. While political freedoms are paramount in any society, it must be a homegrown process borne out of legitimate concerns and needs of a particular society in context. 

Therefore, as delegates gather in South Africa to consider the state of democracy, a critical assessment of what democracy entails, including non-western perspectives must be taken into consideration.  There is no shortage of knowledge and ideas on how societies in the Global South want to be organised and what issues they prioritise. Non-western concepts of democracy often emphasise indigenous cultural values, economic justice and communal decision-making rather than the competitive and adversarial political processes advanced by western democracies. 

Developing countries in the Global South should therefore reclaim their democratic space by prioritizing their autonomy and local contexts in the democratizing process.

The process must be homegrown and inclusive and be separated by geopolitical interests. Devolving democratic power to local communities provides a strong foundation for democratic resilience where communal harmony and economic growth remain key priorities. Developing countries can learn from each other’s experiences to drive their own agenda and shed off foreign agenda’s from the democratic process.  This can be done through active civic education and a bottom-up approach to establish and maintain democratic institutions.  

South Africa should advance and play its role in the democratic movement by empowering grassroots and community groups and integrate them into the political structure by supporting and promoting patriotism and national values to safeguard against foreign manipulation in the name of democracy.  Peer learning and exchanges could also advance African democratic processes as some countries have served as beacons of democracy in the African continent without heavy reliance on western influence. These include Ghana, South Africa, Botswana, Cape Verde and Namibia. These countries, including South Africa, have shown that Democracy can be built from within, despite challenging contexts and geopolitical pressures. 

The 12th Global Assembly of the World Movement for Democracy therefore comes at a critical time in global history, as countries in the Global South have become aware of how global politics affects their livelihoods. The hypocrisy and double standards are glaring. The democratic movement falls short of African and Global South expectations. It calls for a new conversation on what interests are served by the existing actors. As the host of the latest forum, South Africa must speak against the politicisation of the democratic movement and play a leading role in advancing the interest of indigenous people and get rid of actors acting on the whims of imperialism.

* Sikho Matiwane is a seasoned entrepreneur and diplomatic commentator with a specialisation in international relations and geopolitics. 

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.

Well beyond the world’s worst environments, many people faced harsh repercussions for expressing themselves online. In at least 56 of the 72 countries covered by FOTN, internet users were arrested due to their political, social, or religious expression. A Thai prodemocracy activist was sentenced to 25 years in prison in March 2024, having been convicted under the country’s repressive lèse-majesté law for 18 posts about the monarchy on the social media platform X. Cubanauthorities sentenced a woman to 15 years in prison for sedition and “enemy propaganda” after she shared images of protests on social media, including a video recording of police attacking demonstrators. In Pakistan, a court sentenced a 22-year-old student to death on blasphemy charges for preparing pictures and videos that denigrated the prophet Muhammad, and sentenced a 17-year-old to life in prison for sharing them on WhatsApp.

Authorities around the world limited access to online spaces that people used to consume news, connect with loved ones, and mobilize for political and social change. Governments in at least 41 countries blocked websites that hosted political, social, and religious speech during the report’s June 2023 to May 2024 coverage period. In Kyrgyzstan, the government blocked the website of the independent media outlet Kloop after it reported on an imprisoned opposition figure’s allegations of torture in detention. Authorities later ordered a full liquidation of the umbrella organization that runs the outlet, further reducing people’s access to investigative reporting on government corruption and rights abuses. In at least 25 countries, governments restricted access to entire social media and communication platforms. French authorities ordered the blocking of TikTok in the French Pacific territory of New Caledonia to curb protests by members of the Kanak community, the island’s Indigenous people, that grew violent in May 2024 amid dissatisfaction with proposed electoral reforms.

On July 25, 2021, Tunisian President Kais Saied seized extensive powers for himself and started a sweeping crackdown on dissent that continues to this day. Saied has since systematically eliminated or neutralized institutions that could check his power

and his government has arrested or harassed scores of activists, artists, journalists, lawyers, and opposition politicians. Meanwhile, Saied and his allies, both inside and outside of the government, have ratcheted up a demagogic campaign against migrants, black Tunisians, and other marginalized communities. The result is a wide-ranging campaign that is not only undoing Tunisia’s gains in free expression since the 2011 revolution, but also attacking Tunisia’s heterogenous cultural and social life in the name of defending national identity.

Undoing the damage to free expression in Tunisia requires policymakers to understand the roots of the crackdown, which was enabled in part by weak institutions, political paraly- sis, and far reaching legislation such as the anti-terrorism bill of 2015 that pitted free ex- pression against national security in public discourse — all factors which preceded Saied’s election in 2019. Reversing the current trends on free expression requires robust pushback from Tunisia’s diverse civil society; it also requires the international community to sup- port democratic institution building, prioritize free expression, and stand in solidarity with Tunisia’s civil society and cultural communities.

Even as Saied’s crackdown extends further, there are indications that its scope has galvanized civil society to push back. But the international community, including the United States and European Union member states, have continued to prioritize anti-terrorism and, increasingly, anti-migration poli- cies in their relationship with Tunisia. Policymakers should instead center civil society and free expression, along with the robust checks and balances and democratic institu- tions that enable them, as bedrocks for their bilateral relationships and regional security.

Access the full report here.

Speakers

It is history that will judge them — not by the events they attend or the awards they give out but by the systems they protect — or fail to dismantle, says the writer.

Published Nov 20, 2024

It should come as no surprise that the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation and other South African NGOs have aligned themselves with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

This moment represents the culmination of decades of ideological compromise and a creeping dependency on foreign funding.

The outrage over the NED’s upcoming conference, scheduled for 20 to 22 November 2024 at The Sandton Convention Centre, is understandable. But it also arrives too late to reverse the damage.

The warning signs were always there, evident to those who were willing to look. Yet, civil society chose comfort, and its leaders dismissed or derided those who risked their personal security to challenge the slow decay.

The NED’s Influence and Early Footprint in South Africa

The NED’s global track record has been extensively documented. Across continents, it has destabilised democracies, facilitated coups, and entrenched neoliberal agendas.

• Fabricius Distorts Zuma and Gaddafi Alliance: Mathews Phosa’s Memoir Twisted to Fit Daily Maverick’s Neo-Colonial Agenda
• Why Banks are Threatening to Close Sekunjalo’s Accounts, the effect on Independent Media—and what Daily Maverick and News24 have to do with it
• Dr Iqbal Survé: A visionary leader dedicated to SA’s media
• Karyn Maughan: your Faustian Pact with power is a betrayal of true journalism
• Dr Iqbal Survé: A Visionary Leader with Heart, Commitment, and an Unbreakable Dedication to South Africa’s Media
• Rebecca Davis: Daily Maverick's head gossip and queen of petty on former President Zuma and Lindiwe Sisulu
• Ramaphosa Must Fire Steenhuisen and Schreiber to Protect South Africa's Sovereignty
• It Is MKP, Not Ramaphosa’s ANC, That Will Lead South Africa to Sovereignty and a Multipolar Future

Operating under the pretence of democracy promotion, it has served as a vehicle for US imperialism. In South Africa, the playbook is all too familiar. The NED’s involvement here stretches back decades, its influence quietly spreading through partnerships with NGOs, think tanks, and the media.

The NED’s presence in South Africa began during apartheid, laying the groundwork for its ongoing influence. In 1987, the NED funded the Institute for a Democratic Alternative in South Africa (IDASA), an organisation formed to promote dialogue between the apartheid regime and its critics. At first glance, IDASA appeared to be a progressive effort to transition the country toward democracy. In reality, its approach ensured that this transition remained favourable to Western interests. Framing democracy as a process that premised in free-market policies and global capitalist integration, IDASA subtly aligned the anti-apartheid movement with the neoliberal values that continue to dominate South Africa’s post-apartheid political economy.

This initial foothold allowed the NED to entrench itself into the deep DNA of South Africa’s civil society after 1994. The organisation shifted its focus to funding NGOs, think tanks, and academic projects, surreptitiously shaping the country’s democratic institutions in ways that ensured alignment with Western geopolitical goals. Decades later, this legacy persists, with the NED still operating through partnerships that steer public discourse and influence civil society agendas.

Ignored Warnings and Ideological Betrayals

When the NED was founded in 1983 under the Reagan administration, its purpose was clear. Designed to take over many of the CIA’s covert operations, it adopted a public façade of supporting civil society while advancing American hegemony. In Nicaragua, the NED funded right-wing groups to destabilise the Sandinista government, culminating in an attempted coup in 2018. In Ukraine, its financing of over 65 organisations laid the groundwork for the Maidan protests in 2013, a key step toward NATO expansion and civil unrest.

South Africa’s inclusion in the NED’s web is no coincidence. With its mineral wealth, strategic position on the continent, and ties to BRICS, the country is a critical target for Western powers. Instead of through military aggression the NED has embedded itself here by co-opting civil society. Its money has bought influence in NGOs, think tanks, and media outlets, ensuring narratives favourable to the West dominate while local sovereignty is steadily eroded.

For years, activists have raised the alarm about the creeping influence of Western funding in South Africa, myself included. The backlash to these warnings was often fierce.

When I publicly criticised Daily Maverick, over a decade ago, for its alignment with Western intelligence interests, I was met with swift hostility. My critique was dismissed as a conspiracy theory, even though the evidence of foreign funding shaping its editorial narratives was undeniable.

Today, the same patterns continue, with platforms like Daily Maverick strategically reinforcing neoliberal agendas while side-lining dissenting voices.

This reluctance to engage with criticism has extended beyond the media. When our social justice advocacy group, Media for Justice, called out Western mining companies for gross mistreatment of both the environment and communities living in the ambit of mines, joining communities and filming their struggles for months on end, exposing their transgressions globally via video evidence, Eusebius Mckaiser famously dismissed it as “white madam township tourism.” Rather than address the legitimate concerns raised, critics reduced our self-funded activism to caricature, revealing a civil society more interested in protecting its reputation than addressing systemic issues.

I mention my personal run-ins with NED-affiliated entities because they illustrated to me, back then, the depth of this issue. The efforts of Media for Justice to highlight environmental and community abuses by Western mining companies were met with resistance and sneering dismissal. These types of responses revealed a civil society increasingly unwilling to address systemic issues, instead opting to protect its foreign funding scheme through soft politics and smearing the reputations of detractors.

Mark Heywood, a well-known figure in South African civil society, epitomises this ideological betrayal. As a self-styled activist and founder of Chapter 27, Heywood has built a reputation on fighting corruption and defending democracy.

Yet his willingness to collaborate with the NED reveals a perceptible hypocrisy. While he publicly decries the erosion of democratic values, his association with an organisation that has actively undermined democracies worldwide tells a different story. Heywood’s selective outrage — focused on left-leaning Black political corruption while turning a blind eye to systemic issues — mirrors the broader failures of South African civil society.

Performative Activism and Media Manipulation

The Ahmed Kathrada Foundation’s participation in the NED conference is equally telling. Known for symbolic gestures, the foundation has prioritised media-friendly acts over substantive engagement.

It once awarded Chester Missing for his takedown of racist musician Steve Hofmeyr, a move that gained widespread praise but tackled racism on superficial terms. In contrast, my exposure of High Court Judge Mabel Jansen’s systemic racism — a case that highlighted structural inequality and deep racism within South Africa’s judiciary — was co-opted by them in a shallow display of performative activism.

They totally circumvented any mention of my long campaign calling for an investigation into her public utterances and trial biases. Later, I was excluded from their forums on racism, though I was well known for my anti-racism work, because I addressed it as a systemic and structural issue rather than a matter of individual prejudice and identity.

The Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, another participant in the NED conference, similarly lends its moral credibility to an organisation whose track record is entirely at odds with the values it claims to uphold. Participating in the conference not only aligns the foundation with imperialist agendas but also erodes what many have seen as the hard-won legacies of Archbishop Tutu and his fight for justice and equality. (Many others though, speculate that Tutu was himself was part of the problem created by NED infiltration into the handover politics, including the failed Truth and Reconciliation project.)

This preference for post 94 performative activism has allowed foreign entities like the NED to thrive. Civil society’s fixation on individuals, rather than systems, has weakened its ability to resist ideological infiltration. The participation of these organisations in the NED conference isn’t an anomaly—it’s the natural outcome of years of ideological drift.

South Africa: A Strategic Target

Media Interference

The relentless attacks on the Independent Media Group must also be seen as part of this broader strategy. The group, which has consistently challenged dominant neoliberal narratives, has been on the receiving end of a sustained campaign to discredit and marginalise it. These attacks, funded and supported by the same networks tied to Western interests, aim to suppress dissenting voices and amplify those aligned with imperialist agendas.

Independent Media’s coverage of issues like BRICS cooperation, land reform, and the Western role in global inequality has made it a target. Yet, instead of supporting one of the few platforms willing to challenge the neoliberal orthodoxy, much of South Africa’s civil society has remained silent—or worse, complicit in its demonisation. Acknowledging this attack is vital for understanding the broader mechanisms of NED-style influence.

South Africa’s political and economic significance makes it a prime target for NED operations. With BRICS gaining influence and South Africa asserting itself on the global stage, Western powers are eager to reassert control. The NED’s conference, held under the Orwellian banner of “Revitalising Democracy,” is part of this effort. It is not about strengthening democracy but about creating the conditions for intervention — political, economic, or otherwise — should South Africa stray too far from the neoliberal order.

Civil society’s complicity in this process is more than concerning. Through avariciously aligning themselves with the NED, organisations like the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, and Defend Our Democracy are paving the way for foreign manipulation. Their selective focus on corruption within leftist movements, while ignoring conservative liberal authoritarianism and structural inequality, serves imperialist interests far more effectively than they might admit.

And the Arts...

NED funding and its affiliated networks have not only infiltrated civil society and media but also extended their influence to the arts, shaping narratives that align with neoliberal and imperialist agendas.

Filmmaker Rehad Desai, a notable beneficiary of funding linked to these networks, has used works like Miners Shot Down and Everything Must Fall to present skewed accounts of South Africa's contemporary political history.

While these films purport to champion the struggles of the oppressed, they conspicuously shield white capital and South African elites, placing blame narrowly on government factions while leaving corporate complicity and systemic neoliberal exploitation untouched. Even more obnoxious is Desai’s exclusion of Black African perspectives, particularly those of Black women, from his storytelling. This deliberate omission reinforces entrenched hierarchies and reduces the richness of grassroots struggles to one-dimensional narratives crafted for global consumption. His wilful prioritising of the optics of activism over substantive engagement with the oppressed puts profits and Western palatability above authentic representation, further entrenching the very systems it claims to critique.

Confronting NED Influence

The outrage over the NED’s conference, while welcome, must go further. Civil society has to confront its own role in enabling foreign influence. This means rejecting the shallow, performative activism that has allowed imperialist forces to flourish and rebuilding movements grounded in genuine accountability and independence.

Organisations like the Ahmed Kathrada Foundation, the Desmond and Leah Tutu Foundation, Defend our Democracy, Rivonia Circle and Mark Heywood, amongst others, won't ask themselves the hard questions about their complicity.

They are no longer concerned about honouring the legacies of those who fought for liberation, or the reality that they are betraying them. However, it is history that will judge them — not by the events they attend or the awards they give out but by the systems they protect — or fail to dismantle.

* Gillian Schutte is a film-maker, social justice and race-justice activist and public intellectual.

** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Independent Media or IOL.

Internet freedom under fire

Retaliatory violence for online expression from both state and nonstate actors, as well as deteriorating conditions during armed conflicts, drove several score declines during the coverage period. In a record 43 countries, people were physically attacked or killed in reprisal for their online activities. In Iraq, where journalists, activists, and bloggers face routine violence, kidnappings, and even assassinations in retaliation for online speech, a prominent civil society activist was murdered in October 2023 by an unknown assailant after his Facebook posts encouraged Iraqis to engage in protests. A Belarusian online journalist reported being tortured by authorities in December due to his connection to one of the hundreds of independent news outlets that the government deems “extremist.”

Armed conflicts were made even more dangerous by a lack of access to information and essential services. Internet shutdowns during fighting in Sudan, Ethiopia, Myanmar, the Gaza Strip, and Nagorno-Karabakh plunged people into information vacuums, prevented journalists from sharing reports about human rights abuses, and hampered the provision of desperately needed humanitarian aid. Amid the civil war in Sudan between the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the regular Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the RSF captured internet service providers’ data centers in Khartoum and cut off internet access across the country in February. The shutdown disrupted humanitarian groups’ ability to deliver food, medicine, and medical equipment.

Forces vying for control during wartime also retaliated directly against people who reported on or discussed the conflicts online. Both the RSF and the SAF in Sudan tortured journalists and other civilians in response to perceived criticism on digital platforms. During the Azerbaijani military’s offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, authorities in Baku detained several people for a month, including former diplomat Eman Ibrahimov, because of social media posts that criticized the operation or called for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

The impact of the devastating war between Israel and the militant group Hamas reverberated around the world. (Israel and the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories are not among the 72 countries covered by FOTN.) People in several countries, including Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore, faced repercussions for expressing their views about the conflict online. In Jordan, dozens of users were arrested between October and November 2023 under the country’s repressive new cybercrime law for their posts criticizing the Jordanian government’s relationship with Israel or calling for protests in support of the Palestinian cause. More broadly, independent researchers documented a surge of antisemitic and anti-Muslim hate speech online, a proliferation of false and misleading content about the conflict, and an increase in disproportionate restrictions on pro-Palestinian and other Palestine-related content by Facebook’s and Instagram’s moderation systems.

Elections focus attention on a trust deficit in the information space

In 2024, FOTN’s indicators assessing limits on content—including website blocking, disproportionate content removal, censorship laws, self-censorship practices, content manipulation, and constraints on information diversity—dropped to their lowest average score in more than 10 years, excluding the two countries that were covered for the first time in this edition. Today’s information space contributes to and is degraded by many of the same challenges affecting human society more broadly: rising political polarization, a chilling of civic participation, partisan efforts to undermine confidence in elections, and a long-term erosion of trust in democratic institutions. These problems have interfered with people’s fundamental rights to seek, receive, and impart diverse information, form opinions, and express themselves online.

Key Findings

Global internet freedom declined for the 14th consecutive year. Protections for human rights online diminished in 27 of the 72 countries covered by Freedom on the Net (FOTN), with 18 earning improvements. Kyrgyzstan received this year’s sharpest downgrade, as President Sadyr Japarov intensified his efforts to silence digital media and suppress online organizing. China shared its designation as the world’s worst environment for internet freedom with Myanmar, where the military regime imposed a new censorship system that ratcheted up restrictions on virtual private networks (VPNs). At the other end of the spectrum, Iceland maintained its status as the freest online environment, and Zambia secured the largest score improvement. For the first time in 2024, FOTN assessed conditions in Chile and the Netherlands, both of which showcased strong safeguards for human rights online.

Free expression online was imperiled by severe prison terms and escalating violence. In three-quarters of the countries covered by FOTN, internet users faced arrest for nonviolent expression, at times leading to draconian prison sentences exceeding 10 years. People were physically attacked or killed in retaliation for their online activities in a record high of at least 43 countries. Internet shutdowns and reprisals for online speech created even more perilous environments for people affected by several major armed conflicts around the world.

Censorship and content manipulation were combined to sway elections, undermining voters’ ability to make informed decisions, fully participate in the electoral process, and have their voices heard. 

Voters in at least 25 of the 41 FOTN countries that held or prepared for nationwide elections during the coverage period contended with a censored information space. In many countries, technical censorship was used to constrain the opposition’s ability to reach voters, reduce access to reliable reporting, or quell concerns about voting irregularities. In at least 21 of the 41 countries, progovernment commentators manipulated online information, often stoking doubt about the integrity of the forthcoming results and seeding long-term mistrust in democratic institutions. In addition, interference from governments and a reduction in transparency mechanisms on major social media platforms chilled the efforts of independent researchers and media groups to shed light on election-related influence operations.

In more than half of the FOTN countries that held or prepared for elections, governments took steps aimed at addressing information integrity, with mixed results for human rights online. The interventions included enforcing rules related to online content, supporting fact-checking and digital literacy initiatives, and passing new guidelines to limit the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in campaigning. The impact on internet freedom depended on the extent to which each effort prioritized transparency, civil society expertise, democratic oversight, and international human rights standards. Examples from South Africa, Taiwan, and the European Union served as the most promising models.

Building a trustworthy online environment requires a renewed and sustained commitment to internet freedom. This year, FOTN indicators assessing limits on content dropped to their lowest average score in more than a decade, excluding the two countries covered in this edition for the first time—an indication that online censorship and manipulation are growing ever more extreme. The lack of access to a high-quality, reliable, and diverse information space has impeded people’s ability to form and express their views, engage productively in their communities, and advocate for government and company accountability. Policy interventions designed to protect information integrity can help build confidence in the online environment, provided they are anchored in free expression and other fundamental rights. Responses that fail to incorporate those principles will only hasten the global decline in internet freedom and democracy more broadly.

The Struggle for Trust Online

A rapid series of consequential elections have reshaped the global information environment over the past year. Technical censorship curbed many opposition parties’ ability to reach supporters and suppressed access to independent reporting about the electoral process. False claims of voter fraud and a rise in harassment of election administrators threatened public confidence in the integrity of balloting procedures. Partisan efforts to delegitimize independent fact-checkers and researchers chilled their essential work. As a result, more than a billion voters had to make major decisions about their future while navigating a censored, distorted, and unreliable information space.

These trends contributed to the 14th consecutive year of decline in global internet freedom. Of the 72 countries covered by Freedom on the Net 2024, conditions for human rights online deteriorated in 27, and 18 countries registered overall gains. The year’s largest decline occurred in Kyrgyzstan, followed by Azerbaijan, Belarus, Iraq, and Zimbabwe. Conversely, Zambia earned the largest improvement, as space for online activism opened. In more than three-fourths of the countries covered by the project, people faced arrest for expressing their political, social, and religious views online, while people were met with physical violence related to their online activities in a record high of at least 43 countries.

Biometric surveillance has become ubiquitous since governments have started collecting physiological data such as fingerprints. In recent years, we’ve seen a surge in the development and deployment of algorithmic-driven biometric surveillance, specifically facial and emotion recognition. Yet these systems are fundamentally incompatible with democracy and human rights, threatening the civic freedoms of all, especially marginalised groups and civil society.

Against the backdrop of shrinking civic space around the world, it’s paramount to collectively stand up against this threat. By focusing not on the technology itself, but on the harms it causes to civil society and affected communities, we can stop the use of biometric surveillance in the public space – and avoid amplifying and exacerbating structural discrimination, monitoring, targeting, and oppression of marginalised groups.

Based on feedback from our partners at the Global Expert Hub on AML/CFT, we learned that there is still a great need to map the ecosystem of what tactics and strategies civil society organisations (CSOs) use to push back against biometric surveillance, so that more CSOs, especially those that represent marginalised groups and don’t typically engage in digital rights, can take action in their respective contexts.

We define biometric mass surveillance as the deployment of AI-driven “smart cameras” that can collect and analyse biometric data (e.g. faceprints) on indefinite or large numbers of people in public places.1 These cameras can conduct remote biometric identification (RBI) to identify individuals at a distance by comparing their unique biometric features with a database. Law enforcement typically uses RBI either in real-time (live recognition) or post-time (retrospective recognition based on prior video footage).

We conducted virtual consultations with 11 digital rights experts who, through their CSOs, have conducted successful campaigns against biometric surveillance across Europe, the United States, Latin America, and Occupied Palestinian Territory. We learned about the advocacy strategies they used in their campaigns and received advice and recommendations for CSOs looking to launch campaigns of their own. These consultations, along with our own experience and desk research about the policy positions, campaigns, and litigation regarding biometric surveillance, informed our report.

In our report, we detail a multifaceted approach to pushing back against biometric surveillance. Specifically, we highlight key tactics to achieve this through policy advocacy, evidence collection, strategic litigation, coalition and capacity building, company and investor engagement, and awareness campaigns including through creative media outlets and art. We also spotlight two case studies of successful campaigns against biometric surveillance, led by SHARE Foundation in Serbia and Amnesty International in Occupied Palestinian Territory.

This report serves as an initial blueprint for CSOs worldwide to act against biometric surveillance in their communities. We intend for this to be a live document, to be updated with new case studies, tactics, and campaigns based on community and civil society feedback.

Read the full report here.

US says 14 protesters have been jailed for ‘peacefully participating in political activities’ that should have been allowed

Human rights groups concerned after handing down of sentences of up to 10 years